Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout90-029 Part 4�X f� i air A TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #467 INVENTORY LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND ESTIMATE OF QUANTITY & QUALITY APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT NOTIFICATION MAPS LETTER OF QUALITY AND QUANTITY FROM KNORR 8/20/89 LETTER HALAIDSEK 8/11/89 MYLAR PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION LETTER FROM JOYCE GIVENS LETTER FROM HALAISEK 1�rd c� Gvrnmis5lpn�cSc'�cx� m'��t,�t�S t�cd C.cc»,rr„rr;�ssioc�ecs d2c.:�s'�on m►n�.S J j ? 013 4 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 475 Site Number 475, occupying tax lot 600 in Township 15, Range 10, Section 12, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 8, 1989. On October 11, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should not be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 475 comprises approximately 120 acres and is located in Cloverdale, one-quarter mile south of Highway 126, just west of site no. 248. The site is owned by Deschutes County and is currently zoned SMR. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-40, EFU- 20 and LM. 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 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. 475 r•� In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife and one area resident who lives on Highway 126 opposing SM zoning. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 200,000 cubic yards of good quality cinders. 2. Site Characteristics. The site is located SW of the inter- section of the McKenzie Highway and Slayton Road. There is no legal access to the site. The closest access is a farm road at the south end of Sisters Aggregate's property along Slayton Road. The subject site is one-quarter mile south of the McKenzie Highway at Camp Polk Loop. The site is naturally vegetated with juniper tress and sage brush. There appears to be an electrical line going across the site. The site is unimproved. Directly to the east of the site is a farmed acreage. To the north are residential farm properties. To the northeast is the Sisters Aggregate cinder mine. Within a half mile of the site are residential acreage properties, farms, gravel pits to the south and the cinder pit to the northeast. The site would be used by Deschutes County as a source of cinders for "sanding" icy roads. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Resource Conflicts. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site as being in a deer migration route. 2. Open Space and Scenic Values. The LM zoning indicates high concern for scenic values along the Highway 126 corridor. The site would be quite visible from Highway 126 Conflicts. Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 475 L(jA 013() 1. Scenic and open space 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. Fugitive dust would most likely be visible within the LM zone along Highway 126. 2. Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by surface dis- turbance 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 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 and 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 EFU-20 and EFU-40 zones at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. Conflicts That Board finds that conflicts with the uses in the zones at and surrounding the sites 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. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 475 iI(ja 0137 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 geothermal uses, utility uses, landfill uses, personal use landing strips and off-road vehicle tracks. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety, particularly on residential uses. 4. The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical scar- ring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses. 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 few 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. 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 dissuaded 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. Such impacts may well adversely affect the attributes that caused rural residents to locate there. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 475 -m:7 fit .0 f)�' -' 0 13, 8 6. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that continuing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and scenic views. Surface mining activities 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. 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 the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. There is some degree of need in the County for cinders and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites convenient to highways and highway maintenance sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting cinders to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources B. 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 at the site 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 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 475 r 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, including the "sanding" of icy roads in the winter, and that they serve as a substitute for aggregate resources for surfacing dirt or gravel roads and driveways, thus reducing the consumption of the more valuable sand and gravel resource. Because of the cost of hauling cinders to their point of use, about .22 per ton mile, failure to zone this site could increase the costs of the Deschutes County road sanding program if no other cinder sources were available nearby. 9. Social Consequences. Considering the fact that cinders are in relative abundance in Deschutes County, the social consequences in protecting the conflicting Goal 5 values at the expense of the cinder resource would not have the same kind of general consequences that failure to protect aggre- gate sources would. In general, the social consequences of not allowing increased cinder mining at the various existing sites would not be great. 10. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of the landscape and 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. Wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be recreated by the actions of man. 11. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it close to highways would likely involve increased haulage distances unless other sources were available nearby. The County does have other cinder resources nearby in sites 459 and 469, therefore 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 are more important that the cinder resource based on the following facts: 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 475 �^ U 1 4 0 a. There are other cinder sources nearby that the County is protecting that can meet Deschutes County's needs for cinders for sanding roads; b. There is no access to the site; and C. Deer habitat is continually shrinking in the face of new development. Therefore, the Board finds that the conflicting natural resources should be protected at the expense of the cinder resource. Accordingly, the Board finds that under OAR 660- 16-010(2), the conflicting natural resources shall be fully protected. The Board's decision was made specifically by comparing the merits of this site with sites 359/369. Those sites have a greater quantity of cinders and no access problems. It appears that the staff decision failed to consider the fact that the site has no access. The Board overrules the staff report in this regard. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 13. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the cinder resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses and the development oppor- tunities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. The intermittent use of this site will probably not cause much road wear. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 475 this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation, the land surface would then become available for other uses. 14. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and cinder resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area, depending upon the level of use. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compatibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. In this case, there are some existing residential uses nearby that could be adversely affected. 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 roadways would be short. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. On the other hand, much of the area within one-half mile of the mine has already been developed or planned for develop- ment. 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 14 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 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. The protection of conflicting land uses could have the effect of causing higher transportation costs to the extend 8 — ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION — SITE NO. 475 i� U 14 2 that denial of mining approval would cause cinders to be hauled to their point of use from more remote sites. According to the Oregon Department of Transportation, there is an added cost of .22 per ton mile from extraction sites to the point of use. In this case, the Board has zoned nearby County -owned sites 459/469 for surface mining. These sites will satisfy the need for cinders for road sanding in this area. 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 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 could create greater energy consumption if cinder resources for the upkeep of roads in the area had to be brought in from greater dis- tances. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patronizing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 21. Relative Values of Mineral Use and Conflicting Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protecting the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that relative to one another, the conflicting uses are more important than the cinder resource. This finding is based upon the following facts: a. Facts (a) and (b) from paragraph 12 above; b. Existing conflicting uses are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development and 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 475 jij�p ., 0143 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 surrounding the site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 22. The Board finds that in order to protect the conflicting resources and uses, the site will not be zoned for surface mining. This should not prevent the achievement of Goal 5 concerns about protecting mineral resources, as the Board finds that there has never been a concern about the adequacy of cinder availability in the County and that it has chosen to zone and protect 24 cinder sites representing 21,830,000 cubic yards of cinders. In particular, the Board has satisfied the County's need for cinders in this area by zoning sites 459/469 surface mining. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 475 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. ?.+.►%? 0144 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #475 INVENTORY SHEET MEMO FROM DES. CO. PUBLIC WORKS ON QUANTITY OF RESOURCE MEMO FROM DES. CO. PUBLIC WORKS ON QUANTITY OF RESOURCE APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT NOTIFICATION MAPS LETTER FROM ANITA BART LEMAY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 10-Ae- �,., O�F.t w q-io- � obComr,r;,s5ionecg 1��� n;,�k.b_S • L" - 0145 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 482 Site Number 482, occupying tax lot 103 in Township 15 South, Range 13 E.W.M., Section 11, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (Board) for hearing on August 10, 1989. On October 24, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 482 comprises approximately 200 acres and is located off Maple Avenue and is known as Negus Landfill. This site is owned by Deschutes County and is zoned EFU-40. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-40 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 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. 482 L02 0140 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 existing Negus Landfill. This is the only landfill in northern Deschutes County and has in the past been used as a borrow site for fill dirt to facilitate the landfill. The site is located northwest of Redmond. Land use in the surrounding area consists of primarily vacant range land. 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-40 and MUA-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-40 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. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 482 Z(j2 - 0147 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 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. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 482 i(J2 U148 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 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. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 482 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 Redmond 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. 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 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 482 I bo employment in the mining industry and the development opportunities 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. 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 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 482 18 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. 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 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 482 likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Select Fill Resource 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 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; 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; 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 482 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. 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 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: 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 482 61 01b4 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. 482 EXN(Bii-t. � TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #482 1. RESOURCE SHEET 2. MAP 3. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 4. NOTIFICATION MAPS 5. MYLAR 6. LEGAL DESCRIPTION 7. MAP 8. LETTER FROM KEITH & BARBARA CORWIN I 4, ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 488 Site Number 488, occupying tax lots 100, 600, 2000 and 2100 in Township 17 South, Range 12 E.W.M., Section 6, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 10, 1989. On October 26, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 488 comprises approximately 343 acres and is located along the west side of Cline Falls Road just north of Tumalo. The site is owned by Bend Aggregate and Paving and is zoned SM. Adjacent land is zoned SMR, MUA-10, EFU-20, RSR -5 and RSR -M. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, testimony was received from the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife, the Coalition for the Deschutes, a representative from Bend Aggregate, the Parks and Recreation 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 488 IUB' -015 Division of the Oregon Division of Transportation (State Parks) and numerous neighbors of 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 the site has 400,000 cubic yards of sand and gravel meeting ODOT specifications. 2. Site Characteristics. This is a large site located along the west of Cline Falls Road, just north of Tumalo. The site has been cleared and is composed of two existing mining operations, knwon as the Cline Falls Pit and the Highland Pit, both owned and operated by Bend Aggregate and Paving. A map attached hereto as Exhibit "B" delineates the two sites. Parts of the site appears to have been reclaimed with grassy pasture. The Deschutes River is within 250 feet of the site along the south end. The river is slightly lower in grade than the site. This site is located in a large area of gravel and pumice mining north of Tumalo. The surrounding property is primar- ily mining sites. To the north is an unrecorded subdivision of residential acreage properties. Some of these properties are within 250 feet of the site and have views over the site of the surrounding terrain and hills to the south. In addi- tion, there is a house to the west of the site. The site is highly visible from properties on the rimrock along the eastern edge of the flood plain. The town of Tumalo borders the site to the south. Highway 20 West is within one-half mile of the site. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Goal 5 Conflicts Resources 1. State scenic waterway. The adjacent segment of the Deschutes River has been designated by the State of Oregon as a state scenic waterway. Such designation includes a one-quarter mile corridor on each side of the river. The Board finds that the site falls within the scenic waterway. State scenic waterway designation is based upon a river segment's outstanding scenic, fish, wildlife, geological, botanical, archeological and recreational and other values. The Board finds that the Deschutes River was designated in this section for reasons of scenic values. 2 — ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION — SITE NO. 488 `a 4 The Deschutes River was identified in the Ragatz study as one of the most important natural features in the County. That study noted that high proportions of visitors and residents make use of the river for recreational purposes. 2. Wildlife habitat. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that this site lies within a deer winter range. Although the staff report indicates that the site has scenic value due to the Highway 20 corridor LM zoning, the LM zoning along Highway 20 specifically leaves this property out. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on Goal 5 resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation, surface disturbance, adverse impacts on forage from dust, interference with migration routes by surface disturbance and construc- tion of structures and access roads, and an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas or to curtail their use by deer. (2) Impacts on the Deschutes River state scenic waterway would include visual impacts from surface mining and vegetation disturbance within the scenic waterway corridor as set forth in paragraph (1) above. In addition, the corridor would be impacted by the noise and dust from mining operations and increased truck traffic in the area. There is no indication that surface mining at this site would create water quality problems. State scenic waterway status does not preclude mining in scenic waterways, but allows for mining operations in the scenic waterway corridor subject to State Parks approval. b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses on the zoning at and surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report and Sections 4.140 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 488 (RSR -M) and 4.150 (RSR -5) of the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, PL -15. Conflicts The Board finds that conflicts with the uses at the site and in the surrounding zones would include: At the site (1) Surface mining would conflict with all other uses in the SM and SMR zones to the extent that its current use for surface mining occupies the surface area of the site to the exclusion of other uses. (2) On those portions of the site available for other development, the impacts of noise and dust on noise and dust sensitive uses, as defined below and aesthetic impacts. These uses would include all uses within the zone except utility uses. Surrounding zones (EFU-20, RR -10, RSR -M, RSR -5) (1) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise -sensitive uses in the surrounding zoning. Existing residential development to the south in the town of Tumalo, to the north in the Highland Estates subdivision and to the west could be adversely affected by noise. Area residents testified that the noise from current operations at the site are very disruptive. (2) The impacts of dust on dust -sensitive uses. The Board finds that all commercial, residential, park or com- munity -type uses are dust -sensitive uses due to the potential health impacts of dust on occupants and patrons and the general nuisance associated with dust. The levels of conflict in this regard would be similar to that set forth under noise impacts above. During the hearing on this site, neighbors testified that current operations create bothersome dust condi- tions. (3) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety, particularly as truck traffic affects the safety of residential neighborhoods and community centers. Several neighbors testified about the dangers associated with the truck traffic from the cement operations, including rocks falling from loaded trucks and slow-moving trucks on public roadways. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 488 (4) The impact to aesthetic values, due to dust, physical scarring of the landscape and the introduction of an industrial -type use into a rural setting. This would affect primarily residential uses and park -type uses. The site is within view of surrounding homes. The Board finds that the uses identified above as conflict- ing uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining or place limitations on such mining. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could Possibly continue within any valid existing DOGAMI or County permit area regardless of whether or not this site is zoned in the Goal 5 process. Accordingly, the consequences of allowing mining to proceed on the site have occurred or are already occurring and could possibly be allowed to occur until such time as expansion of the site would be necessary. Therefore, the relevance of the ESEE discussion below is primarily whether any expansion would be allowed at the site and whether the site is important enough that limitations should be placed on existing and potential land use con- flicts. Resource Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that scenic values do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who might be dis- suaded from coming to the area if this site along with others are developed in such a manner as to create large unsightly areas in the county. This could be an important consequence, given the site's proximity to Highway 20 leading into Bend and the Deschutes scenic waterway. