SUBJECT: Clackamas County Plan Amendment
DLCD File Number 006-13
The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) received the attached notice of adoption.
Due to the size of amended material submitted, a complete copy has not been attached.  A Copy of the 
adopted plan amendment is available for review at the DLCD office in Salem and the local government 
office.  
Appeal Procedures*
DLCD ACKNOWLEDGMENT or DEADLINE TO APPEAL:  Tuesday, April 08, 2014 
This amendment was submitted to DLCD for review prior to adoption  pursuant to ORS 197.830(2)(b) 
only persons who participated in the local government proceedings leading to adoption of the amendment 
are eligible to appeal this decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). 
If you wish to appeal, you must file a notice of intent to appeal with the Land Use Board of Appeals 
(LUBA) no later than 21 days from the date the decision was mailed to you by the local government.  If 
you have questions, check with the local government to determine the appeal deadline.  Copies of the 
notice of intent to appeal must be served upon the local government and others who received written notice
of the final decision from the local government.  The notice of intent to appeal must be served and filed in 
the form and manner prescribed by LUBA, (OAR Chapter 661, Division 10).  Please call LUBA at 
503-373-1265, if you have questions about appeal procedures.
*NOTE:     The Acknowledgment or Appeal Deadline is based upon the date the decision was mailed by local 
        government. A decision may have been mailed to you on a different date than it was mailed to 
        DLCD. As a result, your appeal deadline may be earlier than the above date specified. NO LUBA  
       Notification to the jurisdiction of an appeal by the deadline, this Plan Amendment is acknowledged.
Cc: Rick McIntire, Clackamas County
Jon Jinings, DLCD Community Services Specialist
Jennifer Donnelly, DLCD Regional Representative
Amanda Punton, DLCD Natural Resources Specialist
<paa> YA
NOTICE OF ADOPTED AMENDMENT
03/24/2014
TO: Subscribers to Notice of Adopted Plan
or Land Use Regulation Amendments
FROM: Plan Amendment Program Specialist
DLCD FORM 2 NOTICE OF ADOPTED CHANGE 
TO A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR 
LAND USE REGULATION 
FOR DlCD USE 
File No.: 
Received: 
Local governments are required to send notice of an adopted change to a comprehensive plan or land use regulation 
no more than 20 days after the adoption . (See 0/\R 660-0 18-0040). The rules require that the notice include a 
completed copy of this form. This notice form is not for submittal of a completed periodic review task or a plan 
amend ment reviewed in t he manner of periodic review. Use Form 4 for an adopted urban growth boundary 
including over 50 acres by a city with a population greater than 2,500 within the UGB or an urban growth boundary 
amendment over I 00 acres adopted by a metropolitan service district. Use Form 5 for an adopted urban reserve 
designation, or amendment to add over 50 acres, by a city with a population greater than 2,500 within the UGB. Use 
Form 6 with submittal of an adopted periodic review task. 
Jurisdiction: Clacka mas County 
Local fil e no.: Z0287-13-CP; Z0288-13-ZAP; & Z0289-13-MAR , I 
Date of adoption: 2/27/2014 Date sent: 3-18 -/-<;-
Was Notice of a Proposed Change (Form I) submitted to DLCD? 
Yes: Date (use the date of last revision if a revised Form I was submitted): 8/12/2013 
No 
Is the adopted change d ifferent from what was described in the Notice of Proposed Change? Yes @ 
If yes, describe how the adoption differs from the proposa l: 
N/A 
Local contact (name and title) : Rick Mcintire, Sr. Pla nner 
Phone: 503-742-4516 E-mai l: rickm@co.clackamas.or.us 
Street address: 150 Beavercreek Rd. City: Oregon City Zip: 97045-
PLEASE COMPLETE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS THAT APPLY 
For a cha nge to comprehensive plan text: 
Identify the sections of the plan that were added or amended and which statewide planning goals those sections 
implement, if any: 
Chapter Il l, Table 111-2, Inventory of Mine ral and Aggregate Resource Sit es per Goa l 5 
For a change to a com prehensive plan map: 
Identify the former and new map designations and the area affected: 
Change from to acres. A goal exception was required for this 
change. 
Change from to acres. A goal exception was required for this 
change. 
Change from to acres. A goal exception was required for this 
change. 
