The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About90-029 Part 3Al l 187 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 379 Site Number 379, occupying tax lot 1600 in Township 18 South, Range 11 E.W.M., Section 21, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 10, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 379 comprises approximately 80 acres and is located approximately one-half mile west of the Inn of the Seventh Mountain and south of Century Drive. The site is owned by the State of Oregon Department of Transportation and is zoned F-2 and LM. Adjacent land is zoned F-2. The surrounding land is owned by the U.S. Forest Service. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and Deschutes County Ordinance 88-040, revising the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board on August 7, 1989, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 379 r. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 500,000 cubic yards of aggregate gravel which meets the ODOT specifications. 2. Site Characteristics. This site has a gentle slope to the southeast and is located lower than the grade of Century Drive. This is an existing surface mining site which has been used for various road projects for several years. The file contains prior site and reclamation plans from various projects from the past. The site is surrounded by the Deschutes National Forest on all sides and the undeveloped portion of the site is currently in natural vegetation of ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine. The subject parcel is one-half west of the Inn of the Seventh Mountain. The visibility of the site from Century Drive is obscured by numerous trees. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Wildlife. The resource element of the County's compre- hensive plan shows this site to be immediately south of the Tumalo deer winter range boundary (Century Drive) and immediately north of an area designated as elk concentration. However, the site is not designated as a big -game sensitive area. 2. Open space and scenic values. The site's zoning for LM indicates high scenic values. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the presence of machinery on the site, the building of infrastructure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facili- ties, and fugitive dust emissions. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 379 c 101 - rY89 (2) Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by surface distur- bance and construction of structures and access roads, an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape and streambed, and loss of vegetation and riparian habitat associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses on the F-2 zone at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the F-2 zone would include: (1) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all uses in the zone would be noise -sensitive uses, except forest uses, utility uses, geothermal uses, landfill uses and other mining uses. Farm uses could be impacted if livestock were near the site. Stables would qualify as a noise -sensitive use; (2) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety; (3) The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses, park uses and destination resorts; and 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 379 (4) Occupation of the surface that would displace other permitted in the zone. area of the site in a manner uses allowed or conditionally The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts all uses in the zone except forestry uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. To the extent existing trees at the site are harvested prior to mining, forest uses would not be conflicting. It is not possible to predict whether any such uses are likely to occur. However, due to the large lot sizes, the Board finds that land use conflicts at the site are not likely to be intense. The Board finds that none of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses currently exist at the site or within the impact area. Further the Board finds that such uses, with the exception of livestock grazing, are unlikely to occur due to the remoteness of the site and the fact that most of the surrounding land is in public ownership. 4. Pre-existing Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a pre-existing use at the site and would be able to continue within the existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have or are already occurring and would be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site could be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and secondly, whether the site is important enough so that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use conflicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflict with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat, open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 379 UI Io t 191 in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily by those travelling Century Drive who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape.] 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highway construction and maintenance sites such as this one would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater dis- tances involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use on Century Drive. Protection of Natural 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 379 o - 1702 year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect sites such as this that are close to major roadways with easy access would result in increased costs for highway maintenance and construction costs. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. Roads and highways in the area would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 379 `J liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and fish and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of deer and their habitat are finite resources and locationally depen- dent. Aggregate resources are in limited supply in the County and there is a need for the aggregate resources along the Century Drive corridor for highway maintenance. Deer habitat are continually being lost to new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Conseguences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 379 01 " I Y 0 4 While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve everyday transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the site and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of this site for surface mining. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and com- patibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environ- mental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 379 consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 97 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensi- tive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding con- flicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place con- straints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards and Willamette Industries' Sites 441-443) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 379 % " 92 uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for upkeep and improvement of Century Drive would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such develop- ment. 22. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County and it location near its point of use, Century Drive. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010, it will limit the use of the mineral resource at the site in favor of the conflicting resources. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site on top of the plateau will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 379 A • (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) The site shall not be operated from October 31 through March 31. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflictina Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering require- ments in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not typically underway. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 379 I () I - 1 -19 mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than 1/4 mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 379 IT- t:�v 4 _� b, TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #379 tf)1-*:lI�-9 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. SET OF MAPS (3) 3. MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 3/2/88 4. APPLICATION FOR SURFACE MINING PERMIT DATED 2/22/88 5. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 11/16/83 6. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 4/15/83 7. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 3/25/83 8. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 6/9/82 9. LETTER FROM PAUL F. LAWSON DATED 4/19/82 10. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 3/3/82 11. LETTER TO HAL SIEGWORTH DATED 3/6/81 12. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 2/23/81 13. APPLICATION FOR SURFACE MINING PERMIT DATED 2/20/81 14. DESCHUTES NATIONAL FOREST MINERAL MATERIALS PERMIT DATED 2/13/81 15. SAME AS ABOVE #14 16. LETTER FROM A.R. WESTBY DATED 1/8/81 17. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 5/23/80 18. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 12/27/77 19. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 3/25/77 20. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 21. NOTIFICATION MAP 1 22. ODOT INFO. SHEET 23. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 24. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP ZS. lfom O -DF W 9-10-89 zeD• 3oarc! o� Goonev sioner5 }}eer,o9 m;nu-t s Z-7. ,oard 06 `b ciston mint:tc.s 2 '�`"' .r ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 381 Site Number 381, occupying tax lot 1600 in Township 18 South, Range 11 E.W.M., Section 26D; and tax lot 12600, in Township 18 South, Range 11 E.W.M., Section 25C, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 21, 1989. On October 10, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 381 comprises approximately 50 acres and is located off the end of Cinder Butte Drive south of Deschutes River Woods. The site is owned by Pieratt Brothers, Inc. and is zoned SM. Adjacent land is zoned RR -10 and F-2. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 381 L01, - 1802 In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. The file includes DOGAMI reports and the file by which the site was originally zoned for surface mining. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 50,000 cubic yards of good quality cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. The entire site is a small cinder butte which is being actively mined. The excavation is into the north and east side of the butte. The majority of the site has been excavated in the past. The south end of the site is the Lava Butte Geological Area and to the east, north and west is the Deschutes River Woods subdivision. There are homes within 250 feet of the subject site. Testimony on this site consisted of opposition, citing noise, dust and the fact the site has in the past been used as a dump. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Open space and scenic values. The LM zoning adjacent to the site indicates high concern for scenic values. The adjacent EFU 20 and EFU 40 zoning indicates the presence of important open space values. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the pre- sence of machinery on the site, the building of infra- structure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are no water sources at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 381 ;�:199 't J-0.1 1803 indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the RR -10 zone at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the RR -11 zone would include: 1. At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SM zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated portions of the site. 2. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, personal landing strips, geothermal uses, landfill uses, off- road vehicle tracks,and other mining uses. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. 4. The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 381 A ilzJ ��+ i0 1' 1804 The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts the conflicting uses in the zone are those enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 381 il01 1805 mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that cinders are used primarily for highway maintenance, that this site is located in close proximity to and with good access to local roads in the surrounding area, and consequently that the site would be conveniently situ- ated as a source for materials in any ongoing highway main- tenance or construction in the area requiring cinders. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highways and highway maintenance sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting cinders to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 381 '�. :1 8 Q E the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of social consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the cinder resource are 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 381 important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for lower quality road maintenance materials and provide a substitute source for some uses for the more valuable sand and gravel resource. b. Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource and are, this site is one of the larger cinder sources on the inventory. C. This site is already in existence. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of cinder as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. Given that most of the concerns about property values are focused on residential properties, which do not predominate in this area, market concerns would not be of great consequence in any event. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. 7 — ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION — SITE NO. 381 a 1808 Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con - 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 381 10 L 'M 180 9 flicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consecquences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Cinder Resource and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 381 01 :1810 b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. The extraction area shall be limited to 5 acres at one time, with ongoing incremental reclamation; d. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; e. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements; f. Operation at the site shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. weekdays and Saturdays with the exception of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays; g. No dumping of wood debris or brush shall be allowed at this site; h. The haul road to the site shall be maintained to minimize dust when a new site plan is required. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 381 io,l - 181. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact and also the condition that only 5 acres at a time be mined. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the cinder resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 381 • i 01 - 1812 surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 381 4. 5. 6. 7. S. 9. 10. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. ZZ. 23 . TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #381 COVER INFORMATION SHEET SET OF MAPS REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 1/26/88 MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 12/21/87 MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 11/10/86 MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 11/11/85 REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 7/8/85 SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 11/8/84 SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 9/5/84 APPLICATION FOR SURFACE MINING PERMIT DATED 8/298/84 GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 11/7/83 GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 11/9/82 REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 12/17/81 GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 10/30/81 REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 11/10/80 GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 11/4/80 RECLAMATION REPORT 11/16/88 APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT NOTIFICATION MAP LETTER OF OPPOSITION PENSINGER MYLAR OF TOPO. O GOM 1'1"l►,S IQ fle.Y J �l � P1'�. fLll �.-S $ ; : ': d \ '8a0"f�! 0� Cann+rr:.sS�Or1G�5 ��GStOe1 nri"�r�u�-l.r.S ZCo*,� 1 &00 a to. 1814 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 390 Site Number 390, occupying tax lot 500 in Township 18 South, Range 12 E.W.M., Section 14, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (Board) for hearing on August 9, 1989. On October 17, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 390 comprises approximately 80 acres and is located on northeast corner of Knott Road and 27th street. This site is the Knott Landfill, is owned by Deschutes County and is zoned SM. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-20, UAR-10 and SMR. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's select fill resources and con- flicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 390 0l - 1815 ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 2 million cubic yards of select fill material of which the quality is excellent. 2. Site Characteristics. This is the Knott Landfill located southeast of Bend on Knott Road. The entrance is by a paved access road off of 27th Street. Knott Landfill is the primary landfill in the County. The site has been mined for select fill in the past with the resulting hole used as a landfill. Land use in the surrounding area consists of Deschutes County Public Works shops and offices to the north, vacant land to the east and west and small hobby farms to the south. Additionally, to the south is an area zoned SMR. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. Most natural resources values have already been impacted due to the existence of a surface mine and landfill on this site. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the EFU-20 and UAR-10 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the EFU-,20 and UAR-10 zones would include: 1. At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SM zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated portions of the site. 2. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 390 Wl -, 181 E noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, personal landing strips, geothermal uses, landfill uses, off- road vehicle tracks,and other mining uses. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. 4. The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts the conflicting uses in the zone are those enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Select Fill Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the select fill in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 390 'y e 1817 unsightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Most natural resources on the site have already been impacted by the existence of the landfill and surface mine. Select fill is in short supply in the County and this material is a quality fill material that is rare. The Board finds that select fill resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 390 io I y :1818 realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. 10. Social Consequences. Landfills are needed near the areas that they serve. The social consequence of closing a landfill would require relocating the landfill and signifi- cant impacts on a new site. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to the Bend urban area would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the select fill resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for select fill. b. Select fill resources are a locationally-dependent resource and this site is a large select fill source on the inventory. d. This site is already in existence. Therefore, the Board finds that both the select fill resour- ce and the conflicting natural resources should be pro- tected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16- 010(3) protection of the select fill resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 390 .. (J) ,t - 181 9 Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the select fill resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of select fill as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and select fill resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 390 ,# �� 1. A (.a` 18I 0 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. The elimination of any of the select fill resources identi- fied could have impacts on the availability of those resources within the 20 -year planning period. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 7 — ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION — SITE NO. 390 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if select fill had to be brought in from greater distances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Select Fill Resource and Conflictin Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protecting the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the con- flicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are impor- tant relative to one another. This finding is based upon the following facts: a. Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the select fill resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 390 a.01 - 1822 b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; �. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflictina Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the select fill resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient select fill resources to meet the County's select fill needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the select fill resource 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 390 i 0 1 - 1813 and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the select fill resource from con- flicting future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other select fill sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient select fill resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 390 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #390 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. MAP 3. DOGAMI RECLAMATION PERMIT 10/20/87 4. DOGAMI ON-SITE INSPECTION REPORT 11/19/86 5. DOGAMI RECLAMATION PERMIT 10/9/86 6. DOGAMI ON-SITE INSPECTION REPORT 1/10/85 7. DOGAMI OPERATING PERMIT 10/11/84 8. DOGAMI OPERATING PERMIT 9/27/83 9. DOGAMI ON-SITE INSPECTION REPORT 8/11/83 10. DOGAMI OPERATING PERMIT 11/9/82 11. DOGAMI ON SITE INSPECTION REPORT 7/15/81 12. DOGAMI OPERATING PERMIT 10/26/82 13. NOTIFICATION MAPS 14. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 15. MEMO FROM LARRY RICE 5/17/89 16. MEMO FROM LARRY RICE 12/5/88 17. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP IS. 3oa21Gomrri� ssionus Rmci nci m amcil s ICL. -boa.-rdCornrriaaslor�us Z:Aa�Slon, rnIn&4 s j.oI - 18'4 A ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 391 Pit -, 1825 Site Number 391, occupying tax lot 200 in Township 18 South, Range 12 E.W.M., Section 21, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (Board) for hearing on August 21, 1989. On October 17, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 391 comprises approximately 66.7 acres and is located on the south side of Knott Road approximately one-eighth mile west of 15th Street south of Bend. The site is owned by Central Oregon Pumice and is zoned SM. Adjacent land is zoned RR -10, MUA=10, RS and RL. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 391 OJI - 1826 In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. The file includes DOGAMI reports and considerable information on prior site plan approvals by the County on the historic mining of the site. There is a letter from the appli- cant discussing the type and value of the resource located on the site and there was considerable testimony at the public hearing from the property owner and neighboring property owners in opposition to surface mining on the site. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 500,000 cubic yards of good quality cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This site has been mined for cinders since the 19501s. The site is located south of Knott Road and has paved access. The site is relatively well screened from the surrounding neighborhood due to berms created by prior mining. Land use in the surrounding area consists of hobby farms on parcels of 2.5 to 5 acres in size to east, south and west. To the north is the Bend urban growth boundary with subdivisions on lots of 12,000 to 20,000 square feet. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts. There are no particular natural resource conflicts which have been identified for this site. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the residential zones surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the RL, RS, MUA-10 and RR -10 zones would include: 1. At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SM zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated portions of the site. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 391 ca 1827 2. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, personal landing strips, geothermal uses, landfill uses, off- road vehicle tracks,and other mining uses. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. 4. The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts the conflicting uses in the zone are those enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. There are numerous homes within close proximity to the site. There is an undeveloped subdivision nearby, but it is not possible to predict to what extent it is likely to be developed. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 391 Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 391 r� 18219 failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that cinders are used primarily for highway maintenance, that this site is located in close proximity to and with good access to Knott Road, and consequently that the site would be conveniently situated as a source for materials in any ongoing highway maintenance or construction in the area requiring cinders. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highways and highway maintenance sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting cinders to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 391 101 - 1830 the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of social consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to the Bend urban area would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the cinder resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for lower quality road maintenance materials and provide a substitute source for some uses for the more valuable sand and gravel resource. b. Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource and are, this site is one of the larger cinder sources on the inventory. C. This site is well located to provide aggregate for the Bend urban area. d. This site is already in existence. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 391 18 J I Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of cinder as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records Of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. Given that most of the concerns about property values are focused on residential properties, which do not predominate in this area, market concerns would not be of great consequence in any event. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 391 :>`,3 0 101 - 1832 The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con- flicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 391 -i 0 l - 1833 environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Cinder Resource and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 391 1,01 - 1834 County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; d. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 391 Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the cinder resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 391 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #391 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. SET OF MAPS 3. MEMO FROM CENTRAL OREGON PUMICE CO. REGARDING MINING PROPERTY 4. MINING PROPERTY (1/3/78 DESCHUTES COUNTY) 5. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 12/30/87 6. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 1/13/87 7. LETTER FROM WILLIAM E. MILLER DATED 7/2/86 8. LETTER FROM WILLIAM E. MILLER DATED 7/2/86 9. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 12/12/85 10. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 1/28/85 11. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 12/17/84 12. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 1/10/84 13. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 1/6/83 14. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 1/14/82 15. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 10/7/81 16. LETTER FROM WILLIAM E. MILLER DATED 8/19/81 17. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 7/15/81 18. LETTER TO BILL MILLER DATED 6/11/81 19. LETTER FROM WILLIAM E. MILLER DATED 6/19/81 20. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING DATED 10/22/80 21. MEMO TO BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DATED 10/16/80 10 1837 22. DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DEPT DATED 7/9/80 23. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING DATED 7/9/80 24. LETTER FROM PAUL OMOHUNDRO DATED 7/8/80 25. FINDINGS & DECISION DATED 6/25/80 26. STAFF REPORT DATED 5/27/80 27. LETTER FROM PAUL OMOHUNDRO DATED 5/27/80 28. LETTER FROM MIKE & RENEE LEFEVER DATED 5/27/80 29. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING DATED 5/27/80 30. LETTER FROM BEVERLY D. CAMPBELL DATED 5/23/80 31. LETTER FROM T.F. BECKER DATED 5/20/80 32. MEMO FROM DULL THOMPSON DATED 5/7/80 33. LOOK UP SHEETS 34. MAILING LIST FOR SITE PLAN TRANSMITTALS 35. SET OF REVISED TRANSMITTAL LETTERS FOR ZONE CHANGE 36. ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION 37. APPLICATION REVIEW FILE SHEET 38. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 12/4/79 39. GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION ISSUED 2/9/78 40. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 4/11/77 41. APPLICATION FOR SURFACE MINING PERMIT DATED 12/26/74 42. GRAPH OF MINED LAND RECLAMATION PLAN 43. ORDINANCE #80-210 44. MISCELLANEOUS NOTES 45. CENTRAL OREGON PUMICE MINING RESOURCE INVENTORY 46. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 2 47. NOTIFICATION MAPS 48. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS 49. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 50. LETTER FROM MERRIFIELD 51. LeAce a -to -'99 5Z• Lo,m►�.sss,orx� h�ar't mjnw-" g'S• 3cD�d O �DmmibsWtlu'S�C,a,s�on Minim 3 101 -, 1839 ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION Site No. 392 Site Number 392, occupying a portion of Tax Lot 300 in Township 18 South, Range 12 E.W.M., Section 23, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on May 16, 1989. On July 19, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the site, listed on the County's inventory of mineral and aggregate resources, should be classified under the county's comprehensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site Number 392 is located one-half mile east of Knott Road on Arnold Market Road. The site is bounded on the north and east by Arnold Market Road and on the south by Black Alley Road. The site is owned by Rose & Associates, a partnership, and is zoned SMR. Surrounding property is zoned MUA-10, EFU-20, UAR-10 and SM. The site was identified as containing two mineral and aggregate resources. The mineral and aggregate resources were crushable basalt and an alluvial sand/gravel deposit (fill material). The site was identified on the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate Inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone the site under Statewide Planning Goal 5 to protect the aggregate and mineral resources on the property. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was prepared setting forth the site's aggregate and mineral resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and - 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION (ROSC10) evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting value or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the owner and from numerous neighbors in the vicinity of the property, including the testimony of Lewis Scott, a geo-technical engineer. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit "A". ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. INVENTORY. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inventory establishes that the site has 7-1/2 million cubic yards of aggregate and 7-1/2 million cubic yards of sand gravel. A May 10, 1983, Century West Engineering report identified a proposed quarry site to be located on the northwest corner of the site. The basalt was proposed to be mined and crushed to produce road aggregate in three-eighths inch to one-eighth size fractions. A January 6, 1989 laboratory test report by Professional Service Industries, Inc. identified two samples submitted for analysis as being of such quality as to meet ODOT specifications for road material. Joel Smith, a registered professional engineer, estimated the quantity of material to be 7.5 million cubic yards. No core samples were taken to verify the estimate. A July 23, 1980 Century West Engineering report identified approximately 7.5 million yards of fill material on the site. This material is an alluvial sand gravel deposit with prevalent coarse to medium grain size characteristics. These materials contain relatively low pumice or cinder fractions, a probable result of winnowing action of water that removed or broke down light weight, variable particles. The resulting sand gravel deposits are of relatively high durability as a consequence. 2. SITE CHARACTERISTICS. This site is located one-half mile east of Knott Road on Arnold Market Road. The site is bounded on the north and east by Arnold Market Road and on the south by Black Alley Road. There is access to the site from all of these roads. The site is mostly level with some elevation gain on the south end. There is good soil cover on the level areas of the site. The south end and southeast corner have exposed basalt. The front field is the lowest elevation with some elevation gain to a middle field and hilly on the south end of the site. Within 250 feet of the site is the Knott Landfill to the - 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION (ROSC10) T�7 north across the street on Arnold Market Road. There are BPA lines running diagonally through the site from the northeast to the southwest. To the east of the property is Arnold Market Road. On the east side of Arnold Market Road are larger acreage residential properties. To the south are rural residential acreage properties. To the west are residential acreage properties. The homes to the west are typically on larger acreages and are better quality homes. The home directly west of the north end is an older average quality home. The homes to the west and south are at higher elevations than the subject property. To the south are homes which have their views looking across the subject site at the terrain to the north and northeast. The homes to the south are typically average or less quality. 3. CONFLICTS ANALYSIS. a. GOAL 5 CONFLICTS. NATURAL RESOURCES: (1) WILDLIFE: The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this area as being an important deer use area. Several letters from area residents identified the possible use of the area by the Great Horned Owl and Bald Eagles. (2) OPEN SPACE VALUES: Open space enhances the existing scenic resources of this site because it promotes a visually attractive environment. The site is zoned SMR. CONFLICTS: Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on Goal 5 resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Open space and scenic values are impacted by removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of the excavated materials, the presence of machinery on the site and the building of infrastructure, such as access roads and fences and fugitive dust emissions. (2) Impact on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation, surface disturbance, adverse impacts on forage from dust and construction of access roads and a nominal increase risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas or to curtail their use by deer. b. LAND USE CONFLICTS. LAND USES: There are approximately 49 parcels of - 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION (ROSC10) L01 - 1842 land within one-half mile of the proposed mining site that are either developed residential properties in conjunction with the farm use or could be developed with residences in conjunction with the farm use. Land uses and the zoning surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix "A" to the staff report in the MUA-10, SM and EFU-20 sections of the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance. CONFLICTS: The Board finds that conflicts with the use at the site and in the surrounding area would include: AT THE SITE• (1) Surface mining would conflict with all other uses on the property to the extent that the utilization of the property for surface mining would occupy a portion of the property to the exclusion of other uses. SURROUNDING ZONES (EFU-20, UAR-10 & SM) (1) The impact of noise, including heavy equipment and truck traffic on persons dwelling in the surrounding zoning. The Board finds that existing residential development in the area would be adversely affected. Many of the residents in the immediate area testified concerning the probable impacts of noise. (2) The impacts of dust on dust -sensitive areas. The Board finds that residential -type uses are dust -sensitive areas due to the impacts of dust on occupants and patrons and the general nuisance associated with dust. (3) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on the public safety. (4) The impact to aesthetic values due to dust, physical scarring of the landscape and the introduction of a surface mining operation into this rural setting. (5) The impact of blasting to remove the aggregate material would be significant to nearby residents. The Board finds that the uses identified above as conflicting uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining or place limitations on such mining. The Board finds that property immediately adjacent to the site is committed to a landfill and to surface mining uses with the historical removal of fill material. Such surrounding development lowers the conflict at this site. - 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION (ROSC10) 01 1843 RESOURCE CONFLICTS Protection of the Aggregate and Fill Material Resource 4. ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate and fill material in conflict with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a potential reduction in property values during the utilization of the resources. 5. SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES. The Board finds that the social consequences of protecting the fill material resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on the wildlife and scenic attributes of the area. The Board finds, however, that the impact of the surface mine is reduced by the fact of the proximity of the Knott Landfill. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and the scenic qualities of the area. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which could force some wildlife to leave the area to find other food sources and cover. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase mortality rate for the area's wildlife. Scenic views from surrounding properties would be adversely affected by fugitive dust. 7. ENERGY CONSEQUENCES. The Board finds that the energy consequences of protecting the aggregate and fill material resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consumption at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment, as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate and fill materials are resources that are needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that this site is located within one-quarter mile of the Bend market area. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites such as this that are convenient to the urban market area and processing sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting the material to its point of use. - 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION (ROSC10)A� �t► 1844 PROTECTION OF GOAL 5 RESOURCES 8. ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES. Protection of the wildlife and scenic resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. The Board finds that the fill material identified with the site is of limited supply in the County. The Knott Landfill is no longer making the resource available to local users to the extent that fill material would need to be hauled in from outside the area. The costs would be increased by haulage costs which the Board finds to be at the rate of 22 cents per ton mile. In addition, cost of transportation within the County is an important factor. Preservation of this resource at this particular site can have positive economic consequences in this regard. The Board finds that this site is located immediately adjacent to the Bend market area and that consequently preservation of the material at this site can lead to lower prices than use of the fill material resource located further away. The Board has made findings regarding the available supply of aggregate material in Deschutes County and the need for preservation of the material in reviewing other sites. 9. SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES. Preserving the natural resources at this site would have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of material are preserved. The fill material is used in all forms of construction. There could be increased costs from a shortage of readily available aggregate and fill material. 10. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES. Protection of the natural resources could preclude mining at the site or limit such activity. The noise, dust, traffic and scarring of the landscape and disruption of habitat and food associated with surface mining is not consistent with protection of scenic and wildlife values. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding or limited mining would have positive environmental consequences. The area is not, however, identified as a significant wildlife habitat. 11. ENERGY CONSEQUENCES. As mentioned above, the energy consequences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to market area would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 12. RELATIVE VALUES OF THE CONFLICTING RESOURCES. The Board finds that, based upon the ESEE consequences discussed above, the fill material and natural resources are important relative to one another. However, based on the same ESEE consequences, the Board finds that the aggregate material is not 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION (ROSC10) J.0 , 1845 as important relative to the conflicting resources and should not be protected because of the significant negative impacts of blasting and crushing on adjoining residents and the uncertainty of the quality and quantity of the aggregate resource. These findings are based upon the following facts: a. Adequate local supplies of quality fill material are important to the Deschutes County economy. b. Considering the quantity, quality and location of this site close to the Bend urban area market, this is an important fill material deposit. c. This site is adjacent to an existing landfill. d. The negative impacts on adjoining residents of blasting and crushing aggregate would be significant. Therefore, the Board finds that the fill material resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. The aggregate resource should not be protected. Accordingly, the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3), protection of the fill material resource shall be limited by the protection of the natural resources, and the aggregate resource should not be protected. CONFLICTING USES Protection of Mineral Resources 13. ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES. The economic consequences of protecting the fill material resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of the material as a commercial commodity and the development opportunities foregone by development of the site. Neighboring residents expressed concern about their property values. While impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates there there was no drastic fluctuations in the property values. The same analysis shows there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. Allowing surface mining activities at this site would have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to use the - 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION (ROSC10) d1! 101 - 1846 property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 14. SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES. Preserving this site for the production of fill material resources could have an impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions and truck traffic could negatively impact the livability, scenic quality and compatibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. The Board finds that such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. 15. ENERGY CONSEQUENCES. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of fill material would have an overall positive energy consequence. As stated above, the energy consumed on the site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for this resource. Haul distances to urban market areas would be minimized. 16. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have the same environmental consequences set forth under paragraph 6 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated through environmental controls on the mining operation. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 17. ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES. Most of the uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. In addition, conflicts arise due to the impacts of dust and changes in the landscape. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. Almost every surface mining site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. There is also further economic consequence discussed above of failing to protect sources of material that are located close to a market area. 18. SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES. The Board finds that the social consequences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. - 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION (ROSC10),�, co 19. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses can also have negative environmental impacts. If the site and surrounding land uses become further developed, those uses, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively impacted by increased residential development. 20. ENERGY CONSEQUENCES. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption because needed fill material resources would have to come from sites located further away. 21. RELATIVE VALUES OF FILL MATERIAL RESOURCE USE AND CONFLICTING USES. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protecting the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important relative to one another. This finding is based upon the following facts: (a) Adequate local supplies of fill material are important to the economy of Deschutes County. (b) Fill material resources are a locationally dependent resource and are in limited supply in the County. The size and quality of this deposit make it an important resource. (c) The site is located adjacent to the Bend urban market. This is an important fact given the haul costs for hauling this material. (d) The site is adjacent to the existing Knott Pit Landfill where fill material has been removed in the past. (e) Existing residential uses are important in that represent a commitment by the property owners to develop and occupy a parcel of property. Such a commitment carries with it economic, quality of life and health and safety expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the existing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. - 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION (ROSC10) .1.x.)1 ^ 1848 Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be a use that would limit the use of the fill material resource at this site. Displaced future uses, if any, can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near the site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 22. The Board finds that in order to protect the fill material resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the property will be zoned Surface Mining subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) This site will be mined for fill material only. (b) There will be no aggregate mining or blasting. (c) No processing shall be allowed on site. (d) Water shall be transferred to the site for reclamation purposes. (e) The hours of operation shall be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. No activity on weekends or holidays. (f) The property shall be developed with a one to three slope with a maximum depth of 60 feet. (g) Revegetation shall be required in the reclamation plan. If the excavated holes are filled with waste rock, there shall be a minimum of four feet of topsoil on top of the rock. No landfill or solid waste materials shall be deposited in the holes. (h) Applicable DEQ noise standards shall be met. (i) The appropriate portion of the haul road shall be paved and that portion of the haul road that is not feasible to be paved shall be treated with water or oil or other dust abatement techniques. (j) The site shall be fenced and gated. (k) To the greatest extent possible, the property shall be visually screened from site from surrounding neighbors. (1) The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife shall be consulted and have the opportunity to indicate when mule deer would be in the area and when the site activity might be curtailed. - 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION (ROSC10) 101 1 349 (m) Access shall be provided for the site from the north onto Arnold Market Road. (n) A maximum of five acres at a time be mined, with concurrent reclamation. (o) That dust control techniques meet DEQ standards, including the haul road. (p) That if there is extraordinary wind activity where material is being carried off-site that the site shall be closed during such periods. (q) Operational strategy such as trying to minimize dust impact of stockpiles shall be incorporated in the reclamation plan. CONFLICTING RESOURCES 23. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering, the mitigating noise and visual impacts, the restrictions on hours of operation, the five -acre limit on excavation, and the reclamation plan conditions. The Board finds that the screening and buffering provisions of the Ordinance No. 90-014 meet the ESEE screening and buffering requirements for this site. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal of protecting mineral and aggregate resources, since the site will be allowed to be mined. MINERAL RESOURCE 24. The Board will protect the fill material resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014 allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. - 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION (ROSC10) 101 - 1850 25. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer surrounding the SM zone, as set forth in Ordinance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the city of Bend. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than 1/4 mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflicting future development. 26. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the county's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. LAND USES 27. Existing conflicting land uses, including residential uses and recreational uses, are protected by the requirement that any expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, and by the setback requirements, noise standards, limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations found in the ESEE conditions and the zoning ordinance as applied to this property. - 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION (ROSC10)w<.�;� o710 �:' • EXHIBIT SCHEDULE SITE N0. 392 Date Color Received Exhibit Description Code Page Appraisals Peach 13 Aerial Map Peach 15 Petitions Peach 126 Photos of Site Peach 93 Newspaper Clipping Blue 77 Letter from Sandy Young Peach 95 Map Gray 76 Map Gray 75 Test Hole Data Gray 82 Maps of Site Yellow 2 77 01-18 Volume Estimate Blue 56 77 01-19 Letter from Century West Engineering Blue 55 77 01-19 Letter from Jeff Daggett Blue 54 83 04-16 Map Peach 14 83 05-10 Letter from Century West Engineering Gray 67 88 02-23 Sale Agreement Peach 128 88 03-08 Letter from Joan Hale Blue 58 88 06-13 Letter from Edward Sullivan Peach 16 06-14 Letter from Karen Green Peach 17 i88 '88 06-16 Petitions Gray 12 88 06-16 Letter from Tom Throop Blue 59 88 06-23 Letter from Ed Sullivan Blue 57 88 07-11 Letter from Ed Sullivan Peach 18 88 10-06 Letter from Scott Geotechnical Services Peach 19 88 10-11 Letter from Bob Lovlien Blue 60 88 10-11 Letter from Robert Lovlien Gray 3 88 10-18 Letter from Robert Deacon Peach 20 88 10-24 Letter from.Joel G. Smith Gray 4 88 11-07 Letter from Scott Geotechnical Services Peach 21 88 11-09 Letter from Karen Green Blue 61 88 11-09 Letter from Edward Sullivan Peach 22 88 11-18 Letter from Joel G. Smith Peach 23 88 11-23 Letter from Bob Lovlien Blue 62 88 11-23 Letter from Robert Lovlien Gray 5- 88 11-28 Letter from Paul Bianchina Peach 114 88 12-01 Memorandum from Karen Green Blue 63 89 01-06 Letter from Professional Service Ind., Inc. Gray 6 89 01-06 Sample Testing Results (PSI) Gray 81 89 01-09 Letter from Ed Sullivan Peach 24 89 01-13 Sale Agreement ` Peach 127 89 01-16 Geotechnical Evaluation/Century West Gray 68 89 01-19 Letter from Lester Alford • Peach 109 89.01-26 Letter from Michael Broadbent Peach 25 89 01-27 Letter from Lester Alford Peach 26 16939 01-30 Letter from Nancy & Hugh McGilvray Peach 30 X89 01-30 Letter from the Pedersen's and the Grahams Peach 29 89 01-30 Letter from Joan Hale Peach 27 o710 �:' 1852 �89 01-30 Letter from Dennis Henekin & Christine Kerlin Peach 28 89 01-31 Letter from Patricia Gainsforth Blue 64 89 02-04 Appraisal From Robert Bancroft Yellow 1 89 02-10 Letter from Professional Service Ind., Inc. Gray 7 89 02-21 Letter from Paul & Annece Davis Peach 108 89 02-28 Response to Staff Report from -Bob Lovlien Gray 8 89 02-28 Letter from Fred & Susan Smith Peach 31 89 02-28 Letter from T. Marie Peoples Peach 32 89 02-28 Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Robert Wolff Peach 35 89 02-28 Letter from Bruce A. Estes Peach 34 89 02-28 Letter from Don S. Ferguson Peach 33 89 03-01 Hearing Sign-up Sheet Blue 92 89 03-01 BOCC Hearing Minutes Fuchsia 66 89 03-01 Letter from Ric Ergenbright Peach 113 89 03-02 Rock Volume Computations Peach 36 89 03-02 Xerox Aerial Map Peach 37 89 03-02 Letter from Matthew Steele Peach 110 89 03-03 Letter from Ed Sullivan Peach 107 89 03-03 Letter from John & Venita Dick Peach 38- 89 03-05 Letter from Mr. & Mrs. R. Wolff Peach 39 89 03-05 Letter from Mr. & Mrs. R. Wolff Peach 40 89 03-05 Letter from Glenn Maroe Peach 106 89 03-06 Letter from Karen Green Peach 41 89 03-06 Letter from Joel G. Smith Gray 9 89 03-06 Letter from Franklin Gist Peach 42 89 03-08 Letter from Bob Lovlien Peach 105 89 03-09 Letter from Joan Hale Peach 73 89 03-09 Letter from Kenyon Thompson Peach 44 89 03-10 Letter from Kitty Warner Peach 96 89 03-10 Letter from Gene & Sally Wegner Peach 103 89 03-10 Letter from Lester Alford Peach 104 89 03-10 SE Property Owners Assoc. Concluding Comments Peach 94 89 03-10 Letter from Ric Ergenbright Peach 124 89 03-10 Letter from Michael Broadbent Peach 115 89 03-10 Letter from Jill Ergenbright Peach 45 89 03-10 Letter from Bill & Ann Thomason Peach 43 89 03-10 Letter from Christine Kerlin Peach 97 89 03-12 Letter from Sam McCoy Peach 101 89 03-13 Letter from Mary Dinges Peach 122 89 03-13 Letter from Charles Anderson Peach 98 89 03-13 Letter from Dwane & Jane Manwiller Peach 99 89 03-13 Letter from the Edwards Peach 125 89 03-13 Letter from Jeff & Sue Heath Peach 117 89 03-14 Letter from Jacob & Susan Schlepp Peach 116 89 03-14 Letter from Bobby & Billie Kitchens Peach 118. 89 03-14 Letter from the Browns Peach 120 89 03-14 Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Richard Poole Peach 119 89 03-14 Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Comford Gray 86 89 03-14 Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Comford Peach 123 89 03-15 Letter from Kenyon Thompson Gray 88 89 03-15 Letter from Daniel McCleery, MD Peach 102 9 089 03-15 Letter from Debra Jordon Peach 112 03-16 Letter from Sam McCoy Gray 87 89 03-16 Letter from Cynthia Luelling Gray 85 03-20 Letter from James Carnahan Gray 84 03-20 Letter from James Carnahan Peach 100 04-06. Letter from P/W to Dirt Permittees Blue 90' 04-10 Letter from Jeff Fields Peach 74' 04-10 Letter from Ed Sullivan Peach 72 04-12 'Letter from Jeff Fields Gray •83• 04-21 Letter from Sally Wegner (ODOT) Buff 80 05-08 Letter from Stephen R. Rogers, M.D. Peach 46 05-09 Memorandum from Dick Johnson (P/W) Blue 89 05-15 Letter from Christine Kerlin Peach 47 05-15 Letter from Harry Farley Peach 48 05-16 Letter from Franklin Gist Peach 121 05-16 Hearing Sign-up Sheet Blue 91 05-16 Letter from Mary Dinges Peach 49 05-16 Letter from Pat Gainsforth Peach 111 05-17 Memorandum from Larry Rice Blue 70 05-19 Letter from Karen Green Peach 51 05-22 Letter & Comments from Ed Sullivan Peach 53 05-22 Letter from Ed Sullivan Peach 52 05-22 Letter from John Skillern Peach 50 05-24 Letter from Clifford (Bud) Rose Gray 10 07-14 Letter from Sally Wegner Peach 78 07-19 BOCC Decision Minutes Fuchsia 65 07-23 Letter from Century West Engineering Gray 11 08-31 Letter from Robert Deacon Blue 71 09-18 Letter from Ed Sullivan Peach 79 04-04 Letter from Joel Smith Blue 69 > - -" ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 393 Site Number 393, occupying tax lot 1400 in Township 18 South, Range 12 E.W.M., Section 25, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 15, 1989. On October 17, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should [not] be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 393 comprises approximately 60 acres and is located Horse Butte, approximately four miles southwest of Bend. The site is owned by Babler Brothers, Inc. is zoned SM. Adjacent land is zoned RR -10, EFU-20 and F-3. This site was identified as containing cinder resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the econo- mic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the con- flicting values or uses. In addition, the report of an appriaser commissioned by the County concerning the nature of the site and the surrounding area was entered into the record. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 393 • Testimony was also received from numerous surrounding property owners as well as the subject property owner. The site was originally placed on the inventory based on evidence from 1978 that were 12 million cubic yards of cinders and fill on the subject site. This was submitted by Hap Taylor who was the owner of the property at that time. A letter from Babler Brothers, Inc. received by the Planning Division on March 21, 1988, indi- cated that there was not sufficient quality or quantity of cinders on the site to warrant continuing the surface mining zoning. The letter specifically states that the site no longer has value as a surface mine. Additional testimony in the record indicated that the site is surrounded by rural residential homesites and small farms. Letters indicate that truck traffic on the narrow rural roads would create significant impacts on the nature of the neighborhood. There was considerable public testimony in opposition to this site being zoned for surface mining. Due to the testimony that the site contains no valuable resource at this time, the Board finds that there is no resource to protect at this site and therefore removes it from the surface mining inventory. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 393 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #393 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. SET OF MAPS 3. HAP TAYLOR INC. CINDER PIT PROPERTY DESCRIPTION SHEET 4. LETTER FROM ALAN WADE DATED 3/18/88 5. MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 6/24/87 6. MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 6/23/86 7. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 6/17/85 8. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 6/1/84 9. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 2/16/84 10. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 7/22/82 11. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 6/1/83 12. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 6/23/82 13. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 10/22/81 14. LETTER FROM PAUL F. LAWSON DATED 10/20/81 15. LETTER FROM PAUL F. LAWSON DATED 10/2/81 16. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 6/12/81 17. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 6/6/80 18. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 5/29/80 19. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 6/13/79 20. APPLICATION FOR SURFACE MINING PERMIT DATED 8/17/76 21. DOGAMI RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 7/26/88 22. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT t:) °1857 23. NOTIFICATION MAP 24. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 25. LETTER FROM JOANNE & HAROLD MCBRIDE 8/15/89 26. LETTER FROM HAROLD MCBRIDE 7/15/89 27. LETTER FROM ETHEL MIKALICH 8/15/89 28. LETTER FROM THOMAS G. FOXWORTH 8/9/89 29. LETTER FROM GAIL & JIM VENNER 8/21/89 30. MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 9/8/89 31, la,#e✓ kom o-Dv R com4 q -to -V 32,t`3a321 CamrY;�ssic�nersd�h�cic�min�5 33. 21 0 corY.rn's loners 1meCdeclston rri�n s 2 l wl - '1858 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 394 Site Number 394, occupying tax lot 4400 and 4411 in Township 18 South, Range 12 E.W.M., Sections 30 and 31, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 10, 1989. On October 12, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 394 comprises approximately 12 acres and is located east of Highway 97 near the truck weigh station south of Bend. The site is owned by Robert Windlinx and is zoned SM and SMR. Adjacent land is zoned SM, RR -10, F-2 and LM. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 394 A list of the contentsofthe record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 270 cubic yards of course red cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This site consists of two sites surrounding an existing State of Oregon cinder pit. The cinders have been used in the past for various road pur- poses, including sanding of highways. Access to the subject site is off of the old abandoned portion of Highway 97 from the state way station off -ramp. The site is comprised of gently rolling hills with natural vegetation of large pine trees, sagebrush and grasses. The site is within one-half mile of Deschutes River Woods subdivision and is located within the LM zone along Highway 97. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Open space and scenic values. The LM zoning adjacent to the site indicates high concern for scenic values. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the pre- sence of machinery on the site, the building of infra- structure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. 2. Impacts on deer would include further destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by continued surface disturbance and use of access roads, an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site and continued human presence and noise. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas or impede migration. Due to the intermittent use of this existing site, however, 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 394 presence may not be as great as if the site were used continually. The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are no water sources at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the RR -10 zone would include: 1. At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SM zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated portions of the site. 2. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, personal landing strips, geothermal uses, landfill uses, off- road vehicle tracks,and other mining uses. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 394 4. The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts the conflicting uses in the zone are those enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 394 41 01 - 1862 have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. 7. Environmental Conseguences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that cinders are used primarily for highway maintenance, that this site is located in close proximity to and with good access to Highway 97, and consequently that the site would be conveniently situated as a source for materials in any ongoing highway maintenance or construction in the area requiring cinders. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highways and highway maintenance sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting cinders to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 394 ` AY1A�t o l - 1863 such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of social consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 394 tt 1864 protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the cinder resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for lower quality road maintenance materials and provide a substitute source for some uses for the more valuable sand and gravel resource. b. Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource and are, this site is one of the larger cinder sources on the inventory. C. This site is well located to provide aggregate for highway maintenance on Highway 97. d. This site is already in existence. e. Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of cinder as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 394 r All - 1665 The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 394 operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con- flicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Cinder Resource and Conflicting Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 394 jot - 1867 mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. The extraction area shall be limited to 5 acres at one time, with ongoing incremental reclamation; d. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; e. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 394 i,fj I - 18 6 8 The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the cinder resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 394 ,a ter. mile to storage and processing applicant can demonstrate that not cause a mining operation to standards; and ifjt 1869 sites only if the the proposed use will violate the siting b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 394 • H TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #394 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. MAP 3. MAP 4. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 5. LETTER FROM DON KERR 5/26/89 6. NOTIFICATION MAPS 7. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 8. LETTER FROM D. KERR DATED 8/4/89 9. SAME AS ABOVE 10. APPLICANTS PLOT MAP OF PROPERTY III —&ad d Cc ileac- cwx 1Z, 17,E D comm br s dGja�skon m,�nu-tLz, �► � ; ��70, Czx� � �J � o ccx�oa- �c� f VP v ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 395 of - 1871 Site Number 395, occupying tax lot 4300 in Township 18 South, Range 12 E.W.M., Section 30, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 12, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 395 comprises approximately 22 acres and is located approxmately one-quarter mile east of Hghway 97 near the way station south of Bend. The site is owned by the State of Oregon and is zoned SM. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 395 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. The file includes DOGAMI reports and the file by which the site was originally zoned for surface mining. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 100,000 cubic yards of good quality cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is just east of Highway 97 at the way station south of Bend. Access is off the dirt road at the end of the way station off -ramp. The site is an active cinder pit on the side of a small butte. The site is naturally vegetated with pine trees, sagebrush and juniper. No utilities or other improvements are located on the site. The site is located within a larger mining reserve area owned by Robert Windlinx and identified as site 394. Surrounding land uses include forest with large pine trees and Deschutes River Woods subdivision to the west across Highway 97. The closest lots are approximately one-quarter mile from the subject site. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Open space and scenic values. The LM zoning adjacent to the site indicates high concern for scenic values. The adjacent F-2 zoning indicates the presence of important open space values. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Impacts on deer would include [further] destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by [continued] surface disturbance and use of access roads, an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site and [continued] human presence and noise. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas or impede migra- tion. Due to the intermittent use of this existing site, however, the effects of traffic, noise, and human presence may not be as great as if the site were used continually. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 395 i(j-t - :18Y3 The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are no water sources at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the F-2 zone at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the RR -10 zone would include: 1. At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SM zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated portions of the site. 2. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, personal landing strips, geothermal uses, landfill uses, off- road vehicle tracks,and other mining uses. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. 4. The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 395 affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts the conflicting uses in the zone are those enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 395 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that cinders are used primarily for highway maintenance, that this site is located in close proximity to and with good access to Highway 97, and consequently that the site would be conveniently situated as a source for materials in any ongoing highway maintenance or construction in the area requiring cinders. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highways and highway maintenance sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting cinders to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 395 y`�jc 1 L t ,1 -� 18 "r' The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of social consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 395 18 17 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the cinder resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for lower quality road maintenance materials and provide a substitute source for some uses for the more valuable sand and gravel resource. b. Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource and are, this site is one of the larger cinder sources on the inventory. C. This site is well located to provide aggregate for highway maintenance on Highways 20 and 126. d. This site is already in existence. e. Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. f. Highway 126 is the main highway between the cities of Sisters and Redmond and site 248 is readily visible from the highway. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of cinder as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 395 The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 395 i0l M'180 operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con- flicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Cinder Resource and Conflicting Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 395 10 L - 1880 mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. The extraction area shall be limited to 5 acres at one time, with ongoing incremental reclamation; d. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; e. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 395 '01 - 1881 The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact and also the condition that only 5 acres at a time be mined. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the cinder resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 395 3J78 waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 395 I TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #395 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. MAP 3. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/10/87 4. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/17/86 5. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 10/1/85 6. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/29/83 7. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 4/26/83 S. REPORT ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 3/22/83 9. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/16/88 10. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 11. NOTIFICATION MAPS 12. TOPO MAP MYLAR 13. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 14' ^BM(d C� Mtrf►4S�pf1LtS hesc=t C m i �wb�..d t5. "60a."d Cmrnm��orKfs`L�c:�S'�an ni�ns of - 1883 i. (J .1 ., '1884 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 400 Site Number 400, occupying tax lots 4501 and 4502 in Town- ship 18 South, Range 13 E.W.M., Section 15, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 16, 1989. On October 17, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines, with Commis- sioner Maudlin dissenting, that this site should not be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 400 comprises approximately 80 acres, of which the easterly most 40 acres is proposed for surface mining and is located on the northeast edge of the Conestoga Hills subdivision 10 miles east of Bend. The site is owned by Eric Coats and is zoned EFU-40. Surrounding property is zoned RR -10 and EFU-40. The staff report indicates that surrounding areas are zoned LM; however the area is not within the LM zone protecting the views along Highway 20. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 400 i{j.1 "'1855 protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife regarding wildlife values for the site; from Mr. Coats and his wife and their expert, concerning aggre- gate values for the site; from nearby residents of the Conestoga Hills subdivision and their experts as to the value of the aggre- gate at the site and the conflicts that a surface mine would have with natural resource values at the site and the surrounding residential uses; and from Avion Water concerning the possible effects of the surface mine on the Conestoga Hills water supply. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 1.6 million cubic yards of poor quality rock. During the ESEE hearing both propo- nents and opponents put on evidence concerning the quality and quantity of the aggregate resource at the site. The Board's inventory findings on this site are set forth in the inventory ordinance, Deschutes County Ordinance No. 90-025. 