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on the wildlife and scenic attributes of the area. The Board finds, however, that the impact of the surface mine would be reduced by the fact that the site has already been partially mined. 7. Environmental Consecruences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and the scenic and recrea- 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 488 j,02 M 0161 tional qualities of the Deschutes River corridor. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wild- life would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associ- ated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. Scenic views of the Deschutes River corridor would be adversely affected by fugitive dust and by possible increased destruction of vegetation and changes in topography. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances, since in any event the operator would be required to restore the site to the extent the permit area is not grandfathered under reclamation laws. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. The Board finds that this site is located in close proximity to the Bend-Tumalo market area. The Board finds generally that the energy consequences of not allowing mining of sites such as this that are convenient to urban market areas and processing sites would be greater than if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater distances involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the wildlife, scenic, and recreational resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 488 1(j2 0162 resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Consequently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource or other con- flicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. In addition, costs of transportation within the county is an important factor. Preservation of the aggregate resource at this particular site can have positive economic consequences in this regard. Transportation costs for aggregate are $.22 per ton mile. Given the cost of aggregate, such transporta- tion costs can double the price of aggregate if aggregate must be hauled 10 to 15 miles from its point of use. The Board finds that this site is located within 10-15 miles of the Bend-Tumalo market area and that consequently preserva- tion of the aggregate at this site can lead to lower ag- gregate prices than use of aggregate sources located further away. Finally, the Board finds that the economic impacts of failure to preserve sufficient aggregate reserves are not readily mitigated. As with any mineral resource, aggregate is locationally dependent. It is a finite resource and new sources of supply cannot be created by man. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. Roads and highways in the area would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 488 0163 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources could preclude mining at the site or limit such activity. The noise, dust, traffic, human presence, scarr- ing of the landscape and disruption of habitat and food sources associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic, wildlife, and recreational values. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding or limiting mining would have positive environmental conse- quences. As with the mineral resource, wildlife resources, and scenic and recreational resources are often limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrink- ing in the face of increased development. Scenic resources such as the Deschutes River scenic waterway are limited in number and cannot be recreated by manmade substitutes. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the Goal 5 resource values of this site and others like it close to market areas would likely involve increased haulage distances. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would have negative energy consequences. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. The Board finds that, based upon the ESEE consequences discussed above, the aggregate resource and the conflicting Goal 5 scenic waterway are important relative to one another. This finding is based upon the following facts: (a) Adequate local supplies of aggregate are important to the Deschutes County economy; (b) Considering the quantity, quality, and location of this site close to the Bend urban area market, this is an important aggregate deposit; (c) This site is an existing mining site; (d) The adjacent Deschutes River scenic waterway is an important scenic resource, for both visitors and residents. Such resources have importance for the regional economy. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the conflicting scenic waterway 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 scenic attributes of the adjacent Deschutes Scenic Waterway. The Board finds that the deer winter range values referred to by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in its August 10, 1989, letter that is a part of this record are not significant enough to protect since (1) these values are not currently inventoried for this site on the Deschutes 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 488 t i;1 ;-` - U 16 4 County Comprehensive Plan; (2) the site is surrounded by residential development and the town of Tumalo; and (3) the Department of Fish and Wildlife testified at a hearing on the adjacent Bend Aggregate Plant site that the area was not in any deer winter range and should not be protected for wildlife. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. There was no testimony on this site concerning property values. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. An additional cost to the community at large is the impacts of mining close to scenic sites such as the Deschutes River scenic waterway. Tourism and recreation are increasingly important is the economy of Deschutes County, and mining impacts on such sites could adversely affect that sector. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transi- tional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 488 uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would adversely impact the livability, scenic quality and compatibility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. These impacts were testified to by the neighbors of the existing sites. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environ- mental controls on the mining operation. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to urban market areas and processing sites would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the surrounding rural lands, the energy consequences would likewise be positive. 17. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that protecting the site for mining would have the same environmental conse- quences set forth under paragraph 7 above. The Board further finds that such impacts can be mitigated. Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. Most of the uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. In addition, conflicts arise due to the impacts of dust and changes in the land- scape. Protection of surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards and Willamette Industries' Sites 441-443) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. In addition, there is the further economic consequence discussed above of failing to protect sources of aggregate that are located close in to market areas. 10 — ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION — SITE NO. 488 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become further developed, those uses, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habita- t, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and increasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by increased residential development. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because needed mineral and aggregate resources would have to come from sites located further away. Furthermore, increased development at this rural site would increase energy use from those living in or patron- izing the allowed uses. Such development would likely lead to a long term energy commitment because of the life span of such development. 22. Relative Values of Aaareaate Use and Conflictina Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. This finding is based upon the follow- ing facts: (a) Adequate local supplies of aggregate materials are important to the economy of Deschutes County; (b) Aggregate resources are a locationally dependent resource and are in limited supply in the County. The size and quality of this deposit make it an important resource. (c) The site is located close to urban markets. This is an important factor given the .22 per ton mile cost for hauling aggregate. (d) Existing residential uses are important in that they represent a commitment by the property owner to develop 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 488 10? 9 0 16 7 and/or 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. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. Displaced future uses, if any, can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the exist- ing SM zoning will be maintained, subject to the following ESEE conditions: Highland (a) Current conditions imposed under the site plan and development plan agreement currently in effect for the operation will remain in effect, including limitations on the hours of operation and a prohibition of on-site processing. (b) Setbacks of residential uses. Cline Falls (a) Setbacks on adjacent conflicting uses. (b) Sound buffering and screening of the surface mining operation. (c) Placement of processing operations and equipment for the mining at a location on site that will permit such operations within the sound and dust level limitations required by DEQ. (d) Use of vehicles in the extraction, processing and transportation of the material that meet DEQ vehicle noise level requirements. (e) Processing on the site will be allowed. The map attached hereto as Exhibit "B" delineates the areas covered by the Highland site and the Cline Falls site. 12 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 488 Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site sill be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact, the restrictions on winter processing, the hours of operation, the 5 -acre limit on excavation, and the reclamation plan conditions. The Board finds that the screening and buffering provisions of the Deschutes County zoning Ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014, meet the ESEE screening and buffering requirements. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal of protecting mineral and aggregate resources, since the site will be allowed to be mined. Mineral Resource 24. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably commit surface area to other uses and otherwise conflict with surface mining are not allowed uses in the zone. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in recognition that such uses can occur without irretrievably committing the property to uses other than surface mining. In this manner the surface area of the mineral or aggregate resource is protected against establishment of uses that would prevent mining of the mineral or aggregate in the future. Such protection advances the goal of protection of sufficient mineral or aggregate resources to meet the County's mineral or aggregate needs. 25. The Board finds that imposition of a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone as a one-half mile buffer sur- rounding the SM zone, as set forth in Surface Mining Ordi- nance 90-014, will further protect the aggregate resource and the Board so zones the one-half mile area surrounding the SM zone, except to the extent that such buffer area would extend inside an adjoining county or the urban growth boundary of the City of Bend or Redmond. The Board finds that the SMIA zone limits conflicting uses as follows: (a) New conflicting "noise -sensitive" and "dust -sensitive" uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be sited within the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and closer than 1/4 mile to 13 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 488 I 0�! - 0169 storage and processing sites only if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not cause a mining operation to violate the siting standards; and (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses must be located no closer than 250 feet to an SM zone. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 26. The Board finds that, in combination with the action taken on other aggregate sites, zoning the site for surface mining and protecting the site from future surrounding conflicting land uses, the County's goal of preserving sufficient aggregate resources to meet the needs of the County have been met. Land Uses 27. Existing conflicting land uses, including residential uses and recreational uses, are protected by the requirement that any expansion of existing surface mines meet screening requirements, and by the setback requirements, noise stan- dards, limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limitations found in the ESEE conditions and the zoning ordinance as applied to this property. 14 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 488 EXHIBIT SCHEDULE SITE NO. 488 Date Color Received Exhibit Description Code Board of Commissioners Decision Minutes Inventory Information Board of Commissioners Hearing Minutes Planning Commission Recommendation ? Sheet Mylar Map Map Staff Report & Appraiser's Comments 89 03-15 DOGAMI Mined Land REclamation Permit 89 04-13 Letter from Randy David (ODOT) 89 08-07 Letter from Virginia P. Davis 89 08-09 Letter from Jerold Cort 89 08-11 Letter from Coalition for the Deschutes 89 08-14 Letter from pat & Kathy Gregg 89 08-14 Letter from Kenneth E. Cardwell & Petition 89 08-16 Letter from Jan Ernst (ODOT, Parks & Red) 89 08-89 DOGAMI Report of On -Site Inspection Paae 17 1 16 15 14 6 2 5 4 8 3 12 9 7 13 10 11 18 r01 .. � �; � 'i.fC v .. ^ . �, .. i... _ ~ . fi, 1!dN•N i 5�, � r�ri�: �s7$S";.• .6 fJ'�' #��({ti � ! .� • • • �,Y ,, t LO o N •i• t�l � ili e �'YIpT O 1 — N 'FN I N N •' �� O • i .L L , Gy W �•i 0 1. � � 9i v • ey ox o ,f •• s x O � N r~!�a y3_ 3 p1 N i � n i M .. � �; � 'i.fC v .. ^ . �, .. i... _ ~ . fi, 1!dN•N i 5�, � r�ri�: �s7$S";.• .6 fJ'�' #��({ti � ! .� • • • �,Y ,, t LO o N •i• t�l � ili e �'YIpT O 1 — N 'FN I N N •' �� O • i .L L , Gy W �•i 0 1. � � 9i v • ey ox o ,f •• s x O � N j , 01 12 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 498 Site Number 498, occupying tax lot 2200 in Township 19 South, Range 14 E.W.M., located in the Southwest Quarter of Section 25, 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 prelimin- ary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 498 comprises approximately 80 acres and is located approximately one mile south of Highway 20 and four miles west of Millican. The site is owned by the State of Oregon Department of Transportation and is currently zoned SMR. Adja- cent land is zoned EFU-320 - 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 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. 498 01 Y3 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 200,00 cubic yards of aggregate gravel which meets the State of Oregon Department of Transportation standards for asphalt and base rock. 2. Site Characteristics. The area is level range land which has an existing sand and gravel pit. The remainder of the site is natural land with no special features or drainage problems. Property in the surrounding area to the south and east is grassy range land and Horse Ridge is located to the northwest. China Hat Road runs to the west 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 deer winter range and antelope range. 2. Open space and scenic values. The views of the subject site would be from China Hat Road. China Hat Road is not in a landscape management corridor, however, it is a relatively heavily used dirt road providing access for hunting and recreation. 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 - WA zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 498 0 1 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. 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. 498 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 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. 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. 498 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. 498 0 1 i t' 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. 498 f 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. 498 A2 U10 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. 498 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 Aagreqate 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. 498 r ?,0;_11 - 0 1 b (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. 498 s P 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. 498 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #498 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 3. NOTIFICATION LIST 4. PLANNING COMMISSION 5. MYLAR TOPO MAP Cornmv5scnecs inu.EtS X01 �tx o6 C� vn n-� �� is rx� r� ckc-isicn m in�.,�CL�� ion ,0183 10�_p -^ 0 18 4 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 499 Site Number 499, occupying tax lot 200 in Township 19 South, Range 15 E.W.M., Section 33, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (Board) for hearing on October 27, 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 499 comprises approximately 13.7 acres and is located one-half mile west of Millican along Highway 20 East. The site is owned by the State of Oregon Highway Division and is zoned SM and LM. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-320 and LM. The area is also in a deer and antelope winter range and is zoned 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, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 499 Zi 21 �^01 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 50,000 cubic yards of ODOT quality aggregate. 2. Site Characteristics. This site has been used as an aggre- gate site in the past and is located on both sides of Highway 20 East. Land use in the surrounding area is range land. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Natural Resources. 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. 2. Open space and scenic values. The site's zoning for LM indicates high scenic values. In addition, the LM zoning designation also shows a concern for scenic values along Highway 20. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: (1) Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the pre- sence of machinery on the site, the building of infra- structure, such as access roads, fences, and processing facilities, and fugitive dust emissions. (2) Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by surface distur- bance and construction of structures and access roads, an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site. The effect would generally be to displace deer from such areas. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 499 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 EFU-320 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 EFU-320 zone would include: (1) The impacts of noise (including heavy equipment, truck traffic, blasting, processing, and drilling) on persons dwelling in or patronizing noise -sensitive uses in the surrounding zoning. The Board finds that under DEQ noise standards, all possible uses in the zone would be noise -sensitive uses, except utility uses, geothermal uses, landfill uses, and other mining uses. (2) The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. (3) The impact to aesthetic values, due to physical 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 (4) Occupation of the surface area of the site in a manner that would displace other uses allowed or conditionally permitted in the zone. The Board finds that, given the above -listed impacts all uses in the zone except forestry uses are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. However, due to the large lot sizes in the area, the Board finds that land use conflicts at the site are not likely to be intense. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 499 10 -1 1" 018 1 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. 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. 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 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 499 0;e, 0 18 8 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 Highway 20. Protection of Natural 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The scenic views in an area of such open spaces could only be fully protected by precluding mining. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. 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. 499 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 inimitable to the protection of scenic views and wildlife 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. 499 and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be 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 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 of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. [Given that most of the concerns about property values are focused on residential properties, which do not predominate in this area, market concerns would not be of great consequence in any event.] 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 499 The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the site and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of this site for surface mining. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 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 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 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. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 499 Protection of Conflicting Land Uses 18. Economic Consequences. With the exception of geothermal development and farm and forest uses, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensi- tive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations; the owner has indicated that that would not be a problem in this case. Protection of sur- rounding conflicting uses can have the effect of precluding or limiting further surface mining activity due to noise regulations. Likewise, dust, traffic and aesthetic impacts place constraints on surface mining operations amongst conflicting land uses. While the elimination of part or all of any one site (except R.L. Coats's site No. 308 in 17-12-18 of 10 million cubic yards and Willamette Industries' Sites 441-443) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 19. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of allowing incompatible development to preclude the use of all or part of this site would be the same as those under the natural resource discussion above. 20. Environmental Consequences. The environmental consequences of protecting land uses at the site and surrounding land uses is mixed. Protecting the conflicting land uses could well preclude mining at the site. This would have positive environmental consequences in that the noise, dust, traffic, and aesthetic impacts associated with surface mining would be prevented. However, protecting the conflicting land uses, especially in a site such as this that is largely undeveloped, can also have negative environmental impacts. Thus, if the site and surrounding areas become developed, they, too, can have a detrimental impact on wildlife habita- t, reducing the overall supply of food and cover and in- creasing competition for adjoining undeveloped habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 21. Energy Consequences. Allowing development that would preclude or curtail mining at this site would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 499 02 Ol resources for upkeep and improvement of Highway 20 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 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. The displaced future uses can be accommodated on other lands in the County. There is no compelling need for them to occur at or near this site. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site on top of the plateau will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffer- ing and screening; (c) Hours of operation shall be consistent with DEQ stan- dards and applicable county ordinances; (d) The site shall not be operated from October 31 through March 31. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 499 h it 01 4 Conflicting Resources 24. The Board finds that surface mining use of the site will be limited by conflicting natural resource considerations by the provisions for screening and buffering to mitigate noise and visual impact. The Board further finds that the winter closure of the site will offer protection for deer herds. The Board finds that the screening and buffering ESEE requirements are met by the screening and buffering require- ments in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter closure will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not typically underway. Mineral Resource 25. The Board will protect the mineral or aggregate resource by zoning the site SM to allow for surface mining activities. The Board finds that Surface Mining Ordinance 90-014, adopted as part of this surface mining package, allows mining activities such as extraction, processing, crushing, batching, and other mining -dependent uses as permitted or conditional uses and activities in the zone. Conflicting uses, such as residential uses that would irretrievably 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: 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 499 (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. 499 ,rw E1CH i P� IT A TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #499 1. OWNER INFORMATION SHEET 2. MAP 3. APPRAISERS INFORMATION SHEET -jt� afvr-� 4. NOTICE INFORMATION S. t��nn�ncl c�mmi::�CAon W(-Ommenctaiion �.� �i rd � Ccmm`,��;cx��s d�u ►on rn� nu-txs lo! 019G . x. ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 500 Site Number 500, occupying tax lot 99 in Township 19 South, Range 15 E.W.M., Section 35, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (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 500 comprises approximately 32 acres and is located on the north side of Highway 20 approximately one and one-quarter miles east of Millican. The site is owned by the Oregon Department of Transportation and is currently zoned SMR, LM, FP and WA. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-320, LM, SM 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 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. 500 I ",-Y 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 130,000 cubic yards of gravel which meets the Oregon Department of Transportation specifications for asphalt and road base material. 2. Site Characteristics. The site is fairly level and adjacent to a dry river drainage bed. There is an existing dirt and gravel pit on the site and there are no drainage problems. The site is naturally vegetated with sagebrush and grasses except for the area of excavation. There are no improve- ments or utilities on the site. The dry river could have seasonal runoff and the area along the dry river is on a floodplain zone. The area surrounding the subject site is primarily vacant range land. 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 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 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 500 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. 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. 500 i0 �� -, 021100 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 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. 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. 500 .r 2 0 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. 500 a 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. 500 02 0203 While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve everyday transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the site and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of this site for surface mining. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. 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. 500 102 02041 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. 500 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. 500 • � 020U) (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. 500 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. 500 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #500 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. NOTIFICATION MAPS 3. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 4. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 5. MYLAR TOPO MAP Comm,,�-Skooec5 hoac� morn 5 $ 'tier ,(v F -i w ,,a � 0208 tri- - 0209 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 501 Site Number 501, occupying tax lot 1600 in Township 19 South, Range 15 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 501 comprises approximately 140 acres and is located approximately one mile east of Millican on the north side of Highway 20. The site is owned by Deschutes County and is currently zoned SM. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-320, SMR, LM and FP. Most of the surrounding land is owned by State of Oregon Highway Division 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. 501 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 50,000 cubic yards of gravel. The quality of the gravel was not provided by the County, however, gravel from the State Highway Division pit located in the middle of the subject property has been used for road base and asphalt aggregate in the past. 2. Site Characteristics. Subject site surrounds a State Highway Division site, and is located roughly one mile east of Millican. The site is fairly level and runs along the dry river drainage bed. There is a large dirt and gravel pit on the site. Where there has not been excavation, the site is naturally vegetated with sagebrush and grasses. There are no improvements or utilities on the subject site. There are no houses or other uses located within one-half mile of the site. The subject site is immediately adjacent to the north side of Highway 20. 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. The site is also within a sage grouse 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. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 501 021 Land uses on the EFU-320, SM and FP 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 protection of those uses would preclude zoning for surface mining. Farm and forest uses are conflicting uses in the sense that those uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activities on the site. In addition, farm uses on adjacent property involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. The Board finds that 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 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 501 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. 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. 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. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 501 I 102 - 0213 The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per cubic yard per mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect such sites located along Highway 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 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 501 0214 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 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 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 501 N ? fJ 021;) ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve everyday transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the site and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of 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. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 501 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 20 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the 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 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 501 w ,021,1 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 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 Aagreaate 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; 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 501 A2 0218 (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. 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. 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 501 0-1Z Z - 0219 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 (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. 501 �XWB*I-r A TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #501 1. NOTIFICATION MAPS 2. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL 3. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 4. UYLAR OF TOPO MAP 5. COUNTY INVENTORY SHEET 6. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 7. QUANITY INFORMATION Lz#e4- co m 0-bF4 u-) li- ID _8 i d .0 Comm t ��-.&%onocs hea('t c, m,flut�S j0• � � Comm��ior��S ctecisic« m�,�..�1 .0;; " 02'0 021 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 503 Site Number 503, occupying tax lot 1300 in Township 19 South, Range 16 E.W.M., Sections 32 and 33, 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 503 comprises approximately 27.5 acres and is located on the north side of Highway 20 approximately four and one-half miles east of Millican. The site is owned by the State of Oregon Highway Division and is currently zoned EFU-320, FP, WA and LM. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-320, FP, LM 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 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. 503 0222 A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 200,000 cubic yards of aggregate gravel which meets the Oregon Department of Transportation specifications for base rock and asphalt. 2. Site Characteristics. The subject site is located along the north side of Highway 20 and runs parallel to the highway. The site is level and has not had prior mining activity. The site is naturally vegetated with sagebrush and grasses. There are no improvements or utilities on the subject site. The neighborhood is vacant range land. 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, deer winter range and sage grouse 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 and FP 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- 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 503 + 0223 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 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 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 503 ()� -, X141' 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. 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. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 503 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, 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 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 503 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. 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 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 503 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 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. 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. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 503 r.+.+;_1 - 0228 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. 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 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 503 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. 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 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 503 f:► 0 2 `0 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 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 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 503 i02 - U4j (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. 503 i`r A a 0? 0 2 ')'2 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #503 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. NOTIFICATION MAPS 3. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 4. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION `5. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP icom � 1 com(n rvfs Q'-.C((Y, YY1i (Ltd `d . .-dca cd J ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 505 Site Number 505, occupying tax lot 300 in Township 20 South, Range 16 E.W.M., Sections 1 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 505 comprises approximately 27.5 acres and is located approximately 1.6 miles west of the Prineville cutoff on Highway 20 East. The site is owned by the Oregon Department of Transportation and is currently zoned SM and LM. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-320 and FP. 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 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 505 A-! 0234 evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 275,000 cubic yards of aggregate gravel which meets the Oregon Department of Transportation specifications. 2. Site Characteristics. The parcel consists of gently rolling hills with a dry river running through the site. It does not appear that there has been any surface mining activity on this site, however an adjoining site, site no. 507, has had surface mining and storage. The site is naturally vegetated and has no improvements or utilities. The are is natural range land surrounding the site. There are no dwellings or other uses within one-half mile of the site. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Resource Conflicts. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. The resource element of the County's comprehensive plan shows the site to fall within a designated deer winter range, antelope and sage grouse range. 2. Open space and scenic values. The site's zoning for LM indicates high scenic values. In addition, the LM zoning designation also 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 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 505 lija , 02:35 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. 505 i(J;2 ^ 0236 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 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 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. 505 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. 505 { A i i0;_1 02 J8 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 appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 505 i)a 0230 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. 14. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. 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. 505 L+J- 02 40 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. 505 I 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. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 505 10.2 0242 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 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: 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 505 +J� 0243 (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. 505 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #505 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. MAP 3. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 4. NOTIFICATION MAPS 5. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 6. MAP SUBMITTED BY APPLICANT 7. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS HEARING MINUTES 8. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DECISION MINUTES 9. LETTER FROM ODFW 9-10-89 N 02 0245 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 506 Site Number 506, occupying tax lot 600, 700 and 800 in Township 20 South, Range 16 E.W.M., Section 3, 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 506 comprises approximately 58.7 acres and is located approximately one-half mile south of Highway 20 East, approximately six miles west of Millican. The site is owned by the Oregon Department of Transportation and is currently zoned SM, LM and WA. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-320, FP and WA. Most of the surrounding land is owned by the Bureau of Land Manage- ment. 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 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 506 Lt.)0206 evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 36,000 cubic yards of aggregate gravel which meets ODOT specifications. 2. Site Characteristics. The area is generally level with some gently rolling hills. There has been some minor surface excavation along the side hills. The majority of the site is natural with vegetation of sagebrush and grasses. There are no improvements or utilities on this site. The neigh- borhood is generally vacant range land and there are no dwelling 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 and sage grouse range. 2. Open space and scenic values. The site's zoning for LM indicates high scenic values. In addition, the LM zoning designation also 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. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 506 -01247 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 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 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 506 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 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. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 506 Iiz 0249 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, 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. 506 x t� LUQ - 0250 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. 506 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 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. 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. 506 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. 506 io2 - 0253 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. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 506 j.();_�, - 0 2 b 4 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 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: 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 506 sf 21 0255 (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. 506 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #506 1. INVENTORY SHEETS 2. MAP 3. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORTS 4. NOTIFICATION MAP 5. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 6. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP T i, e4tr imm ODF--ilk R �2i D Comms ��Ion�rs deccs;an m �n�,�.` a 025"P ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 508 Site Number 508, occupying tax lot 1000 in Township 20 South, Range 17 E.W.M., Section 1, 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 508 comprises approximately 10 acres and is located approximately two and one-half miles north of Highway 20 East, approximately four miles northwest of Brothers. The site is owned by the State Department of Transportation and is cur- rently zoned EFU-320, FP and WA. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-20 and SM. Most of the surrounding land is owned by the Bureau of Land Management and George Warner. 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. 508 In addition, testimony was received from George (Duke) Warner, who testified before the Board. Mr. Warner stated he had no oppostion to the surface mining designation. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 100,000 cubic yards of aggregate gravel which the Oregon Department of Transporta- tion specifications. 2. Site Characteristics. The site slopes gently down to the west. The area is natural range land and has no improve- ments or utilities. Access to the site is poor. The surrounding area is vacant range land. There are no dwell- ings or other noise or dust -sensitive 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 antelope and sage grouse range. 2. Open space and scenic values. The subject parcel is not within the 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 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 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 508 1.0 ;_1 I - 02,50 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 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. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 508 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. 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. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 508 "�i N +J� -y 020" 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, 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 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 508 ,y v 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. 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 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 508 J.0z� - 0Z63 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. 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. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 508 L U _ -, 0264 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. 