Change from to acres. A goal exception was required for this change. 
Location of affected property (T, R, Sec., TL and address): T3S, R1 W, Sec. 04A, tax lots 100 & 102; No site add ress 
The subject property is entirely within an urban growth boundary JJ/A 
The subject property is partially within an urban growth boundary ;<../(A 
http://www. oregon .gov / l CD / Pages/farms. aspx -1- Form updated November 1, 2013 
If the comprehensive plan map change is a UGB amendment including less than 50 acres and/or by a city with a 
population less than 2,500 in the urban area, indicate the number of acres of the former rural plan designation, by 
type, included in the boundary. 
Exclusive Farm Use- Acres: Non-resource - Acres: 
Forest- Acres: Marginal Lands- Acres: 
Rural Residential - Acres: Natural Resource/Coastal/Open Space - Acres : 
Rural Commercial or Industrial- Acres: Other: -Acres: 
If the comprehensive plan map change is an urban reserve amendment including less than 50 acres, or 
establishment or amendment of an urban reserve by a city with a population less than 2,500 in the urban area, 
indicate the number of acres, by plan designation, included in the boundary. 
Exclusive Farm Use- Acres: Non-resource- Acres: 
Forest- Acres: Marginal Lands- Acres: 
Rural Residential - Acres: Natural Resource/Coastal/Open Space - Acres: 
Rural Commercial or Industrial - Acres: Other: -Acres: 
For a change to the text of an ordinance or code: 
Identify the sections of the ordinance or code that were added or amended by title and number: 
N/A 
For a change to a zoning map: 
Identify the former and new base zone designations and the area affected: 
Change from RRFF-5 to RRFF-5/MAO Acres: 34.52 
Change from to Acres: 
Change from to Acres: 
Change from to Acres: 
Identify additions to or removal from an overlay zone designation and the area affected: 
Overlay zone designation: Mineral & Aggregate Overlay Acres added: 34.52 Acres removed: 0 
Location of affected property (T, R, Sec. , TL and address): T3S, R1 W, Sec. 04A; tax lots 100 & 102; no site address 
List affected state or federal agencies, local governments and special districts: DOGAMI, ODSL, ODEQ, ODWR, 
ODFW, METRO, City of Wilsonville, City of Sherwood, City of Tualatin, Washington County, Surface Water 
Management Agency of Clackamas Co ., Tualatin Valley Fi re & Rescue 
Identify supplemental information that is included because it may be useful to inform DLCD or members of the 
public ofthe effect of the actual change that has been submitted with this Notice of Adopted Change, if any. Ifthe 
submittal, including supplementary materials, exceeds 100 pages, include a summary of the amendment briefly 
describing its purpose and requirements. 
See Attached Board Order No. 2014-14, Exhibit Map, Comp Plan Text Change, Findings and Conditions of Approval. 
http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/Pages/forms.aspx -2- Form updated November l , 2013 
CLACKAMAS 
COUN T Y OFF IC E OF COUNTY COUNS EL 
P UB LIC SE RVICES BUILDING 
2051 K AE N ROA D OR EGON C ITY , O R 9 7045 
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING 
Stephen L. Madkour 
County Counsel 
Kimberley Ybarra 
Kathleen Rastetter 
Chris Storey 
Scott C. Ciecko 
Alexander Gordon 
Amanda Keller 
Nathan K. Boderman 
Christina Thacker 
Assistants 
I hereby certify that the enclosed Board Order No. 2014-14, Local File No. 
Z0287 -13-CP, Z0288-13-ZAP, and Z0289-13-MAR was deposited in the mail on 
March 18, 2014 
Signed: ___ _1_..L/~b~~~¢.....:.......J.:.._....f:.~~...Id...~~=======--
Cheryl "' . nelison, Administrative Assistant 
Clackamas County Counsel's Office 
(503) 655-8619 
P . 503 .655 .8362 F . 5 03 .742 . 5 397 WWW . C L A C KAMA S . U S 
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 
OF CLACKAMAS COUNTY, STATE OF OREGON 
In the Matter of a Comprehensive 
Plan Amendment, Zone Map Amendment, 
and Site Plan Review request from 
Tonquin Holdings, LLC, on property 
described asT3S R1W Section 04A, 
Tax Lots 100 and 102 
ORDER NO. 2014- 1 4 
(Page 1 of 3) 
File Nos.: Z0287-13-CP; Z0288-13-ZAP; and Z0289-13-MAR 
This matter coming regularly before the Board of County 
Commissioners, and it appearing that Tonquin Holdings, LLC made application for a 
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, corresponding zoning map amendment, and site plan 
review to allow development of an aggregate mining and processing operation on 
undeveloped land in the RRFF-5 zoning district, on property described as T3S R1W 
Section 04A, Tax Lot( s) 1 00 and 1 02, located at the southwest corner of the intersection 
of Morgan Road and Tonquin Road. 