2. Site Characteristics. The site is undeveloped open space and has natural vegetation of juniper trees, sagebrush and grasses. The site is surrounded primarily by vacant lands, except for the Conestoga Hills subdivision to the immediate southwest of the site. The Conestoga Hills subdivision is a rural subdivision of five -acre lots containing average to good quality homes. The subdivision was platted in 1977 and was conceived as a quiet rural residential area, with strict covenants to ensure that homeowners would maintain that atmosphere. Although there are some vacant lots, many of the platted lots have been built upon. The testimony shows that many of the residents chose to purchase lots in the Conestoga Development after an extensive search of available homesites within the County. Their reasons for choosing Conestoga Hills was almost uniformly because of the peace and tran- quility of the surrounding area and, in many cases, because of the outstanding views of surrounding open spaces. Site 400 would be located within one-quarter mile of the nearest home. Mr. Coats has previously been excavating topsoil at the site. No County permits have been issued for that excava- tion. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 400 it) 11, , 1886 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this area as being a part of the North Paulina deer winter range, with medium frequency of use. The North Paulina winter range winters approxi- mately 5500 deer. The County's comprehensive plan places the site immediately adjacent to deer winter range. Testimony of area residents confirmed the presence of deer in the area. ODF&W has also identified the site as having medium - sensitive raptor use. Area residents testified that red-tailed hawks, sharp -shinned hawks, and bald eagles have been observed in the area. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources and testimony from Conestoga Hills resi- dents, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by surface distur- bance and construction of structures and access roads, and an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site. In addition, the board finds that the nature of the aggregate at the site would require extensive blasting. The impact of all this would generally be to displace deer from such areas. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, dust, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife values in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 400 �, iol - 1887 b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses on the EFU-40 and the RR -10 zone at and surround- ing the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The County Comprehensive Plan shows that, although an allowed uses, forestry uses would not occur due to the incompatible soils at the site. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the zones at and surrounding the site would include: 1. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, and processing, and drilling) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust -sensi- tive uses in the zone. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses at the site and surrounding zone would be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, geothermal uses, landfill uses, personal landing strips, and other mining uses. Opponent's noise expert testified that the area has a low ambient noise level and that due to the location of the Conestoga Hills development on a plateau above and adjacent to the surface mining operation, DEQ noise levels could not be met. This assessment was seconded by the opponent's geologist, who noted that the nearest residence was 450 yards distance from the east or west parcel quarry site and that the location of that residence on a ridge crest would prevent berms from dampening the sound. Neighborhood residents testified that they can hear the blasting from Mr. Coats' present mining activities at the site. In addition, there was testimony that Mr. Coats' presently uses Chisolm Trail through portions of their subdivision for transport of excavated materials, bringing with it unwanted truck noise. Another resident expressed concerns about the effects of surface mining noise on her horses. She testified that her horses run away from noise and that if blast- ing were to occur at the site, she would not be able to ride her horses, fearing for the safety of her and her horses should she be riding them when blasting occurred. 2. The impact of dust on subdivision residents neighboring the surface mine. The board finds credible the testi- 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 400 mony of adjacent landowner Heagney with respect to the impacts of dust from surface mining operations. He testified, based upon his 11 -year experience working in the cement business, that the dust kicked up by surface mining operations is abrasiveandis not ordinary household dust. He testified that it can damage the paint on vehicles and houses, even at a distance of a couple of miles. He further testified that such dust can be a health hazard. At least one resident of the Conestoga Hills subdivision testified that she had asthma and that the dust from surface mining at the site could be a health hazard to her. Other residents testified that the dust from the surface mine could interfere with their views of the Cascades and the surrounding high desert. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. Conestoga residents testified that Mr. Coats' present use of Chisolm Trail through a portion of their subdivision endangered the safety of them and their children. One resident observed one of Mr. Coats' dump trucks driving through the subdivision at a speed of 55-60 miles per hour. The impacts of truck traffic could be eliminated if access to the site were solely from Highway 20. There is evidence that Mr. Coats has no permission to access this site through the subdivi- sion; therefore it is likely that he would be forced to use the Highway 20 access and traffic impacts would cease. 4. The impact on aesthetic values due to the physical scarring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. Several residents spoke to the fact that they chose to purchase homesites in the Conestoga subdivision due to the natural beauty of the area and specifically checked the zoning prior to purchasing to determine whether the area had surface mining activity nearby. Some home - sites would be located within approximately 1400 feet of the surface mine. Although the staff report and testimony from the applicant indicates that the topo- graphy and orientation of the ridge at the site would insulate the Conestoga homesites from the pit, the Board finds that residents would at least be able to see fugitive dust emissions. 5. Occupation of the surface area of the site in a manner that would displace other uses allowed or conditionally permitted in the zone. This could impact all uses in the EFU-40 zone, except that agricultural uses could be made on the unexcavated portions of the property. 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 400 f)l -:1889 6. There was testimony that siting a surface mine adjacent to homesites could cause a loss in property values and loss of salability of residential properties in the area. In particular, there was testimony that the sale of two homes fell through due to the proposed surface mining operation. The Board finds that in general there is no loss of sales or property values associated with surface mines, as is further discussed below. 7. Jan Wick, of Avion Water testified that the proposed surface mine would be located near the well that supplies the Conestoga Hills subdivision and raised concerns that the site owner had supplied insufficient information to evaluate threats to that water supply. He identified those threats to be possible pollution of the water source and interruption of the well's flow due to alterations of the subsurface strata induced by blasting of the rock at the site. The Board finds that, accounting for the above -listed impacts, all possible uses in the zone are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining or severely restrict surface mining at the site. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses, only residential uses presently occur. The Board finds from the testimony of Mr. Jan Wick, of Avion Water, that there are at least 80 existing homes in the Conestoga Hills subdivision. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat and open space do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife. The social consequences 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 400 )l 1890 of such impacts would be the reduced wildlife viewing oppor- tunities to area residents. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that preservation of this site would likely have overall positive energy consequences due to the fact that this site is located closer to development activities on the southeast side of Bend than any other commercial site. It is unlikely that material from the site would be used for highway construction jobs in the Highway 20 cor- ridor, since the Oregon State Highway Division has numerous aggregate sites along that route. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 400 .L 01 - 1891 year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Consequently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs provided that enough other sites are preserved to meet the county's aggregate needs. The Board finds that the aggre- gate source at this site is of poor quality and would require extensive blasting, increasing the cost of producing the aggregate material. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. This would become a factor only if the County failed to protect enough sites to sustain the aggregate industry. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. Roads and highways in the area would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 400 I(III --`1.802 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environ- mental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site could involve increased haulage distances of aggregate materials to the development projects occurring on the southeast side of Bend. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would therefore more likely than not have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the wildlife values at the site are relatively more important than the aggregate resource based on the following facts: a. The aggregate resource is of limited quality. The Board finds that the aggregate source is a Newberry Crater lava flow. The neighbor's expert geologist, Mr. Lewis Scott, testified that in general the Newberry Crater lava flows are too poor in quality to meet standards for paving and concrete aggregates. He further testified that ODOT, USFS, and DOGAMI publication 89 materials showed no quarry sites located in those flows and that accordingly, a systematic subsurface testing program would be necessary. His testimony as to the general quality of the Newberry basalt flows is substantiated by the testimony of independent consulting geologist Robert Deacon and Mr. Roland Van Cleave, Senior Geologist for the ODOT Bend Office. His testimony that subsurface testing should be required of all Newberry Crater lava flows is supported by similar conclusions of Messrs. Van Cleave and Deacon. While Mr. Coats produced evidence of testing tending to show that the aggregate source at the site met ODOT standards, the Board finds that no testing of subsur- face rock occurred. Therefore, the Board discounts the results of lab testing on quality offered by Mr. Coats. Furthermore, the testimony of Mr. Scott indicates that due to the nature of the basalt, extensive blasting would be required to excavate and process the rock. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 400 3.01 1883 The Board finds that other sources of aggregate, such as river run sand and gravel deposits, require less processing. In light of this fact, the Board finds that compared to other sites containing river run aggregate, the value of the aggregate resource at this site is not as great at sites with such deposits. b. The Board has taken action at other sites that protects sufficient amounts of aggregate resources to meet the county's aggregate needs. C. Deer habitat in the County is continually shrinking in the face of new development. Therefore, Board finds that the conflicting deer habitat value should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(2) the conflicting natural resource value of deer habitat should be fully protected at the expense of the aggregate resource. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. Residents of the Conestoga subdivision provided anecdotal evidence that property values in the subdivision would decline and that sales of property in the area had fallen through because of Mr. Coats' proposed surface mine. The Board finds that while the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 400 fl �. 1894 Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transi- tional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. Based upon the testimony offered by Conestoga Hills residents, the Board finds that the livabil- ity of the area would be negatively impacted by the noise, blasting, and fugitive dust produced by the proposed surface mine. The Board finds that the impacts of truck traffic would not likely occur due to Mr. Coat's lack of legal access to the subdivision from the proposed quarry site. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals could have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to development sites south and east of Bend would compare favorably with haul distances from other sources in the County. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 7 above. In addition, the Board finds that there is a serious con- cern, unanswered by Mr. Coats, about what effect the mining operations might have on the Conestoga Hills water supply. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. The Board's finding in this respect is the same as that set forth in paragraph 9 above. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 400 1 () 1 1895 well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site were to be developed, such development could also have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for developments on the southeast side of Bend would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Aggregate Use and Conflicting' Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that the conflicting land uses are relatively more important than the aggregate resource. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a) and (b) from the paragraph 13 above; b. The Conestoga subdivision has a substantial number of existing homes that were built before the surface mine was proposed; C. The Conestoga subdivision has a high degree of natural amenities, such as scenic views, solitude, and wildlife viewing opportunities that makes it a unique and highly sought after rural residential location. Testimony established that many residents chose to purchase in the Conestoga subdivision after an extensive search and evaluation of other rural subdivisions. d. Existing residential uses are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commit- ment is accompanied by important quality of life and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronize those uses. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 400 Accordingly, the Board determines pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 that it will fully protect the conflicting land uses, in particular the residential uses, at the expense of the of the mineral resource at the site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect the conflicting deer habitat resource and the conflicting land uses, the site will not be zoned for surface mining. This should not prevent the achievement of Goal 5 concerns about protecting aggregate resources, as the Board finds that through its approval actions on other aggregate sites, it has protected a total of 45,147,000 cubic yards of aggregate, which com- bined with the amount of aggregate available from sites inside the Urban Growth Boundary, is sufficient to meet the County's needs. 13 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 400 fi 6, YA — I SURFACE MINING FIXII]BITI-,): 1." 1807 1 - Cover information sheet 2 - Set of Maps 3 - Letter fromPatrick C. Lynch dated 3/16/88 4- 5 - 1, -R�— SG k"+ li--z ev- -6 6.V -V Lts 1 - �+� � cap- `'�` ` v'U��` � Cowv►�S l-h`�'f'� q l e4 cN Mew VI J- iz- - kum L( Eric- Le- -.fb2, tzYYQ -ph D�Vs (( -CLA- tDlPC-3 n,nq Corn L rn � d ) Cb Lo - i L, -<;r7 EAC,tk-ccvo` Z''- ,�ij -Z C.. -'-U) A- L Cl 3*2- 3 �rn�.cs�O � 1�d� 10-1 ", 1898 5 -- ---- I �v __ -_ _ _ cid �-(o-� ill � c�. � �.esr` � 9-� -77- Bel ��` _ _-- - --_7�'I� y�� -� -moi 5-7 _ - ��.Y cos`-�/ - - s �.-�J- -- 61, ZI �Yiazev (�t!C�(( C�;,u �-t�5� � ll� �. ol r, 19 0 0 IN --- A-*d-iA q "- &--- kp 6k.l -_o I [01 1901 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 404 Site Number 404, located in Township 19 South, Range 14 E.W.M., portions of Sections 1, 2 and 12, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 17, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 404 comprises approximately 200 acres and is located approximately one mile north of Highway 20 and one and one-half miles north of Horse Ridge. The site is owned by Gloria and Eugene Moon and is currently zoned SM and WA. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-320 and WA. Most of the surrounding land is owned by the Bureau of Land Management. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and Deschutes County Ordinance 88-040, revising the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board on August 7, 1989, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 404 io l - :1002 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 193 cubic yards of aggregate rock which meets the Oregon Department of Trans- portation specifications for road base and asphalt rock. 2. Site Characteristics. The site is part of a working ranch and is essentially level with rock outcroppings. The site is along the northwestern base of Bear Creek Buttes and no other special features have been noted. The site consists of natural grazing land with juniper trees, sagebrush and grasses. There are no improvements or utilities on the subject site. The surrounding area consists of natural range land with no improvements within one-half mile. The subject site is currently being used as a gravel pit. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Resource Conflicts. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. The resource element of the County's comprehensive plan shows the site to fall within a designated deer winter range. 2. Open space and scenic values. The subject site is not within an LM zone, nor is it visible from any public road. The Board finds that open space, wildlife habitat, and scenic resources conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence, all as set forth in the staff report, could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner set forth in the staff report that would adversely affect those Goal 5 resources. Land Use Conflicts. Land uses on the EFU-320 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board finds 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 404 �4jf� 101 1903 that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, all such uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. Farm and forest uses are conflicting uses in the sense that those uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activi- ties on the site. In addition, farm uses on adjacent property involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. The Board finds that none of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses currently exist at the site or within the impact area. Further, the Board finds that such uses, with the exception of livestock grazing, are unlikely to occur due to the remoteness of the site and the fact that most of the surrounding land is in public ownership. The Board finds that the large minimum lot size of 320 acres would prevent any dense development near the site. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and antelope habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 404 i�. :1904 by those travelling Highway 20 who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer and antelope for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highway construction and maintenance sites such as this one would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distan- ces involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use on Highway 20. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer and antelope habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competi- tion in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in the wide open spaces at the site could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 404 0_1_ 101L -1 1905 year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per cubic yard per mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect such sites located along Highway 20 would result in increased costs for maintenance and construction on Highway 20 east of Bend. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 404 M L0 "t 19GG streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and deer and antelope habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be replicated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it along the highway 20 corridor would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of antelope and deer and their habitat are finite resources and loca- tionally dependent. Aggregate resources are in limited supply in the County and there is a need for the aggregate resources along the Highway 20 corridor for highway mainte- nance. Antelope and deer habitat are continually being lost to new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 404 i 01 - 19 0 7 While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve everyday transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the site and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of this site for surface mining. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and com- patibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmen- tal controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts and likely to be few such conflicts in the future. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 404 10,1 - 1908 positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 20 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensi- tive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of such surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limit- ing further surface mining activity due to noise regula- tions. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflict- ing uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the Goal 5 discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts as- sociated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 404 Jt�i, au i. -� 1909 such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this and other sites along the Highway 20 corridor would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for upkeep and improvement of Highway 20 would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this remote site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the live span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County and its location near its point of use, Highway 20. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource at the site in favor of the conflicting resources. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. Program to Meet the Goal 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 404 1910 (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) The site shall not be operated from October 31 through March 31. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting Goal 5 resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer and antelope herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not underway. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining- dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 404 ioI - 1911 nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited closer than one-half mile to a SM zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance preclud- ing protest of any surface mining activities; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses are protected by the require- ment that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback require- ments, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 404 (0 1 `1 , ( B TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #404 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. LETTER FROM EUGENE MOON DATED 6/9/87 3. LETTER FROM WARD P. CRANE 4. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & MAP 5. LETTER FROM DOGAMI TO MOONS, 6. NOTIFICATION MAPS 7. STAFF REPORT 8. PLANNING COMMISION RECOMMENDATIONS 9. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP Icy. lew�mrn 0-bF+v4 q-1049 ji.Uacd ob COYrYri►�io�1 �'12c3r'� (Y��•nuS 2, -��i a� Co„,�,��►a,r,,Q,rS �,2eis►o,� rn1 n.u�� 13, 1e -k(- imyr\ '-DoGArm� 1 -3o -z5 i. () -1 Z" --1 J 1 3 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 405 Site Number 405, occupying tax lot 600 in Township 19 South, Range 14 E.W.M., Section 4, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 17, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 405 comprises approximately 40 acres and is located on the old Bend -Burns Highway roughly two miles west of the east end of the road just east of the site of the Horse Ridge grade on Highway 20. The site is owned by the Oregon Department of Transportation and is currently zoned EFU-320 and WA. Adja- cent land is zoned EFU-320, SM, LM and WA. Most of the sur- rounding land is owned by the Bureau of Land Management. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and Deschutes County Ordinance 88-040, revising the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board on August 11, 1989, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 405 10 to i. 01 m 1914 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 150,000 cubic yards of aggregate gravel which meets the Oregon Department of Transportation standards. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is level, natural range land. Bordering the site is a large gravel pit which runs parallel to the road. The site is fenced and naturally vegetated with juniper and sagebrush. The old highway cuts through the site, and there are no utilities or improvements on the site. The site has been used for surface mining in the past. The road to the subject site is paved. Land in the surrounding area consists of undeveloped range land with no dwellings or other uses within one-half mile. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Resource Conflicts. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. The resource element of the County's comprehensive plan shows the site to fall within a designated deer winter range. 2. Open space and scenic values. The subject site in not within an LM zone. The Board finds that open space, wildlife habitat, and scenic resources conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence, all as set forth in the staff report, could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner set forth in the staff report that would adversely affect those Goal 5 resources. Land Use Conflicts. Land uses on the EFU-320 and SM zones surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board finds that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 405 =I) T 01 , 1915 physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, all such uses are conflicting in that full protec- tion of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. Farm and forest uses are conflicting uses in the sense that those uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activities on the site. In addition, farm uses on adjacent property involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. The Board finds that none of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses currently exist at the site or within the impact area. Further, the Board finds that such uses, with the exception of livestock grazing, are unlikely to occur due to the remoteness of the site and the fact that most of the surrounding land is in public ownership. The Board finds that the large minimum lot size of 320 acres would prevent any dense development near the site. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and antelope habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 405 i0l ^ 191G by those travelling Highway 20 who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on deer habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer and antelope for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortal- ity rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that quences of protecting the mineral resource natural resources would be to increase the tion at the site due to fuel expenditures heavy equipment and processing equipment a expended in transportation of the product Such energy use would be bound to occur in Aggregate is a resource that is needed in failure to protect the mineral resource at only mean that such energy use would occur Board finds generally that the energy cons allowing mining of sites convenient to hig and maintenance sites such as this one wou if such mining were not allowed, due to th tances involved in transporting aggregate use on Highway 20. the energy conse- over the other energy consump- needed to run the s well as the fuel to its end use. any event. the County and this site would elsewhere. The equences of not hway construction ld be greater than e greater dis- to the point of Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer and antelope habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competi- tion in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in the wide open spaces at the site could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 405 P'} Z0l 1917 year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per cubic yard per mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect such sites located along Highway 20 would result in increased costs for maintenance and construction on Highway 20 east of Bend. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 405 streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and deer and antelope habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be replicated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it along the highway 20 corridor would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of antelope and deer and their habitat are finite resources and loca- tionally dependent. Aggregate resources are in limited supply in the County and there is a need for the aggregate resources along the Highway 20 corridor for highway mainte- nance. Antelope and deer habitat are continually being lost to new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 405 10 It - 1919 While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve every- day transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the site and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of this site for surface mining. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts and likely to be few such conflicts in the future. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 405 X01 1910 positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 20 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensi- tive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of such surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limit- ing further surface mining activity due to noise regula- tions. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflict- ing uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the Goal 5 discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associ- ated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 405 � ()-1 ^ 1921 such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this and other sites along the Highway 20 corridor would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for upkeep and improvement of Highway 20 would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this remote site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the live span of such development. 22. Relative_ Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County and its location near its point of use, Highway 20. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource at the site in favor of the conflicting resources. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. Program to Meet the Goal 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 405 (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) The site shall not be operated from October 31 through March 31. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflictina Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting Goal 5 resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer and antelope herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not underway. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining- dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 405 _..& i i i-9. nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited closer than one-half mile to a SM zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance preclud- ing protest of any surface mining activities; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses are protected by the require- ment that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback require- ments, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 405 A i0l M 1924 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #405 1. MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 9/_0197. 2. MEMO TO CHUCK FROM CRAIG 3. INVENTORY SHEET 4. NOTIFICATION SHEET 5. SAMPLE TEST DATA SHEETS 6. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & MAP 7. STAFF REPORT 8. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 9. LETTER FROM WM. WALTON lo • 6b comm15s:iorar5 ly(� ry\tnu:b-ls ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 408 Site Number 408, occupying tax lot 1500 in Township 19 South, Range 16 E.W.M., Section 35, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 11, 1989. On October 17, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 408 comprises approximately 640 acres and is located approximately three miles west of Route 27 to Prineville and six and one-half miles east of Millican. The site is approx- imately one mile north of Highway 20. The site is owned by R. L. Coats and is currently zoned EFU-320. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-320. Most of the surrounding land is owned by State of Oregon and Bureau of Land Management. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and Deschutes County Ordinance 88-040, revising the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board on August 11, 1989, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 408 In addition, testimony was received from Norm Behrens of the Department of Fish and Wildlife who testified that this is a critical deer and antelope range. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has three million cubic yards of aggregate which meets the Oregon Department of Transpor- tation standards for base rock and asphalt. 2. Site Characteristics. The site is located within West Butte Ranch, approximately three miles west of Route 27 to Prineville and six and one-half miles east of Millican. The site is approximately one mile north of Highway 20. The subject site is on the northern edge of the Millican valley. The topography slopes up to the north and the site is on a hillside. This is an existing pit. However, there is no evidence in the record that it has ever had a site and reclamation plan approved by the Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. There are no dwelling units or other improvements within one-half mile of the subject site. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Resource Conflicts. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. The resource element of the County's comprehensive plan shows the site to fall within a designated antelope range, deer winter range and sage grouse range. 2. Open space and scenic values. The site is not within an LM zone. The Board finds that open space, wildlife habitat, and scenic resources conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence, all as set forth in the staff report, could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would impact wildlife, open space and 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 408 �0, �; �'�... "7 i('_;i - 19 '4i r scenic resources in a manner set forth in the staff report that would adversely affect those Goal 5 resources. Land Use Conflicts. Land uses on the EFU-320 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board finds that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, all such uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. Farm and forest uses are conflicting uses in the sense that those uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activi- ties on the site. In addition, farm uses on adjacent prop- erty involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. The Board finds that none of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses currently exist at the site or within the impact area. Further, the Board finds that such uses, with the exception of livestock grazing, are unlikely to occur due to the remoteness of the site and the fact that most of the surrounding land is in public ownership. The Board finds that the large minimum lot size of 320 acres would prevent any dense development near the site. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 4. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and antelope habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. 5. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily by those travelling Highway 20 who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 6. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on deer, antelope and sage grouse habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 408 ". i )`20 4 I ;,?1.1 '.1l 9 � b) available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer and antelope for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 7. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highway construction and maintenance sites such as this one would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distan- ces involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use on Highway 20. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 8. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer and antelope habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competi- tion in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in the wide open spaces at the site could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 408 the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per cubic yard per mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect such sites located along Highway 20 would result in increased costs for maintenance and construction on Highway 20 east of Bend. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 9. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 10. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 408 c ' 19 J 0 traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and deer and antelope habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be replicated by the actions of man. 11. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it along the highway 20 corridor would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 12. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of antelope and deer and their habitat are finite resources and loca- tionally dependent. Aggregate resources are in limited supply in the County and there is a need for the aggregate resources along the Highway 20 corridor for highway mainte- nance. Antelope and deer habitat are continually being lost to new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 13. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 408 11 tai "1 19 J., I appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve every- day transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the site and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of this site for surface mining. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 14. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and com- patibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmen- tal controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts and likely to be few such conflicts in the future. 15. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 20 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 408 t.J 19 31 2 surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 16. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 17. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensi- tive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of such surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limit- ing further surface mining activity due to noise regula- tions. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflict- ing uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 18. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the Goal 5 discussion above. 19. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts as- sociated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 408 habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 20. Enerqy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this and other sites along the Highway 20 corridor would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for upkeep and improvement of Highway 20 would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this remote site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the live span of such development. 21. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County and its location near its point of use, Highway 20. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource at the site in favor of the conflicting resources. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. Program to Meet the Goal 22. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 408 i.0 1 -:1934 (d) The site shall not be operated from October 31 through March 31. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 23. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting Goal 5 resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer and antelope herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not underway. Mineral Resource 24. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining- dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 25. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 408 h... would extend inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited closer than one-half mile to a SM zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance preclud- ing protest of any surface mining activities; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 26. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 27. Existing conflicting land uses are protected by the require- ment that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback require- ments, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 408 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #408 1. SET OF COVER INFORMATION SHEETS 2. SET OF MAPS 3. NOTIFICATION MAPS 4. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 5. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 6. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS `t. Ic.-ktcy itbm OAF w q-10-0 8. %oar -rte 06 Cornmit's•oners �Zarirq irtL' &w*tA `- &xLxd nnioa-b� 1.01 1936 A 01 1937 ESEE Findings and Decision Site Nos. 413 and 414 Site Numbers 413 and 414, occupying tax lot 1400 in Township 20 South, Range 15 E.W.M., Section 16, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 11, 1989. On October 17, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site numbers 413 and 414 comprises approximately 35 acres and is located at the base of Pine Mountain approximately two and one-half miles south of Highway 20 off of Pine Mountain Road. The site is owned by Deschutes County and is currently zoned SMR and WA. Adjacent land is zoned F-2, EFU-320 and WA. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and Deschutes County Ordinance 88-040, revising the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board on August 11, 1989, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 413 AMD 414 =1 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 30,000 cubic yards of aggregate gravel which meets the Oregon Department of Transportation quality standards for road base and asphalt. 2. Site Characteristics. The subject site slopes down to the north being on the northern flanks of Pine Mountain. There is a dry creek bed running through the site. The site is naturally vegetated with sagebrush and grasses. There are no improvements or utilities in the area. The area to the south of the site is Pine Mountain and to the north in the Millican valley. Land to the southeast and west is Deschutes National Forest. To the north, there are approx- imately 100 parcels ranging in size from five to ten acres. Approximately half of these parcels are within one-half mile of the subject site. There are no dwelling units located on these parcels at this time. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Resource Conflicts. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. The resource element of the County's comprehensive plan shows the site to fall within a designated deer winter range and antelope range. 2. Open space and scenic values. The subject property is not within an LM zone. However, the views from Highway 20 toward Pine Mountin are of scenic value. The Board finds that open space, wildlife habitat, and scenic resources conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence, all as set forth in the staff report, could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner set forth in the staff report that would adversely affect those Goal 5 resources. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 413 AMID 414 i f,s"3, -, :l.939 Land Use Conflicts. Land uses on the EFU-320 and F-2 zones surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board finds that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, all such uses are conflicting in that full protec- tion of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. Farm and forest uses are conflicting uses in the sense that those uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activities on the site. In addition, farm uses on adjacent property involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. The Board finds that none of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses currently exist at the site or within the impact area. Further, the Board finds that such uses, with the exception of livestock grazing, are unlikely to occur due to the remoteness of the site and the fact that most of the surrounding land is in public ownership. The Board finds that the large minimum lot size of 320 acres would prevent any dense development near the site. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 4. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and antelope habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. 5. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily by those travelling Highway 20 who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 6. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on deer and antelope habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competi- tion among deer and antelope for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 413 AMD 414 i0ll 1" 1940 find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competi- tion in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 7. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highway construction and maintenance sites such as this one would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distan- ces involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use on Highway 20. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 8. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer and antelope habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competi- tion in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in the wide open spaces at the site could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per cubic yard per mile. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 413 AMD 414 01 - 194 The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect such sites located along Highway 20 would result in increased costs for maintenance and construction on Highway 20 east of Bend. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 9. Social Conseguences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 10. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and deer and antelope habitat. Therefore, 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 413 AMID 414 01 194 2 protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be replicated by the actions of man. 11. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it along the highway 20 corridor would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 12. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of antelope and deer and their habitat are finite resources and loca- tionally dependent. Aggregate resources are in limited supply in the County and there is a need for the aggregate resources along the Highway 20 corridor for highway mainte- nance. Antelope and deer habitat are continually being lost to new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 13. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 413 AMD 414 o�i 19X13 The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve everyday transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the site and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of this site for surface mining. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 14. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and com- patibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmen- tal controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts and likely to be few such conflicts in the future. 15. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 20 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 413 AMID 414 } ;W;!r() °1944 16. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 17. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensi- tive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of such surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limit- ing further surface mining activity due to noise regula- tions. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflict- ing uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 18. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the Goal 5 discussion above. 19. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associ- ated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 413 AMID 414 x.0.1 - 1945 20. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this and other sites along the Highway 20 corridor would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for upkeep and improvement of Highway 20 would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this remote site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the live span of such development. 21. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County and its location near its point of use, Highway 20. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource at the site in favor of the conflicting resources. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. Program to Meet the Goal 22. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) The site shall not be operated from October 31 through March 31. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 413 AMD 414 , 101 1946 The Board finds that the recommendation of the Planning Commissioner, not to allow processing on this site, was not found to be objectionable to the property owner and there- fore, the Board concurs with the Planning Commission recom- mendation. No processing shall be allowed on this site. Conflicting Resources 23. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting Goal 5 resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer and antelope herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not underway. Mineral Resource 24. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining- dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 25. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 413 AMD 414 the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited closer than one-half mile to a SM zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance preclud- ing protest of any surface mining activities; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 26. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 27. Existing conflicting land uses are protected by the require- ment that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback require- ments, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 413 AMD 414 J TABLE OF CONTENTS i 01 1 - 19 4 8 SITE #413 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. NOTIFICATION MAPS 3. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL 4. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 5. RESOURCE INVENTORY SHEET 6. LETTER FROM PAT SMITH DATED 7/28/89 7. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 8. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 9. RESOURCE LEGEND INVENTORY io, o sone voaj ►►rcj rr1nu l's t� . 'fir. oa,rcl cAmrYi�s Cm TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #414 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. RESOURCE LIST 3. NOTIFICATION MAPS 4. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 5. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 6. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 7. COUNTY INVENTORY SHEET Co M rYiA s %Wl XS 6Akrt !f� PU-*wL� (a � ASS' S C�O.+C tsiOfl t'u.n.Zs , a 01 - 19`9 1 ESEE Findings and Decision 1950 Site Nos. 415, 416, 417, 418 and 419 Site Numbers 415, 416, 417, 418 and 419, occupying tax lots 700, 200, 900, 1000 and 1300 in Township 20 South, Range 17 E.W.M., Section 16, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 11, 1989. On October 17, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on these sites. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject sites, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that these sites should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site numbers 415 (5 acres), 416 (10 acres), 417 (3 acres), 418 (6 acres) and 419 (10 acres) are located on the north side of Highway 20 East at mile marker 38. These sites are owned by Deschutes County and currently zoned SM and LM. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-320, FP, LM and WA. These sites were identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the sites' inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone these sites under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggregate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and Deschutes County Ordinance 88-040, revising the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on these sites, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the sites' aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board on August 11, 1989, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental conse quences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NOS. 415, 416, 417, 418 AND 419 protecting the conflicting values or uses. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that site 415 has 30,000 cubic yards, site 416 has 30,000 cubic yards, site 417 has 20,000 cubic yards, site 418 has 30,000 cubic yards and site 419 has 30,000 cubic yards of aggregate. This aggregate meets the Oregon Department of Transportation quality standards for road base and asphalt. 2. Site Characteristics. This group of sites run along the north side of Highway 20 East and are on grade with the highway. The sites are level, natural land, vegetated with sagebrush and grasses. There are no improvements or utili- ties on the sites. The surrounding area is vacant range land. Access to the sites would be directly off of Highway 20 East. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Resource Conflicts. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified these sites for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. The resource element of the County's comprehensive plan shows the sites to fall within a designated antelope winter range and sage grouse range. 2. Open space and scenic values. The sites' zoning for LM shows a concern for scenic values along Highway 20. The Board finds that open space, wildlife habitat, and scenic resources conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence, all as set forth in the staff report, could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner set forth in the staff report that would adversely affect those Goal 5 resources. Land Use Conflicts. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NOS. 415, 416, 417, 418 AND 419 Land uses on the EFU-20 zone surrounding the sites are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board finds that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, all such uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. Farm and forest uses are conflicting uses in the sense that those uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activi- ties on the sites. In addition, farm uses on adjacent prop- erty involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. The Board finds that none of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses currently exist at the sites or within the impact area. Further, the Board finds that such uses, with the exception of livestock grazing, are unlikely to occur due to the remoteness of the sites and the fact that most of the surrounding land is in public ownership. The Board finds that the large minimum lot size of 320 acres would prevent any dense development near the sites. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 4. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and antelope habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the sites to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. 5. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily by those travelling Highway 20 who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 6. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on deer, antelope and sage grouse habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the sites, which would cause increased competition among deer and antelope for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NOS. 415, 416, 417, 418 AND 419 i ' 'f'1 L(.) I 1953 to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 7. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the sites due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at these sites would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highway construction and maintenance sites such as this one would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distan- ces involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use on Highway 20. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 8. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the sites. Deer and antelope habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competi- tion in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in the wide open spaces at the sites could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per cubic yard per 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NOS. 415, 416, 417, 418 AND 419 x �,'o;40 ri 0'1 - 19 J 4 mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that these particular sites standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect such sites located along Highway 20 would result in increased costs for maintenance and con- struction on Highway 20 east of Bend. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 9. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the sites could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 10. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NOS. 415, 416, 417, 418 AND 419 resources would preclude mining at the sites. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and deer and antelope habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be replicated by the actions of man. 11. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of these sites and others like it along the highway 20 corridor would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the sites would have negative energy consequences. 12. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of antelope and deer and their habitat are finite resources and loca- tionally dependent. Aggregate resources are in limited supply in the County and there is a need for the aggregate resources along the Highway 20 corridor for highway mainte- nance. Antelope and deer habitat are continually being lost to new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 13. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the sites. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NOS. 415, 416, 417, 418 AND 419 values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the sites is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve everyday transit of trucks to and -from the sites as would be the case with commercial sites. Allowing surface mining activities at these sites could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the sites and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of these sites for surface mining. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 14. Social Consequences. Preserving these sites for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and com- patibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmen- tal controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts and likely to be few such conflicts in the future. 15. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving these sites for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 20 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NOS. 415, 416, 417, 418 AND 419 mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 16. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the sites for mining would have negative environmental consequences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 17. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensi- tive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of such surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limit- ing further surface mining activity due to noise regula- tions. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflict- ing uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 18. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of these sites would be the same as those under the Goal 5 discussion above. 19. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the sites. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts as- sociated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as these that are largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NOS. 415, 416, 417, 418 AND 419 X01 -1958 on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values -could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 20. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at these and other sites along the Highway 20 corridor would create greater energy consump- tion because the mineral and aggregate resources for upkeep and improvement of Highway 20 would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at these remote sites would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the live span of such development. 21. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County and its location near its point of use, Highway 20. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource at the sites in favor of the conflicting resources. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at these sites. Program to Meet the Goal 22. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the sites will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NOS. 415, 416, 417, 418 AND 419 101 - 19b9 dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) The sites shall not be operated from October 31 through March 31. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 23. The Board finds that surface mining use of the sites will be limited by conflicting Goal 5 resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the sites will offer protection for deer and antelope herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the sites will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not underway. Mineral Resource 24. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the sites SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining- dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 25. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NOS. 415, 416, 417, 418 AND 419 L 0 nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited closer than one-half mile to a SM zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance preclud- ing protest of any surface mining activities; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 26. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the sites for surface mining and protecting the sites from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 27. Existing conflicting land uses are protected by the require- ment that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback require- ments, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NOS. 415, 416, 417, 418 AND 419 CCN i8 it A ,01 - 1961 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #416 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. RESOURCE LEGEND INVENTORY 3. NOTIFICATION MAPS 4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL 5. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 6. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS 7. MYALR OF TOPO MAP 9. -&64d [d Cc mn�ti�gS�On¢� S bL4 s %a n ml c%%j=L*.s L�Cf+ie�`r,4 . t�a 19 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #416 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. RESOURCE SHEET 3. LEGAL DESCRIPTION 4. NOTIFICATION MAPS 5. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 6. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP �. -t lann'tnj reccrnme-ndakion -bow-d O� Gb r�nr� tiss`�o r s has. `► n� v , n u.;k4-S q. 30acd ob n-►%nw±..s i X T A 0411I-) pAoyW490zygWykill SITE #417 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. RESOURCE INVENTORY SHEET 3. NOTIFICATION MAPS 4. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 5. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 6. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION -7. -6°a4 O hca-i nq rr 4A" -i s Iot � 1963 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #418 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. RESOURCE INVENTORY SHEET 3. LEGAL DESCRIPTION 4. NOTIFICATION MAPS 5. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 6. ADDENDUM TO STAFF REPORT 7. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 8. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP i o I " _1964 W. .Lot - 1965 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 419 Site Number 419, occupying tax lot 1300 in Township 20 South, Range 17, Section 16, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (Board) for hearing on August 11, 1989. On October 17, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 419 comprises approximately 3 acres and is located along the north side of Highway 20 East, approximately two miles east of Route 27, the Prineville cut-off, at mile marker 38. The site is owned by Deschutes County and is cur- rently zoned Surface Mining and Landscape Management Combining. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and Deschutes County Ordinance 88-040, revising the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board on August 11, 1989, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 419 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 30,000 cubic yards of good to excellent quality gravel. 2. Site Characteristics. The site is essential level, natural land with no special views. The site is on grade with the highway and appears to have adequate drainage. The site is natural vegetated with sagebrush and grasses. There are no improvements or utilities on the site. The surrounding area is vacant range land. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Resource Conflicts. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this are as being an antelope, mule deer and sage grouse use area. The resource element of the County's comprehensive plan shows the site to fall within a designation of a big game sensitive area for deer winter range and antelope range. 2. Open space and scenic values. The site's zoning for LM . shows a concern for scenic values along Highway 20. The Board finds that open space, wildlife habitat, and scenic resources conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence, all as set forth in the staff report, could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner set forth in the staff report that would adversely affect those Goal 5 resources. Land Use Conflicts. Land uses on the EFU-320 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board finds that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, all such uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. Farm 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 419 L011 1967 and forest uses are conflicting uses in the sense that those uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activi- ties on the site. In addition, farm uses on adjacent prop- erty involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. The Board finds that none of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses currently exist at the site or within the impact area. Further, the Board finds that such uses, with the exception of livestock grazing, are unlikely to occur due to the remoteness of the site and the fact that most of the surrounding land is in public ownership. The Board finds that the large minimum lot size of 320 acres would prevent any dense development near the site. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 4. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and antelope habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. 5. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily by those travelling Highway 20 who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 6. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on deer, antelope and sage grouse habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer and antelope for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 419 man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 7. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highway construction and maintenance sites such as this one would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater dis- tances involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use on Highway 20. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 8. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer and antelope habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competi- tion in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in the wide open spaces at the site could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per cubic yard per mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 419 quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect such sites located along Highway 20 would result in increased costs for maintenance and construction on Highway 20 east of Bend. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 9. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 10. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and deer and antelope habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be replicated by the actions of man. 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 419 10-1 19,10 11. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it along the highway 20 corridor would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 12. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of antelope and deer and their habitat are finite resources and loca- tionally dependent. Aggregate resources are in limited supply in the County and there is a need for the aggregate resources along the Highway 20 corridor for highway mainte- nance. Antelope and deer habitat are continually being lost to new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 13. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 419 rM l9 " everyday transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the site and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of this site for surface mining. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 14. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and com- patibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmen- tal controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts and likely to be few such conflicts in the future. 15. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 20 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 16. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 17. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensi- 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 419 tive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of such surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limit- ing further surface mining activity due to noise regula- tions. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflict- ing uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 18. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the Goal 5 discussion above. 19. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associ- ated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 20. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this and other sites along the Highway 20 corridor would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for upkeep and improvement of Highway 20 would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this remote site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the live span of such development. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 419 10.1 - 1973 21. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County and its location near its point of use, Highway 20. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource at the site in favor of the conflicting resources. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. Program to Meet the Goal 22. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) The site shall not be operated from October 31 through March 31. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflictina Resources 23. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting Goal 5 resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer and antelope herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 419 '14 buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not underway. Mineral Resource 24. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining- dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 25. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited closer than one-half mile to a SM zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance preclud- ing protest of any surface mining activities; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 419 1 9 Y J The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 26. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 27. Existing conflicting land uses are protected by the require- ment that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback require- ments, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 419 1 fAt f TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #419 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. LEGAL DESCRIPTION 3. RESOURCE INFORMATION SHEET 4. NOTIFICATION MAPS 5. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 6. ADDENDUM TO STAFF REPORT 7. MYLAR OF TOPO MAPS S. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION .�4. ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 421 Site Number 421, occupying tax lot 900 in Township 21 South, Range 20 E.W.M., came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 11, 1989. On October 17, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 421 comprises approximately 500 acres and is located on the "Barbwire Ranch" east of Harmon Road, approxi- mately one and one-half miles north of Highway 20. The site is owned by R. L. Coats and is currently zoned EFU-320. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-320. Most of the surrounding land is owned by R. L. Coats and BLM. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and Deschutes County Ordinance 88-040, revising the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board on August 11, 1989, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 421 m A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 500,000 cubic yards of excellent quality gravel which has been used in the past as base rock and asphalt rock for state highway projects. 2. Site Characteristics. The site consists of approximately 40 acres of a 1600 -acre ranch. The immediately surrounding area in natural scrub land vegetated with juniper trees, sagebrush and grasses. The owner has a barn and two dwell- ings on the subject property, however, no neighboring dwellings are within the impact area. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Resource Conflicts. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range, antelope range and special wildlife consideration. The resource element of the County's comprehensive plan shows the site to fall within a designated deer winter range and antelope range. 2. Open space and scenic values. There are no high scenic values on the subject site since it is over two miles from Highway 20. The Board finds that open space, wildlife habitat, and scenic resources conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence, all as set forth in the staff report, could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner set forth in the staff report that would adversely affect those Goal 5 resources. Land Use Conflicts. Land uses on the EFU-320 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board finds that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 421 all such uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. Farm and forest uses are conflicting uses in the sense that those uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activi- ties on the site. In addition, farm uses on adjacent prop- erty involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. The Board finds that none of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses currently exist at the site or within the impact area. Further, the Board finds that such uses, with the exception of livestock grazing, are unlikely to occur due to the remoteness of the site and the fact that most of the surrounding land is in public ownership. The Board finds that the large minimum lot size of 320 acres would prevent any dense development near the site. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could Possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and antelope habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily by those travelling Highway 20 who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 421 10 .1 ~ 1980 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on deer and antelope habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competi- tion among deer and antelope for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competi- tion in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. B. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that quences of protecting the mineral resource natural resources would be to increase the tion at the site due to fuel expenditures heavy equipment and processing equipment a expended in transportation of the product Such energy use would be bound to occur in Aggregate is a resource that is needed in failure to protect the mineral resource at only mean that such energy use would occur Board finds generally that the energy cons allowing mining of sites convenient to hig and maintenance sites such as this one wou if such mining were not allowed, due to th tances involved in transporting aggregate use on Highway 20. the energy conse- over the other energy consump- needed to run the s well as the fuel to its end use. any event. the County and this site would elsewhere. The equences of not hway construction ld be greater than e greater dis- to the point of Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer and antelope habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competi- tion in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in the wide open spaces at the site could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 421 101 - 1981 resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per cubic yard per mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect such sites located along Highway 20 would result in increased costs for maintenance and construction on Highway 20 east of Bend. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 421 social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and deer and antelope habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be replicated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it along the highway 20 corridor would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of antelope and deer and their habitat are finite resources and loca- tionally dependent. Aggregate resources are in limited supply in the County and there is a need for the aggregate resources along the Highway 20 corridor for highway mainte- nance. Antelope and deer habitat are continually being lost to new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 421 ?,04 1983 of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve everyday transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the site and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of this site for surface mining. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts and likely to be few such conflicts in the future. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 421 such resources. Haul distances to the area would be minimized. To th mining would preclude or discourage surrounding rural lands, the energy likewise be positive. Highway 20 repair jobs in e extent that surface development of the consequences would 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensi- tive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of such surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limit- ing further surface mining activity due to noise regula- tions. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflict- ing uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the Goal 5 discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associ- ated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 421 4 :_ .? BITE 11" 1985 on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this and other sites along the Highway 20 corridor would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for upkeep and improvement of Highway 20 would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this remote site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the live span of such development. 22. Relative Values of AQQreaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County and its location near its point of use, Highway 20. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource at the site in favor of the conflicting resources. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. Program to Meet the Goal 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 421 o I - 198G (d) The site shall not be operated from October 31 through March 31. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting Goal 5 resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer and antelope herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not underway. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and.other mining- dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in -the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 421 f would extend inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited closer than one-half mile to a SM zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance preclud- ing protest of any surface mining activities; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses are protected by the require- ment that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback require- ments, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 421 �Xffi B IF A TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #421 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. SET OF MAPS 3. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 3/27/81 4. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 3/10/77 5. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 6. NOTIFICATION MAPS 7. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 8. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP i of - 1989 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 423 Site Number 423, occupying tax lot 700 in Township 21, Range 11 E.W.M., Section 6C, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 10, 1989. On October 12, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines, with Commis- sioner Maudlin dissenting, that this site should not be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 423 comprises approximately 9 acres, and is located on the west side of Huntington Road, approximately one- half mile north the intersection with LaPine State Park Road. The site is owned by Ray Rothbard and is zoned SMR and LM. Surrounding property is zoned RR -10, FP and LM. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of 2protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 423 -,1s,-3) 101 1990 In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife regarding wildlife values for the site; from Ray Rothbard and from nearby residents of the site. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventorv. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 200,000 cubic yards of good quality rock. During the ESEE hearing both Ray Rothbard corrected the staff report in indicating the amount of material on the site was 200,000 and not 20,000 origin- ally indicated. The Board's inventory findings on this site are set forth in the inventory ordinance, Deschutes County Ordinance No. 90-025. A site and reclamation plan dated April 26, 1978, was filed with DOGAMI by Darrell L. Steven- son, former owner of the subject property. This report estimates the quantity of material on the site as 150,000 cubic yards. This states that the overburden depth is approximately three feet and bases the approximate depth of the mine on the fact that the resource lies between three feet and sixteen feet in depth. The testimony of Ray Rothbard, the owner, stated that that site contained 200,000 cubic yards of sand and gravel. Removal of 3 inches of overburden and excavation of the entire nine -acre site to a depth of sixteen inches would yield 188,760 cubic yards of material. 2. Site Characteristics. The site is located between the Little Deschutes River and Huntington Road. There is a small existing gravel pit which is roughly ten feet deep and less than one acre in size. There are views from Huntington Road of the Cascade Mountains. The site backs to the floodplain of the Little Deschutes River and is slightly higher in elevation. The site has been cleared of trees. There is a small older home on the property with a storage building and shed. Directly to the south bordering this site is undeveloped land. To the east within 250 feet of Huntington Road, there are several residential properties. The site is located in a primarily residential area of rural LaPine. There are conflicting reports in the file as to the depth of the water table. One DOGAMI on-site inspection report dated June 6, 1978, indicates that there is a water table on the site between six and seven feet below the local surface and in the winter, between 10 and 12 feet from the surface. This also indicates that there is an artesian aquifer at 30 feet under the site. A subsequent report of May 12, 1989, indicates that the water table appears to be about 12 feet in depth. This on-site inspection report of Frank Schnitzer indicates that turbidity may be a problem 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 423 0 1901 during mining if the excavation area is not de -watered during the mining process. This points out that DOGAMI was concerned about the potential effect on wells of adjoining properties. The report indicates that the potential problem could be avoided by de -watering the excavation into a nearby excavated pond on the property. The report also indicates that the existing mining site is less than one acre and 5,000 cubic yards and therefore is not considered subject to DOGAMI regulation. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this area as being a sensitive wildlife area. Its proximity to the Little Deschutes River increases its value as important wildlife habitat. ODF&W has also identified the site as having medium - sensitive raptor use. Area residents testified that red-tailed hawks, sharp -shinned hawks, and bald eagles have been observed in the area. 2. Open space values. The site's zoning as LM indicates important open space values. Open space enhances the scenic views from this area toward the Cascades and habitat for deer and other wildlife. The area is in two landscape management combining zones which includes the LM zone along the Little Deschutes River and along Pengra-Huntington Road. Views of the Cascades from Huntington Road would be impacted from the site. 3. Water Quality. The shallow aquifer (6 to 12 feet) and artesian aquifer at 30 feet identified in the DOGAMI report of June 6, 1978, identifies a potential con- flict. Residential development in the surrounding area uses this shallow aquifer for domestic purposes. Further, the site is near the Little Deschutes River. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Open space values are impacted by the removal of over- burden, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the presence of machinery on the site, the building of infrastructure, such as access 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 423 1992 roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. Testimony from area residents raised the concern that fugitive dust emissions from the site and trucks hauling material away from the site could interfere with the views of the Cascades. 2. Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by surface distur- bance and construction of structures and access roads, and an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site. In addition, the board finds that the nature of the aggregate at the site would require extensive blasting. The impact of all this would generally be to displace deer from such areas. 3. Water quality concerns were raised by area residents and DOGAMI. The Board finds no evidence to contradict these concerns. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, dust, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife and open space values and water quality in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses on the FP and the RR -10 zone at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the zones at and surrounding the site would include: 1. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting and processing) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust -sensitive uses in the zone. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone would be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, geothermal uses, landfill uses, personal landing strips, and other mining uses. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 423 _j [a -1 - 19 9 3 2. A petition signed by seven neighborhood residents and two other letters in opposition express concern about unwanted truck noise due to increased traffic, rock crushing and related surface mining activities. 3. The impact on aesthetic values due to the physical scarring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. Several residents spoke to the fact that they chose to purchase homesites in this area due to the natural beauty of the area. 4. Occupation of the surface area of the site in a manner that would displace other uses allowed or conditionally permitted in the zone. This could impact all uses in the RR -10 zone, except that agricultural uses could be made on the unexcavated portions of the property. The Board finds that, accounting for the above -listed impacts, all possible uses in the zone are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining or severely restrict surface mining at the site. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses, only residential uses presently occur. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 4. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat and open space do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. 5. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and would impact open space values. The social consequences of such impacts would be the reduced wildlife viewing opportunities to area residents and the negative impacts on open space values from fugitive dust. 6. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 423 1.011 1904 consequences on wildlife habitat and open space. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wild- life would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associ- ated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. Testimony received indicates a fear that the potential for contamination of underground water is a concern which has not been addressed. This issue is raised by DOGAMI report of May 12, 1989. 7. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that preservation of this site would likely have overall positive energy consequences due to the fact that this site is located close to development activities in the LaPine area. There are two other surface mining sites (sites 426 and 427) with 1,040,000 yards of aggregate resource within three miles of the subject site. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 8. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 423 The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Consequently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs provided that enough other sites are preserved to meet the county's aggregate needs. The Board finds that the aggre- gate source at this site is not significant considering the availability of rock in the surrounding area. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. This would become a factor only if the County failed to protect enough sites to sustain the aggregate industry. 9. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. Roads and highways in the area would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 10. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of open space and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggre- gate resource, wildlife resources and open space resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 423 iol 996 11. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site could involve increased haulage distances of aggregate materials to the development projects occurring in the LaPine area. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would therefore more likely than not have negative energy consequences. 12. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources The Board finds that the natural resources values at the site are relatively more important than the aggregate resource based on the following facts: a. The proximity of the site to the Little Deschutes River and the fact that it is within an LM zone create conflicting resource uses which are relatively more important than the aggregate. b. The high water table in the area and the potential for contamination of underground water appears to be very high at the site due to the water table which is from between 6 and 12 feet below the surface. The value of the resource is further diminished by the fact that mining above the water table would significantly reduce the amount of material available from this small (9 acre) site since the file indicates the overburden is three feet deep. Evidence (see inventory and site characteristics above) indicates that the entire nine acres would need to be excavated to a depth of over sixteen feet to develop the site and produce the total amount of resource which the owner indicates is located on the site. Mining below the water table not only creates potential water quality problems, but also significantly limits the amount of resource available. As part of the on- site inspection report of May 12, 1989, DOGAMI requires 25 -foot setbacks from property lines and 3 -foot to 1 - foot slopes for excavated areas. This report also indicates ponds would be necessary for dewatering the are during the mining process. The 25 -foot setbacks, 3 -foot to 1 -foot slopes and dewatering ponds would significantly reduce the quantity of the resource. Based upon these facts, the relative value of water quality outweighs the resource value. C. The Board has taken action at other sites that protects sufficient amounts of aggregate resources to meet the county's aggregate needs. d. Deer habitat in the County is continually shrinking in the face of new development. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 423 5 rpt A Therefore, Board finds that the conflicting resources values should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(2) the conflicting natural resource values should be fully protected at the expense of the aggregate resource. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 13. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. The Board finds that while the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of sur- rounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transi- tional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 14. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. Based upon the testimony offered by area residents, the Board finds that the livability of the area would be negatively impacted by the noise, blasting, and fugitive dust produced by the proposed surface mine. The Board finds that the impacts of truck traffic will have a 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 423 19 significant negative impact on the area by increasing truck traffic on Huntington Road. 15. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals could have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to development sites in the LaPine area would compare favorably with haul distances from other sources in the County. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 16. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 13 above. In addition, the Board finds that there is a serious con- cern, unanswered by Mr. Rothbard, about what effect the mining operations might have on the high water table in the area. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 17. Economic Consequences. The Board's finding in this respect is the same as that set forth in paragraph 9 above. 18. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 19. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site were to be developed, such development, could also have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. 20. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for developments in the LaPine area would have to come from sites located further away. However, the location 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 423 J 'I! of two sites with 1,040,000 cubic yards within three miles of this site tends to minimize energy consequences. 21. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that the conflicting land uses are relatively more important than the aggregate resource. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a) - (d) from the paragraph 12 above; b. Existing residential uses are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commit- ment is accompanied by economic, quality of life and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronize those uses. Accordingly, the Board determines pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 that it will fully protect the conflicting land uses, in particular the residential uses, at the expense of the of the mineral resource at the site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 22. The Board finds that in order to protect the conflicting wildlife resources, water quality of the shallow aquifer and the conflicting land uses, the site will not be zoned for surface mining. This should not prevent the achievement of Goal 5 concerns about protecting aggregate resources, as the Board finds that through its approval actions on other aggregate sites, it has protected a total of 40,472,000 cubic yards of aggregate, which combined with the amount of aggregate available from sites inside the Urban Growth Boundary, is sufficient to meet the County's needs. The Board also finds that the 1,040,000 cubic yards of aggregate located within three miles of the site is sufficient to meet needs in the immediate area. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 423 96) EvWbT A 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. S. 9. 10`. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. i0l �ouo TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #423 COVER INFORMATION SHEET SET OF MAPS GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/10/87 GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 11/25/86 REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 11/19/86 LETTER FROM RAY ROTHBARD DATED 6/5/86 LETTER FROM E. FRANK SCHNITZER DATED 2/28/86 LETTER FROM EUGENE C. VENN DATED 10/30/78 LETTER FROM EUGENE C. VENN DATED 10/12/78 INVESTIGATION REPORT DATED 10/8/82 EXHIBIT SCHEDULE DATED 10/5/78 CHECK LIST FOR NOTIFICATION MAPS LOOK UP SHEET NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING DATED 10/5/78 APPLICANTS REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE DATED - 10/26/78 LETTER FROM WILLIAM D. OKRENT DATED 8/10/78 LETTER FROM ROBERT F. FREE 8/8/78 LETTER FROM EUGENE C. VENN DATED 6/15/78 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING DATED 6/13/78 REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 6/6/78 APPLICATION FOR OPERATING PERMIT DATED 4/20/78 1 -$. 1,� 4 I, 0z - 0001 22. EXHIBIT A - STAFF REPORT 23. LETTER FROM PHILIP E. PASCHKE TO WILLIAM D. OKRENT 24. MEMO FROM WILLIAM G. MONROE 25. PROOF OF LABOR DATED 12/12/77 26. EXHIBIT B - LETTER TO WILLIAM D. OKRENT 27. EXHIBIT C - LETTER TO D.L. STEVENSON 28. EXHIBIT D - REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 6/6/78 29. EXHIBIT E - SURFACE MINING PURPOSE & DEFINITIONS 30. EXHIBIT F - LETTER TO DAYL L. STEVENSON 31. FASANO REQUIREMENTS & RATIONALE 32. ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION 33. MISCELLANEOUS NOTES 34. STAFF NOTES 35. LETTER TO CHUJICIKMCGRAW FROM R. ROTHBARD DATED 7/18/88 36. DOGAMI GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/8/88 37. LETTER FROM SHERRI CHRISTOFFERSON DATED 1/27/89 38. BLM RECEIPT OF MINING CLAIM DATED 3/10/89 39. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 40. NOTIFICATION MAPS 41. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 42. LETTER FROM COALITION FOR THE DESCHUTES 8/11/89 43. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 44. LETTER WEBSTER 8/8/89 45. LETTER VIRGIL MOORE 8/16/89 KA� 4 0z - 0001 22. EXHIBIT A - STAFF REPORT 23. LETTER FROM PHILIP E. PASCHKE TO WILLIAM D. OKRENT 24. MEMO FROM WILLIAM G. MONROE 25. PROOF OF LABOR DATED 12/12/77 26. EXHIBIT B - LETTER TO WILLIAM D. OKRENT 27. EXHIBIT C - LETTER TO D.L. STEVENSON 28. EXHIBIT D - REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 6/6/78 29. EXHIBIT E - SURFACE MINING PURPOSE & DEFINITIONS 30. EXHIBIT F - LETTER TO DAYL L. STEVENSON 31. FASANO REQUIREMENTS & RATIONALE 32. ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION 33. MISCELLANEOUS NOTES 34. STAFF NOTES 35. LETTER TO CHUJICIKMCGRAW FROM R. ROTHBARD DATED 7/18/88 36. DOGAMI GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 9/8/88 37. LETTER FROM SHERRI CHRISTOFFERSON DATED 1/27/89 38. BLM RECEIPT OF MINING CLAIM DATED 3/10/89 39. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 40. NOTIFICATION MAPS 41. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 42. LETTER FROM COALITION FOR THE DESCHUTES 8/11/89 43. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 44. LETTER WEBSTER 8/8/89 45. LETTER VIRGIL MOORE 8/16/89 KA� 46. LETTER HEINZ 8/4/89 47. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION 9/20/89 48. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION 5/12/89 5O bmrd 06comm'issioness heac%n� m�n�,-S 51. i �, 06 cdmrri4lst0rteXs decls1001 ry:t res 561. (e -Of lom, (may N)+hbar -z3-F5� 5,5 . -Doc r t e �^ did ?-3o-2f/ 01 till - 000 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 426/427 Site Numbers 426 and 427, occupying tax lots 702 and 701 respectively, in Township 21 South, Range 11 E.W.M., Section 18, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 12, 1989, the Board made a prelimi- nary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 426/427 comprises approximately 18 acres and is located one-half mile east of Highway 97 between LaPine and Sunriver, just north of the Paulina Lake Road intersection with Highway 97. The site is owned by LaPine Redi-Mix (426) and Bill Bagley (427) and is currently zoned SM (426) and SMR (427). Adjacent private land is zoned SMR. Except for the SMR -zoned land to the north, the surrounding land is in public ownership. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 426/427 protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife and Lynn Bettleyouen, operator of the sites. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that these sites have 1,040,000 cubic yards of good quality aggregate. 2. Site Characteristics. This site consists of two operating sand and gravel pits located on level terrain just one-half to the east of Highway 97. It is surrounded entirely by Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land, except for an SMR -zoned parcel to the north. Tax lot 703 of the SMR -zoned property is occupied by a log home manufactur- ing operation; tax lot 700 is cleared and vacant. Site 427 is currently operating illegally and would need a zone change and site plan to operate legally. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Goal 5 Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site as being in a deer migration route. The site is immediately adjacent to sites identified on the comprehensive plan as being deer migration corridors. 2. Scenic values. The site's LM zoning indicates a concern for protection of the scenery along the Highway 97 corridor. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the presence of machinery on 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 426/427 `'_ 0;1 - 0005 the site, the building of infrastructure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. The concern here is with impacting views from Highway 97. (2) Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by surface distur- bance and construction of structures and access roads, an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses on the SM and SMR zone at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The log home manufacturing operation is a nonconforming use in the SMR zone. There are no other conflicting uses at the site from the standpoint of Deschutes County zoning, given that Deschutes County has no power to regulate uses on the surrounding federal land. Given that tax lots 700 and 703 have not been identified as mineral sites on the County's inventory, the current SMR zoning for those sites will likely revert to the surrounding F-2 zoning. It is therefore appropriate to consider what conflicts may arise on those lots under F-2 zoning. Such conflicts would be minimal or non-existent since there is only one tax lot available for further development, the range of uses in the F-2 zone is limited (in this case, uses would be even more narrow given that there is no timber on the site) and the existing adjoining use is a manufacturing use. Therefore, the Board finds that land use conflicts in this case would be minimal. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 426/427 0006 permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Site 427 is operating illegally and would obviously need a zone change to be able to continue. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large un- sightly areas in the county. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Continued surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and enlarge a visual disturbance in the landscape. The social conse- quences would be felt primarily by those travelling along Highway 97 to the extent the site is visible from the road. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that zoning for continued surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mor- tality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 426/427 J ija U0U 7 part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that this site is located in close proximity to Highway 97 to the west and that the site would be conven- iently situated as a source for materials in any ongoing maintenance or construction in the area. The Board finds that there are no other significant sources of aggregate in the southern part of the County. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highway construction and maintenance sites such as this one would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in such an area of level terrain could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 426/427 wl 0003 amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect sites such as this that are close to major roadways with easy access would result in increased costs for highway maintenance and construction costs. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. Roads and highways in the area would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and fish and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 426/427 mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man although conflicts can be mitigated in cases such as this where views of the site are filtered by trees. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: (a) Adequate local supplies of aggregate are important to the economy of Deschutes County. (b) Aggregate resources are a locationally-dependent resource and are in limited supply in the County; at 1.0 million cubic yards, this site is among the largest aggregate sites on the inventory. (c) This site is well located to provide aggregate for highway 97 construction jobs and there are few other aggregate sites in the area. (d) Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. (e) Preserving scenic views along Highway 97 is important in that Highway 97 is a heavily travelled highway through the County. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 426/427 02 -A 0010 commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. Given the minimal amount of private land sur- rounding the site and that most of the concerns about property values are focused on residential properties, which do not predominate in this area,.market concerns would not be of great consequence in any event. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transi- tional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would not have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area, since the existing use is a manufacturing one other possible uses are limited. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 97 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 426/427 r Ki A.a Z 0011 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12- 18 of 10 million cubic yards and Willamette Industries' Sites 441-443) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggre- gate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. Protection of conflicting land uses, if any, would have negative economic consequences, given the large amount of aggregate at the site and the minimal amount of private development possible nearby. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, such positive consequences would be of little benefit in a site such as this that has few conflicts. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resour- ces for upkeep and improvement of Highway 97 in the northern part of the County would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 426/427 J. t k l) UU12 22. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development the mineral resource is more important than any conflicting uses and subject to the limitations place on the site due to Goal 5 conflicts, should be fully protected. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting Goal 5 uses, the site will be zoned for mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife conditions as set forth in their august 10, 1989, letter identifying this site for deer winter range and special wildlife treatment. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflictina Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter processing limitations will offer protection for deer herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering require- ments in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter processing limitations will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not typically underway. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 426/427 1. 