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 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 508 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 Conflicting Uses. Based upon the analysis of the ESEE consequences of protect- ing the identified conflicting uses and protecting the mineral resource and the relative weight of the conflicting uses and the mineral resource, the Board finds that with respect to existing development both the mineral resource and the conflicting resources and uses are important rela- tive to one another. The aggregate has importance due to its limited availability in the County 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. 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 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 508 102 026E 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 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 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 508 0267 (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. 508 �_-7V , I - TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE L5A?r Sob 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 3. NOTIFICATION MAP 4. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS 5. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP i O Gprnrn�5`�i�CY�tS 1-�a��� rYiic��� �' Ca m m t-�;6io nerS decis'to n m nu tz s 102 0269 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 515 Site Number 515, occupying tax lot 100 in Township 20 South, Range 18 E.W.M., Section 1, 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 515 comprises approximately 17.8 acres and is located on Camp Creek Road, approximately six miles northeast of Brothers. The site is owned by the Oregon Department of Trans- portation and is currently zoned SM and WA. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-320. 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- 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 515 3 OZ M 0270 quences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 100,000 cubic yards of aggregate which meets the Oregon Department of Transporta- tion specifications. 2. Site Characteristics. This is an existing shallow surface mining pit. The site is surrounding by natural range land, and there is sagebrush and grass. There are no improvements or utilities on the site. There are no improvements or dwellings in the area. Access to the site is from a paved road which is adjacent to the subject property. 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, antelope and sage grouse range. 2. Open space and scenic values. The 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 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 NO. 515 0 �� - 027 1 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. 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 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 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 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 515 �+ 0272 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. 7. 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 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 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 515 1 %J ? "' 0273 consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per cubic yard per mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect such sites located along Highway 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 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 515 0 ` - 0 2 Y 4 and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of scenic views and deer and antelope habitat. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wild- life habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. Scenic views cannot be replicated by the actions of man. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it along the highway 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. 515 While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records Of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve everyday transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the site and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of this site for surface mining. There is no shortage of land in the County available for development for the uses allowed in the zone, while the supply of aggregate resources in the County is limited. Furthermore, surface mining is a transitional use, and after reclamation the land surface would then become available for other uses. 15. Social Consequences. Preserving this site for the produc- tion of mineral and aggregate resources would have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. 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. 515 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. 515 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- ina and screening: 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 515 "y (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. 515 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. 515 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #515 1. INVENTORY SHEETS 2. APPRAISERS COMMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 3. NOTIFICATION MAP 4. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMENDATION. 5, ip-4,er ram UDF—tu3 9 -to -ti 60. 06 Com m` i 55 io rLt:�> Vvzn,6 rTj n -i j nubs ` 7, F,cx, � o Come►-�, tan�r5 c C,. vn rri��u s ' 7I.N i J2 - 02�, ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 522 Site Number 522, occupying tax lot 1000 in Township 21 South, Range 19 E.W.M., Section 13, 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 522 comprises approximately 320 acres and is located on the north side of Highway 20, approximately one mile east of Van Lake Road and roughly 11 miles east of Brothers. The site is owned by the State of Oregon Highway Division and is currently zoned SM and WA. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-320 and WA. The subject parcel consists of 40 acres of the entire 320 - acre parcel. Most of the surrounding land is owned by the State of Oregon or 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, 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 522 1,021 -0128' • 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. 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 300,000 cubic yards of aggregate gravel which meets the Oregon Department of Transportation specifications. 2. Site Characteristics. The site is fairly level and is naturally vegetated range land with sagebrush and grasses. There are no improvements or utilities on the site. The area surrounding the site is natural range land. 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 anelope and sage grouse range. 2. Open space and scenic values. A portion of the site is zoned LM. The site's zoning for LM indicates high scenic values. In addition, the LM zoning designation also 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. • 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 522 �v, ilk . Land Use Conflicts. Land uses on the EFU-20 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board finds that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, all such uses 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 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 • 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 522 02 - 024 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 the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per cubic yard per mile. • 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 522 � I. l.q ..~ 4 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, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is ini.micable to the protection of scenic views and deer and antelope habitat. Therefore, • 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 522 • 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. 0 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 522 i 0 - 02� ,1 • 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. 522 ;0Un-8 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 habitat. Likewise, scenic values could also be negatively affected by development where there is none now. 0 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 522 it Q? - 029 . 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. The Board finds that processing on site will be allowed. • 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 522 • 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. 24. 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: 0 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 522 (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. 25. 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 • 26. 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. 522 r TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #522 1. INVENTORY SHEETS 2. MAP 3. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 4. NOTIFICATION MAPS 5. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 6. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP - . Le -or �cvm ObF*Lo 9-ja--g9 �. t5d3.2i G Cv��'1m,55ic?(1�T�C� r19�t� th�nu�i� �. �ix�lc� C,�mm►`..:�iCtl��� dec�sic;t� m�nu�s 10� �"U2li 102 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 524 N Site Number 524, occupying tax lot 1900 in Township 21 South, Range 20 E.W.M., Sections 20 and 21, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on October 27, 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 524 comprises approximately 40 acres and is located approximately on -half mile north of Highway 20 E, seven miles northwest of Hampton. The site is owned by the Oregon Department of Transportation and is currently zoned SM and WA. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-320 and WA. Most of the surrounding land is owned by R. L. Coats or 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 October 17, 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. 524 Jo 0 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 300,000 cubic yards of aggregate gravel which meets Oregon Department of Transpor- tation specifications. 2. Site Characteristics. The site is fairly level and natur- ally vegetated range land consisting of sagebrush and grasses. There are no improvements on the subject parcel. There are electric lines along the south side of the highway and a BPA power line runs across the site. The surrounding area is range land and there are no homes or other improve- ments within one-half mile of the site. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Resource Conflicts. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. The resource element of the County's comprehensive plan shows the site to fall within a designated antelope and sage grouse range. 2. Open space and scenic values. The site's zoning for LM indicates high scenic values. In addition, the LM zoning designation also 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 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 524 X29 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 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. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 524 (►? -, 02Ij6 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 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. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 524 N R 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, 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 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 524 ,()-� U2 # 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. 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 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 524 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 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. 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. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 524 R .ca 0300 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. 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 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 524 i �r IL l(J - 0301 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 Aggreaate 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. 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 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 524 m 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 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 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 524 N (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. 524 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #524 1. OWNER INFORMATION SHEET 2. MAP 3. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 4. HEARING NOTICE INFO 5. -�bnnlncl CO mrrm66%oc1 (�Comrnex 3ho� C,� • -!�oarc1 v Comrrik�,' 0n?C5, d(?US1Cn rn(<1U:::L5 A. io 0305 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 528 Site Number 528, occupying tax lot 600 in Township 22 South, Range 21 E.W.M., Section 10, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (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 528 comprises approximately 5.5 acres and is located three miles east of Hampton on Schrader Road, approxi- mately one and one-half mile from Highway 20 East. The site is owned by the Oregon State Highway Division and is currently zoned SMR 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. 528 T4'� 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 45,000 cubic yards of aggregate gravel which meets the Oregon Department of Transportation specifications. 2. Site Characteristics. The subject site is fairly level with a gently slope to the foothills to the north and east. There is a small amount of excavation which has occurred on the site, but generally the site is naturally vegetated with sagebrush and grasses. There are not improvements or utilities on the subject property. The area surrounding the site is natural range land. There are no homes or improve- ments within one-half mile of the site. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Resource Conflicts. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. The resource element of the County's comprehensive plan shows the site to fall within a designated 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-20 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board finds that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 528 N aA +s ' U30 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 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. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 528 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 dis- tances involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use on Highway 20. Protection of Goal 5 Resources B. 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. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 528 4,0? --0309 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, 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 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 528 JA-e)o / i+_��'' ^ 0310 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. 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 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 528 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 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. 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. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 528 031 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. 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 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 528 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. 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 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 528 02 - 0314 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 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 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 528 031 (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. 528 w A TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #528 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. MAP 3. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 4. NOTIFICATION MAP 5. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 6. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 00, nu, Ct7mrri'56j0nC<S de"Aoo min 10; -, 0316 1(11? -.' 031 s ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 529 Site Number 529, occupying tax lot 300 in Township 22 South, Range 11 E.W.M., Section 18, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (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 529 comprises approximately 120 acres and is located two miles east of LaPine off of Finley Butte Road. The site is owned by the Oregon State Highway Division and is cur- rently zoned F-2. Adjacent land is zoned F-2. Most of the sur- rounding land is owned by 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. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 529 tk 1A 0?, -. 0318 ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 31,000 cubic yards of aggregate gravel which meets the Oregon Department of Transportation specifications. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is located two miles east of downtown LaPine within the Deschutes National Forest. Access to the site is off Finley Butte Road (paved), along the BPA power line easement. This site is roughly 250 feet north of Finley Butte Road. The length of the site runs along a large gully which runs east -west. The north and south borders of the site are fairly level at road height. The middle of the site is roughly 50 feet lower than the north and south edges. The site is an operating gravel pit with equipment on the site. The BPA power line crosses the site approximately .2 miles west of the easter end. The middle half of the site appears to be the area of excavation, with the borders remaining natural. There were no special views or wildlife noted. Areas which are not being excavated have natural forest vegetation. Across the road to the south is currently being cleared of beetle kill by the YCC. The subject site does not appear to have been cleared, except the middle portion where the gravel operation is. There are utility poles along he southern border of the site. Finley Butte Road is within 250 feet of the southern border of the site. Great Northern RailRoad's tracks are roughly one-half mile south of the subject site. the property surrounding the subject site is primarily in the Deschutes National Forest, except to the west which is vacant land outside the forest boundary. No residential properties were noted in this area. LaPine Cemetery is just over one-half mile north of the subject site. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Conflicts Resource Conflicts. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has not identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. 2. Open space and scenic values. The site is not within an LM zone. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 529 +:- 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 F-2 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. 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. 529 # x i C), 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. 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 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 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 529 if such mining were not allowed, due to the greater dis- tances involved in transporting aggregate to the point of use on Highway 20. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the 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- 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 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 529 03ILI 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 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 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 529 r.►`'' 032` 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 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 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 529 to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and compati- bility of other uses in the vicinity of the project. Such impacts may be mitigated, however, through environmental controls on the mining operation. The Board finds that the social consequences of mining activity are low in this case due to the fact that there are few existing land use conflicts and likely to be few such conflicts in the future. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 20 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the 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 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 529 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 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 Acigregate 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 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 529 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. 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 coi3ditional 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 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 529 U 3 2. 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 (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. 529 r► U3�' CXH CB i -A TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #529 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. MAP 3. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 4. NOTIFICATION MAP 5. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 6. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP -1 - *bm �d o C jmm'�`�a}or1�2r hear � � m% nuz�-5 ' tomm'f,�,610 G( -s decis�c�n IC 0323 ESEE Findings and Decision 0 Site No. 533 Site number 533, occupying tax lot 800 in Township 22 South, Range 21 E.W.M., Sections 15 and 22, 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 533 comprises approximately 104 acres and is located one mile north of Highway 20 east, approximately 4 miles southeast of Hampton. The site is owned by the Oregon Department of Transportation Highway Division and is currently zoned SMR and WA. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-320 and WA. Most of the sur- rounding land is owned by 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- 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 533 • quences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has one million cubic yards of aggregate gravel which meets the Oregon Department of Transportation specifications. 