It further appearing that the planning staff, by its report dated 
September 10, 2013, recommended approval of the application with conditions of 
approval; and 
It further appearing that the Planning Commission at its October 7, 
2013 public hearing, adopted a series of motions relating to different aspects of the 
application based on the findings and conditions in the planning staff report along with 
testimony received during their hearings process. 
It further appearing that after appropriate notice a public hearing 
was held before the Board of County Commissioners on October 30, 2013, at which 
testimony and evidence were presented, and that a decision was made by the Board on 
November 13, 2013; 
Based on the evidence and testimony presented this Board makes 
the following findings and conclusions: 
1. The applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, 
corresponding zoning map amendment, and site plan review to allow 
development of an aggregate mining and processing operation on 
undeveloped land in the RRFF-5 zoning district. 
2. This Board adopts as its findings and conclusions the Findings of Fact and 
Conclusions of Law Approving the Land Use Applications for the Tonquin 
Aggregate Quarry document attached hereto and incorporated herein as 
Exhibit B, which found the application to be in compliance with the applicable 
criteria. 
CCP·PW25 (3194) 
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 
OF CLACKAMAS COUNTY, STATE OF OREGON 
In the Matter of a Comprehensive 
Plan Amendment, Zone Map Amendment, 
and Site Plan Review request from 
Tonquin Holdings, LLC, on property 
described asT3S R1W Section 04A, 
Tax Lots 100 and 102 
ORDER NO. 2014- 1 4 
(Page 2 of 3) 
File Nos.: Z0287-13-CP; Z0288-13-ZAP; and Z0289-13-MAR 
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Planning Staffs 
recommendation to approve the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone Map 
Amendment, and Site Plan Review request is hereby AFFIRMED, subject to the 
conditions of approval as contained in the staff report dated September 10, 2013, the 
conditions of approval submitted by the Applicant in a letter dated November 4, 2013 
and identified as Exhibit 112 in the record, and the following amended conditions of 
approval: 
Condition 48: "Subject to documented access permission from private property owners, 
the monitoring of existing offsite wells associated with the properties listed below is 
required. The following property owners and properties have been identified as having a 
potentially high risk of conflict with groundwater quantity: 
a. Fred Smith, 12551 SW Morgan Road, Sherwood; 
b. Lee and Andrea Patrick, 12535 SW Morgan Road, Sherwood; 
c. James B. and Marilyn Kramer, 12525 SW Morgan Road, 
Sherwood; 
d. James P. Kramer, 12885 SW Morgan Road, Sherwood; and 
e. Mark S. Platt, 12557 SW Morgan Road, Sherwood. 
Subject to access authorization, monitoring protocols shall include the 
development of a baseline well status report for the five domestic wells within 90 
days after commencement of site construction. If access is provided, the Site 
Operator will monitor water levels within 30 days of a request from a property 
owner to assess potential impacts. 
In the event private well monitoring indicates a measured loss of 20 percent of 
greater daily in daily domestic water supply, the following shall occur: 
i. Supplemental mitigation shall be provided including but not limited to deepening or 
replacement of private wells to tap deeper aquifers that are isolated from shallower 
mining impacts; 
CCP·PW25 (3/94) 
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 
OF CLACKAMAS COUNTY, STATE OF OREGON 
In the Matter of a Comprehensive 
Plan Amendment, Zone Map Amendment, 
and Site Plan Review request from 
Tonquin Holdings, LLC, on property 
described asT3S R1W Section 04A, 
Tax Lots 100 and 102 
ORDER NO. 2014- 1 4 
(Page 3 of 3) 
File Nos.: 20287-13-CP; 20288-13-ZAP; and 20289-13-MAR 
ii. Within 72 hours the applicant/operator shall provide not less than 400 gallons 
per 24 hour period of potable water for domestic use, by water tanker or other 
source to the above referenced affected owner. In the event that the provision 
of potable water becomes necessary, as requested by the affected property 
owner, a temporary above-ground potable water storage container shall be 
provided on the affected parcel. The container shall provide no less than 
400 gallons of storage." 