0013 Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than 1/4 mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 426/427 IN 001 4 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 426/427 C I B I `_C, TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #426 1. INVENTORY SHEETS 2. MAP 3. MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 4/7/88 4. MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 3/10/87 5. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 11/18/86 6. PAGE 2 OF SURFACE MINE PROPERTY OWNER LETTER DATED 6/9/86 7. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 3/25/85 8. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 3/19/85 9. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 3/13/84 10. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 3/16/83 11. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 6/16/83 12. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 3/16/82 13. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 3/3/82 14. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 4/1/81 15. LETTER FROM T. MATTHEWS ON QUALITY & QUANITY 6/27/88 16. NOTIFICATION MAP 17. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT TC 702 18. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT TC 700 19. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMENDATION 20. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 21. REPORT ON-SITE INSPECTION 5/12/89 Z3 iso Comm►inners de��5ion m�n��,tz s 2� • mud Cd mrrik6L_.'r0Wrs hlJWCx en nuLkL.-S U 01 EX N(B � i� TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #427 +wl ;_11. - 0 01 G 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. SET OF MAPS 3. LETTER TO BILL BAGLEY DATED 5/15/86 4. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 10/14/83 5. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 6/14/82 6. GRANT OF TOTAL EXEMPTION ISSUED 6/23/82 7. REPORT OF ON SITE INSPECTION DATED 6/28/88 8. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 9. NOTIFICATION MAPS 10. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 11. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 12. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION 5/12/89 13. Lam m b DF+LA-) al - lo -sl iy . t�oac� p Cprn �M t5sto c12.1`5 "8'n (got rYi��nw' .� 15. .�cd � l.Orr,rYi l �S(d R� de_ct sup n �n-i,nu.�Li lard ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 432 Site Number 432, occupying a portion of tax lot 1500 in Township 22 South, Range 11 E.W.M., came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing in August, 1989. On October 27, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 432 comprises approximately 5.85 acres and is located on the southwest flank of Finley Butte, east of LaPine. The site is owned by the State of Oregon Highway Department and is zoned F-2. Adjacent land is zoned F-2. The site is entirely surrounded for Forest Service Land. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 432 � () -, 0015 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 160,000 cubic yards of cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This is a small site located on the flanks of Finley Butte in southeast LaPine. Access to the site is off Forest Service Road #2210. This site is located along the south flanks of Finley Butte. The butte slopes off steeply to the south and west in the area of mining. The cinder pit is located along the lower half of the butte. No special views were noted from the bottom of the site. Drainage in the area appears adequate. The site is within the Deschutes National Forest. No wildlife or improvements were noted. There are electrical lines running across the top of the butte. Maps indicate that there is a rail line to the north side of the butte, however no railroad tracks were noted. The site is within the national forest. Within one-half mile of the site is all natural forest land. The site is only visible from the roads which are directly adjacent to the butte. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site as being in a deer migration route. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by surface distur- bance and use of access roads, an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site and human presence and noise. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas or impede migration. Due to the intermittent use of this existing site, however, the effects of traffic, noise, 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 432 ._JC 0010 and human presence may not be as great as if the site were used continually. The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are no water sources at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the F-2 at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. As the site is surrounded entirely by Forest Service land over which the County has zoning control, no further conflicts analysis is needed for land use purposes. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 432 _ . _t L J �_) - 0020 Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that cinders are used primarily for highway maintenance, that this site is located in close proximity to and with good access to Highway 126 and Highway 20, and consequently that the site would be conveniently situated as a source for materials in any ongoing highway maintenance or construction in the area requiring cinders. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highways and highway main- tenance sites would be greater than if such mining were not 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 432 I allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transport- ing cinders to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of social consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 432 a i:l 0 0 2 factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the cinder resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for lower quality road maintenance materials and provide a substitute source for some uses for the more valuable sand and gravel resource. b. Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource and are, this site is one of the larger cinder sources on the inventory. C. This site is well located to provide aggregate for highway maintenance on Highways 97. d. This site is already in existence. e. Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of cinder as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 432 4 mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. [Given that most of the concerns about property values are focused on residential properties, which do not predominate in this area, market concerns would not be of great consequence in any event.] The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 432 Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con- flicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 432 „. d►:1� UU25 22. Relative Values of Cinder Resource and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. The extraction area shall be limited to 5 acres at one time, with ongoing incremental reclamation; d. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 432 _.i �. 10? - 002U e. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the cinder resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 432 4 Aa' I .rt J.02 -- 001-' waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 432 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #432 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. MAP 3. MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT 4. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 5/28/86 5. LETTER FROM E. FRANK SCHNITZER DATED 5/15/85 6. LETTER FROM E. FRANK SCHNITZER DATED 5/15/85 7. APPRAISERS INFO & STAFF REPORT 8. INFO SHEET & LOCATION MAP - HEARING NOTICE c1, �kx.3C� G CGrnrrl�iOn24� �led�ifX� m,:�� b<_ f'l 0029 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 433 Site Number 433, occupying tax lot 101, in Township 21 South, Range 13 E.W.M., Section 30, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 12, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should not be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 433 comprises approximately 157 acres on the side of a pumice cone in Newberry Crater between East and Paulina Lakes. The site is owned by LaPine Pumice Co. and is currently zoned OS&C. The site is entirely surrounded by Deschutes National Forest Land, which is zoned OS&C and LM. This site was identified as containing lump pumice in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggregate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, the report of an appraiser hired by the County to view the site and describe it and its surroundings was entered into the record. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 433 A JO Testimony was received from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and from a representative of LaPine Pumice. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 10 million cubic yards of lump pumice. This resource is located in a patented mining claim on the side of a pumice cone inside Newberry Crater. Testimony at the ESEE hearings also indicates that the amount of pumice at the site might be substantially more than the amount on the inventory, as the owner wishes to mine half of the entire cone. 2. Site Characteristics. Site 433 is located between East Lake and Paulina Lake in the Newberry Crater area. The site itself is in and along the east flanks of the Central Cone. The east side of the cone slopes down steeply into East Lake. The area is forested with lodgepole pine. The site currently supports an ongoing lump pumice mining operation of about 3 to 5 acres. The site is located between two lakes in the middle of a volcanic caldera. The area supports a variety of recrea- tional uses, including camping, picnicking, fishing, hiking, sightseeing, and in the winter snowmobiling and cross- country skiing. The caldera is one of the most heavily visited recreational resources in the county. Nearby to the site are two developed resorts and a number of Forest Service campgrounds. Other than the resorts, campgrounds and access roads, the caldera is undeveloped. The owner proposes to mine this site for lump pumice which is used for stonewashed jeans and barbecue grill rocks, among other uses. The site is one of two sites in the nation with such a resource. The owner's propose to mine one-half of the cinder cone, leaving a flat area for later use as a resort. The material would be trucked to Bend for processing and at the height of operations could involve as much traffic as one truck per hour. Up until 1980, the site was mined as an unpatented mining claim. The claim was patented by the Forest Service in 1980. The level of mining activity has been variable over the years. The most that has ever been taken out is two carloads. Since 1986, only a few truckloads per year have been removed. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 433 a., i0 ;_A 0 0 J I In 1985, the County adopted, by Ordinance No. 85-001, a geothermal element to its comprehensive plan. After analyz- ing the ESEE consequences, the County decided to protect the conflicting open space, scenic and recreational resources and other natural values of the Newberry Crater area, to the exclusion of geothermal uses. This decision was upheld in the Oregon Court of Appeals after it was challenged by LaPine Pumice. Ordinance No. 85-001 and the findings supporting that ordinance are incorporated herein by refer- ence. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Goal 5 Conflicts Resources 1. Fish and Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified area site as supporting mule deer, elk and bear during the summer. In addition, ODFW testi- fied that the are has a nesting pair of bald eagle in the summer across East Lake. The site is included within a wildlife refuge established many years ago between ODFW and the Forest Service. East Lake and Paulina Lake support excellent trout fisheries. 2. Open space and scenic values. The zoning for OS&C indicates that this site has outstanding scenic qualit- ies. The comprehensive plan has inventoried this site as a National Natural Landmark, the only such designa- tion to appear in the County's inventory of areas of special inventory. In addition, the site is zoned LM to protect the scenic views from the Paulina Lake scenic highway corridor. The scenic qualities and natural attributes of the area attracts heavy recreational use. According to the Geothermal Element of the Comprehensive Plan, recrea- tional user days amounted to 300,000 persons in the early 1980s. As stated above, those user days are spread over a variety of recreational uses. The Newberry Caldera is one of the County's most used recreational areas. 3. Energy. The Newberry Crater area has been identified as having significant geothermal energy potential. Conflicts (1) Wildlife. The noise, dust and alteration of the topo- graphy of the site all would have an adverse effect on 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 433 �w� L02 UQ32 deer and elk using the area during the summer. Such impacts would likely scare them away. The same could be true of the nesting bald eagles in the area. Fish resources could be affected if surface runoff were to enter the lake. Siltation of spawning habitat could occur. Also, runoff could carry contaminants from machinery, such as oil into the Lakes. (2) Scenic, recreational and open space. Open space, scenic and recreational values would be adversely affected by the removal of vegetation, additional excavation of the surface, the presence of machinery at the site, and the noise and fugitive dust associated with mining activities. (3) Energy. There would be no conflict with production of geothermal energy to the extent that the two uses do not need to occupy the same space. Because of a previous evaluation of this property under the County's Geothermal Goal 5 element, geothermal use has been precluded as a use at the site. Therefore, this resource is not an option for this site. The Board finds that wildlife habitat conflicts with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of fish and wildlife habitat, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, increased human presence and the possible pollution of surface waters of the adjoining lake, all as set forth in the staff report, could preclude or limit zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would adversely impact wildlife and their habitat. Land Use Conflicts. The site and the surrounding area is zoned OS&C. The purpose of such zoning is to protect designated areas of scenic and natural resources, to restrict development from areas with fragile unusual, or unique qualities, to protect and improve the quality of the air, water, and land resources, and to plan development so as to conserve open space. Accordingly, allowed and conditional uses in the zone are limited to uses that would support recreation and open space type uses, such as campgrounds, parks, museums, wildlife reserves. The only resource -type use is farming. Surface mining would be incompatible with such uses due to the noise, dust, and visual alterations of the topography. Because of the Board of Commissioner's disposition of this matter under Goal 5 conflicts, and because of the fact that the surrounding federal lands are not subject to state 4 — ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION — SITE NO. 433 .t ar. Jim ~' 00 3 3 zoning control, land use conflicts will not be considered further. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site. However, no DOGAMI or County approvals have been obtained. The site operates as a nonconforming use in the OS&C zone. Goal 5 Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the mineral in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that wildlife habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. Such consequences could be severe, given the large number of recreational user days Newberry Crater attracts each summer. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other Goal 5 resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given the substantial numbers of visitors to the site, the social consequences would be substantial. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on deer habitat and the eagle population of the site. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortal- ity rate for the area's wildlife. The noise associated with the mining could well cause the bald eagles to abandon their nest. In addition, the excavation of the site would destroy the symmetry of the cone and leave a vertical flat face facing East Lake. The alteration of the cone would also be visible from the Lake to viewers at the top of Paulina Peak. This would detract from the visual attractiveness of an otherwise outstanding natural feature. In addition, the noise and dust associated with mining the cone would mar the recrea- tional experiences of visitors to the area. 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 433 - 00 j;j _P -, 0034 In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. In this case, the mining would remove a large portion of the cone. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Nothing in the ESEE hearing indicates that lump pumice is an essential material; therefore, unless energy would be expended in processing a substitute, the energy consequences would be negative. The fact the site has been operated at only a minimal level over the last several years supports the Board's conclusion that the material is not an essential one. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the scenic and wild- life resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The eagle population would likely also be scared away by mining activity. The excavation of the cone would drastically affect the aesthetics of the cone. The Board finds that lump pumice resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources from being realized in the local economy. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the Goal 5 resources at the site would not have negative effects on the general welfare of the County. The resource is not an essential one to the functioning of society. Because this is only one site, the effects on employment in the County would not be severe if this site were not zoned for mining. The owners would still be able to operate at a level consistent with their previous levels. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the scenic, recreational and wildlife resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and destruction of topography and vegetation associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection those values. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 433 ,► 0 0 J 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site would likely be positive. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. Based upon the above analysis of the consequences, the Board finds that the conflicting Goal 5 resources should be fully protected at the expense of the pumice resource. The County bases this decision on the following: (a) Unlike aggregate there is no great demand for lump pumice in the County. Although there appears to be a national market for such minerals, the Board finds that the uses for such minerals, stonewashed jeans and barbecue grill rocks, do not represent important societal needs. This is supported by the fact that the site has never had more than two train carloads removed in any year. (b) The site represents a unique scenic and recreational natural feature in the County. This has been recog- nized by the County in its comprehensive plan listing of the feature as a national natural landmark. Furthermore, the County has, in a previous Goal 5 pro- cess, decided to preserve the open space, scenic and recreational values of the site. (c) Recreation and tourism are increasingly important components of the County economy. This is one of the most visited recreational sites in the County. Accordingly, the Board determines that pursuant to OAR 660- 16-010(1)(2) it will allow the conflicting use fully. This decision is consistent with the decision made by the County in adopting Ordinance No. 85-001, by which it amended its comprehensive plan to add the geothermal resource element and by which the County determined that the natural values of the site would be protected. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 14. The Board finds that in order to protect the conflicting wildlife resources, the site will not be zoned for surface mining and that the present OS&C zoning will be retained. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 433 o4 - 0030 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #433 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. LETTER TO GLEN YOST, JR. DATED 2/4/86 3. EAST LAKE MINING INVESTIGATION REPORT DRAFT 4. LETTER FROM HAROLD A. BERENDS DATED 8/8/80 5. MINERAL PATENT LEGAL DOCUMENT DATED 7/3/80 6. PAGE 15 & 23 OF ORDINANCE PL -15 7. PAGE 155 & 156 OF ORDINANCE PL -15 8. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON 9. EAST LAKE MINE CLAIM GAINS NOD ON APPEAL - NEWS ARTICLE 10. FOREST SERVICE INTERESTED IN NEWBERRY CRATER SITE - NEWS ARTICLE 11. MISCELLANEOUS NOTES 12. PICTURES 13. LETTER TO BOCC FROM BOB DEACON DATED 10/18/88 14. LETTER TO C. MCGRAW FROM JIM MILLER DATED 10/25/88 15. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 16. NOTIFICATION MAP 17. MINUTES FROM PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING 18. MEMO FROM NORM BEHRENS 19. EXCERPTS FROM 4TH EDITION OF INDUSTRIAL MINERALS & ROCKS 20. LETTER FROM J. MILLER TO CHUCK MCGRAW 10/25/88 21. LETTER FROM R. DEACON TO CHUCK MCGRAW 10/18/88 {{ . a t„s•t r�' / ( sl elti ..<<<U'_: 1t1 or L02 - 0037 ESEE Findings and Decision Site Nos. 441-443 Site Number 441-443, occupying portions of tax lot 300 in Township 15, Range 9E, Sections 3 and 4, and tax lot 600 in Township 15, Range 9E, Section 17 came before the Board of Com- missioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1980. On October 10, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site 441-443 comprise approximately 1100 acres and is located near the McKenzie Highway west of Sisters on an inholding in the Deschutes National Forest. The site is owned by Willamette Industries and is zoned F2. Adjacent land is zoned F-2, and much of it is owned by the United States Government as part of the Deschutes National Forest. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and Deschutes County Ordinance 88-040, revising the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 441-443 In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife identifying the site as a big game winter range site. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 17,000,000 cubic yards of aggregate material of good quality, and 150,000 cubic yard of aggregate material of fair quality. 2. Site Characteristics. This site runs along Trout Creek, which flows northeasterly into Squaw Creek. Trout Creek bisects the identified aggregate resource area. The site is bounded equally by Forest Service land and private land and is accessed by Forest Service Roads. The adjoining private land is held in large parcels. The file does not indicate whether or not uses have been established on the adjoining parcels of private land. Neither does the file indicate whether the resource has been mined previously. Due to the lack of any DOGAMI permits in the file, it is assumed that these sites have not been mined previously. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Resource Conflicts Resources 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site as being within a deer use range with a high frequency of use. 2. Fish. The Deschutes County comprehensive plan iden- tifies Trout Creek as being an important riparian zone. In addition, the Goal 5 inventory for the County notes .that the creek contains a population of rainbow trout. 3. Open space and scenic. The site's zoning for F-2, with a minimum lot size of 40 acres, indicates high open space values. In addition, the LM zoning designation that touches a portion of site 441 indicates a concern for scenic values along the McKenzie Highway. Any conflicts due to the LM zoning should be minimal given that the site is at the extreme edge of the LM zone. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining to be as follows: 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 441-443 (1) Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the presence of machinery on the site, the building of infrastructure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facili- ties, and fugitive dust emissions. (2) Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by surface distur- bance and construction of structures and access roads, an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site (especially in sites such as this in riparian area). The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas. (3) Impacts on fish resources could include increased turbidity and siltation resulting in loss of food sources and loss of spawning habitat (where excavation takes place in the stream or surface runoff from sites near the stream enters the stream), increased water temperatures (where riparian habitat is removed) and general loss of habitat and cover due to destruction of the stream bed and loss of streamside vegetation. The Board finds that open space, fish and wildlife resources, and scenic resources conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topograph- ical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape and streambed, and loss of vegeta- tion and riparian habitat associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the F-2 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the F-2 zone would include: (1) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust -sensitive uses in the zone. The 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 441-443 1 'AC) U 0040 Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all uses in the zone would be noise -sensitive uses, except forest uses, utility uses, geothermal uses, landfill uses, and other mining uses. Farm uses could be impacted if livestock were near the site. Stables would qualify as a noise sensitive use. (2) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. (3) The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scarring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses, parks uses, and destination resorts; and (4) Occupation of the surface area of the site in a manner that would displace other uses allowed or conditionally permitted in the zone. The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts all uses in the zone except forestry uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. To the extent existing trees at the site are harvested prior to mining, forest uses would not be conflicting. It is not possible to predict whether any such uses are likely to occur. However, due to the large lot sizes, the Board finds that land use conflicts at the site are not likely to be intense. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 4. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and antelope habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. 5. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that no one appears to live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily by those who might make recreational use of the Deschutes National Forest nearby, and to the extent visible from those travelling Highway 242 who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 441-443 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on deer and fish habitat and open space values. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competi- tion among deer and antelope for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competi- tion in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. The impact on scenic views from the McKenzie Highway should be minimal, given the closest portion of the site is at the outside edge of the LM zone. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that this site could cause increased energy consumption in that the site is located further from market areas than other sites. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer and fish habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remai- ning unaffected areas. The scenic views in the wide open spaces at the site could only be fully protected by preclud- ing mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 441-443 0042 aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per cubic yard per mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. This site constitutes 23% of that total. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that given the amount of aggregate present at this particular site and the level of conflicts at all sites, the site is essential to meeting the County's aggre- gate needs. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of fail- ure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not read- ily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is ini.micable to the protection of scenic views fish and deer habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 441-443 U2 - 0043 and aggregate resource, fish and wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Fish and wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site would likely save energy, to the extent that sufficient amounts of aggregate located closer to markets were preserv- ed. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site could have positive energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource of this site are both important relative to one another. Both aggregate resources and the conflicting natural resources of deer and their habitat are finite resources and locationally dependent. Aggregate resources are in limited supply in the County and this site represent the largest known deposit in the County. In addition, as a stream deposit, the aggregate is for the most part of good quality. Fish and deer habitat are continually being lost to new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records Of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The undeveloped nature of the site and adjoin- ing lands and their apparent holding for resource purposes would likely insulate this site from any market changes. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 441-443 0?_ 0044 enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. This is not likely to happen here, given the large lot sizes. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve every- day transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the site and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of this site for surface mining. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts and likely to be few such conflicts in the future. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 441-443 • a [;I'' UU45 Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. With the exception of forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regula- tions. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of such surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While in most cases, the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, this site represents 23% of the aggregate resource in the County. Because virtually all sites have some degree of conflict with land uses or resources, the Board finds that this site is essential to meeting its goal. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the Goal 5 discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associ- ated with surface mining would be -prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would pre- clude or curtail mining at this site probably would have no negative effects on energy consumption because of the dis- tance of the site from major market areas, unless insuffi- cient aggregate sources are protected at other sites, neces- sitating hauling aggregate materials in from outside the area. On the other hand, increased development at this remote site would increase energy use over that now being used at the site from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the live span of such development. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 441-443 1 0 a -., V 0 `^1 W 22. Relative Values of Aggregate Use and Conflicting Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development, if any, both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are impor- tant relative to one another. The aggregate has importance for the reasons set forth above. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development of individual pieces of private property with economic value and expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010(3) it will limit the use of the mineral resource at the site in favor of existing conflicting land uses and will limit future residential and other development on and adjacent to the site in favor of use of the mineral resource. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening, especially with regard to visibility from Highway 242; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) Wildlife restrictions as set forth in the August 10, 1989, ODFW letter in the file. (e) No mining activity shall occur within 100 feet of Trout Creek. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 441-443 J - 004-1 the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering require- ments in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter clo- sure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when construction projects are not typi- cally underway. The Board finds that the 100 -foot setback from Trout Creek will protect sensitive riparian areas and fish habitat. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopt- ed as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batch- ing, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or condi- tional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricul- tural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protec- ted against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggre- gate needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond or inside an adjacent County. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited closer than one-half mile to a SM zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance preclud- 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 441-443 ing protest of any surface mining activities, and if a crusher is allowed for the site, such conflicting uses must demonstrate that they will not cause a mining operation to violate siting standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggre- gate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 441-443 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #441 io - 0049 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET SUBMITTED BY WILLAMETTE IND. 2. MAP 3. INVENTORY SHEET 4. NOTIFICATION MAPS 5. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 6. SAME AS ABOVE 7. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 8. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP -EM41BIT- A TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #442 t�,2 - 0050 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET SUBMITTED BY WILLAMETTE IND. 2. MAP 3. INVENTORY SHEET 4. NOTIFICATION MAP 5. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 6. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 7. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #443 1. COVER INFORMATION SHEET 2. MAP 3. WILLAMETTE IND. INFORMATION SHEET 4. WILLAMETTE IND. INFORMATION/MAP SHEET. 5. NOTIFICATION MAPS 6. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 7. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 8. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP a . ab mkoa-hs 10 • `r�r,�( c,� �,pmm,y�orx�-rs 4eus�on tri�n�-S ��. I(l'a 0052 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 453 Site Number 453, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 8, 1989. On October 26, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on these site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies those preliminary decisions. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines, with Commis- sioner Maudlin dissenting, that this site should not be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 543, occupying tax lot 600 in Township 16 South, Range 12 E.W.M., Section 9 and tax lot 301 in Township 16, Range 12 E.W.M., Section 10 comprises approximately 340 acres and is located on the west bank of the Deschutes River off Whiterock Market Road. The site is owned by Robert Fullhart and is cur- rently zoned EFU-20 FP and LM. Adjacent zoning is EFU-20. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, a report from an appraiser hired by the County to describe the site and its surroundings was entered into the record. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 453 i '- 9 During the ESEE hearings on these sites, testimony was received from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the State Parks Division of the Oregon Department of Transportation, the Coalition for the Deschutes, a number of neighbors opposed to mining at the site and a number of persons testifying by joint letter in favor of mining at the site. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that this site has 1.5 million cubic yards of good quality sand and gravel. 2. Site Characteristics. Site 453 consists of two tax lots, 301 and 600 located on the west bank of the Deschutes River midway off of Whiterock Loop. The site starts roughly 5/8 miles east of Whiterock Loop and extends east to the river. A majority of the site is a level field above the Deschutes River. Near the river, on tax lot 301, the site drops steeply to the river. The western 3/4 of the site is currently being farmed. There is a rural farm residential property on tax lot 301 overlooking the river. The property is located in a rural residential farm area north of Tumalo. Most of the properties surrounding the site are larger acreages that are vacant to the north and farmed to the south and west. To the east of the site is the river and more farm type properties on large acreages. There are some residential acreage properties to the south of the property within half a mile. The site is easily visible from surrounding properties. The residential acreage area south of the site is at a slightly higher elevation than the subject. No mining has occurred previously at this site. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Goal 5 Conflicts Resources 1. Fish and Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. In addition, the resource element of the County's Comprehensive Plan lists the Deschutes River as having 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 453 ' A "40 101-P - 0054 Rainbow Trout and Brook Trout. Area residents spoke to excellent fishing for trout in the area. In addition, the Board finds based upon the testimony of a neighbor to the site that there are raptors, such as bald eagles, gold eagles, red-tailed hawks, otters, osprey, canadian geese, and other wildlife. The archeological resources are listed below. 2. Open space and scenic values. The County Comprehensive Plan and the Deschutes County Zoning ordinance includes areas along the Deschutes River in the LM zone, which would protect scenic values 200 feet back from the river. This would apply primarily to the riparian areas bordering the river. 3. Riparian habitat. The resource element of the County Comprehensive Plan identifies the area along the banks of the Deschutes River as being a sensitive riparian area. Riparian habitat has value for wildlife that use it for a forage and water source. Wildlife such as deer from adjacent areas may come to the area during the nighttime hours for water. In addition, riparian areas are important habitat for fish. 4. Scenic waterway. The adjacent segment of the Deschutes River is in the State Scenic Waterway program. Such designation includes a one-quarter mile corridor on each side of the river upstream and downstream from the dam. The Board finds that virtually all of tax lot 301 and half of tax lot 600 are within the scenic waterway. State scenic waterway designation is based on a river segment's outstanding scenic, fish, wildlife, geologi- cal, botanical, historic, archeological, recreational and outdoor values. It appears from information in the Deschutes County/City of Bend Deschutes River Study (River Study) and testimony at the ESEE hearing that the outstanding attributes of the River in this segment would be fish and wildlife, recreational, scenic, and historic. Testimony during the ESEE hearing attested to the fact that the area is used for fishing and wildlife viewing and scenic viewing. In addition, testimony established that there are significant archaeological resources at and around the site, as further set forth below. The river runs through a steep -walled canyon at this point with vegetated banks below. Although there are homes sited above the canyon, the canyon itself is in a natural state. Neighbors testified at the ESEE hear- ings that this segment of the Deschutes is one of the 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 453 most unspoiled sites on the Deschutes. Above the canyon, the site has stunning views of the Cascades. There is abundant wildlife visible to visitors of the site. The Deschutes River was identified in the Ragatz Study as one of the most important natural features in the County. That study noted that high proportion of visitors and residents make use of the river for recreational purposes. 5. Historic and cultural resources. The River Study identified this particular site as having cultural sites. In the ESEE hearings, neighbors of the site testified that the cliffs on surrounding properties in the canyon have ancient petrogliphs and that artifacts, such as arrowheads have been found at or near the property. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources and the testimony at the ESEE hearings, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Open space, scenic, and recreational values would be adversely affected by the removal of additional vegeta- tion and excavation of the surface, the presence of machinery at the site, and the noise and fugitive dust associated with mining activities. (2) The noise associated with surface mining would adverse- ly impact on the wildlife use of the area. Any use of the area by deer would be impacted by the noise, dust, and truck traffic, as set forth in the staff report. Other wildlife, such as raptors would be adversely affected by the noise associated with mining. The end result would be to displace such wildlife at times when the mine was operating. Besides impacting the wildlife directly, such impacts would have an indirect effect on the public's enjoyment of open space, scenic, and recreational values, due to the absence of wildlife viewing opportunities. Even if mining were to be restricted to the plateau above the canyon the prevail- ing westerly winds would bring the adverse impacts of noise and dust into the canyon. (3) Depending on how close mining took place to the river, mining operations could adversely affect wetland, riparian habitat and fish resources through destruction of riparian vegetation, debris coming to rest in 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 453 --005G riparian zones and possible uncontrolled surface drainage, leading to increased sedimentation in the stream, further affecting fish spawning habitat and fish food sources. (4) It appears that cultural sites identified in the River Study could be impacted, if not destroyed, if surface mining were to take place on the benches adjacent to the river. In addition, testimony during the ESEE spoke of arrowheads being found on the farmland above the canyon rim. Such resources could be adversely impacted by mining. The Board finds that fish and wildlife, riparian habitat and scenic values along the River conflicts with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of fish and wildlife resources and habitat and riparian areas and scenic resour- ces, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, dust, increased human pre- sence, and water quality impacts as set forth in the staff report, could preclude or limit zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would adversely impact wildlife and their habitat. Land Uses Land uses on the EFU-20 zone at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The County comprehensive plan shows that, although an allowed uses, forestry uses would not occur due to the soils at the site. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the zones at and surrounding the site would include: 1. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, and processing, and drilling) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust -sensi- tive uses in the zone. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone would be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, geothermal uses, landfill uses, personal landing strips, and other mining uses. The surrounding area is developed with homes overlooking the Deschutes River to the north and east. 2. The impact of dust on subdivision residents neighboring the surface mine. Neighbors across the river testified that the prevailing winds would carry dust over to 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 453 their properties. Testimony was received from one neighboring resident who suffers asthma expressing concern over dust. He testified that even without surface mining in the area, there are days when he must remain indoors due to dust and smoke. The Board finds that dust from surface mining operations would be a health hazard. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. 4. The impact on aesthetic values due to the physical scarring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. The Board finds that the site would be in view of several exist- ing homes in the area. The Board finds that, accounting for the above -listed impacts, most of the uses in the zone are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining or severely restrict surface mining at the site. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses, residential and park -type uses are the primary existing conflicting uses. Goal 5 Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. Recreation is taking increasing importance in the Deschutes County economy; therefore, the indirect economic effects of surface mining could increase over time. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other Goal 5 resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on scenic, wildlife, open space and recreational values as set forth above. These impacts would affect primarily homeowners in the area. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on the fish and wildlife, aesthetic and his - 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 453 c► 0053 torical resources at and surrounding the site. Surface mining activities would increase noise and traffic and reduce the available cover and forage at the site. In addition, noise could cause other wildlife such as raptors to avoid the site. Wildlife would be forced to leave the area adding more competition in other habitat areas. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. The present unspoiled nature of the Canyon would be marred, even if no mining were allowed inside the canyon due to the intrusions of noise and dust into the canyon and the absence of wildlife. Such intrusions are likely even if mining were to be kept out of the canyon, due to the prevailing westerly winds. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. Because the site is within the 10-15 mile haul distance that is economical to haul aggregate materials, the energy consequences of failure to zone this site could be negative. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the wildlife resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 453 The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the wildlife resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protec- tion of riparian and fish and wildlife resources and public open space and scenic values. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to urban markets would likely involve increased haulage distances to nearby highway maintenance jobs. From this standpoint, the Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site could have negative energy consequences. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 453 i (. 0 0 b o 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. Based upon the above analysis of the consequences, the Board finds that the scenic, recreational, cultural, riparian and fish and wildlife resources should be fully protected at the expense of the aggregate resource. The facts supporting the Board's decision include the following: (a) Although this site is a relatively large one at 704,000 cubic yards, its preservation is not necessary, con- sidering decisions made at other sites. By those decisions, the County has preserved a total of 45,197,- 000 cubic yards of aggregate material, not including those amounts that are located inside the Bend urban growth boundary. (b) The County has preserved at least 570,000 cubic yards at site 368 a couple of miles away. That site is closer to market areas than is this one. (c) The area is one of the few largely unspoiled areas along the Deschutes River left and is highly valued by residents for its wildlife, scenic, recreational and cultural resources. Accordingly, the Board determines that pursuant to OAR 660- 16-010(1)(2) it will allow the conflicting use fully. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 453 (JI -P 0061 surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. Based upon the testimony offered by neighborhood residents, the Board finds that the livability of the area would be negatively impacted by the noise, fugitive dust and scars to the landscape produced by the proposed surface mine. Many of the area residents stated that their primary objective in moving out to this area was for the solitude afforded by the area. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall mixed energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. On the other hand, access to the site is marginal due to poor roads. This could make the site less attractive to use and could also require the upgrading of the access roads which would consume energy. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 11 above. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. The Board's finding in this respect is the same as that set forth in paragraph 9 above. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site were to be developed, such development, could also have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 453 xi - overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for developments on the southeast side of Bend would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Agareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that the conflicting land uses are relatively more important than the aggregate resource. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a) and (b) from the paragraph 13 above; b. The area has a number of existing homes. These homes have a high degree of natural amenities, such as scenic views, solitude, and wildlife viewing opportunities that makes this a special rural residential location. Many of the residents testified that it was the solitu- de of the area and its unspoiled nature that lead them to choose this area to reside in. Accordingly, the Board determines pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 that it will fully protect the conflicting land uses, in particular the residential uses, at the expense of the of the mineral resource at the site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect the conflicting Goal 5 resources and the conflicting land uses, the site will not be zoned for surface mining. This should not prevent the achievement of Goal 5 concerns about protecting aggregate resources, as the Board finds that through its approval actions on other aggregate sites, it has protected a total of 45,197,000 cubic yards of aggregate material (including crushable rock), which combined with the amount of aggregate available from sites inside the Urban Growth Boundary, is sufficient to meet the County's needs. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 453 • biT-A 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 102 0062 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #453 l k VENTORY SHEET JA,TTER FROM SUN COUNTY ON QUALITY & QUANTITY MAP Llffl"TER FROM PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES APP -R: AISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT NO'T'IFICATION MAPS MYLAR LETTER FROM PATRICIA ARRAS 8/15/89 1XITTER FROM RICHARD GAMMON 8/10/89 LEITER FROM GEORGE HAYDEN 8/11/89 LETTER FROM CAROL VETTERICK 8/14/89 LETTER FROM JO JENKINS & STEVE WITTER 8/14/89 LETTER FROM WILLIAM ARRAS 8/14/89 PETITION DATED 8/15/89 PETITION DATED 8/15/89 PETITION DATED 8/15/89 `f&,`ITER FROM COALITION FOR THE DESCHUTES 8/11/89 PLANN'-*NG COMMISSION MINUTES PETITION LETTER FROM SUZANNE MCFARLAND 8/7/89 LETTER FROM ANGELA BILDSOE-MCFARLAND 8/7/89 LETTER FROM SCOTT MCFARLAND 8/7/89 1 10? - 0063 23. LETTER FROM PATRICIA ARRAS 8/8/89 24. LETTER FROM DAVID SMITH 8/9/89 25. LETTER FROM STEVE TURNER 8/13/89 26. LETTER FROM CHRISTINE FOURNILL-RANDALL 8/15/89 27. LETTER FROM CHARLES ARNOLD 8/15/89 28. LETTER FROM RON & KAREN LEEP 8/14/89 29. LETTER FROM KENNETH ULLMAN 8/15/89 30. LETTER FROM ODOT PARKS & REC 8/15/89 31. LETTER FROM DEBBIE HUGGENDICK 8/15/89 32. LETTER FROM FULLHARD 8/16/89 33. LETTER FROM AL TOMPKINS 8/16/89 34. LETTER FROM DAVID SMITH 9/7/89 �5. IeAer - mcn C)F-.kw q -to -sl lao�:d C Gamry ��sioner� c�c��on, o-i,nu (z U 3-). Board c)6 Comm.�s,vner� decas�on rri►��,-tis 2 is - 0064 ESEE Findings and Decision Sites No. 459 and 469 Site Numbers 459 and 469, occupying tax lots 5200 and 100, respectively, in Township 14, Range 11, Section 31, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 11, 1989. On October 11, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of cinder sites, should be classified under the County's comprehen- sive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should not be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site numbers 459 and 469 together comprise approximately 120 acres. They are adjacent to one another and are located just east of Sisters View Drive, northeast of Sisters. Site 469 is just to the north of and adjacent to site 459. The site is owned by Deschutes County and is currently zoned F-3 and SMR, respec- tively. Adjacent land is zoned RR -10 and EFU-40. This site was identified as containing cinder resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and Deschutes County Ordinance 88-040, revising the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITES NO. 459 AND 469 ';_y. i o 2 - 0065 In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife to the effect that the site has impor- tant winter range value. Letters were received from neighbors concerned about noise, dust, traffic and impacts on livestock. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the inventory at these sites is: 459 - 50,000 cubic yard of good quality cinders; and 469 - 2 million cubic yards of fair quality cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. These two sites are located just east Of Sisters View Drive. Sisters View Drive is located at the east end of Squaw Back Estates subdivision, off of Camp Polk Road. Road access is off of Goodrich Loop Road and does not pass through any residential area. The sites are a topographic high for the local area. They are located on top of a butte which is surrounded primarily by lower farm fields. The sites appear to be naturally vegetated with dense juniper trees and sage brush. No wildlife, improvements or utilities were noted on the sites. To the east of the sites are a couple of small farms which are within a half mile of the sites. To the north and west of the sites are rural, residential acreage properties. There are poor to average quality homes directly to the west of the sites. The subdivision has poorly maintained, cinder roads. The subdivision is developed with a great diversity of homes, from a teepee to average quality frame houses. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site as a deer winter range with high frequency of use. 2. Open Space and Scenic Values. The LM zoning adjacent to the site indicates high concern for scenic values. The F-3 and EFU-40 zoning at and near the site indi- cates the presence of important open space values. Open space is needed to enhance the wildlife forage and cover available to wildlife. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITES NO. 459 AND 469 "", k).."> 0ja - 0000 Conflicts. Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the pre- sence of machinery on the site, the building of infra- structure, such as access roads, fences and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. 2. Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by surface distur- bance and use of access roads, an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site and human presence and noise. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas or impede migration. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has indicated that noise at this site would have a medium impact. The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are not water sources at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conver- sely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife and open space in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land use conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the F-3, SMR, EFU-40 and RR -10 zones at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITES NO. 459 AND 469 Conflicts That Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the sur- rounding zones would include: 1. At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SMR zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture or forestry may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated por- tions of the site. 2. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in surrounding zones. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensitive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except geothermal uses, utility uses, landfill uses, personal use landing strips and off-road vehicle tracks, other mining uses and forest products processing uses. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety, particularly in adjacent developed residential areas. 4. The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses. The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts, the conflicting uses in the zone are as enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. There are a couple of farms to the east within close proximity to the site and a partially developed subdivision to the west. Nearby residents have written noting noise, dust and traffic conflicts. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITES NO. 459 AND 469 Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 4. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflict with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and antelope habitat and open space values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the County. 5. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and visually disturb the landscape. These consequence would be felt primarily by those living in the area. 6. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that surface mining activities would have adverse environmental conse- quences on wildlife habitat and open space and scenic values. Surface mining activities would reduce the avail- able cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer and antelope for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued or increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term, surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 7. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that quences of protecting the mineral resource natural resources would be to increase the tion at the site due to fuel expenditures heavy equipment and processing equipment a expended in transportation of the product the energy conse- over the other energy consump- needed to run the s well as the fuel to its end Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. is some degree of need in the County for cinders and 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITES NO. 459 AND 469 use. There failure i.0 U069 to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that the cinders would be used by the County primarily for sanding icy highways, that this site is located in close proximity to and with good access to Highway 126 and Highway 20, and consequently that the site would be conveniently situated as a source for materials in any on-going highway maintenance or construction in the area requiring cinders. The Board finds that there are no other County sites nearby and that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites such as this convenient to highways and highway maintenance sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting cinders to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 8. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The open spaces values could only be fully protected by precluding mining. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that states that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads, except for sanding. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance, including the "sanding" of icy roads in the winter, and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valu- able sand and gravel resource. One economic consequence of failing to zone this site for surface mining would be increased costs to the County in hauling cinders to roads in this part of the County for spreading on icy roads. 9. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social conse- quences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of general consequences that failure to protect aggregate 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITES NO. 459 AND 469 00Y0 sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 10. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and open space resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Likewise, open space is in limited supply. 11. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 12. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the cinder resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for sanding road maintenance materials for 20 to 30 years; b. Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource and this site is a relatively large cinder source. C. This site is well located to provide cinders for sanding of Highways 20 and 126, thus reducing hauling costs. There are no other County cinder sites nearby. d. Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. e. Preservation of open space is important to maintaining deer populations. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly, the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3), protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITES NO. 459 AND 469 .. _i ,y�4 L02 0011 Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 13. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses and the development oppor- tunities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation, the land surface would then become available for other uses. 14. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. 15. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITES NO. 459 AND 469 i T2 - 00'12 preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 16. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 12 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 17. Economic Consequences. Most of the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise -sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise - sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinders in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con- flicting uses were eliminated for -that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every cinder site over which the County has land use juris- diction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amount of cinders available in the County. 18. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 19. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITES NO. 459 AND 469 +ate 0(x(3 20. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 21. Relative Values of Cinder Resource and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development, both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a), (b) and (c) from paragraph 12 above; b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life and health and safety expectations of those who live in and patronize those uses. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16- 010, it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the existing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the cinder resource at this site. The displaced future uses, if any, can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 22. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the nor- thern 80 acres of the two sites will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITES NO. 459 AND 469 r +1 0 0. 4 b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. The extraction area shall be limited to five acres at one time, with on-going incremental reclamation; d. Processing operations and equipment shall be operated only on site 459, which will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements. To protect deer populations, no blasting and operation of rock crushing equipment shall be allowed from December 1 through April 30. Trucks may be loaded and unloaded during that period; e. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements. The southern 40 acres of site 469 will not be zoned, in deference to conflicting values and uses. Conflictina Resources 23. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact and also the condition that only five acres at a time be mined. The Board further finds that the processing limitations both as to site and time of year will offer protection for deer and antelope herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter processing closure will not be unduly restrictive, since processing material can be moved off-site during the winter and stored at nearby storage sites, if necessary, and loading and unloading of trucks may continue during the winter. Mineral Resource 24. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining- dependent uses as permitted or 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITES NO. 459 AND 469 a, ,: P r 0 0 Y 5 conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner, the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 25. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and (b) In all cases, new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 26. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITES NO. 459 AND 469 i02 - 00-i Land Uses 27. Existing conflicting land uses are"protected by the require- ment that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback require- ments, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 13 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITES NO. 459 AND 469 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #459 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. MEMO FROM PUBLIC WORKS ON QUANTITY & QUALITY 3. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 4. NOTIFICATION MAP 5. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 6. COPY LETTER HURTLEY 8/2/89 7. COPY LETTER G. WILLIAMS ETC 8/8/89 GU ' an o,( ni Co C.omr�a�,on�s d_eci-='ion M nu_"Z TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #469 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2 PUBLIC WORKS MEMO ON QUANTITY & QUALITY 3. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 4. NOTIFICATION MAP 5. LETTER OF AUG 2, 1989 FROM HURTLEY'S 6. LETTER FROM G. WILLIAMS, BRYANT, HEYDr* 7. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 8. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES �v. cz�c!1 c�, Camm;�an�2;rS i^v�rjrp, n �� LLti J 6e- ston rn'ln'-r+L- V U 10 � - U0 f9 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 461 Site Number 461, occupying tax lots 1501 and 1600 in Town- ship 14 South, Range 12 E.W.M., Section 9, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 11, 1989. On October 24, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 461 comprises 660 acres and is located west of the Deschutes River just north of Lower Bridge west of Terrebonne. The site is owned by a partnership, including Frank Nolan, Robert Reimenschneider and Norman Weigand, is zoned EFU-80 and FP and is located within a Federal Wild and Scenic River corridor and a State Scenic Waterway. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-80, EFU-40 and RR -10. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, a report commis - 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 461 $. sioned by the County by an appraiser describing the property and the surrounding area was entered into the record at the hearing. Testimony was received from the Coalition for the Deschutes, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the owner. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 350,000 cubic yards of good quality aggregate. In addition, the site has 2 million cubic yards of diaco- lite. The diacolite is deposited underneath the gravel deposit. The conflicts and ESEE analysis is done largely on the basis of mining the aggregate, since that is the over- lying deposit. Mining of the diacolite would add additional benefits to mining the site, while adding few negative consequences beyond those suffered due to the aggregate mining operation. Diacolite has a commodity value as a material used in glass, mushroom bedding, filters, kitty litter, decorative uses and other uses. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is located west and east of Lower Bridge Road on the west side of the Deschutes River Crossing. The haul road entrance is a private dirt road. The site is approximately six miles west of Terrebonne. The site is essentially level on a bench above the Deschutes River. Lower Bridge Road runs through the site at a lower elevation. On both sides of Lower Bridge Road, the site has had extensive surface mining. There is a large tractor on the site, along with settling ponds, old mill buildings which are falling down and a large water tank. THe site has been mined for a number of different materials, including sand, gravel and diatomaceous earth. The Deschutes River borders the eastern edge of the site and is within 250 feet of past mining. The site has natural vegetation growing on it. There were quite a few deer tracks and deer noted on the site at the time of inspection. There is electricity on the site and there appears to be underground, piped water available near the settling ponds. There are two sparsely developed subdivisions with little sales activity located to the south and east of the subject site. To the east, on the opposite side of the river is a large farm with a small area of proposed surface mining. To the west are large farms and a farm residence within one - 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 461 f)a 0081 half mile. The rest of the surrounding property to the north is farm and range land. Lower Bridge Estates subdi- vision is located south of the site within one-half mile. There is one home on the Buckhorn Canyon bluff which is in view of the site. Eagle Rock Estate subdivision is within one-half mile east of the property, but no homes were noted. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Goal 5 Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range, with medium frequency of use. There is also medium sensitive raptor use. The County's appraiser noted quite a few deer tracks in the snow when he went to look at the site. 2. Open space and scenic values. The site's location adjacent to Lower Bridge Road, an arterial on the County's transportation map, requires protection of scenic values along that major road. Views from the road including views of the High Cascades and Smith Rocks to the West. 3. Riparian area and Fish resources. The County com- prehensive plan lists riparian areas on the Deschutes River as being an important riparian zone. In addition the plan indicates the presence of numerous fish species. ODF&W has identified this area as being good for wild rainbow trout and brown trout fisheries. The County's Comprehensive Plan calls for the County to support efforts by ODF&W to manage appropriate stream reaches for wild trout, including supporting habitat enhancement efforts. 4. State Scenic Waterway/Federal Wild and Scenic River. The adjacent segment of the Deschutes River has been designated as a "scenic" river segment in the federal Wild and Scenic River system. The segment has also been designated by the State of Oregon as a state scenic waterway. Designation by State and Federal governments includes a one-quarter mile corridor on each side of the river. The Board finds that a portion of the site falls within the scenic waterway and wild and scenic corridor. The Deschutes River was designated a federal wild and scenic river in this section due to the outstanding 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 461 7t) L,J �?_ ., 0 0 b 2 scenic, fishery, vegetative, and historical/cultural resources in the area. The Deschutes River was identified in the Ragatz study as one of the most important natural features in the County, noting that high proportions of visitors and residents make use of the river for recreational purposes. (According to the river study, no historical/cultural resources are located at this particular site.) 5. Cultural and Historic Sites. Although the staff report indicates the possible existence of an old historic wagon road at the site, nothing in the record substan- tiates this fact. In addition, the Deschutes County/ City of Bend Deschutes River Study (River Study), which inventoried historic and cultural site in the Deschutes Canyon, including this site, indicates that no historic or cultural resources were found at this site. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the presen- ce of machinery on the site, the building of in- frastructure, such as access roads, fences, and proces- sing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. In this case, much of the site has already been mined, much of which is not subject to reclamation laws. (2) Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by surface distur- bance and construction of structures and access roads, an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site (especially in sites such as this near riparian areas). The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas. (3) Fish resources would be impacted by increased turbidity and sedimentation to the extent surface water runoff from the site entered the river. It appears that all mining activity appears on the level above the river, lessening the risk of riparian habitat destruction and sedimentation. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 461 { � 10 i+J;_p - 0083 (4) Impacts on the Deschutes Wild and Scenic River cor- ridor/State Scenic Waterway would include visual impacts from surface and vegetation disturbance (to the extent such impacts are visible from inside the canyon) and possible water quality degradation. The state scenic waterway law allows for mining operations in the scenic waterway corridor subject to State Parks Depart- ment regulation. Mining is not precluded on private lands by federal designation. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, dust, and in- creased human presence could preclude or limit zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape and streambed, and loss of vegetation and riparian habitat associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the zones at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Because of the climate, forest uses are not likely to occur. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the EFU-80 zone would include: (1) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone would be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, geothermal uses, landfill uses, feedlot use, personal landing strips and other mining uses. Presently, the surrounding area is largely undeveloped with only a few homes and farms located within one-half mile. (2) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. Letters from nearby residents raised concerns about the narrow County roads leading down to and out of the canyon in this area and stated that increased truck traffic would create a hazard for local residents on the roads. 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 461 (3) The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and (4) Occupation of the surface area of the site in a manner that would displace other uses allowed or conditionally permitted in the zone. The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts all uses in the zone except forestry uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or conditional uses currently existing at the site or within the impact area, only a few homes and farms exist within the impact area. It is not possible to predict what the potential is of such uses occurring. There are two nearby subdivisions that could intensify conflicts in the future. The Board finds that, apart from the subdivisions, the large minimum lot size of 320 acres would prevent any dense development from occurring near the site. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important -enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat, riparian areas, fish resources, and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 461 others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. Given that few people live in the area, the social consequences would be felt primarily by those travelling on Lower Bridge Road who might be deprived of wildlife viewing opportunities and an unscarred landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on fish and wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competi- tion among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mor- tality rate for the area's wildlife. Excavation in or near the River could destroy riparian areas and fish habitat and degrade water quality. The Board finds that if mining were limited to the plateau impacts on riparian, fish, and scenic resources in the canyon would be avoided. In some cases over the long term, surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. It appears that much of this site was excavated prior to reclamation laws and is beyond the authority of reclamation laws under present law. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 461 ).tja 008E The Board finds that this site is located within six miles of Highway 97 to the east and that the site would according- ly be well situated as a source for materials in any ongoing maintenance or construction of that highway. The Board finds that other than the Gunzner site to the east, there are no other significant sources of aggregate in the Northern part of the County closer to the Highway 97 area as this. The Board finds generally that the energy conse- quences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highway construction and maintenance sites such as this one would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs in the area. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 461 iiia -, U 0 8 recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect sites such as this that are close to major roadways with easy access would result in increased costs for highway maintenance and construction costs. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. Roads and highways in the area would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the Coun- ty's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveabil- ity and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is ini.micable to the protection of scenic views and fish and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 461 1(:)�_p - 0088 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that the natural resources and the aggregate resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: (a) Adequate local supplies of aggregate are important to the economy of Deschutes County. (b) Aggregate resources are a locationally-dependent resource and are in limited supply in the County; at 350,000 cubic yards, this site is a sizeable site on the inventory. (c) This site is well located to provide aggregate for highway 97 construction jobs. (d) The site is currently being used for surface mining. (e) Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. (f) The Deschutes River and its corridor is an important natural features in the County, as has been demonstrat- ed at this site by its state and federal designation for Scenic Waterway status. (g) Preserving the Deschutes River is important to the burgeoning recreational economy of the County. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 461 values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. Given that most of the concerns about property values are focused on residential properties, which do not predominate in this area, market concerns would not be of great consequence in any event. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This cost was mentioned in particular in regard to this and other sites making use of Lower Bridge Road. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transi- tional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 97 repair jobs in the area and the Redmond market area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 461 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 7 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensi- tive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations; in this case, the owner has indicated that that would not be a problem. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of preclud- ing or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards and Willamette Industries' Sites 441-443) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 461 000. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resour- ces for upkeep and improvement of Highway 97 in the northern part of the County would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Aggregate Use and Conflicting Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: (a) Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; (b) Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development of or occupation of individual pieces of private property. With that commitment comes economic, quality of life and health and safety expectations. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the existing conflicting uses at and surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site on top of the plateau will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: 13 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 461 02 M 0092 (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) Mining operations and activity, including placement and operation of processing equipment and operation of heavy equipment to extract and transport mineral and aggregate shall be consistent with DEQ standards and applicable county ordinances; (d) The restrictions and conditions set forth by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in its letter of August 10, 1989 identifying this site as a deer winter range site shall be applied to the site, including the provi- sion that processing and blasting be limited between the period of December 1 through April 30 of each year. (e) A 100 -foot setback shall be maintained from the rimrock so as to hide the mining activity from view when viewed from the middle of the river. (f) Extraction shall be limited to 5 acres at a time, with ongoing incremental reclamation (subject to DOGAMI review and approval). The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflictina Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact and the 100 -foot setback from the rimrock above the river. The Board further finds that the winter limitations on processing will offer protection for deer. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering require- ments in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not underway. 14 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 461 1P 0093 Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited closer than one-half mile to a SM zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance preclud- ing protest of any surface mining activities, and if a crusher is allowed at the site, such uses must demonst- rate that they will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 15 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 461 102 - 0094 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 16 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 461 4 1415 I T A TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #461 1. MAP 02 - 0095 2. MAP 3. QUESTIONNAIRE SHEET 4. LETTER FROM GARY W. LYNCH DATED 1/19/88 5. LETTER FROM E. FRANK SCHNITZER DATED 12/21/87 6. LETTER FROM GARY W. LYNCH DATED 12/7/87 7. LETTER FROM GARY W. LYNCH DATED 11/3/87 8. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 10/13/87 9. LETTER FROM JOHN D. BEAULIEU DATED 4/23/87 r� 10. LETTER FROM FRED GUNZNER DATED 2/13-/87 11. LETTER FROM PAUL F. LAWSON DATED 1/20/87 12. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 11/19/86 13. MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 11/10/86 14. LETTER FROM PAUL F. LAWSON DATED 11/5/86 15. LETTER FROM PAUL F. LAWSON DATED 10/29/86 16. MINED LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT ISSUED 11/18/85 17. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 8/14/85 18. LETTER FROM PAUL F. LAWSON DATED 12/31/84 19. SURFACE MINING OPERATING PERMIT ISSUED 11/19/84 20. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 10/31/84 21. REPORT OF ON-SITE INSPECTION DATED 11/18/83 22. APPLICATION FOR OPERATING PERMIT 4- It ioal - 009 23. APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LIMITED EXEMPTION 24. LETTER FROM ROBERT L. JOHNNIE DATED 7/17/80 25. PERFORMANCE BOND TO CONDUCT SURFACE MINING DATED 2/27/78 26. DICALITE INFORMATION SHEET 27. LETTER FROM DOGAMI TO NOLAN ET. AL. 6/2/88 28. LETTER FROM DOGAMI TO NOLAN ET. AL. 29. LETTER FROM MID -OREGON CRUSHING TO DOGAMI 9/20/88 30. LETTER FROM DEQ TO NOLAN 1/31/89 31. LETTER FROM DEQ TO NOLAN 4/3/89 32. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 33. NOTIFICATION MAPS 34. LETTER COALITION FOR THE DESCHUTES 8/11/89 35. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS 36. MYLAR 37. LETTER FROM LIDELL 8/14/89 38. LETTER FROM REX BARBER 8/15/89 39. LETTER FROM ODOT PARKS & REC 8/15/89 40. LETTER FROM DAVID JAQUA 8/18/89 2 0A 0097 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 465 Site Number 465, occupying tax lot 900 in Township 14 South, Range 13 E.W.M., Section 33, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (Board) for hearing on August 7, 1989. On October 17, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 465 comprises approximately 5 acres and is located on southwest flank of Tetherow Butte. The site is owned by the State of Oregon Highway Division and is zoned RR -10. Adjacent land is zoned RR -10, EFU-20 and MUA-10. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 465 Il 0008 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 100,000 cubic yards of good quality cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is on the southwest flank of Tetherow Butte and slopes gently down to the southwest. The site can be viewed from the lower elevations around the butte. Except for the excavated area, the site has natural sagebrush and grasses. The subject site is in the middle of a large area of active cinder mining. Within one-half mile to the east are three large cinder pits. To the west is residential acreage and the Redmond sewer plant. The area to the north is a cinder mining area. The subject site has good access off paved streets. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Open space and scenic values. The resource zoning adjacent to the site indicates high concern for scenic values. The adjacent EFU-20 and EFU-40 zoning indi- cates the presence of important open space values. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the pre- sence of machinery on the site, the building of infra- structure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are no water sources at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 465 10 -a 0000 such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the RR -10 and MUA-10 zones at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the RR -10 and MUA-10 zones would include: 1. At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SM zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated portions of the site. 2. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, personal landing strips, geothermal uses, landfill uses, off- road vehicle tracks,and other mining uses. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. 4. The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts the conflicting uses in the zone are those enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 465 1 4a� The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 465 0 10 1 activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that cinders are used primarily for highway maintenance, that this site is located in close proximity to and with good access to Highway 97, and consequently that the site would be conveniently situated as a source for materials in any ongoing highway maintenance or construction in the area requiring cinders. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highways and highway maintenance sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting cinders to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 465 11 () 2 - 010 2 Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of social consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources The Board finds that the natural resources and the cinder resource are important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for lower quality road maintenance materials and provide a substitute 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 465 0,� M 0 10 3 source for some uses for the more valuable sand and gravel resource. b. Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource and are, this site is one of the larger cinder sources on the inventory. C. This site is well located to provide aggregate for highway maintenance on Highway 97. d. This site is already in existence. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of cinder as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. Given that most of the concerns about property values are focused on residential properties, which do not predominate in this area, market concerns would not be of great consequence in any event. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 465 102 0104 Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con - 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 465 a ,, L )?_ O 0 flicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Cinder Resource and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 465 b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. The extraction area shall be limited to 5 acres at one time, with ongoing incremental reclamation; d. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; e. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact and also the condition that only 5 acres at a time be mined. The Board finds that the screening and 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 465 (J ;---" -' U 10 i buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the cinder resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 465 . f► - (7108 The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements,.noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 465 1, '`1' a : ze TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #465 INVENTORY SHEET APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT NOTIFICATION MAPS MYLAR -)0►1 ~0109 i0;_11 01 10 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 466 Site Number 466, occupying tax lot 600 in Township 14 South, Range 13 E.W.M., Section 33, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (Board) for hearing on August 16, 1989. On October 24. 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 466 comprises approximately 20 acres and is located off of Pershall Way on the southwest flank of Tetherow Butte. The site is owned by Fred Elliot and is zoned SM. Adjacent land is zoned RR -10, EFU-20 and SMR. This site was identified as containing mineral resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's cinder resources and conflicting resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflicting resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflict- ing values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 466 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 5 million cubic yards of good quality cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is located north of Pershall Way just north of the City of Redmond cinder pit on the southwest flank of Tetherow Butte. The site is visible from the south and west. The site is near the top of the butte and mining in the future will have a greater visual impact on the butte. There are electrical lines going through the site and a communications tower which is located within the subject property. The subject site is in the middle of a large area of active cinder mining. Within one- half mile to the south and east are five large, active cinder pits. To the west is residential acreage properties and the Redmond sewage treatment plant. There was one letter in opposition to this site from Joyce Givins. This letter expressed a concern that as mining moves up the slope, it will become more visible and effect views. This letter also talked about noise and dust from the mining operation. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Open space and scenic values. The LM zoning adjacent to the site indicates high concern for scenic values. The adjacent EFU 20 and EFU 40 zoning indicates the presence of important open space values. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the pre- sence of machinery on the site, the building of infra- structure, such as access roads., fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 466 The impacts on water quality referred to in the staff report would not be present, given that there are no water sources at the site. Neither would soil compaction be a problem, as indicated in the staff report, given that the soil is composed of cinders. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the RR -10 zone at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the RR -10 zone would include: 1. At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SM zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated portions of the site. 2. The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, personal landing strips, geothermal uses, landfill uses, off- road vehicle tracks,and other mining uses. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. 4. The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 466 0113 affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts the conflicting uses in the zone are those enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. . 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer and raptor habitat and open space and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on wildlife and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 466 tJ2 �" 011 consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that cinders are used primarily for highway maintenance, that this site is located in close proximity to and with good access to Highway 97, and consequently that the site would be conveniently situated as a source for materials in any ongoing highway maintenance or construction in the area requiring cinders. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highways and highway maintenance sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting cinders to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 466 x oz - 0115 would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufactur- ing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of social consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources The Board finds that the natural resources and the cinder resource are 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 466 Ii!;� - 011G important relative to one another based on the following facts: a. This source can help meet a demand for lower quality road maintenance materials and provide a substitute source for some uses for the more valuable sand and gravel resource. b. Cinder resources are a locationally-dependent resource and are, this site is one of the larger cinder sources on the inventory. C. This site is already in existence. Therefore, the Board finds that both the cinder resource and the conflicting natural resources should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(3) protection of the cinder resource shall be limited by protection of the natural resources. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of cinder as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records Of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. Given that most of the concerns about property values are focused on residential properties, which do not predominate in this area, market concerns would not be of great consequence in any event. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 466 Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is some level of need for such resources. Haul distances to nearby Highways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with con - 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 466 10?1 - 0110 flicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting lana uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habi- tat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Cinder Resource and Conflicting Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: a. Facts (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the paragraph 13 above; 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 466 I .. °� 0119 b. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent a commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronized those uses. Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will limit the use of the mineral resource and the exist- ing conflicting uses surrounding the site in favor of each other. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the cinder resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: a. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; b. Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; C. The extraction area shall be limited to 5 acres at one time, with ongoing incremental reclamation; d. Processing operations and equipment shall be placed at a location on the site that will permit such activity to operate within DEQ noise and dust requirements; e. Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing, and transportation of the material shall meet the DEQ noise level requirements; f. Only that portion of the site lying within 330 feet of the westerly boundary of the property shall be zoned surface mining. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 466 i§ ,.0 4. b i 0 12 0 Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact and also the condition that only 5 acres at a time be mined. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that surface mining activity which extends up Tetherow Butte beyond 330 feet from the westerly property line of the subject property will have a significant impact on views in the area. There is adequate cinder resource on the lower 330 feet to meet any future demands for cinders. The value of the resource on the upper portion of this site does not outweight the visual impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the cinder resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient cinder resources to meet the County's cinder needs. 26. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the cinder resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 466 a. New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than one-quarter mile to storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and b. In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the cinder resource from conflicting future development. 27. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other cinder sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient cinder resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 28. Existing conflicting land uses, if any, are protected by the requirement that newly sited surface mines or expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards, adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 466 7 ¢o .L(j2 " 0122 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #466 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. APPLICANTS INFORMATION ON QUALITY & QUANTITY 3. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 4. MINUTES FROM PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING 5. NOTIFICATION MAP 6. MYLAR 7. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 8. LETTER FROM FRED ELLIOTT 9. LETTER FROM JOYCE GIVENS 10,( �.,vm CUmm,»nor � d.cu��o� on, nu.. --> 102 -^ 0123 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 467 Site Number 467, occupying tax lot 601 in Township 14 South, Range 13 E.W.M., Section 33, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (Board) for hearing on August 16, 1989, and again for discuss on October 24, 1989. On November 1, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should [not] be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 467 comprises approximately 50 acres and is located on the southwest flank of Tetherow Butte north of Redmond. The site is owned by Knorr Rock and Land Co. is zoned RR -10. Adjacent land is zoned SM, EFU-20, MUA-10 and SMR. This site was identified as containing cinder resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the econo- mic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the con- flicting values or uses. In addition, the report of an appraiser commissioned by the County concerning the nature of the site and the surrounding area was entered into the record. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 467 i02 - 0124 Testimony was received from Duffy Knorr, President of Knorr Rock and Land Co., and several surrounding property owners who expressed opposition to the subject zoning of the property for surface mining. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 5,000,000 cubic yards of cinders of good quality. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is located north of Pershall Way along the top of Tetherow Butte north of the City of Redmond cinder pit. Access to the site is off an extension of 10th Street in this area. The site is along the top and the northern side of the butte and slopes downward toward the west and north. The site is readily visible from the surrounding area since this site is near the top of the butte and is higher is elevation than all of the surrounding land. There has been no historic mining on the subject site. The site is just north of a large area of active cinder mining. Within one-half mile to the south and east are six large cinder pits. Directly to the west are residential acreage properties. To the north is a vacant subdivision. There are steep slopes to existing cinder pits which abut the subject property. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Scenic values. The high visibility of the butte from surrounding properties creates a conflict with scenic values of the butte from surrounding streets. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the presence of machinery on the site, the building of infrastructure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 467N. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, would impact wildlife, open space and scenic resources in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses in the MUA-10 and EFU-20 zones at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the MUA-10 and EFU-20 zones would include: (1) At the site, all uses except mining uses in the SMR zone are conflicting in that use of the surface area for mining conflicts with other uses needing surface area. Uses such as agriculture or forestry may not be conflicting from this standpoint on unexcavated por- tions of the site. Uses in the MUA-10 and EFU-20 zone would also be conflicting in this regard, except for farms uses on unexcavated portions of the site. (2) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) and dust on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise or dust - sensitive uses in the zone. Noise impacts could conflict with agricultural uses involving noise sensi- tive animals. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone could be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, landfill uses, and off-road vehicle tracks. (3) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety, particularly on residential uses. (4) The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scarr- ing of the landscape and the introduction of an in- dustrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses; and The public testimony included testimony that included testimony that questioned the need for additional cinder 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 467 L02 01216 pits in an area that already has dozens of cinder pits. Testimony indicated that opening a new pit at this site would extend an existing cinder pit up the side of Tetherow Butte and create a significant visual impact. Testimony also centered on the fact that with all the existing cinder pits, additional cinder pits would eventually consume the entire butte. The Deschutes County Planning Commission recommendation not to zone the site for surface mining indicated that the top of the butte needed to be preserved for its landmark characteristics. The property owner indicated that allowing mining on the subject site would allow some of the steep slopes on pits adjoining the site to be flattened out. The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts, the conflicting uses in the zone are as enumerated above in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses at the site or within the impact area only residential uses are presently in existence. There are a number of existing homes within close proximity to the site. As for the other potential conflicting uses, it is not possible to predict whether or not any such uses are likely to occur. 4. The Boards finds that there are numerous existing cinder pits and there is no reason to open a new cinder pit in an area where so much cinders is readily available from exist- ing pits. Resource Conflicts Protection of Cinder Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the cinders in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat and scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large un- sightly areas in the county. These consequences are already occurring at the site, so the consequences are not as great as if the site had never been mined. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that there are social .consequences which result from removing the undisturbed 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 467 � 012 r portion of the top of Tetherow Butte through mining of cinders. While there are numerous existing pits on the butte, saving that undisturbed portion of the butte toward the top protects the public from the ultimate destruction of a known landmark by surface mining. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which causes increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Continued or increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. There is some degree of need in the County for cinders and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that there are no energy consequences at stake with this site since there are numerous sites directly adjacent to or around all sides of the butte which are in close proximity to any potential use of the cinders. For these reasons, the Board finds that the energy consequences of not allowing mining on the subject site are insignifi- cant. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 467 such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that cinder resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local mining industry is small in number, manufa- cturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. Cinders are not thought to be in short supply in the County. The resource is readily available from both private and public sources, including the Deschutes National Forest. Furthermore, cinders are not as durable material as is sand and gravel aggregate sources. The Board finds that Deschutes County has a new policy that states that cinders will no longer be used for maintenance of County roads any longer. Therefore, failure to protect cinder sources will not have the same secondary economic impacts as would failure to protect aggregate resources. However, the Board finds that cinders can be a useful material for road and highway maintenance, including the "sanding" of icy roads in the winter, and that they serve as a substitute for aggre- gate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valu- able sand and gravel resource. 10. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of general consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have posi- tive environmental consequences. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 467 10 012,9 involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources The Board finds that the conflicting natural resources are more important than the cinder resource based on the following facts: (a) This cinder source is surrounded by existing cinder pits; failure to zone this site will not adversely affect the supply of cinders in the county; (b) There are other cinder sources in the County that the County is protecting that can supply cinders for road maintenance needs; (c) Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. (f) The scenic views of the butte from the surrounding area are enjoyed by many people. Therefore, the Board finds that the conflicting natural resources should be protected and the cinder resource should not be. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16- 010(2) the conflicting resources should be protected fully. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses and the development oppor- tunities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 467 One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area, depending upon the level of use. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compatibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of cinders has no overall positive energy consequences due to the numerous existing cinder sites in the surrounding area. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have negative environmental conse- quences for the same reasons given under paragraph 15 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for pur- poses of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. The protection of conflicting land uses could have the effect of causing higher transportation costs to the extent that denial of mining approval would cause cinders to be hauled to their point of use from more remote sites. According to the Oregon Department of Transportation, there 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 467 102 - 0131 is an added cost of .22 per ton mile from extraction sites to the point of use. While the elimination of part or all of any one site would not significantly impact the total supply of cinder in Deschutes County relative to need, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, the supply of cinders in the County would be markedly reduced. Almost every aggregate site over which the County has land use jurisdiction has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each cinder site takes on some degree of importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and severely cut into the amounts of cinder available in the County. This particular site represents a significant cinders resource. However, cinders are plentiful in this area and millions of cubic yards are being zoned surface mining and protected for future use. All of the sites which are being zoned in this area are existing cinder pits which have less impact on the surrounding area. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habitat, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by develop- ment where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater distan- ces. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patron- izing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 467 a -p V i o z , 0 13 2 22. Relative Values of Mineral Use and Conflicting Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protecting the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that relative to one another the conflicting uses are more important than the cinder resource. This finding is based upon the following facts: (a) Facts (a), (b), and (c) from the paragraph 13 above; (b) Existing conflicting uses are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development and occupation of individual parcels of private property. Such commitment is accompanied by economic, quality of life, and health and safety expectations of those who occupy and patronize those uses;] Accordingly, the Board finds that pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 it will protect fully the conflicting uses at and surround- ing the site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be not be zoned for surface mining. This should not prevent the achievement of Goal 5 concerns about protecting mineral resources, as the Board finds that there has never been a concern about the adequacy of cinder availability in the County and that it has chosen to zone and protect 24 cinder sites representing 21,830,000 cubic yards of cinders. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 467