2. Site Characteristics. The site is at the base of a large hill and currently contains a 10 -acre sand and gravel pit. The remainder of the site is naturally vegetated range land with sagebrush and grasses. No improvements or utilities are located on the site. The surrounding area is natural range land. There are not homes or other improvements within one-half mile of the site. Access to the site is off of unimproved, dirt roads. 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. 2. Open space and scenic values. The subject property 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 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. 533 03 • 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. 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 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 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 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 533 ,L02 - U3 ,2 . 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. • • 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. 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. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 533 10;_,, - 03 J., 3 • The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per cubic yard per mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Conse- quently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however . it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preserving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and construction and finds that failure to protect such sites located along Highway 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 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 533 L 2 -» 0 3: 4 • 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 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 • 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 533 Z►_� - 03:,15 • commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. This is not viewed as a major problem in this case, due to the fact that the site is to be used as a source for public road projects and would not involve everyday transit of trucks to and from the site as would be the case with commercial sites. • Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, nothing indicates that such uses are likely to occur in this case, given the remoteness of the site and nothing indicates that such uses would have a higher economic value than use of 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 • 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 533 • few existing land use conflicts and likely to be few such conflicts in the future. 16. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that preserving this site for the production of minerals would have overall positive energy consequences. As stated above, the energy consumed on site by mining equipment is likely to occur at some mining site in any event, as there is a basic need for such resources. Haul distances to Highway 20 repair jobs in the area would be minimized. To the extent that surface mining would preclude or discourage development of the 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 - 8 ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 533 . 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. • 0 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: 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 533 (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting 0 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 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 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 533 • • 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 (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. 533 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #533 1. INVENTORY SHEET 2. MAP 3. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 4. NOTIFICATION MAP 5. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 6. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION � • L��e/ �r�m C��,� o- l o -� c • �OQ� � � rnrrn �-Si arti�-� � C12L'i�ic.n �m �,��--- wi""4 034 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 541 Site Number 541, occupying tax lots 2100, 2200, 2300, 2400, 2500 and 2600, in Township 14 South, Range 10, Section 35, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 8, 1989. On October 11, 1989, the Board made a prelim- inary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should not be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 541 comprises approximately 10 acres and is located along Squaw Creek just east of Sisters. The site is owned by Reith Cyrus and is currently zoned RR -10. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-20 and F-3. 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. 541 i 0 2 - 0362 During the ESEE hearings, testimony was received from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Bill Dugan, a neighbor of the proposed site. A list of the contents of the record is appended hereto as Exhibit A. In addition to documents generated for this Goal 5 process, the file includes materials concerning applications for fill and removal permits for flood control projects at the site. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Inventory. The County's Goal 5 mineral and aggregate inven- tory establishes that the site has 528,000 cubic yards of good quality aggregate. 2. Site Characteristics. Site 541 runs along Squaw Creek east of Sisters on the south side of Camp Polk Road. The site is essentially a riparian meadow in and along the flood plain. Its location and elevation along the creek creates the potential for flood and drainage problems along the banks of the creek depending on time of year and water flow. The site hosts a variety of wildlife, including bald eagles, golden eagles, herons, osprey, ducks, geese and deer. The site has not been mined previously. The site currently is used as a hay field. The site is within the Wild Horse Meadows Subdivision, which is currently undeveloped land. The site is located in a suburban area of Sisters that is sparsely developed with recreational properties and small farms. There are a few homes along the creek at Camp Polk Rd. The applicant proposes to build a pond at the site in conjunction with a proposal to build a golf course and cluster development. On both sides of the creek are suburban residential proper- ties. These properties have views of the creek. Within a half mile are similar residential properties. McKinney Butte is a half mile to the north of the site and the Sisters State Park is within a half mile upstream of the site. The town of Sisters is within a half mile to the west of the site. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Goal 5 Conflicts Resources 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 541 r 102 - 0343 1. Fish and Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. In addition, the resource element of the County's Comprehensive Plan lists Squaw Creek as having rainbow trout and brook trout. The Board finds from testimony in the ESEE hearing that eagles, bald eagles, osprey, ducks, geese, and other wildlife are present at the site. 2. Open space and scenic values. The County Comprehensive Plan calls for the inclusion of areas along Squaw Creek into the LM zone, which would protect scenic values 200 feet back from the river. The inventoried deposit in this case would fall within the LM zone on the flood plain. 3. Riparian habitat and wetland values. The resource element of the County Comprehensive Plan identifies this area along Squaw Creek as having sensitive ripari- an habitat. In addition, testimony at the ESEE hear- ings established area floods every year and that the water table was within 6 feet of the surface. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Open space and scenic values are impacted by the removal of vegetation, excavation on the floodplain, storage of excavated materials, the presence of machin- ery on the site, the building of infrastructure, such as access roads, fences and processing facilities and fugitive dust emissions. 2. Impacts on deer would be primarily increased noise and human presence and loss of forage. The effect would generally be to cause deer to avoid such areas. 3. Impacts on fish resources could include increased turbidity and siltation resulting in loss of food sources, and loss of spawning habitat, if the area were to flood while the area was being excavated. The excavation area is located entirely within the 100 year flood plain and is also within an area set out by the Comprehensive Plan as a flash flood zone. 4. Riparian, wetland, and groundwater resources could be adversely affected by excavation on the floodplain. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 541 �° ' Lila - 0344 The Board finds that fish and wildlife and riparian habitat and scenic values along the creek conflicts with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of fish and wildlife resources and habitat and riparian areas and scenic resour- ces, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, dust, increased human pre- sence, and water quality impacts as set forth in the staff report, could preclude or limit zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust and physi- cal scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining would adversely impact fish and wildlife and their habitat and scenic values. Land Use Conflicts. Land uses on the EFU-20 and RR -10 zone surrounding the site are set forth in Appendix A to the staff report. The Board finds that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape -associated with surface mining, all such uses, except motorcycle tracks, utility facilities, feedlots, landfills, other mining activities, personal use landing strips, and forest product processing are conflicting in that full protection of those uses would preclude or limit zoning for surface mining. Farm and forest uses are conflicting uses in the sense that those uses can not occupy the same space as surface mining activi- ties on the site. In addition, farm uses on adjacent prop- erty involving livestock operations can be a conflicting use. Because of the disposition of this matter with the respect to Goal 5 conflicts, the Board finds that it need not address land use conflicts any further. Goal 5 Conflicts Protection of Aggregate Resource 5. Economic Consequences. The Board finds that the economic consequence of protecting the aggregate in conflicts with other natural resources is difficult to measure, given that deer habitat and scenic views do not have any economic values attached to them. Economic consequences would tend to be of a secondary nature, such as a reduction in tourists who would come to the site to appreciate the scenic and wildlife values. The site is not likely to attract visi- tors, given that it is bounded by private property. 6. Social Consequences. The Board finds that the social conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other Goal 5 resources would be negative. Surface mining would have negative impacts on riparian fish and wildlife habitat 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 541 r l� 0345 and introduce a visual disturbance into the landscape. The social consequences of reduced wildlife viewing opportun- ities and affected scenery would be felt primarily by neighboring residents. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on riparian fish and wildlife habitat and scenery along the creek. Surface mining activities would reduce the available forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage. Wildlife would avoid the area to find other food sources, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Excavation would take place in the flood plain. There would be no possibility of moving the operations outside of the floodplain, given the owner's plans, in order to protect possible fish habitat and other riparian values. 8. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that the energy conse- quences of protecting the mineral resource over the other natural resources would be to increase the energy consump- tion at the site due to fuel expenditures needed to run the heavy equipment and processing equipment as well as the fuel expended in transportation of the product to its end use. Such energy use would be bound to occur in any event. Aggregate is a resource that is needed in the County and failure to protect the mineral resource at this site would only mean that such energy use would occur elsewhere. However, the Board also finds that it is likely that the resource at this site will not be fully excavated, since the proposed mining operation is aimed more at a development plan for the property than providing aggregate resources to the community. Under these facts, it would be more energy efficient to excavate other sites where the full resource would be mined. Given the limited amount of material at the site and its distribution along a creekbed, it would most likely be more energy efficient to mine other sites. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of riparian habitat and fish and wildlife resources and scenic qualities would preclude or limit mining at the site. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 541 r �.. U3rG 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 development of this particular site is not aimed at meeting community needs for aggregate so much as it is aimed at furthering the owner's development program for his property. Accordingly, it is not known how much, if any, aggregate would be made available to the public. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at aggregate sites could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. The County's roads would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. Given the small quantity of material at this site, it is unlikely that failure to allow mining at the site would have any impact in this respect. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the Goal 5 resources would preclude or limit mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of topography and habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protection of those resources. Therefore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, riparian habitat and fish and wildlife resources are limited by locational factors. 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 541 Q lJ%, 03�� r' 12. Energy Consequences. The Board finds that protection of natural resource values at the site would not have negative energy consequences. The site has a small amount of aggre- gate thinly distributed. There are other sites with much larger and more concentrated deposits that can help meet the County's needs. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources. Based upon the above analysis of the ESEE consequences, the Board finds that the Goal 5 resources should be fully protected at the expense of the aggregate resource. The County bases this decision on the following: (a) Although this site has a good-sized aggregate deposit on it and aggregate is in short supply in the County, development of this site may not help satisfy the com- munity's need for aggregate, given that the mining would be driven by the needs -of the owner's development and not the need in the marketplace for aggregate. (b) By its decision on other sites, the County has pre- served a total of 45,197,000 cubic yards of aggregate material, not including those amounts that are located inside the Bend urban growth boundary. These amounts are sufficient to meet the County's needs over the planning period. Within a five -mile radius of this site, the Board has in those decisions preserved at least 1.4 million cubic yards of aggregate materials. (c) The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, as amended by the Deschutes County/City of Bend river study gives great weight to protection of natural values in ripar- ian areas such as this one. Accordingly, the Board determines that pursuant to OAR 660- 16-010(1)(2) it will allow the conflicting use fully. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 14. The Board finds that in order to protect the conflicting wildlife resources, the site will not be zoned for surface mining and that present surface mining zoning for the site will be removed and replaced within EFU-20 zoning. 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 541 44 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #541 J.1J?- - 0348 1. MAP 2. STATEMENT FROM CYRUS ON QUANTITY & QUALITY 3. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 4. NOTIFICATION MAP 5. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 6. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 7. STATEMENT FROM RURAL PRESERVATION COMMITTEE C8, . LETTER FROM FLORA BASIN 5/23/89 I� • 1�C7 U� CUM mis��p f12,r� �c�'� t (X� fYi� n ��c-S � fri `U Co m rri �{ \ P r1� rS deC;iS' �o cl ,r►;� c1 v- i7� S 'i 102 - 03`9 ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 542 Site Number 542, occupying tax lot 2700 in Township 15 South, Range 10 E.W.M., Section 1, came before the Board of Commissioners (Board) for hearing on August 10, 1989. On October 11, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines, with Commis- sioner Maudlin dissenting, that this site should not be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 542 comprises approximately 5 acres and is located on a lot in the Wild Horse Plains subdivision just east of Sisters on Highway 126. The site is owned by Arnie Swarens and is zoned RR -10 and LM. Surrounding property is zoned RR -10, EFU-40 and EFU-80. 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 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 542 I i),21 0350 appraiser hired by the County to view the property and the surrounding area was entered into the record at the hearing. During the ESEE hearings, testimony was received from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding wildlife values for the site, the applicant and several area residents who protested zoning of the site 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 80,000 cubic yards of good quality rock. 2. Site Characteristics and Background Information. The Board finds the following facts to be true. This site is located in the NW corner of Highway 126 and Camp Polk Road, east of Sisters. The site constitutes one lot in a platted but undeveloped 52-10t subdivision. The site is surrounded on the north, east, and west by the undeveloped subdivision of which the site is a part. The Sisters -Redmond highway runs along the Southern border of the property. Within a half mile to the south are a couple of mobile homes and frame houses. Recently, clustered housing has been approved in the area. The site is highly visible from both Camp Polk Road and Highway 126. In addition, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site as being in a deer migra- tion corridor. Highway 126 has been signed at this site to denote a deer crossing. The purpose of this application for surface mining is to enable the developer to remove material to create a pond and to be able to sell all of the material removed. It is expected that more than 25,000 cubic yards of material will be removed. The proponents expressed no desire to develop the site into an ongoing surface mine, but only as a means to achieve their ends for digging a pond on the site. The proponents' desire is to develop the balance of the property into an RV park. The proponents testified that at the height of the excava- tion activity, there would be 30 trucks per hour. The excavation will be taken down only as far as 12 feet, regardless of how much material is present. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 542 1,0>' - 03a.1 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Goal 5 Conflicts Natural Resources. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this area as being a deer migration route. The site lies between two deer winter ranges on the County's comprehensive plan. 2. Scenic and Open space values. The site's LM zoning indicates a concern for scenic values along Highway 126 between Redmond and Sisters. Conflicts Based upon the staff analysis of surface mining impacts on natural resources and testimony from neighbors surrounding the site, the Board finds the conflicts and impacts of surface mining at this site to be as follows: 1. Open space values would be impacted by the removal of surface vegetation, the opening of a pit in the ground, storage of excavated materials, the presence of machin- ery on the site, the building of infrastructure, such as access roads and fences, and fugitive dust emis- sions. 2. Impacts on deer would include destruction of cover and food sources by excavation and surface disturbance, interference with migration routes by surface distur- bance and construction of structures and access roads, and an increased risk of being hit by trucks and other vehicles serving the mining site. The impact of all this would generally be to cause deer to avoid this area. The Board finds that the resources identified above conflict with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruc- tion and topographical alteration, noise, dust, and increased human presence could preclude zoning for surface mining. Conversely, the Board finds that the noise, dust, increased traffic, physical scarring of the landscape, and loss of vegetation associated with surface mining at the site would impact wildlife and open space values in a manner that would adversely affect those natural resources. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 542 .k b. Land Use Conflicts. Land Uses Land uses on the EFU-40, EFU-80 and the RR -10 zone at and surrounding the site are set forth in the appropriate sections of the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, PL -15. 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, feedlot uses, geothermal uses, landfill uses, personal landing strips, and other mining uses. 2. The impact of dust on subdivision residents and others neighboring the surface mine. 3. The impact of truck traffic on roads and on public safety. One area resident testified that this site was on a curve in the road that would make it dangerous for trucks to be entering and leaving the highway. 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. 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 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. Some uses are conflicting only in that they would prevent simulataneous use of the site due to reasons of space. The Board finds that of the conflicting allowed or condi- tional uses, only some scattered residential uses presently occur. 