Condition 49a: "In the event the applicant/operator implements injection wells or 
infiltration trenches as a groundwater quantity mitigation measure, applicant/operator will · 
implement the groundwater quality baseline testing and periodic monitoring program 
outlined in the Shannon & Wilson Final Hydrogeologic Evaluation Report dated October 
29, 2013 (Exhibit 92) to ensure that the injection/infiltration water complies with the Safe 
Drinking Water Act of 197 4 and subsequent amendments." 
Condition 74a: "Upon commencement of quarry operations, Morgan Road shall be 
cleaned with a street sweeper, not less than twice a month within the improved right-of-
way between the site entrance and the Morgan Roadn-onquin Road intersection. Upon 
commencement of reclamation activities, street sweeping shall occur in this same area 
once a week." 
A complete list of the applicable conditions of approval has been attached hereto and 
incorporated herein as Exhibit A. These conditions have been drafted and attached to 
this order to reflect the Board's decision, and to make final quality control edits for 
formatting and consistency purposes. 
DATED this 27th Day of February, 2014 
BOARD OF COBNTY COMMISSIONERS 
Chair id{ 
Recording Secretary 
CCP-PW25 {3/94) 
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 
OF CLACKAMAS COUNTY, STATE OF OREGON 
In the Matter of a Comprehensive 
Plan Amendment, Zone Map Amendment, 
and Site Plan Review request from 
Tonquin Holdings, LLC, on property 
described asT3S R1W Section 04A, 
Tax Lots 100 and 102 
ORDER NO. 
(Page 1 of 3) 
File Nos.: Z0287-13-CP; Z0288-13-ZAP; and Z0289-13-MAR 
This matter coming regularly before the Board of County 
Commissioners, and it appearing that Tonquin Holdings, LLC made application for a 
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, corresponding zoning map amendment. and site plan 
review to allow development of an aggregate mining and processing operation on 
undeveloped land in the RRFF-5 zoning district, on property described as T3S R1W 
Section 04A, Tax Lot(s) 100 and 102, located at the southwest corner of the intersection 
of Morgan Road and Tonquin Road. 
It further appearing that the planning staff, by its report dated 
September 10, 2013, recommended approval of the application with conditions of 
approval; and 
It further appearing that the Planning Commission at its October 7, 
2013 public hearing, adopted a series of motions relating to different aspects of the 
application based on the findings and conditions in the planning staff report along with 
testimony received during their hearings process. 
It further appearing that after appropriate notice a public hearing 
was held before the Board of County Commissioners on October 30, 2013, at which 
testimony and evidence were presented, and that a decision was made by the Board on 
November 13, 2013; 
Based on the evidence and testimony presented this Board makes 
the following findings and conclusions: 
1. The applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, 
corresponding zoning map amendment, and site plan review to allow 
development of an aggregate mining and processing operation on 
undeveloped land in the RRFF-5 zoning district. 
2. This Board adopts as its findings and conclusions the Findings of Fact and 
Conclusions of Law Approving the Land Use Applications for the T onquin 
Aggregate Quarry document attached hereto and incorporated herein as 
Exhibit B, which found the application to be in compliance with the applicable 
criteria . 
CCP-PW25 13/94) 
OF CLACKAMAS COUNTY, STATE OF OREGON 
In the Matter of a Comprehensive 
Plan Amendment, Zone Map Amendment, 
and Site Plan Review request from 
Tonquin Holdings, LLC, on property 
described asT3S R1W Section 04A, 
Tax Lots 100 and 102 
ORDER NO. 