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 542 I -(P 03� 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. This could be an important factor in this case, since the site is very close to Highway 126 and would be highly visible and difficult to screen. 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 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. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on wildlife habitat and open space. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer for the remaining forage and cover. Some wild- life would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associ- ated with mining activities could increase the mortality rate for the area's wildlife. In some cases over the long term surface mining can be beneficial to environmental values in that it gives an opportunity for a site already desecrated by the actions of man or otherwise lacking in natural values to be improved as part of the reclamation process. There is no evidence to suggest that this is one of those instances. 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. 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 542 ?�;21' O.3a41 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. However, the Board also finds that it is likely that the full resource will not be excavated at the site, as the proposal is driven by needs other than excavation of the deposit for surface mining purposes, but rather is being excavated for the purpose of making a pond. Therefore, it is likely the deposit will not be fully mined. Under these facts, it would be more energy efficient to excavate other site where the full resource would be mined. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. Deer habitat is in limited supply and the proposed surface mine would cause displacement of wildlife and increased competition in remaining unaffected areas. The Board finds that, as reflected in the goals and policies statement of the County comprehensive plan, the County consumes 2 million cubic yards of aggregate materials each year. Under the laws of supply and demand, failure to protect sufficient amounts of aggregate for the 20 -year planning cycle will result in an increased cost in aggregate resources. Increases in aggregate costs would in turn result in increased construction costs. To the extent that aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per ton mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Consequently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs provided that enough other sites are preserved to meet the county's aggregate needs. The 80,000 cubic yards available at this site makes it a relatively small site as compared to other sites in the County. Further, there was no evidence that this site is being developed as a response to the need for aggregate in the area, but rather to fit into the propo- 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 542 iu;-;p - 0351 nent's development plans for the balance of the property, which would be at odds with surface mining. The Board finds that aggregate resources are a commodity with a market value. Failure to allow mining of such resources would prevent the value of such resources being realized by the local economy. Although the number of jobs represented by the local aggregate industry is small in number, manufacturing jobs tend to pay at higher rates than those found in the service sector. This would become a factor only if the County failed to protect enough sites to sustain the aggregate industry. 10. Social Consequences. Preserving the natural resources at the site could have negative effects on the general welfare of the County if insufficient amounts of aggregate are preserved. Regardless of the amount of supply readily available, there will always be a demand for aggregate resources. Roads and highways in the area would still need improvement and maintenance. A deterioration of the County's roads and streets would negatively impact the liveability and quality of life in Deschutes County. The Board also recognizes the social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources would preclude mining at the site. The noise, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is 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. 12. Energy Consequences. Although in most cases the protection of an aggregate source such as this close to a major highway such as Highway 126 would have positive energy consequences, those consequences are diminished by the likelihood in this case that the entire deposit will not be mined. Therefore, whatever energy is expended to establish the site may not be as efficient if another site were -fully mined. 13. Relative Values of the Conflicting Resources Based upon the ESEE consequences identified above, the Board finds that the natural resources values at the site are relatively more important than the aggregate resource based on the following facts: 7 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 542 a. The deposit, although apparently of good quality and located on a major highway, is not a large quantity. It is unclear how much of the resource is to be made available to the aggregate market in any event since this proposal appears to be part of a larger develop- ment proposal for recreational development of adjacent properties. b. The Board has taken action at other sites that protects sufficient amounts of aggregate resources to meet the county's aggregate needs. In particular, the Board has protected 19 million cubic yards of aggregate within ten miles of this site at sites 277, 275, 315 and 441- 443. C. Deer habitat in the County is continually shrinking in the face of new development and cannot be replaced by creation of new habitat. d. Scenic views along Highway 126 are important because of their possible effects on tourism. Therefore, Board finds that the conflicting deer habitat value and open space and scenic values should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660-16-010(2) the conflicting natural resource value of deer habitat and open space and scenic values should be fully protected at the expense of the aggregate resource. Conflictina Uses 14. Because of the Board's decision on the basis of the con- flicting resource issues, the land use conflicts need not be fully analyzed. However, the Board finds that as a matter of policy, zoning for surface mining in a fully platted subdivision as part of a proposal to develop the surrounding property for recreational use does not compare with the purpose of the mineral and aggregate element of Goal 5, the purpose of which is to preserve supplies of aggregate and minerals for future community needs. PROGRAM TO MEET THE GOAL 15. The site should retain its current zoning. 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 542 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #542 1. MAP 2. MEMO FROM K. CYRUS ON QUALITY & QUANTITY 3. NOTIFICATION MAPS 5. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 6. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP -l. t cd o6 Comrv;tssiOnecs 8T�o�ccl 0 Comry1%S510ners C�US�O� my RLQ «-der morn p-r>F--i w 61-10-%l ESEE Findings and Decision Site No. 543 Site Number 543, occupying tax lot 100 in Township 15 South, Range 10 E.W.M., Section 13, came before the Board of Commis- sioners (Board) for hearing on August 11, 1989. On October 11, 1989, the Board made a preliminary decision on this site. By adoption of these findings and this decision, the Board confirms and ratifies that preliminary decision. The purpose of the hearing before the Board was to determine whether the subject site, listed on the County's inventory of aggregate sites, should be classified under the County's compre- hensive plan and zoning regulations as "SM" or Surface Mining. For the reasons given below, the Board determines that this site should be so classified. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Site number 543 comprises approximately 70 acres and is located along Jordan Road east of Sisters. The site is owned by Keith Cyrus and is currently zoned EFU-40 and EFU-20. Adjacent land is zoned EFU-20, SMR, EFU-40 and SM. This site was identified as containing aggregate resources in the Deschutes County Goal 5 Aggregate inventory adopted by the Board on December 6, 1988. Based upon the site's inclusion on that inventory, a hearing was held to determine whether to zone this site under statewide planning goal 5 to protect the aggre- gate resource. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Criteria applicable to this decision are Statewide Planning Goal 5, its implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000, and the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, regarding surface mining goals and policies. HEARING AND EXHIBITS Prior to the hearing on this site, a staff report was pre- pared setting forth the site's aggregate resources and conflict- ing resource and use values. The report, which was entered into the record at the hearing before the Board, identified conflict- ing resources and uses and their impacts and evaluated the economic, social, energy, and environmental consequences of protecting the mineral resource or in the alternative, protecting the conflicting values or uses. In addition, an appraiser made a report of condition of the site and the surrounding area, that was entered into the record along with the staff report. 1 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 543 r Testimony was also received from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the owner of the site and a neighborhood resident in support of the site. The neighboring resident suggested that traffic impacts could be minimized by avoiding use of Jordan Road to the east of the site for access. 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 1.1 million cubic yards of good quality aggregate. 2. Site Characteristics. This site is located along Jordan Road, east of Sisters. Access to Jordan Road is off Highway 20, approximately two miles east of Sisters. The area of the site is level. The site has been cleared and excavated as a dirt pit. There are a number of rocks in the bottom of the pit. The site is located in an area of vacant residential acreage and farm land. There were no improved properties noted in the immediate area of the site. There are two additional pits of similar size on the opposite sides of the road. 3. Conflicts analysis. a. Goal 5 Conflicts Resources. 1. Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this site for deer winter range and special wildlife consideration. The Board finds that wildlife habitat conflicts with zoning for surface mining in that full protection of such resources, accounting for impacts of habitat destruction and topographical alteration, noise, dust 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 adversely impact wildlife. Land Use Conflicts. Land uses in the zones surrounding the site are set forth in Sections 4.040 (EFU-20), 4.030 (EFU-40), 4.100 (SM) and 4.110 (SMR) of PL -15, the Deschutes County zoning ordinance. 2 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 543 �) �^ 0360 The Board finds that given the impacts of noise, dust, traffic, and physical scarring of the landscape associated with surface mining, all such uses except utilities, feed lots, landfills, other mining, personal use landing strips, motorcycle tracks and forest products processing are con- flicting in that full protection of those uses would pre- clude 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 and very few occur within the impact area. 4. Current Mining Use of Site. The Board finds that surface mining is a current or previous use at the site and could possibly be able to 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 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. This site has no known special features that would draw sightseers to this out-of-the-way site. Therefore, economic impacts of failing to preserve the wildlife would be negligible. 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. No people live in the area, so the social consequences would be minimal. 3 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 543 .iJ-A - 0361. 7. Environmental Consequences. The Board finds that allowing surface mining activities would have adverse environmental consequences on deer habitat. Surface mining activities would reduce the available cover and forage at the site, which would cause increased competition among deer and antelope for the remaining forage and cover. Some wildlife would be forced to leave the area to find other food sources and cover, thus adding more competition in other areas for these resources. Increased truck traffic associated with mining activities could increase the 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 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. Protection of Goal 5 Resources 9. Economic Consequences. Protection of the natural resources could 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 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 4 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 543 aggregate would need to hauled in from outside the area, the cost of aggregate would be increased by haulage costs, which the Board finds to be at a rate of .22 per cubic yard per mile. The Board finds there to be a total of 73,538,000 cubic yards of sand, gravel and rock in the County, accounting for the inventoried amount of sand, gravel and rock and the amount of those materials located at sites within the urban growth boundary. The Board finds that virtually all sites have either resource or land use conflicts with surface mining. Consequently, if more than 46% of the aggregate sites were to be eliminated due to resource conflicts, the County would not have preserved sufficient aggregate to meet its needs. The Board finds that this particular site standing alone is not essential to meeting the County's aggregate needs; however it also recognizes that if enough other sites are eliminated due to conflicts, it could be. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of preser- ving aggregate resources for highway maintenance and con- struction and finds that failure to protect sites located such as this one close to major highways would result in increased costs for highway maintenance and construction. 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 social consequences of increased building costs that can result from a shortage of readily available aggregate. 11. Environmental Consequences. Protection of the natural resources could preclude mining at the site. The noise, 5 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 543 Lig, 03;3 dust, traffic, human presence and disruption of habitat associated with surface mining is inimicable to the protec- tion of scenic views and deer and antelope habitat. There- fore, protection of the natural resources by precluding mining would have positive environmental consequences. As with the mineral and aggregate resource, wildlife resources and scenic resources are limited by locational factors. Wildlife habitat is continually shrinking in the face of increased development. 12. Energy Consequences. As mentioned above, the energy conse- quences of protecting the natural resource values of this site and others like it near highway corridors 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 deer winter range resource 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 dependent. Aggregate resources are in limited supply in the County and this site represents a significant supply due to the quantity and quality of the resource. At one million cubic yards, this site is among the larger aggregate sites in the County. In addition, there is a need for the aggre- gate resources near highway corridors for highway mainte- nance. Deer habitat is continually being lost to new development. Therefore, the Board finds that both the aggregate resource and the deer and their habitat should be protected. Accordingly the Board finds that under OAR 660- 16-010(3) protection of the aggregate resource shall be limited by protection of the deer and their habitat. Conflicting Uses Protection of Mineral Resource 14. Economic Consequences. The economic consequences of pro- tecting the aggregate resource relates to the impacts of surface mining on adjacent uses, the value of aggregate as a commercial commodity and the impacts of protecting employ- ment in the mining industry and the development opportun- ities foregone by development of the site. While the impacts of surface mining may in individual cases have a short term impact on property values of surrounding properties, trend analysis from the tax assessor's records of specific parcels either adjacent to or within one-half mile of both existing and potential surface mines indicates that there were no drastic fluctuations in these property 6 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 543 values. This same analysis shows that there has been no appreciable decline in sales of these or similar types of properties. In any event, as this site is located in an undeveloped area, property values do not appear to be of concern. The most significant impact to surrounding property owners would be if regulations to protect the mineral resource were enacted that would make surrounding properties unbuildable. One potential cost to the community at large is the cost of road repairs necessitated by increased heavy truck traffic on public roads. Allowing surface mining activities at this site could have some short-term negative impacts on the ability to utilize this property for other uses. However, it is not possible to predict when such uses are likely to occur in this case, 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 could have a major impact on the quality of life associated with the other land uses in the area. The negative impacts of noise, fugitive dust emissions, and increased truck traffic would contribute to the impact on the livability, scenic quality and 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 non-existent in this case due to the fact that there appear to be no existing conflicting uses 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. Distances to highway 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. 543 -Y'f 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 exceptions noted above, all uses in the surrounding zoning designations are classed as noise sensitive uses for purposes of DEQ noise regulations. Farm uses may be noise sensitive uses in certain situations, such as with livestock operations. Protection of such surrounding conflicting uses can have the effect of 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 or sites 441-443) would not significantly impact the total supply of aggregate in Deschutes County, if every site with conflicting uses were eliminated for that reason, Deschutes County would be unable to meet its aggregate needs. Almost every aggregate site has some degree of conflict with surrounding land uses. In light of that fact, each aggregate site takes on importance, as cumulatively, individual sites with conflicts could be eliminated and prevent the County from meeting its aggregate needs. 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 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 highway 8 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 543 1.0 U36(3 corridors would create greater energy consumption because the mineral and aggregate resources for upkeep and improve- ment 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, the size and quality of the deposit and its location near major highways in the County. Existing conflicting uses, if any, are important in that they represent an economic commitment to development or occupation 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 con- flicting uses, if any. Potential development in the impact area is not significant enough to be considered to be a use that would limit the use of the aggregate resource at this site. The Board finds that there is sufficient available land in the County to accommodate displaced uses, if any. Program to Meet the Goal 23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting resources and uses, the site will be zoned for surface mining, subject to the following ESEE conditions: (a) Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development; (b) Noise impacts shall be mitigated by buffering and screening; (c) The conditions set forth by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in their letter dated August, 31, 1989, identifying this site as a site meriting protec- tion of winter range values; 9 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 543 d (d) Limitation on extraction to five acres at a time, with on-going incremental reclamation (subject to review and approval by DOGAMI); (e) Mining operations, including placement of processing equipment and use of trucks to extract and transport materials, shall be carried out in compliance with applicable DEQ noise and dust standards; and (f) Placement of vehicle access at a different location from the current vehicle access, consistent with a reduction of impacts on persons living on Jordan Road east of the site. 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. 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 requirements in the Deschutes County zoning ordinance, as amended by Ordinance 90-014. The Board finds that such mitigation will not prevent the County from achieving its goal, since the site will be allowed to be mined. The Board finds that the winter processing limitations will not be unduly restrictive, since it occurs at a time of the year when road construction projects are not underway. Mineral Resource 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 10 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 543 V aid -0368 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 within one-quarter mile to storage or processing facilities only if the applicant for such a use can demonstrate that the establishment of such use will not cause a future surface mine at the site to violate applicable noise and dust standards. (b) In all cases new conflicting "noise sensitive" and "dust sensitive" uses are prevented from locating any closer than 250 feet to an SM zone or one-quarter mile from a processing site, whichever is further. The Board finds that these provisions satisfy the ESEE condition that residential and other development be subject to setbacks. The Board finds that such a provision is sufficient to protect the aggregate resource from conflict- ing future development. 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 certain screening requirements, setback requirements, noise standards and adhere to limits on maximum area of surface disturbance and other limita- tions. 11 - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION - SITE NO. 543 SAA 10;2, 0369 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE #543 1. MAP 2. MEMO FROM K. CYRUS ON QUANTITY & QUALITY 3. APPRAISERS COMMENTS & STAFF REPORT 4. NOTIFICATION MAPS 5. LETTER FROM WILLIAM BOYER 8/15/89 6. MYLAR OF TOPO MAP 7. LETTER FROM WM. BOYER 5/17/89 G«Ctrnr7r,2r�v1�- l� • rx�� � C.m m m � �SiD�� 1'k'� � � ti'�ri �n•�=r-� EXHIBIT "B" MAPS OF SM ZONING AND SURROUNDING SURFACE MINING IMPACT AREA (SMIA) (�37• � � • i Wae Tinic +•• -. : r r = . - ' +.'-��Yi�;ki s t. ,:�14 -�" ff •,�.: � •: AF x. ' l; , i ,t�;t�+t.ssi�; .fir *r~' _ :� {` � • �,• • T. M S. : •1.. 1\ 1 -ww , un-. f .' 14 1 •� �� • v wei o • 1 I : . .___•.• - � i � Well 1 �+g��� � • e uc •Q v ll• . / • 9 2 �o: SSR- . • � � 1 _.. = ll, 'aro n ssoaa 14 13 a�• DeeP.��%! i,\ L ••'�^ r ttt FEET G- •% /J • •• t : � ��� Butt / i, : � � nt Kft ' x < i< 19 24 c t 20 / 1 "+ rrllNAlfl Ga nir e •4 i _ A Gnrc1 R1 a,.oQe,N � �,..�*- ,•. � M � � f. 13 ]4 Fie. Butt ._._.Tr•]itlJ___-.—!--i / -fRY a��\,' 3200. �_� ✓ :/, \� �Y` 1980 ;' F ; I I � .I " � ••V _. ' ' � r I � I Iksert s N 23 z JI 19-r /� �� 8°♦ �� alz ca 5to2.5.-00-02SD2 1 jN. ✓'l+Yi♦? f ?E p o OA "A - to �j .S26 /.1 ZoN4 � c•-� �� ��`5 O .p i `/Yt f; r' . .�-- �` - .• +.f apt`.. r l (. _. .. ` 1 �'-. ;� }':• � ,y °,, ;:.. ' Zr� i Rp 730099 `f. 4f _ J qi - .....i' 31•t�.' ✓f a • ...t. „ z :E ire,, a.- 3 -T ♦.t t � , v ►0�\�%, =�' i-� , a `r H i4 ;- i•+ °o ♦ ����al,..�i�tfi � t \34 7 :?t tr� •fV !i % � �: � ��r 1 I,., •.i • arta .00� }` Plein ,,v; *3rrs a .•+arsr �1 + 33 4:ado � ` a730 .. . 1 r ♦ t 94 ly c:4:.:6 1 ` F 1 ) 31 32-Hall� �5 a' r 1 • ' 0 35 ,o ii JY Lr 3 • T I T T 1907 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90( 17 j.n 100 144 9 10 -S T*- 2 5' Z- 7- 00 - 0 C) --64 '70 0 100 1100 17 5 S 490 pj p Dov 5 000 2� 23 IF t 13,00, .6 116 17 3n" 137 10 V 12 1FP • 0 35 ,o ii JY Lr 3 • T I T T 1907 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90( 17 j.n 100 144 9 10 -S T*- 2 5' Z- 7- 00 - 0 C) --64 '70 0 100 1100 17 5 S 490 pj p Dov 5 000 2� 23 IF t 13,00, .6 116 17 3n" 137 AMA.r� 1. /„ I ! � 33 •i Cloverdalei^ •)xs -� 307 0 aos/ �'�.m. .F L-;AosrT. i I P,l t r RtQ 177an7, 1 1 / r w ravel P.t h !8 i0: 9 Li .� C- •t�. Z 7 _.__ Iv •1 (S•11 1-1x00. 00'10 »27 I � 1 • s • 1\ \`�\` ` .� /,' +� /ii 00 �•� � 1&/;"tea-" -- - 1 1�; i �' i! <`� .�� / :' ' .11• « �5 ;: 't° •�• - M Deep + `.. •" v ,.•:., / _ FO • � � .� •.�: - -- . w '' ,� \' � !� J� J I �\ I _ �\ Vii; n� � �= _.�'•`r� �� � •,•3,•0 �I i 3j10- /� � 21�•! �' I ;� j lig/ tl I/ \ 2 �� r�' ; � 'P, .� E. R. II E. 2730- / -- r2/ (rUMALO DAN) ♦26 •25, ♦2% •j€ .wr♦.W—• 1772 111 NW • SCALE 1.24M) 31*( ITUMALO - W NW SM. E ! 24CO) 0 kv. k# I 30719 v 0•0 YAA SCALE 1:62500 3 _ 4 MMES boon 3000—_1200D 15000 Ib A0 21000EFEET _Z_33 4 5•r40METEPS CONTOUR INTERVAL 40 FEET r1IMLL C -ML 1.K LAKC 19 MI 4971 Z i907 000 FE •902^ N. _, 1.23 - °i • �' tW 44.15' 121.30' 619mm-E, ROAD CLASSIFICATION Heavy-duty Light-duty 1-� Medium duty Unimproved dirt ......... 10 0 3Y yo 0 y1c,�4 �0 Q V 1� 0 � a K' N i•. ` M w •1 I :1 CD 0 Q s mM y :1 • N N M co PIT sit lit CD 00 T _T—_T--r— _T ---r----_ ._ r--T.—T_— — —�— _ �__.T__T • • I 1 :1 « :1 ,. 21 . i� - � �`•�j/�j�j • ., .�1 wi) •;1 �'it »S1 w.l �:1 :1 .) 31 '1 :i 6 v «w «S >a3L3RQ7TX x �fJ 038 M o a- °) � r1 u aun •.5 O � I V � _ 1` chs �R Ob _ 1gr I f Q ^ tl .• w'$ [a�ff CD M Iii LMI�A —I -T( -A--- I a co .60 ,- Cat gi R�Z7R 01Tft 30 / ww �C4, �� i= Tam,{b 1f /35 �35 / /�% t if• �,, LRI.,� v v � /� 'iii .� •. f w ;1;117- 00 DOSOo , -00600 ! ,/ : �`' �/� :.^ r ._� •,�' - 06700 O OBOO (61.) 1 j, j i i• ' �" ` i�`'�-tel { `• y fq , �7 t, • 'et ( •'-z .} ? fl ti i �'1 J4w=�.sr.fl`wo- i AW�d 0 m F— Z O U 0 cr) 0 w F— = D 2 U w 0 • 0 -o _ 8$ o= O C, W oQ s ri- 8 �o K j ItlWii'b BE 1 R f aO �uaa F^i a.E aae_O�ap gR105S Ry!= 100 001-11-10 Odo F— Z O U 0 cr) 0 w F— = D 2 U w 0 • N Q a�ttiTp. O C, W 1`i " OM 1 �. K j ItlWii'b BE a _. isl N 11 tl �7 �5 • m M 34 v. It )�,� ; ! ! ;'� Srre ::zt 303 t2.o1- 00.00300 —�• / - �, - .'rl _: �•_ sn' '-''�M Oke,.. � � \ ' <� • __��/ ! r _ ANI: `' i �r , � ! / ;/� �•' - jam.•' J �. 1,. /a �i' �,�� — »s.: ;q .?• �.• ` } V) �� s L5 _ < 1� q r chi 1.. i x`11 • / ! ?r r .' itQi I -- -v-.tee•» '.:. _ -. 1 i rrl � L i - :s 1 . Y � � c.w i • ri ,• IF � .:..}... 1` \� --.moi••' Vi`. \.�/ � ' � a WA �iel '(P• �^. TE It 3Dy {e•/ t _ 1-1 I�.Ofc •DO- 003oo •� . - 00301 00 3 O :. ,._((142 4- .tM ix ; I y1 . ., .. , , � o� 'fit � - ` � ..� .� �`•� Jnl r: _ y" S c .: F 3 5 r� `� 20(o Cm 0 1-1 I ' O too �3535F.. s � . '1� � �.� . � ,►-' .. � ; � ., '• : � „ : Vit. - %� Al P� 160 LL ` 1 . at J• .rte 1 .. , ��� � �-- .% t 3 ��'y � i arA of ;. A yf -� - .... :. ,� �, ,-� ,�y- 0 �� '•i/. �. -,1• yaa• /'� • -.u• • .•.} yt'^ � Y'. I�llir_ t wr - i%+� �,:�'/'Yr%��: �,!•il,�"..�I`�� � 'ter•', J��1' •: � � r � � �s i 1"j�, '! S" f tlrI �,i lf'.• {�•�� -_y' .i �s •� i ? !'y±i•, �.�R y s • �� s : i. ,s '{SFrY• Y1�37T 1 . _ {� J � i `••- ,j���1' ''�L� a � tel• I `�iC` I: �•�: �• . _ •t •t,r•i d'' �S 1 tt : q'wZ/a;jy i r �•{t'}2�� , ' 'y�� ' -- O� . ,int :..a�t.r�. I 21 6160 T, Black it 15 og nd Glaze ------- -- BN 3246 J..?, 0 2r, I x 33 ntj V4 + 3192 S: t 8 .......... + t I ... ci 6 IT 114' 13? 130 Mot o0co a p 000t v: N CL t4 Ub 16 1.00 b . i L4 • bi CL too 00 IL Na V C*j cu 0 0 AL IL go WL a ef. 4L 2 21 b) ON toiM t is IL e e to w jkmmmb" ts, cli cbfs+ � 14—� 3r► $ � ' »� n^i � �� -! �• � f; •= 4+� t• « '� ^� e5'ti 3 •j R—S N»� 1 !�.' .—� I .»s 130 Mot o0co a p 000t v: N 03A 13 r 03 FOIlette 17 0-1 U, te STRIP mit4E Tp.` A. ------ ----- e 71 r 10 24 19 21 -5 ITE # 32-A+ + Cpnr4 �6 eeP,25f IP qc ?goo— o C, • I'llp I or Vol .1w X.0 P300 'n �' 18_ Terrebontle Ic- NJ• 7FG4 � � � � 3 IS ♦ � '/ lu*e - �ti ` :.r '2 Sn.�r.. accw :-... ae,. — } ail ,-3s�'•.` �' .: _� lsae � \i t mmos• mss. i f' �..� c i �`. •, ,-. - FM1�11N 330=. . 2t L...... . �', i;i• �.' 4 • Mai • is --- :�� �Q ion rint 2922 to J - :-i- RM �»- a o• : :. •• : ,,.° , z p.. A r • J 1 t, ae.«� } a / j 1 - . 1 •stn t HosWtal I• ,p,��.`., ' •a k ATO, .^ � 1�� \` i�.- } � t � /I' :� `.. � �� a l �•' I � � \J.pi`_•`+ - �` nn 1 :w 3� DGICAL SL)Rvr-_v 10000- E. a12E +.i3E _ t•� . ___1 _ �'L 3 7 O J ata r . ar .. IL ALI— r. a , ayA• I�.frf ,�� . 'y r' .fid .���. pi i �r ` r 17ae' \ _ fr• a °. �- i Jd -'� ��rt 2� lad• (' f' j S• _`�-w , ♦ i, f /`_ y LATERAL ♦ Y. WOSOta .. •p. �i( j,,�, l Q�Pft'. X' L.• � O O _ r iTJ\ % d 0 l� - R , r3x _ std ' �• pol 3 f asT41: .,.�` "Tts� t � ,v� O: i - t l♦ i�-�� � � 11�, r i S$1 , r `'i»o y7 } i J T`*_-,'~' �� _,\ tiler. ♦ _ �rvi Zoh= ♦ aIs \\ ,4 ,. U. 28 ` ... �� •}�-.©� 2- i • �t, *� J� 4 , x .L..4 N�� � _5 I4Q � `J l -t ! � .. f o tls� 4. � 1. ♦ .�:�, � K �..y /•�• e �k-6. �.• h-4 /-'' - ' o •• i� Junctia �'�—.�'// •�\\ `;it 7lf? l� /: i.- ; / •r+^ -%•f,`.. t�-.1 : �' tr pO ,pix 7ieli-���� D/ :♦\ _ ry ♦ / C ; Y� -,•t�. � , ,�� •_ Vii, � .•� i. `�@ � �.� � .�� . /25 991 �Xw 77 cr— z 298W3 IFIlm 11111R, j�jjjf,, 4F e Kk M '1 A2 -- a 3 b, ( ri LU 0 ri 03 0 CO 0 0 i—z 0 !iE 10 2 13 •2 0 A 0 .—C'T 0 0 ta 0 N WN us 0. 0 0 10 0 s O3 a 2 0 0 C> - 2 o 0 0 0 O N 0 0 0 1-0 IF cli 0 0 • 00: 1. 0_3 r 10 0 I �- I0 0 -2 CD to C\j 1 0 T --�-F O O � - � O C, cli OR Z, I 0 0 0 OD T T T T T T T T T 00 Opo co:, c c c ; I � f � id N ^� C? C, �" U J .j O O O v MZ.. « 11 F mW *SS O_ I A 0 . ' ' o , C I W O N I (� 0400 t �� Y • t I • S �h+T+.+++•s. ..�� _ I MARK ► RO • +. ------- .- 2p / I ,� s 25 I `. ►...` a/�) .{_ .• •26 - J. 1 26— .......•. I.......:. -.. PINE --- ROAD f'„..� . '•'•" +`JJSJ -4-- 3C t.1D < s .. r'0T . /' ,p•- �. �, Y - - xs< / :/ / / • )us P LENURSy ROAD a � / �\�`` IJ I yJ7r9 /� ' C \ j I Jdlaw gut 1 • �(( / �� pm ` 3 i , / 1 351 Y - nMutO `R[dLRVO>R .O % ROeO T LO a' IA O' JNr R•ES6R. •'' ; � / �t � �j/L/. Laaao_ • �•' B/TUNDARY `•� .1 �`\ \ I \ `� \ i it / .ado \� ( /i . - �'• �\`l w � f J .� -. 1 �a 1—A\ M,9 ST "4� _ 121`22'30" i t}mR ` I -t COUCH /MA1 Kin • • O _ ♦ _..ice. _.. �i ��T.� MI RK[i RD • , .�1 • \ ` / •_ 11! !b� s • • .S I -r E zf3. 36'16 8 .< `_ ?t -26 I-26 .....sm R � sm = moi ✓ ............... nl\MV x3249 • aus i VASM .- . it / I a ^tR.vw r 35 1 �.. ) 35 n -~ 6 � �• �;;•, r� � J o 1 tiro , Pic ; �.r. / : 1 • r • 4 t �ao �7us v►cacwvaR o Rtscpvwm u' Y ' ` 1rnBM 7771 ' ,- �•� .•'i \ 1Rb --� % AfAt •-` ,� c �... — 7.00,_ • y1 i• \ _ V ♦ � (-� � \ r - ~--\l s q • BOUNDARY2 v� /J \ -i;"` l� • / 1/ 1 6 .�Q • o �k] 0402 w.. ; I 7UMAL0 l 23`� COUCH 10' euR.l[r Roy % �� �`-\ ) I ` an -�- g� ; ! Ib I 1 1tt -•� t ;% j I ...._ ._ �% SITE 3Sl - Jt�EP r »91 25 (b 1136 • D0- i _ P/NENUR37 • D ))1) V O • O C� • I DLlDo j4rj.) ES « ....... / ! .1 •�•��« /r m1Y y Gr��`J J i r �� • �%+- '•90 P NURST•ROID. P. 'G ��Y' '•` .• W o Uwe" � r � r� �. Tumalo '\ O fit �•, I' b.-18« 31821 • -0.- '�'+ C' * • `.� ei Pit 1 •.�; r 351 2 '<-�-moo -.. v-�•�, 1 : • a ` // Pit xl �)wt /, •: tC �;/ �r y- o t - ; �Pc i T. 17 S. - - I ,• - {�. VASKI 1371 .. t �! 1 C_. + •' l 1 A.� 900 000 FEET \� - U —31 uo t1�t eSTA* PAR —/ s- II 121 22'30•' ` 91 — R !I E— — 1 EC; Or, 1 E! ! t 17 E .r0• ec o s w rBENC °?6 p Mapp=j, edited, an F.ublishe': l a�r,►a sr..r 1 F 1 . ; ' / Mllc '•' ' 6 / • � �15V -' \ / 157 2 i SUP wmorrc"•a►t wo use . Glave) Plt ' .: 7 � } �a �, �a fit',.-. . - ... _ ..:.'' •'. ..mss . y tn. _. `� � I rcreosom I'• no I 17 18 '' x Vit. I 3103 '• J 2� / - i--�. 14;; o S B4 OU7ME N 31.0 C O - O Z 8 pp 974 I �1 ✓ 300 _ \ f Mia 1 21 1ss i fi X20 3»• 22 { {�� \ ��\; i? 71 ong Butteo =y VASMG3569 i I� 3 2'. 1 :ik I x ok t x 140 `\ 10, I jz•� r i r t'\ aa3o sat \ '<'rUMAL0aE ca eM3275 - eM 28 Art 7 i Dest:hnt s /• 307 32 -St 1 �v J 1 ; O �'319s i : �. BM 3M1 26 aa. a•91 It It It 1..1 ` I • ', +.TC �1 1 ` f \ _3zs 0M 3273 •r' qn, lalo _ �' I� •`.� <� ec. / f1 ' P?° :� 'ago \� 32 opj i1/ t g °i 33 o� 34 Q+, 12 / MARKET ML I / ROAD �I - �\ J R$H ROAD • \ 1 ' am 3140 \ X18 am 171 • .�. .BROWN I • au7 • ( I ROK -.l • `�"\ ' i�.., -_•,�.� _ (- .._.._._. .+1 �� • �1 / • ROA '- 'O O CONMAROV Id It oAvroN 24 aOo'. u 21 n --- -L-- ' "'� M `'Mite 20 3300 It / � .• _ =;79x _ $ �T� t� 3!010 _ - �- ��✓ / t(o1230-00-�ooc� - J i 01 of • I � \ , • sa 25 I r - INEHUR$TI ROAD 11 BM , ��BM 28 / -- �J313 SCH E$ HIGH NUY _ ..:.:.: 7753 ) :q 0� __._-_ 3275 + --�_ _\ vej Pic •. - �_ ,. _ _� - o .:..... �� \ \•\ I``I - /mit/ J V . - . . • / � , / v \�����\\\\� \ � Y�219 Gra IY ' , %�� � � I I `� • 7300,,,ti •l`� 1 VABU 1 C dRY Tumalo O i Pit / I , .. - -;r (BM 31821 313 ��' �� i/�• (�Ic % ♦'�e Pit —J I ti /r �'i �;\ Pim -/1 � Croda � �/�/ t � ar' � . /,/ .. C (" ,�n �� • -- " -O `� _ l d � �'�3 Citi V /- ,J a2 t P = J a r 0 4 0 %'1 -'Z V-1 - 7 -rE #3(.8 0 0 ?-a 7- avi e - Er «33769 JIM 4b rIMNE ...... ... . lim-fts 28 NO Pit n 0 A 111210 u 1,4 L cr 3S OM 330 VA 337. U 4 0 E) 0 0 _ 2 � I rR h 1 I i 48~ O < QX i Id_ Qq Q N 2i •+p � CZ~ p A' Y�y JElcn W Wy�j J KU U �•WW N $ :01O R O W W __w R OJJ j UOZ WQ _O< O U 4 0 E) 0 0 _ 2 � p_ �O < ~ O W «Ct O b� < N U 2O < O Z U O W <z Z = W I O t: >: 3W W J N d E < 00 aO� 0' < F O N W � m ' cc to Of S(TE tt 310 0 L z:: Tvzz �/ I � - � �' Cil � � .l • � S -22 J •� --� t x t F6 t��� _� m E C ovov .1 �... �. �,; •b I q, \ c `11 \�. y' o o i �i _ s u N �� �. � 1 �i D � i vo .iF .22'? 1.0 { rR za au z 48~ O < QX i N1�0 J Qq Q N 2i •+p � CZ~ p A' Y�y W Wy�j J KU U �•WW N $ :01O R O W W __w R OJJ j UOZ WQ _O< O 2 W OZ � o p_ �O < ~ O W «Ct O b� < N U 2O < O Z U O W <z Z = W I O t: >: 3W W J N d E < 00 aO� 0' < F O N W � m ' cc to Of S(TE tt 310 0 L z:: Tvzz �/ I � - � �' Cil � � .l • � S -22 J •� --� t x t F6 t��� _� m E C ovov .1 �... �. �,; •b I q, \ c `11 \�. y' o o i �i _ s u N �� �. � 1 �i D � i vo .iF .22'? 1.0 { Q � b 5j � o lZ S8 —� ( 1 1 w z � _ ry ] , C W - - - p Li W W f N m 3 -- A N = � ---r --�-- ', , �1 -� i ~i•, e� - 0 H e ..-+ { "� «S 11 n� 1 mi 1 '1 o $ '� •i I a. Y � a a 1 t �j f g a ." - 1 i l z -_'!: 3 N g -1 � -i �"-a 1 �t i •a � �, W " f v a a 4 N ---� co ti o 8 � •� � I I , ( _ 76 X � I { "—.T_.T—_�—...,.....r^—.T _�,..:^T--�^ �..+. -Tom►—`i--' � ( s t a( ( • ( s) si s - 1 •I s1 • `1 •• i• `' • 1 t s � •- 01 •1 •M ••S 1t 71'19 U•1111 f O 000♦ MO's 0.01 OQOp1 tt ?iY^S d s 0 0407 SS A7h M•yN 61 W W L. W W a t Q W /! ID s 3 N 3 N � n H2 • W N Q N •• W - - - p Li W W f N m 3 -- A N = � ---r --�-- ', , �1 -� i ~i•, e� - 0 H e ..-+ { "� «S 11 n� 1 mi 1 '1 o $ '� •i I a. Y � a a 1 t �j f g a ." - 1 i l z -_'!: 3 N g -1 � -i �"-a 1 �t i •a � �, W " f v a a 4 N ---� co ti o 8 � •� � I I , ( _ 76 X � I { "—.T_.T—_�—...,.....r^—.T _�,..:^T--�^ �..+. -Tom►—`i--' � ( s t a( ( • ( s) si s - 1 •I s1 • `1 •• i• `' • 1 t s � •- 01 •1 •M ••S 1t 71'19 U•1111 f O 000♦ MO's 0.01 OQOp1 tt ?iY^S goof' 1z - ---------- 40 SITE '381 29 t 11 2-S - C-0 - 12600 Is it 2,6- Do - 0(600 SPA zome� NP-CIPSUMM-k/ Wpl n L FILE 081 `V LOCATION: This site is'locatoa4 off.the'end'of Cinder Butte ....X. Drive in Deschutes River Woods, south- of Bend, in Township 18,. Range 11, Sections'25 and 26,7 Tax Lots 1600 and 12600. Access onto the site is directly off the end of -the road. PRESENT ZONING: , S# -SURFACE 'MINING. ADJACENT ZONING: RIZ 10, SM, AND IX r. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: SURFACE -MINING, RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT. SIZE: 50 ACRES OWNERSHIP: PIERATT'BROS, INC.-• .-. RESOURCE TxP9..i.'-.CINDERS; QUAI.ITY'.1S GOOD, 56;00.0 CUBIC YARDS., HEARING DATE:'-- August 1989 HEARING Tlmt:-- -6:30 P.M.% - - -stration Building HEARING PLACE: County.Admini Hearings Room '1130 NN..Harriinan Street BEND OREGON 97701 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ek­­ 9 -P" - e.h NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIENHOLDER, VENTOROR SELLER ORS CHAPTER 215 REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT MUST PROMPTLY BE FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER_ F -,S ITelt -391 ISIZZI-00-00zoo SM Zow►e. , I+e 3 `I 2 0411 40 1 r ;� � �' � � s� �s � . -.. _ , - � r..Z:. . _ 'r'am,�.r��1.. _ . IILL �_ ► - ® AI s ��� I� a � ��, � a.+r '"z,�f •tilt'�,ad^•'!r" i - .rj. �� 4 `moi •�;•. •, rr.' � !,1 �/ ` ��• .4 -fir ,� ` -e �•1f`�•."� .,a^ elt Av � :'.:.,•.�:^''• �i �.t.. .•arc .. `- � , .... � j A.}4;,,r-_;�� .•,.* <, : � •�; ... 'vim_ �'"• ; r,� ' , r tea. w s � � t „ �+s � � �, f�.�� .a ,b -• � : + lr..' -dam �- . . '•i.•j y.• -•r T� ®..nom!. o.a+f••,+ x�. 11 Ir- v �yi LJ C�_CrED 9Y 7� �, , / �YGIr►J� APPROVED ,. CENTWEF SURREY^6Y SCALE �i/� w ♦OATE st ENglNEERifVCj GRAOi'7� BY D'r`;G. h0. t o o.tIJ' 04 o- M N o y- � o 0 ti aC N � Cl 91 eon t•s f - e O : S Q Q CL a N N WN W LLrW WUl N W N U) 8 I R • a (`� a ro N CL a I� , ,r, M W WLU N N I �.I a a °- a I _. M 'I+ Q an N W c • UJB •-- W Wtil W 4 N o N a Y 3. Q I ♦' N I' = . * N (1VAN N3N3dK "� a Q N 062 W m dVw 21 61 335 • \ p' r• �� d3— ,son W W • W m D62 N dvn Z) 61 0 33S Q . pM ,.p W r" U) N sa O _ N b ?'•NW ►tM I�TJ _ � Q qg O • r ♦p OD •' �' } tuui _ul OD , � �� •� i W tG W W s1; 5 Sob- ` II N M 606 - •••_ • ; i�piilei+ ''p )19 E9 � • - 0004 0 ,w, C OOi _ - :�:� . •••�� J•'� - <''.� fib. �.-••��p�� / A - - - '. ss°_- _--a`/ �lf /' j'�r - �\� /• i_ -i' -- tjl('--_ 4. � 7'_ f'�sas�-1 '•f :� ': f Wit„' i ,� 1 1 ,ll •• Go 25 29 W. Y :1 ' tame:•- ,:.;.. t.' .. :: ..yr.: -. r ^� • tit` '. :-ice .�jb 7�i _ , ��. •:`• � 4Wllit '� - �'e :7r k :_� '�. i;••~'�-1,`.�'.��.•- �Z�"Y�. •.� �".•.1�'== ti��=:�;.. iti. ;� -- � - � i r •i �- � . „ .;.w �+ •ais e i � • �. SY '�...,,. _._tis i,.. -.,l• .7F'• ",=i . _ �• � - -'wti -.1• ,'3.. a•.:• 't:'• 1!') �+,:• :•,l%! .z_-•:� SIC•'. ��. • �t a`.'•y�' =5. Ir Si•-�•:�r. • . car !-�':�•:� . y ^= "��•' - ;�,�•'• _ •� � . • 1:.. �•r`-`• �A' ;fit:_ .. --.ri<:= �•.. ",S'�' _ .;.' - i 24Mi -Z• �� :. 7. = Vii' � i 1 :� � t •'�'- �. a�-, a_t`.-. .• i --� _ r FILE #395 , LOCATION: This site located jest east of South Highway #97 at the Weigh Station south of in•Towns 18; Range 12, o Section 30, . Tax Lot 4300.: PREMM ZONING: SM -SURFACE kfKING -• ADJACENT ZONING:- RR -10, SMR; L� F2; AND iM OoM piMNSIVE PLAN: SURFACE 2QNINa RESERVE, FOREST, SURFACE "�- �' MINING, RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND -LANDSCAPE MANAGF.Kf3NT. 22 ACRES - -,"`• • 'ORNSRSjMP: -STATE-OF ORLON._-- _ RESOURCE `.l.x . t:CINDERS,''�QBALZTY ZS 'GOOD, 100, 000 CUBIC s. Y. •� - i; �. n: t. s ars Ar 146�- HEARING -OATS' `..` August=70; 1.989 HEARIN6-171W:` - 6:30 04M. = • r" -HEARING PLACE:' . -.County.Administmtion' Building* ' x Viz; - Hearings Roots , e - .i- `;=' 1130 N.W. Harriman Street -BEND; OREGON • 97701 -:�•-, � - - SNP."" til ...o /. ---- -- ''-. IA.•• - 1 " ••�• Vii', n.� ..f•':1 1 i �1�. � - • 1 a ��-•y;. i "1 NOTICE.TO MORTGAGEE,-LIENHOLDER, VENDOROR SELLER ORS CHAPTER --215 REQUIRES THAT LF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT MUST PROMPTLY BE FORWARDED -TO THE PURCHASER- �P S 1�•—H 3�iS ,SM. Z csv�Q� o M i 9 041 T f at 22 FILE 9404 LOCATION: This site-is located in Township 19, Range 14, Section 2, Tax Lot 200. Access. to the area is along a dirt ltd road which•leaves_the highway at the base of the Horse Ridge grade. The site is X!bughly/one.ails NE of the highway. PRESENT ZOKTG: SH, AND VA. ADJl d=T Z01I M: EFU 320, iQ1 PLIN: aMCIILA'D1�S.A= vnmu E AREA. Co�IIIG. SIEB: 200 ACRES . r - D ONNSRSHXP: 21 -0 1 AND GLORIA IMM - RESOURCE TYPE: AGGREGMM, -QUALITY LETS ODOT SPECIFICATIONS, QMMTITY IS 193,000 CUBIC YARDS. -- _...._ .. t. . HEARING DATE: August. 7•t 1989 o HEARING TIME: - 6:30 P.M. s 9 1 HEARING PLACE: County Administration Building Hearings Room . IT30 N.W.Aarriman Street BEND, OREGON' 97701 • �� -- T 20 i 21 a22 Z34 S . i lea - J 29 20 27 26 / O c a (O ' S I?E. a(V'. y � - R 15 E - 596QO R s by s s If 3i• �� 4 F kArj ruwe8� ��1� �%�'♦ �� 4�; aid_. • /J'4 '�� ��! 7 ♦ ' J • 4 �a :.... � 09 •tali :_� �� �?� i"'�. _ f " • \\ f. :� ,,4 NORSE .vi' 'J�<, \ : v �� ♦ r ' 17R1pGE - µ '�♦ 4 ?� - NATURAL p ';� @♦ � ''�{_• y.`c=2�c = �i � �`4s• - ,� Q/ � 17 ♦ s �W«f�' AREA 4 6 ' 4+ ", � t ? '• '� � �� 2D :' 21 22 24 �1� s�,. S�- ��� ♦ o ? moreft w����� it'; � �1 '�d ��� iV.� '•y .•af F 19 OIdq R1 qQ Coyyote �- 1 .,�� - p ; +.., �•., •�� ♦ ��/, /►'s/! �, Golden �� 4� '"; ♦ N w _ � �� sin �- ( � -f, b = :4. •�� ;� `:� �`; � '� 1 �. :,.• �p � � � ` 28 �• _r' ,..: �� +i!; ccccccc����iiii c-s� J 29 NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIE MOLDER, VFNDOROR SELLER 32 ORS CHAPTER 215 REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE 'THIS NOTICE, \ sz 33 IT MUST PROMPTLY BE FORWARDED TO THE PURCIIASER � � � _ Ji % D 7, -. / // - A- Udo f OA O 1 0 s O D r O o I' t _IT ` R - - y{ a , Q I -- ON « _ � N M rQ + Iw1 i p . Z _O •. N N w 1 s _ •- K ---! to _CD w I 1 "•st mss., w -:L«=� w;A �� «: - `�S -:1 ~ gwS� •i -tet «� w�� �: - w�l w�; ,�i O N�O� 9 ♦ it4 wwK v G�• N - n • r� or �cl H* °.M I "—'—� SEE MAP .i.. 3 18 16 32 . 1 7 I• Z 1 I 3 I Z 1 --J.--1-700 —1--i---i--70C 5 III ° 1 ' I 1 , 1 I I :1 t 1 4 41 I i 33 SEE MAP 4 SEE MAP 9 1000 4 1 -n00 p01)•, t.`• iu00' — 106 •I I woo /•.«7— INA f 35 i' 24 SITE pp *Lq o,J l9l(000•oo ui 16 15 jl y' ~4,. .... ,. . ,si, i X",. ,i.1 .- I too - 1 1 I :1 ? 3 '.4 19 20 21 f22 Mq � • I I I -IV'cr, _ 1 30 —3Q0+ 29. 28 f 7 ;• �l f i H* °.M I "—'—� SEE MAP .i.. 3 18 16 32 . 1 7 I• Z 1 I 3 I Z 1 --J.--1-700 —1--i---i--70C 5 III ° 1 ' I 1 , 1 I I :1 t 1 4 41 I i 33 SEE MAP 4 SEE MAP 9 1000 4 1 -n00 p01)•, t.`• iu00' — 106 •I I woo /•.«7— INA f 35 i' 24 SITE pp *Lq o,J l9l(000•oo ui 15-11 •..:.—R� �t60I n •.. 'IiBJ �..• , � ,•.••• 1 — • @ori 1,.., ... 19 I 20 21 I 221 23 �---� --24-- — - 3 12 13 ( •oo ,.:... uobl ,..... Izo3�.7 — 3..,..�,Tn) 1 ,1QCO]. , ----I 30 I �� I 28 r, , 26 , i LAC) , 1 it ,. I ,.Z1. 1 ♦ir• .... ,. . ,si, i X",. ,i.1 .- • :1 ? 3 3 --1206e, 1200 'fi�7:�c —3Q0+ 7 —1160 ;• �l f i (5� 14 I col 3 15-11 •..:.—R� �t60I n •.. 'IiBJ �..• , � ,•.••• 1 — • @ori 1,.., ... 19 I 20 21 I 221 23 �---� --24-- — - 3 12 13 ( •oo ,.:... uobl ,..... Izo3�.7 — 3..,..�,Tn) 1 ,1QCO]. , ----I 30 I �� I 28 r, , 26 , i LAC) , n7 I L L I C A tab. N MORTGAGEE, NOTICE TO M LEENHOIDER, VEKDOROR SELLER ORS cuArrm 215 munm THAT IF you RHMWE - Tffls NOTICE, ri ff mUSr ]PROMPILY. BE FORWARDED To THE PURCOASEL CIL oe A /- .,C 4 d1l, V. loo, 0J. F I 100- 6, 1, 1 r I ;i— fill �- . -N. -. . --� —c Old fe IAA .J - FILE f413 .:a ZDCATION: These two sites are locatespart way up the base of Pine Mountain, in Township_ "20, 'Range 15, Section 16, Tax Lot 1400. Access to the sites is along an unimproved dirt road. There is no direct j: ay of getting to the. sites.' The nearest maintained road a 5 zLUd drive to get over to the Pine Mountain Road. PRESENT ZONING:-. SMR, AND V& ADJACENT r2, ZFU 320, WA COMPREHENSIVE MACE MINING "Zintn, VILDrZFE -AEA COMBINING, - FVW=. SIZE: 35 ACRES OWNERSHIP: . DESCHUTES. COUM . RESOURCE TYPE: AGGREGATE,- QUALITY MEETS. ODOT 'SPECIFICATIONS, QUANTITY IS 30,000 CUbIC-:YARDS.- HEARING.DATE: August: 8 1989 HEARING TIME: 6:30 P.M-* - 7k 1 HEARING PLACE: County Administration Building Hearings kooii 11.30'N.W, Harriman Street BEND, OREGON97701 C TE 7 �31 35 �Ai iNill 100- 6, 1, 1 r I ;i— fill �- . -N. -. . --� —c Old fe IAA .J - FILE f413 .:a ZDCATION: These two sites are locatespart way up the base of Pine Mountain, in Township_ "20, 'Range 15, Section 16, Tax Lot 1400. Access to the sites is along an unimproved dirt road. There is no direct j: ay of getting to the. sites.' The nearest maintained road a 5 zLUd drive to get over to the Pine Mountain Road. PRESENT ZONING:-. SMR, AND V& ADJACENT r2, ZFU 320, WA COMPREHENSIVE MACE MINING "Zintn, VILDrZFE -AEA COMBINING, - FVW=. SIZE: 35 ACRES OWNERSHIP: . DESCHUTES. COUM . RESOURCE TYPE: AGGREGATE,- QUALITY MEETS. ODOT 'SPECIFICATIONS, QUANTITY IS 30,000 CUbIC-:YARDS.- HEARING.DATE: August: 8 1989 HEARING TIME: 6:30 P.M-* - 7k 1 HEARING PLACE: County Administration Building Hearings kooii 11.30'N.W, Harriman Street BEND, OREGON97701 C TE 7 v L :L I C A NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, UUMOLDER, VENDOROR SELLER ()RS CI Arm 2iS MUM THAT IF YOU RBCWK IMS N(MCF, ff MUST pRommy.sK . yoRwARDiD Yo mc ruRcffASEL WM 9 MZ4414 LOCATION: This site- is 'located part way up the. base,- of.' Pine Mountain, in Township 20,z -Rai e 15, Section" 16, -'Tax Lot 1500. PRESENT ZONING: SHR, . AM VA ADJACENT ZOWNG: F2, kFU 320��VA - WIVE . PLAN: AGRICULTURE,. SURFAPE - KnUNG RESERVE, WiLD-LIFT AREA COMBINING, FOREST_. SM: PART OF THE 35 *ACRES ]:DMMF= IN SITE NqMBER 4131, OWUMSECEP: - DESCHUTES COMM RESOURCE -TM: AbGRW,.=,_. 6MUML;Y MEETS.ODOT SPECIFICATIONS, QUANTITY IS 30,000 CUBIC YARDS..' HEARING DOE: Augiist 8-*, 1989 HEARING TIME. 6:30 -P-M-. - HEARING PLACE-.- County Adiinistration Building Hearings Room :1.130 N.W..Harriman Street BEND, OREGON 97701 ............ 7S��I—e 6 \-V ro- j 0 . c` Iry u\.G v ..... �..,�.-..� .