(Page 2 of 3) 
File Nos.: Z0287-13-CP; Z0288-13-ZAP; and Z0289-13-MAR 
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Planning Staff's 
recommendation to approve the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone Map 
Amendment, and Site Plan Review request is hereby AFFIRMED, subject to the 
conditions of approval as contained in the staff report dated September 10, 2013, the 
conditions of approval submitted by the Applicant in a letter dated November 4, 2013 
and identified as Exhibit 112 in the record, and the following amended condi tions of 
approval: 
Condition 48: "Subject to documented access permission from private property owners, 
the monitoring of existing offsite wells associated with the properties listed below is 
required. The following property owners and properties have been identified as having a 
potentially high risK of conflict with groundwater quantity: 
a. Fred Smith, 12551 SW Morgan Road, Sherwood; 
b. Lee and Andrea Patrick, 12535 SW Morgan Road, Sherwood; 
c. James B. and Marilyn Kramer, 12525 SW Morgan Road, 
Sherwood; 
d. James P. Kramer, 12885 SW Morgan Road, Sherwood; and 
e. MarkS. Platt, 12557 SW Morgan Road, Sherwood. 
Subject to access authorization, monitoring protocols shall include the 
development of a baseline we! I status report for the five domestic wells within 90 
days after commencement of site construction. If access is provided, the Site 
Operator will monitor water levels within 30 days of a request from a property 
owner to assess potential impacts. 
In the event private well monitoring indicates a measured loss of 20 percent of 
greater dai ly in daily domestic water supply, the following shall occur: 
i. Supplemental mitigation shall be provided including but not limited to deepening or 
replacement of private wells to tap deeper aquifers that are isolated from shallower 
mining impacts; 
CCP-PW£5 13194) 
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 
OF CLACKAMAS COUNTY, STATE OF OREGON 
In the Matter of a Comprehensive 
Plan Amendment, Zone Map Amendment, 
and Site Plan Review request from 
Tonquin Holdings, LLC, on property 
described asT3S R1W Section 04A, 
Tax Lots 100 and 102 
ORDER NO. 
(Page 3 of 3) 
File Nos.: Z0287-13-CP; Z0288-13-ZAP; and Z0289-13-MAR 
ii. Within 72 hours the applicant/operator shall provide not less than 400 gallons 
per 24 hour period of potable water for domestic use, by water tanker or other 
source to the above referenced affected owner. In the event that the provision 
of potable water becomes necessary, as request ed by the affected property 
owner, a temporary above-ground potable water storage container shal l be 
provided on the affected parcel. The container shall provide no less than 
400 gallons of storage." 
Condition 49a: "In the event the applicant/operator implements injection wells or 
infiltration trenches as a groundwater quantity mitigation measure, applicant/operator will 
implement the groundwater quality baseline testing and periodic monitoring program 
outlined in the Shannon & Wilson Final Hydrogeologic Evaluation Report dated October 
29, 2013 (Exhibit 92) to ensure that the injection/infiltration water complies with the Safe 
Drinking Water Act of 197 4 and subsequent amendments." 
Condition 74a: gUpon commencement of quarry operations, Morgan Road shall be 
cleaned with a street sweeper, not less than twice a month within the improved right-of-
way between the site entrance and the Morgan Road/Tonquin Road intersection. Upon 
commencement of reclamation activities, street sweeping shall occur in this same area 
once a week. " 
A complete list of the applicable conditions of approval has been attached hereto and 
incorporated herein as Exhibit A. These conditions have been drafted and attached to 
this order to reflect the Board's decision, and to make final quality control edits for 
formatting and consistency purposes. 
DATED this 27th Day of February, 2014 
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 
Chair 
Recording Secretary 
CCP-PW2S (3/941 
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 
I . Comprehensive Plan Table IIT-2, "Inventory of Mineral and Aggregate Resource Sites", 
shall be amended to add the subject property as a "Signjficant Site". 
2. The Board Order and aJl attachments allowing mining of the subject property together 
with limiting conditions and supporting background documents shall be adopted by reference io 
Comprehensive Plan, Appendix A, "Maps and Documents Adopted by Reference''. 
3. The official zoning map shall be amended by application of the Mineral and Aggregate 
Overlay Zoning District to the subject property; tax lots 100 & 102, Assessor's Map No. 
31W04A. 
General Operations Related : 
4. Mining (including but not limited to excavation and processing) is restricted to the hours 
of 7:00 AM to 6:00PM Monday through Friday, and 8:00 AM to 5:00PM Saturday. Drilling 
and blasting is restricted to the hours of9:00 AM to 4:00PM Monday through Friday. 
5. No mining (including but not limited to excavation and processing), drilling, or blasting 
operations shall take place on Sundays or L~e foUow1ng legal holidays: New Year's Day, 
Memorial Day, the Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Chri stmas Day. Further, 
no drilling or blasting operations shall take place on Saturdays. 
6. The applicant and/or operator shall not initiate mining and activities on the Quarry until 
the Oregon Depar1ment of Geologic and Mineral Industries (DOG AMI) approves the 
reclamation plan and operating permit for the Quarry. 
7. The applicant and/or operator shall obtain approval from the DOGAMI of a reclamation 
plan for the subject property and shall implement the same. 
8. The applicant and/or operator shall obtain Oregon DEQ approval of a Spill Prevention 
Controls and Countermeasures Plan for the Quarry and shall comply with same. 
9. Copies of all permits issued for the Quarry shall be provided to the County including, but 
not limited to, any permits issued by DOGAMI, DSL, DEQ, the Oregon Water Resources 
Department, the Oregon Fire Marshal's Office, local Fire Marshal's Office if applicable, and the 
U.S. Anny Corps ofEnginccrs. 
10. The Quarry operator shall carry a comprehensive liability policy covering mining and 
incidental activities during the term of the operation and reclamation, with an occurrence limit of 
at least $500,000. A certificate of insurance for a term of one (1) year shall be deposited with the 
7184().00()1/LEGAL29501403-2 
County prior to the commencement of mining, and a current cetti ficate of insurance shal l be kept 
on file wi th the CoW1ty during the term of operation and reclamation. 
ll. Off-road equipment (i .e. excavators, front-end loaders, loading trucks, and bulldozers) 
used for internal quarry operations shall be fitted with broadband rather than traditional 
narrowband backup alanns. 
12. Unless otherwise agreed to by Kinder Morgan, the quarry operator shall comply with the 
recommended guidelines dated October 7, 2010 (including attachment) provided by Kinder 
Morgan for blasting within 300 feet of their pipeline. 
General Mine Plan Related Conditions: 
13. The applicant and/or operator of the quarry shall maintain the fo llowing screening 
measures for the property: 1) a cyclone fence with wood slats and/or vegetation, installed aroW1d 
the property; 2) noise mitigation barriers in accordance with the Tonquin Quarry Noise Study 
dated September 23, 201 3; and 3) natural and supplied screening as outlined by the Murase and 
Associates landscape plan dated April 2013, or as otherwise required herein. 
14. Extraction, processing, and stockpiling activities shall be limited to those areas of the 
subject property labeled as appropriate for such activities and depicted on the site plan dated 
April 201 3, or as otherwise required herein. 
15. Slope inclinations shall not exceed an average slope of Yz: 1 (horizontal to vertical) within 
the rock mass during mining unless an alternative standard is permitted by the DOGAMI. 
16. Identified setbacks from the property lines, utilities, and easements shall be maintained in 
accordance with the Mining Plan. 
17. As depicted on the Mining Plan, no mining will occur witrun 50 feet of the Kinder 
Morgan pipeline crossing the subject property. 
18. The PGE transmission line shall be reiocated to the east boundary of the subject property, 
along the west side ofSW Morgan Road, in accordance with PGE permission and standards. 
19. Other than vegetation removal needed to address sight distance on Tonquin Road as 
described in the Kittelson & Associates report dated April20 13, no quarry related development 
shall occur on the north side ofSW Tonquin Road. 
20. The applicant and/or operator shall comply with the stormwater and erosion control plan 
in Appendix D of the application, or as it may be modified by the DOGAMI from time to time, 
when conducting mining activities on the subject property. 
71840-000l}LEGAL29501403.2 
Transportation R elated Conditions: 
Clackamas County: 
21. All proposed and required frontage improvements in, or adjacent to Clackamas County 
right-of-way, or on-si te, shall be in compliance with the County Roadway Standards. 
22. The applicant shaU obtain a Development Pennit from the Clackamas County 
Department of Transportation and Development, Engineering Division prior to the injtiation of 
any construction activities ac;sociatcd with the project. 