-•. -- --- , _ ORS CHAM R 215 REQUIRES TEiAT [F YOU RECEIVE TMS N(MCF, i rr MUST PROMPTLY. BE FORWARDED TO TUE PURCE[ASfM- '^ 041.2- 1 41- ON- Ll L41 `11-r � q161,119 1(c-Oo- 00100, ♦�� -. �_ 2 '� a T _ �.•• -' 01000/ Ot3oo J I 1- -- = - -- _ • LOcArs — - J ( ` 14 it PU 4415-414 . j 1 LOC&TI011: at �group..of 'tide scall sites vhicb r1=1 along the 'north' side -Of Highway- 20 _East, in Township- 20, ! �__• r I Range 170 Section 3L6* 'TAX Lot 700- The site are located = -) roughly 1.5 ailaq Oast Of the-R400t& 427, - the Prineville { - / cutoff at Nile aarxer Tis. - ' j - 23 . - PRESENT Z0KM:S![ AND �. ADSACE T-, ZOKMG: -EM 33220 _ . •- _ i • F COKPRSHEMSIVE PLAk-- 1►GRICQ].TVRE, SQRFACE MINING, ANO' ; j LMTDSCAM lD MMMENT. - SSSS: - 10 ACRES QppliTy. --,e-•�- RESOQI TZPE AGGREGATE, QQALT,TY MEETS ODOT SPECIFICATIONS, V Qnkrm 30,000 CftlC i HEARING•DATE: = August .8 , 1989 ; HEARING TIME: 6:30•P_N. 26' HEARING' PLACE: County Adm ni stration Building 9 Hearings Room 1130 N-W. Harriman Street ' ` '' BEND, OREGON 97701 ' Ll , OLi OZ aow •>5 r►! v O r m I� — — o _---� --.— o i I 1° II II II � II II r----�----fir a I� I Ion I IT 3� � I II II i I it L----JL_----J II f N lo -----1r------ I" IIc I II I II � II I, to i �II cn Q _ w r I 2 _J L ----J m I o A I �/� O tp J Q :r O ° g � I � p II m jo Ila I =i0 8 I OSI m b Ll , Q 0 N 0 L C3 j. oz ecw .•S old Q+-- O ----� I FOO -- -IIN II F8 I� lion I r 0 1 II II �o-----Flo------ I" I I I 0 H II I II � II IP 10 i . II LoII I �I 0 In I r � II WWOO I o m I o I 0 � I Im 2 O✓ II II m O II -�. to r � 18 - I -p�l m �O w i1 oz aon +•s w 0 4 r. as t r � N � N \1 H I- I A l'N'D rC/Jtl:) y I,I 3n 01 IN i O 00 Cyr &Z, '-0000% 0008t, 11 3i 03 C4 ? 04�` .� N S o - —- - N M + N LO- ns O � «� � � .s �-" •}s � o M � tD rte►• tl7 _ N� 0 -t tt o s o N W�o r ( p I O O O LLJ t 1 fit M -- VtD N o •+ 8 g-� 117CD .R } N i. O i0 • J O O `O O O « .. i S A d p O Q TX• ► n. _ O d O ii O W W W WA W= ~ 3 w- - j O e O `• - Ns' w to tV T--T-- • NN• N « 8-; 1 I «2 ��' .O ul y I,I 3n 01 IN i O 00 Cyr &Z, '-0000% 0008t, 11 3i 03 . U 4 !_ � o CK �� o o-x i I 0202 S p g o 8 I'I p 0 O ¢ O 0 0 LOM ►O to �_� U� o. tt� o_ �$ I CD rte► jjj M O o tt� N } M k n�' I 0e T , N co M I OLO n 8 • coE NLLI �o W- yW/ N • qQ Nw c— « l ��� g • g o0 � t o p M aa uu 7g O N t �'1 ^= •1 • F, 'y N O -_ �X, -XI f p_ A , ♦� @-� S r I.} ; ._ -� w. ' n� �f i r t iz --n -S W33 3n odor oaoa .! Coogt i1 TWOS 0 4 8 5 ID -Z - 4z q 4 B '335 12 Ind' round 39 sm 3246 IX Ak. I rE 0- L4 Li gyp , a '�� f �'� 150`j00.00.00100 SAA Z Ono Pi 3 36 31 C, m Co N, 3 B 126 B 1021E 22 + sm 32636, 6 5 URI Pi rs 17\ troutf�eeC Creek . H1. 6(11 1680000 FFFT fqniilWv ck 111 ) 11#7 — S is 4 - --------- Rlack Buttd rd mund 3246 am 3228 28 '30 4r L( Fo, L500100 -OC>. 004C>o 31 0 am Coil 3 4 IF - IZ --)l Snn Zone 3 w M ............ 1--- 1-. NO, 2 24 C7 w 9 14 0 rest CA ' '�-vut Cre Out rou a /* Yout Cre H c 6M 1 646(w FFiT Knill— It li I IIIIMMFIIW� 47/3 Black Butte am 12 zm A A 13 .18 �AT� rou BM 3246syN 2 BM 3228 '30 0114 32 -�N 3 • 3 36 31 �, ' • Fdo,.rI < CD 7 7 7 22 M 3324 3 4.13 ao. 2 n, 5' L4 L4 3 sol ff .-• =J ol Do oo- 0C)GOC) F z s Aok- k sm 0!3 . ........... ......... . 24 •V - x/' `. 1 _I Lt Cre tfC4.ek IItt i"t EM7.Ip �,77- 7 O�s .000 ..... . . . . . . . '7 cl. 13 18 /X rr Hit 00.00 • 05 2-00 DIP, Cf -LA - 40 > S rj fCf4 -A 306S 31*0 3140 16 I -W i _Iris � W[. .+ �Me �R -bald I iia , o 1ti Follette utte ee Q 19 v' SV)__20 I I 043 1 9 �� rr. ' ` Steamboat Rock .00 I ; )>Mile am idR I, •� BM ?559 p Strip Mrae I t •``_.,• wa CHO I STRIP MINE �:�. �•a+ I l I 2647 r SATE # `q o j tZOO ..UO-DISO1 t, Q� 1600 + SM ZtV�e I f \y 27]O 27 LN- PIAM, m 11to A - - - - - - - - - - - - v 0 4 3) 77� I P6 2�. ....... 22 Ito If ..Af Jew 141333.0o - oo(oco del 'Zone It" It M2 6 Pit& 7ff, . ..... or tX I 2977 od ID 0 rn- I 0 4 • ' sod ICY J cy .... .•s ••Y• • ' .1100 • .- • •f•( . - ' i - J` _�/� Ile • ; — J --- —+ +----t.---- 10M , ' -, / ', �� S ITS• � 469 I• �/ . ? ��1131•CD o(Dloo Y I I 36 WSW T 6 ICH 33 r. i j•jq ,SMR- ss�x �7 o • 7 . .I >-` •'• los :� \ aeSS - I • ----- \ i ; ;. 14 1 -s.4. r - - - • (� I well � • it, I - • BM I �n • • • :- — i IOSf � X1077 ' — •( .30" 3093 3071.K o w • i I . ,`1 i•. I A a AL�03 �043bD I Zi C, -. -S 0 4 3 Y -14 i o z - p4 " 18 Mali z cc 41 paL �z 40 U. ,X 0 Cm IL -C Y <CC 'c C% > ;U <V cli Q)0. a Z oz C4 id I !? P w w I.- %Ilr�l —Z = •d Iic > z x TtF :01 C., 0 M> Zzo z 00 tC)o F O W 00 WIS.Cz 0 i 4L 0 0 -piX 0, z 000j 3300 1 00 S(A Ivr\Q, b N 4 4L rL 3 14 5 3360 v 0 ble Of 2 x 0 1 � , Q / � /, � \� .� 1, W 5 cm N U. 05 c 10 ---------- - 0 Z -6 > 0, 0 0—o C. to! C14 CL 'o t �' o i 0 2 7 & 9 10 CV -,0 > — — — — — — — -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — j tt 8 -14- I v I � 1 �,t,.`\ + A'. 23- 4� ;7- 7 30 29 % 6 L4 99 N -1 DMX4251 ('VA 19 15 3 00- oc)?-oo 31 .4 32 !L I C A N 33 SM 42 Milli 41 Sp nuc—— 653 57'30" 165 (PINE NOUNTAINI Survey SCAL-- 12'1C. -O s69 eAb Heavy cz:ll --•� •.. 9no roo roo goo we •, , -_ _ iioo -: 7L1 ' 22 3 .-- ' 100 909 . it• I b0 909 100 -00 tl0 1 co MV 1 I yaoo eo: 28 + I Mw 1 \ J00 moi 03 aw 31 I 32 33 VC I See Trop. Isa aan 1 f -.— HJ::a— .zoo �SOO '��J 1 JIII' J, I11 JlJJ JI t• �J=J11 -• 1100 --saa 5 JS Jy 1 1 na s. moi..—Jl7• f1Y �_`y 1600 � •� �... S. 1 e00 00 30 700"l•T—��— 1 1 % 2 I 26 I 25 r✓� 1 JJI i 1 1 V f 1 1 s J.c1. I e 1 IN I SEE MAP 4 SEE MAP 9 10 0 4 23 I 2� I too I t 26 I 15 � 14 ~4 � i �- . 1 15-11 1 1 � aoa -- -r. —cool i::':::•'----Ijf57)---M!fu:c" � I — ::::'— 1 ---I---- - :- J I I ! s I 3 1 1 =4 19 I 20 l 21 I 2 , I 23 J 4y24" _ i .,'„ If It I /1 1 p I 9 • S 3TE -.— HJ::a— .zoo �SOO .. j :.�.. ..�,t' -• 1100 !19tSoo-00•t�0o/ 1 �_`y 1600 � •� �... S. EMU AUD 30 I �� I 28 % 2 I 26 I 25 \ s J.c1. I e 12+ 2C0 I _ 15 � 14 ~4 � i �- . 1 15-11 1 1 � aoa -- -r. —cool i::':::•'----Ijf57)---M!fu:c" � I — ::::'— 1 ---I---- - :- J I I ! s I 3 1 1 =4 19 I 20 l 21 I 2 , I 23 J 4y24" _ i .,'„ If It I /1 1 p I 9 • _ el_tcr_— 1200 -.— HJ::a— .zoo I J•i• t.µ. . i j I 30 I �� I 28 % 2 I 26 I 25 \ 12+ 2C0 I _ -- I--P9J 20 21 22 23 i `• fj1 Tc0 1cd I 100 9091 b° 909 .001915 oo - ov - vI ao wt 400 Y000 we . 28 I I 26 "c`we}. �•fre 4100 KOs • 31 I 32 33 ��" — ; i s See L44 �~ ` At" i NO 1 . j� r :� j = l . t; l 1 I 1 I . . .,. ,... ., ft .... ... ,... ,.. II .I I JIII JIN ,fJI MII 111. IIM JJN ifi--f--1--1 —�eO--1—_1__1— —_1.__ -- —gyp–L"•�Op --'L– _-1_'01a. s = SEE MAP 10S.1 + fT-3aa 5 4 ti -- ; -- i — I. c _ . ? s c I • lY,JY AOi ��T-- —S�J: .L.••r� �Q� '�« —� �r 7-s'1rIT.l �Oab' I f00 00 ' J00 I _–a - t L'if-- I SEE MAP I `,200 s ---`- 4200 1200 LIZl _ • I NOO t •• �`+ I 1 I •� I 1 I =� + 18 1415 I o 3 « I J uu lI9• tees_ riu. ` V 12 Ielt:L .t .�—ROO !• —i J .. —TI�J •�... 206I—Tm _ =a 19 I 20 I 21 ( jjj 22 I - s 1 a 1 /, o 1 s I J IJ�< I• —.— — JC(!•� -- l .. fl�ltr—_ I. VK _. l•..['f— K•ll.....J 1900 ,....._ 1. .... QO�— ). r,.. ttOp H• a 1900 — % i... 4200 1 'v_ 28 �1 2� I 26 I 25 J: -t• C--_ �j� _— �a L.L' w —. �2C0 � ... .200 1.... -:. �� ... ,200 � / 1•. ' 19 S� 6 � 'tl j — = 31 32 - ? :as i �-- = I p `lJ M•I ; 18 I 20 I 21 I X600 t.,� �� 1 O 24 4 4v—�-•— N.—.� moi.-J...• '/Id:.00 -- JI afo�-4400 •.. _ 4400 / 1 „ca 30 29 ( 28 27' , 5 AIle 0T .00 �«:• .��'— _ 1 SEE i Sire .►i..� 31 , 33 EFut -37,o -i.SM i t9i�op : 4 1404 Ale 00.61300 s � 19 16 32 t �4M3 4204 Iz.,;Y- Wn I t =o' 2- .i,. 1 l.;. I •.« 4ri,. !ia .114 « i I ww I 4 I 3 I �? ,? , .. cc 2300 J� 4i 203 ? •; .. i � 42.2 } o. - I ---� 4200 .:0v �+ 20, a: - Y ..« 1 4245 1 " :a 4�T� 4200 ;'r 9200 4200 "' • 2500 2300 " "• 2500 1 2500 •' 203 4 los :3 1 2 r --T- —7HODi - ... „� --- ---- --+ to I . `,, 2 -I 18—j� 17—, -� — -----16 -isetj 15 14 13 tool 4444 —{"— a 12b�. �... _ +co •.x ..�. =::4444 - --- 2scYr' :• 276tf - i- a 1 \ 1 1 2000 2400f 2400, Yu l i 21 22-rtaa 23 2A— z 3 ----I I! u~ I I 3000 j400 L 2430I —=Jam•:.=• - j•,:., i �` I — - I � �.94094444 2 , 1 3000 27 , 26 I 25 I ` i.' 7 • zroo 24co zcoo auo � ,. t�� '-J.,%..�--�5,� �.�.i—�i::�.---�Z+Ob ----4444.' - 30,0; -3 51T�$� 503 d � o � ° T Ill y� 4 m o OO n . 0 044t' [. 02 c. .. ...4 i i I X01 20 I I . � ' I 21 I 22 11 M 24 3 1 1 1600 lroo 1100 � I I . I 1100 `` -- 30 ---...,; �' 29 I Opo 1,00 I 11aor• 28 + r� 2 G. 25 uoo 1101 1300 I ,. 1 r• uoo roof 1ao 33 I /3 - fffr 1 6 „ SEE MAP , 31 I 3 u 1916 32 • w• i RA `•CODs I Ko. 12:1 I 1206 -74' ; 1 If /1 1 ail I a :. I ail• ail. a.ir I 12 —.f--}.�— — 121.. ' I =Y 1201 . ,' 11.3 5 •2;2 120• 1.01 7 20 2.1 1 .,M 1 1213 tzoo Q00 1 1 ' 1 I i 102 5001 I 1 300 � 20: 2:U.:I -Cul 4 j 1 f 1 .3 12 1 —2s0o 1f y i 1 I HH I i:.. ^—i2ppi :7 ---Isco—1300(�i:.::''�000 1 � faa. 1 -y=3 L _I 115-1 ---1 IS ��--; I7— �r—.�--16 ' � C ---I � too 1401 i 4./ �_ jug v --12 —_._ .ry�. X01 .•••. . � ' I 21 I 22 2 24 3 1 1 1600 lroo =-4 � I 1000 . I 1100 `` , = I 1 I ---...,; �' I Opo 1,00 I 11aor• 28 + 1 27 2 G. 25 1o0 1300 I I ! 1ao 33 I /3 - 35 6 „ , i RA `•CODs I Ko. 12:1 I 1206 -74' ; 1 If /1 1 ail I a :. I ail• ail. a.ir I 12 —.f--}.�— — 121.. ' I =Y 1201 . ,' 11.3 5 •2;2 120• 1.01 7 20 2.1 1 .,M 1 1213 tzoo Q00 1 1 ' 1 I i 102 5001 I 1 300 � 20: 2:U.:I -Cul 4 j 1 f 1 .3 12 1 —2s0o 1f y i 1 I HH I i:.. ^—i2ppi :7 ---Isco—1300(�i:.::''�000 1 � faa. 1 -y=3 L _I 115-1 ---1 IS ��--; I7— �r—.�--16 ' � C ---I � too 1401 i 4./ �_ jug v --12 —_._ .ry�. X01 .•••. . � � 1 I 1— ,.•�_1�� I � 21 3 1 1 =-4 � 3W0 1000 . I „a— `` , = I 1 I ff µ�_�t"{i «., 1p f.'' .: 26�J X3 0 �• fill- ---- TOT .__4 = I um 2100 I I—!�a�t3 •' -- IM A !sm Long, � 2Ul(.QU-OC (2 I 0oboc 00100 QO$l}I 1 13 I 26 I 25 I t/.al �'-- — iii :�.---- �,,------•?'#�,;'. ��-.``� ,''^: i I 26 I 25 I t/.al �'-- — iii :�.---- �,,------•?'#�,;'. ��-.``� ,''^: I - — - ORS CIiAPTF.I. LS REQUIRES TRAT IF YOU RECEIVE Vii$ IN�I IIC�, I f� � �` �3 IT MUST PROMPTLY BE FORWARDED TO THE PURCM SER. U a: 3 2__ .\ .; � � , ( '= a r• `-may �. \` '\,;,,,• �.<„ ` •; ' . 1 800000 f ' • /1 ` •� - (`, .I- 'i!. ....... .. wv Ja+• \ \ 1 • �..-..... •'���r ASM : _ • : ' --- — t- ?-- W -- --- - fi , cL:'400 I � (�, (. tip. ` .�"•;" �� "�. • I . ,�,,, i . l.. t If 1 1 _ •�t` ... • 8M 4126.. `^�' � :. \� �•` ; .5 ' . l �.—�� � + '. 1 / � 1 1.6 - <+t � i. �� ''' 1. :� ,. ♦fie, 1 r 1 FILE.#508 08 LOCATION: This site is located approximately 2.5 miles north j A of the highway, in Township 20, Range 17, Section Oi, Tax Lot 150• 1000. The site is roughly fburmiles NW of the town of 1 I ` Brothers. ` PRESENT ZONING: EFU 320,/FP --------_- ADJACENT ZONING: EFU 320, SM' I, -- --- COHPREHENSIVE PLAN: AGRICULTURE, SORFACEKINING, AND FLOOD -- ------ I PLAIN. -1 _ \ SIZE- -10 ACRES OWNERSHIP: OREGON STATE HIGHWAY DIVISION RESOIIRCE TYPS:-: ;AGGREGATE , QUALITY mEETS ODOT SPECIFICATIONS, ' QUANTITY 100,000 CUBIC,YARDS. 2 21 / __-- I of n a HEARING DATE: August_. 7l 1989 HEARING TIME:. 6:30 P.M. , HEARING PLACE: County Administration Building -------�'------------------ Hearings Room �. .1130 N.W. Harriman Street BEND, . OREGON • 97701 •n' 27 i •'.li ♦,< 26�.y.4. . - - '<u, 25 13 `t \j t f•♦ t SITES cru -no -4 .rm NN i r L2 I1 i o �� '� oo , c •o is- w ro N — — - N i 10 i V , «�1 N I t• to N N I �V J M !o - _ g {0 Lu is 8 • Nt1 tD N ` Nfx I LC) f �� ,1 ti I N 1 N $ g •1 ' � 1 .-J N I Ii Sp I I M M ---� 1-j--T--"f'--T-- --T— .•�--------- :T f: -fit «,� n�� �T -�� «s� ^�1 +s . T IL a6 E� 201601-00-OOtod °° 18 to Ig- p'• 0 �. -. . I i a 10 0 10 10 ! I 8 `O i0 m 8 0 IST -- cv — e- w , • r C i J 10 T � 1 N�– – i _- • 10 O ^• 1« N 10 � � - � y Al LO M �• - O _ i4r ODM M M _� Q1 _ M 0 o .a 8 o + 1 I ►: p l- m N N s o to N t M liw4. O=• O o - 10 O _ ,o :o o _g .- o �-• O �w Sw � I� 1 w 1EFLk 9 00-00 -0 1000 • �• -(1t 1 1. � Q1. �- - LD • M I�i T — N M i46 _S2 C4 t)4�If4 i (n-- M -- N (� o i o V I co I •� 1 � E � �:_ 1 I I --r O 10C' O.. 1M•- 1O q 1 O lb - ED w� 8 �. J�. � _ 1 -- �-----T—•--T— '� 1. �. � � � � � �� w21 w•PEs �: _=1 ~zl w:l •' : �= w�' •�� •-� —:1 ": w• �' —31 w:1 wl 1 �: �� 3i• 7 S' :t esn —S .. r I 1 13 u cr FILE #528 LOCATION: This is a small site which is located three miles as east of Hampton on Schrader Road, in Township 22, Range 21, A Section 10, Tax Lot 600. PRESENT ZOKIM: • SNR ADJACENT ZONIIIG: EFU 320 >K DOIiSIVE PLAN: AGRICULTURE AND AGRICULTURE 54800 SIM: 5.5 ACRES OWNERSHIP: OREGON STATS HIGHWAY DIVISION '—mss RESOURCE TYPE: AGGREGATE, QUALITY MEETS ODT SPECIFICATIONS, „v QUANTITY IS 45,000 CUBIC YARDS. 12 HEARING DATE: August 7, 1989 HEARING• TIME: 6:30 P.M_* HEARIN4 PLACE: County Administration Building .p p Ig ECnNsra+ort Hearings Room �-_� •�Qi�Place .1130 N.W. Harriman Street -BEND, OREGON 97701 3 24 - 9 U - 1 11 U . 30 i ' 27 G /� 20 52 400 , 1 o J`w 47 G 11 . 1 -strip- V c 1� 7 g N� a by 12- ` �7 ton soh * I7 It It K 13 X18 '� e t1``` 11 Msid S% IE I. �1 0-3 ! 24Ilii 210 22 �j 2 —/y24 19 10 �n ZI >e3'jq T r 2 2s�y NOTICE TO MOR'TGAGEF, LIIIIHOLDER, VENDOROR SELLER ` 6 �s ORS- CHAPTER 215 REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, 35 J6 1T MUST PROMPTLY BE FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER _ -a �1 3 4 0-35 1 34, C) S i-T—E # g S AA 2 -'� Slit Z ts,�� : J4 p '2f WO -W.- e M1 cQc Q O — ••1 N O A.a'i Y: F { «— r N ` 0 zz 4L w~ O 1 w O w - N 2 W N Y. Ol z z o y t •+ •�3 •-i t L " N d9w 33S 10 i n e � Q o r > ai�'i1�t.,� �` a� a— ,o, Q� g d• � w o W W "yy W W W K'e0 y N N N N ='O N © ^' o � N i)j cV • >> _ v � L O f O i O 3 C O O N N N N N _ 2 ---� _A = W N CD • i' =�;`��- �'� 1 Z Z 1100 -00 -00300OD i —T--.1 — �rt — i—. ---f f �1 _ +; .1 i 1 1 • 1/ =Od 1 j'«jl wtl -I 0 l Oe N N W /O t: + o i�r� d7w 335 3: �f • _ to 1 t[) d 2 =a tic - 0 � , o � N r c �� o : J4 p '2f WO -W.- e M1 cQc Q O — ••1 N O A.a'i Y: F { «— r N ` 0 zz 4L w~ O 1 w O w - N 2 W N Y. Ol z z o y t •+ •�3 •-i t L " N d9w 33S 10 i n e � Q o r > ai�'i1�t.,� �` a� a— ,o, Q� g d• � w o W W "yy W W W K'e0 y N N N N ='O N © ^' o � N i)j cV • >> _ v � L O f O i O 3 C O O N N N N N _ 2 Z 0 U k AV let I60 66t. . S�•„ • I ` �'•Is 1 / ...... ....._.... _. - 1 • •pi i ~ :1 300 AGraw pit 112 CD 1• l �:a i 1013.00 00100 �-;� •• �,�,; 1 r Fvt• N p -j f ::�� • O c• i . ia•''' ,�: Deep t. �t S ••' /( Mw :idmUj . �. + � � ,�•R, ��wwwo �_,7rr� ,• .tis �,�� � , !!••at•K • r wca � /I i • �o � i 1 •. •! "'• ,./ 1 i ) � l i � �plirx �� I • 1 . p a A •a ") (! • • •....•• 1 / t,r ;'•.•t ` f • I \ �� :�I 29 19 4J 23z „ "24 23 / ,17110••••• J 1 �I JII i f •• ;,F •Ifl to � ,_ �'� 1 • ••a '• } ` ' • —�-- 12l •3(r •10 1 JI0000 ►EEt Ac..o .+ w 2730• •1/ 'r'iix'iw w»,♦u Mapped. edited, and published by thtl Guolosiul Surv.tr I 0? - U4b�t EXHIBIT "C" (ZONING MAPS FOR INVENTORIED SITES NOT ZONED SM) -,a - 1 ORS CRM- - __R 21S REQUIRES TIiAT IF YOU RECEI . TRIS NOTICE, --- TT MUST PRObUPMY BE FORWARD® TO THE P�UURCIIASERv� tTI ..��,-� II: ii ....._ ',- Li --_ M C!) o r V I.: .v13 FILE x{246 1 it •� LOCATION• This site runs alon S aw Creek jus g '4ut east of �^ Sisters, in Township 15Range -lo,. Section 03, 09, .10, Tax '•12 Lot 1000. The site is gravel mining area within, the creek. T las drainage. ie•' PRESZNT Z00 PIP ADJACENT ZOUNG: RR -20, EM - 40 -Cl , !2 . CO pLi1N: -FLOOD' PLAIN, .EXCLUSIVE FARM USE 20, s r -'2II �C '+ RURAL RES DE nMAL S3C9Z: " ACRES- i Off: STATS OF OEM= * - - ItESOURCR TIPSS. AGGREGl\TS;-MEETS ODOT SPECIFICATIONS, QUANTITY IS 10,000 cmaC Yam. o. m' 26 HEARING DATE: August 9 , 1989 HEARING TIME: 6:30 P.M.: HEARING PLACE: County Administration Building 1 er Hearings Room .;u3 1 1130 N.W. Harriman Street BEND, OREGON 97701 aam� Hu_ 04 43Z4 tf 5 `•' •' • • • �� '1 Mc lIr .;� ate, •- \ -\ .; = _1-- '"` 1-14 g' \ it=• n : 'r /eH aleW ��.;•- ": of _ �epA • - ♦ S .I�x. I 1192 -- ! l i • ` .I rte: I 1;. 1 - .,: - • • ' : 8.IIAM 004 !'�.r � �- • .��ii� ~• �='lri± . �' o+�� S ITI�'� � 7'� (o I.+.t ac~>_'• �- �1�� i� .. A 15003, a9� 10 _ 1s• •��-- Y <� �- - ;• :�¢ -OOtuS Zoe, Z08 003 -(' ' `• •,.!y,.,Yj •1� _ • �- .+; -200001 Z. .�. _-i ; `- 0 ; . � � �. •, 4 1 �;ky� ••.{ ! 25. � V.Y.�.• • . r' `i'i y i i i `?: Y' i I - ._. �+. - ` ,0 .'1 :• ♦: ,..L � -• �-i. is (BROKEN TOP)••I2 ' 35• • - ..........1.«...c.. v.+........-4-- e c -•«.: :1 730000IFEET MOUTH 1 n r.w(c CwccK a CC r3 .rr. 1 R W E 12t30' SCALEE 1 1:62500 - - - •19000'•£ •:. 1 = NLts ROAD CLASSiRCA 1ON L; r_ na° •om � � �•-- Iwoo � I�an�o • auao•r(�t . • , -- (�� HeaWdutr LortGuty T 3 S'w40•.CT(aS '— Medium -duty _ , . _ U�:mixO.e�� G� .......... CONTOUR INTERVAL 40 FEET OOTTEO LINES REPRESENT 20.f00r CONTOURS U j Rai• O.TUn ,S *'E.N SE. LEvEL c •o=••.ac Lx.ou=' SISTEPS. OR EG L,_.. L Hcy .,:UR.CT sl ­ D -r; Gz.,J:,iC:.L SLjt;­) = u 10.',7-) t301 �' I, C 5 ITE 44 2-9 to M 1100 I 900IIJ.I I 900 700 00 700 i 301 .00 N 2.3 floo 1100 1300 e I ,•0 IS00 7 16.00 2.4 100 4100 1700 -TnEF 2.5 SM aEFU• 2,0 Zaye 1600 15 1211 Do OIL400 l S 17. 14 A 0 - 00 800 1200 n 12 - 901 90 100 14 13 900 300 200 k 500 ' I p G I 900 v� C ON t • 'REQ 900 601 OLOLJ 2.4 4 4.. RFQ�O N SISTERS ..�. 1,... .., � ; •� ,..,... ; e -------- _ 111� ; laoo - - 1100 00 E i 1101 to L �i..i IrIx N �• I 3 Z I 1 N v, 1 ..... •• uOz joa - 0457 0 is to to J © t ox O joa - 0457 0 is to to 0 4 b t3 t 11 1000 •00 1 1 u.1 F-1 � i N 1 x.11 S �Q ti 900 k w MMJH•rn 100 . _. T-900 ' T 900 700 :oo 00 ? U Uel _ ' 700 W W too 701 . 1 1. 2.3 IlOo 1400 ICO uoo � 2.4 1 300 k u� 1600 1 1 1700 - f 10001 F EFU -2 0 11 1t Z oKe 100 14 13 5 12 11-00-01200 1$ IZ IU A0-00101 zoo 500 i 601 y f rk LJ I P-4 n Q: 900 OM Q ` `•••.,, ... �, S/S TER 1000 X100 1z00 E ! L1Yfa1J L.L_- \ S. 1 u.1 i 1 x.11 �Q 900 � ,•! 0� o aa0 aE� 900 _ \ S. Qo 0 6z C4 . 0 0 Li D 0 4 6 cr 0 0 C% DIP" 009 -bosr, r z 0 U _ 0 � o W I— U N W A3 d q S 0 O► :s t33/ OOt 009611 31VOS �g ,0 046 W o � MQ o ti 8 4 0 ►y c *� 0 CA L N a O 0 � � M M O `i o OD j o �JJ � le «t I I D k. 1 w s --•-i — A N Z ^= 1 1 I 0 1 —+-- yr- arm---- ---------- -- '-- 1 a0Z -U4 tD N t 0 N 1 r -- i N 1 _ ♦� � 1 •j 1 � o t 2 11 1 2 1 I 1 �_— _� 1 1 �`� NCD ch Mme+ t nX� g LL, O f li yv 1Wq Q 1nO yO 7�a-aJcr--- O to i 1 0 n a m a o 0. < o i WS<P �e U m W 00 m ip H o to a0Z -U4 tD N t 0 N 9 .. «w +K >r3237tO11Y � ' O 000+ 0Q;,: `�--_- W �`� NCD ch Mme+ nX� g 9 .. «w +K >r3237tO11Y � ' O 000+ 0Q;,: `�--_- oa 20 � R o '*-I vi M If f I YI don Ila6 I%1 - 0466 cc n j ,YN ;, a - o g a 1 I.00' m •d 1.00 MAP W. „ 19 i• o i 4t ----� 6.15 • 14001400 1.00 1 1 MI I .. I ---I . 30 29 uoo �= 1 .--.� 1400 1.00 1 1 14W 1400 r i ----i I 32 I 33 •M I I 11.0 I I s I 1 s VI/ I ' tJ 11 IwM I 1 I JI•• 1 �/• .w.. 1 •0 7 9 —i.... 1 000 t --- I I w 1J I � J• I• --...� 1... pC0 = I 1 1 = "of 18 y I •wsr • 1 I • I — 19 20 h-- •1 I I4 -+ 30 poo 29 F--�-/ 28 I 000 i S • 1000 • .0 1— 1.00 22 6.15 23 6.13 .00 U46E) SEE MAP 24 :I MA SEE MAP 26 25 1.00 VE36 MAP SEE 01 16 10 C '.S f'rc- :tt 3 4 ,SA/,.K -•-3 (Wk) 1(01000.00.00106 -100•• U00 pW� I000 1 -- 1 -2 -I f 1 32 I 33 34 35 25 I000 z U U) W Q O ' O c 0 CD O' UA .h �W Nim 1L6 g c I� L L CLM Y O I - 0 4 -iL, ea NI 0 Lo I Q M N o$$ $g Q�N MA �+ °i �omg8'cvgg�an E E V 0 O � N 0 4 IA vi y I I al 91 ft" *as g o0 °IO CD M �p N 40 t0 O M ^N 0 r ^ O • ..m� RP mtD .. P .. In .O O =wPM • $ U 4 YI g .-L Zy k M NIT O P P O �j O p N � 0, ^ 8v 00 v • S _' m m 101 O �LnoO 11 V mIn N a , M O• 0 O 0 -� In 8 I` o In CY z\G1j�� / ` v • 47P r n a e •� ISR �i _.T _I I ?nl'o] �Stj Nj'tfT In l'oM h[ �Nj �nl ��� I $o�t`•'r� -� - 11V111 _L .� t I iU1 1 1 1 1 J L 1 1 _L W N CTT r T r -i •rT-T Tr T7 " TT T m m^ _ 8 I 11 i 0 I P N. ,_ i I I I a I 1 l 1 f- I_ I i y Q P OI^I o P m r-• = 4 NI=1 t I I IW� I -1-I L1�piLJWt1r{.P�J J L - T T (A T T t T t8 &Icr lnID' p I (_iN iM 'R lnl m� UI NI i'3jNjln �a �mlW�l V, �! INI I i ti �11b1 I I 1 1 I; I I 1 I I J 4 _ IMIa n ui NlNlln O,'I CC INIMlalniml� a I^IlMlalnlwl # IN aIP w _ g\ I m iT7�- TTT�TTI'-1—T-T TOl 1 1 T -1- (A 1 .j I_1 m i_I mlml^y t,c� I I I I_ o I pp I_I I I I ol_I I IL� I t 1 i I Im'Iml^ I_ N m,mll- F I -IQ Imiml^� 4I-I�10:-1-41 /, �_-11 •f m m Np }�'l J++ L 1 j'YQ/�1 1 _, l� 1v` -S Qj 1 L J L L _ 1 1 -1 1 1 �1 L 1 J L 1.1. 1 1 J 1 1 T r j T -r fH 1 I �W r TY 4, 'l t' T t T� �• T T f TAT QQ�� T �I ]�� ` T LflTT�a 'TOTTi ' IOIMja jnlm! �71 NIM j+,n lM,,.T '! li jNl^1 Ini ' �� 1Nlnlajn lm� (,2 IN1MIaln lml h IN1M1+InI ❑ INIMI+ T ��. ///��� //�� 1 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I IrON j J.al_ L L .L J L 1 1 J. ' t. _i J N t 1 _I J_ 1_�l 1 1 1- 1/l,1, L 1 1 1 i J L 1 1 1 1 1 J L 1 3nN3Av 031V7VA �T T -1- ' r T T T T- l- r r T T "T T' �-.i.�..� _ _ �=1Q PImI^i 1 IQ IP 1m 1^O �It I -101011m I^ d i 17, i T i i -TT-, roT TT�r �j ; 1 1 1 1 1=1 I I I I-1-� I I! + 1- O P m ^� 4 PIm I^� I_ 4lalmini I, IQIPIm I^SI (,� 1 1 f. W 1 r-+ 1 I I !1-I I I I I I -I I I 1 7 1-I 1 1 I L IPIO I^ >r1 � 1_ J_ 1 Q 4 1 _1_ 1t7 L L i - I� � 7 -L I'cy7 1 t � � 1 1_ � 1 1 a 1.+1 L T T In T T l r 7 T I�1 T T U f' T T T T )� y' Z/T 1� T T` I 1 Q T �f CO T T f0'T T IN I'^la lnlmi �t �NjM+In �,ot�>�+ �N �M lalnlmJ �! INIm nlw4>Q IN�MIa In Im.�>P iNlMla�nlloa� IN1M aln l.o� LLINIri 1a 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I t I I C I I I iLJ iiJ L11-1 L1 J L1 _i. 1 J 1 1 L L1 1 J L11 J L.1L L��J=L11.1.,1J L.111 �" �� ua_LV�VA � (loom 3 . --F T T T I ; i T T T 1L, 'r T T T T T T T -1 � T T T T T _T T T T -3 T T T T l Fo T T �S 1_Io IP Im i^� N _ -1 lml^!1 I 1=10 IP Im 11-i��J I_131mlmlry] I_I Imiml^:I `` I � 4 T_1 I I I o f 1 I -I -I 1 r l-I_I I I =r I -I 1 1 W I -I I l l i I-IQI 11 C I-, 41PIm1P I41PIm 11�L Li L ! L _ + t e. (d 1 > L 1 _.L L L L 1�� ,,7^� 1 1 k J_•L Is L 1 Li i T l f I T 7�011'; T T q">' T T l g I' T T f� TT EU Cyj l T T T 1 7 TL.�_l._.s.l-• I 1 I r Ia' I LL -I. I . l _ �.s I'.�r L L _..1 .1.1_.1!•. 1+ I Zi 91 dow *as L'7137;0�1'1 OZ' Gi O t38� 000 06a o ooa .- . _... - . _. ,___ C" C. O 0 7 r n (ti M ►y O 0 0011 k► 4i COD . l�4 1-�4 0 00 w M J, g -- i N o N M a O R + 1 1 ZI ` w N m 0- O i 20 i I Imo+ W Lo to uj 2+S a W rot m 11r;, 4 zn �� R g g g I$ a a ao•�a a 2 g u Fr- W §M N 4 {� i � i ..JryWa W O V W W Ma' er a o U U) an e a ° - - W o.. 10 \/ Q i rn m m m W W Q1 W N M W W W a a aLJ a JJ O� W W w r $ N °d M a (� W U) W\ (n 25 „N� s W W W M W m h m al Qc c L cQc L G 1� •.a' N m W W W a yyqq X a o 0 }�vn `X e n • W U) U) _ _ _ m m H m C" C. 21 B1 don •K U) o Lu U) U) _0 0) 1 044 HC4 4 . ■ .`. -- — ��� - � -- ---- ---- of----- - - - -- q -- � � 1 yT `ti N • a w� s� O ii 03 C r N N 1 o; s - - f --- 47 1 8 I�w I` I� O 4— 25_n f N C - � a " �Si'�• I YN �/I N t� / Q W ' N �--- I u u I I--- • W jC� A � [c• MY. I r 4 y33 -- --- /� — \ I:P --r ---�• i--� x11300-00-DUIUI �— ' 4- C _ I of �� o + m • 1 is t .,iv t= u' ICN I>e P 1- u I` N 1 ° is a ,. N 1� - ,., I,w 1„ w ��♦ FO �- ry • it a �� � +;Ni co c0 .51 LQ 0 F z I rn IleI -/ ,e I o N M •-a A Q .1 o ;—,o - 04.iG A 9 ov— , m ID 0 Is 0 IT a J) tl dL% Ns A 9 ov— , m 3 K OI ►1 don rs till 0 o pOOOcO 14 M h sof Oi >i aoW ws 09C 0; 4i dour aas tLN f\ I7 o O $ N ' � • r N �.3a '' i - mNV •sa. a O c.. m ♦ !o n - a o 1 a O • 0' ti b Y �,�, N M O O aa• ae'e+r n n • n .�. • 3 JNwn Z o $ D O � O $ o � '� ••'O N M b O O N U� W I O i r • N � m • �.. N ! $ O CD el --. m OD m all N A K OI ►1 don rs 1577 A D