23. The applicant shall verify by survey that a 24-foot wide, one-half right-of-way width 
cxjsts along the entire site frontage, on the westerly side of the Morgan Road right-of-way where 
the Morgan Road right-of-way is within Clackamas County, or shall decticate additional right-of-
way as necessary to provide the minimum width. Contact Deana Mulder for the specifics 
regarding exrubits to be included with submittals (Clackamas County Roadway Standards Table 
2-4, ZDO subsections 1007.03 A and 1007.03 F). 
24. The applicant shall grant an eight-foot wide public easement for signs, slopes, and public 
utilities purposes along the entire site frontage of tax lots 100 and 102 on the westerly side of 
Morgan Road where the Morgan Road ri ght-of-way is within Clackamas County. Contact Deana 
Mulder for the specifics regarding exhibits to be included with submittals (Roadway Standards 
Drawing Cll 0). 
25. The applicant shall not transport more than one million tons of aggregate per year. Data 
shall be submitted to the Clackamas County Planning and Zoning staff on a yearly basis to verify 
compliance. 
26. The applicant shall design and construct improvements to SW Morgan Road from t.he 
Morgan Roadlfonquin Road intersection to the site driveway approach. These improvements 
shall consist of: 
a) Two-foot wide compacted gravel shoulders. 
b) Drainage facilities in conformance with ZDO section 1008, Clackamas County Roadway 
Standards Chapter 4 and SWMACC rules and regulations. 
c) One driveway approach designed and constructed in conformance with Roadway 
Standards Drawing DSOO. TI1e minimum length of the paved surface from Morgan Rd. into the 
site shall be 50 feet, with the remainder being gravel-surfaced. The driveway shall be designed 
and constructed so that the skew angle of the driveway is no more than I 0-degrees from the 
perpendicular unless a design modification for a greater skew angle is approved by County 
Engineering Division staff. 
71840.0001/LEGAL29501403.2 
27. The applicant shall reconstruct the full width of SW Morgan Road between, and 
including, the site driveway approach and Tonquin Road. 
a) The reconstruction shall consist of rototilling the existing pavement and base fo llowed by 
the addition of cement to create a cement-treated base (CTB), 22 feet in width. 
b) The appJjcant shall submit lab test results, to County Engineering staff, on representative 
samples of the soil material to determine the appropriate cement content, maximum dry density, 
and optimum moisture content required for construction, for review and approval prior to the 
construction of the CTB. 
c) A four inch thick asphaltic concrete section shall be placed on top of the CTB. 
d) Compacted gravel shoulders, two feet in width, on both sides of the reconstructed 
portion of the road will also be required to support the edges of the road and protect the edges 
from damage. 
e) Tbe applicant shall permanently close and remove the existing driveway approaches from 
the site onto Morgan Road. The driveway approaches shall be replaced with matching shoulder, 
ditch and landscaping. 
28. The applicant shall provide a copy of the Engineer's drainage study, surface water 
management plan, and Engineer's detention calculations to DTD Engineering, Deana Mulder. 
29. The applicant shall provide adequate on site circulation for the parking and maneuvering 
of all vehicles anticipated to use the parking and maneuvering areas, including a minimum of 24 
feet of back up maneuvering room for aU 90-degree parking spaces. Loading spaces shall also 
be afforded adequate maneuvering room. The applicant shall show the paths traced by the 
extremities of anticipated large vehicles (dump trucks with pups, delivery trucks, fire apparatus, 
garbage and recycling trucks), including off-tracking, on the site plan to insure adequate turning 
radii are provided for the anticipated large vehicles maneuvering on the site and at the site 
driveway intersection with Morgan Road (ZDO subsection 1007.07 A 12). 
30. Parking spaces shall meet minimum ZDO section 1007 dimensional requirements. The 
plans shall li st the number of parking spaces required and the number_ of parking spaces 
provided. The applicant shall label all compact, carpool, disabled, and loading berth spaces on 
the plans. 
3 1. Parking spaces for disabled persons and the adjacent accessible areas shall be paved. 
32. The on site truck scale shall be provided with a minimum of 150 feet of storage length for 
vehicles approaching the scale. 
71840-0001/LEGAL29501403.2 
33. The applicant shall install, operate, and maintain a wheel wash and/or other necessary 
infrastructure on site to prevent mud and other debris from being tracked onto or otherwise being 
deposited onto the road systems of Clackamas or Washington Counties. 
34. 1l1e applicant shaJJ prohibit quarry traffic from travelling SW Morgan Road south of the 
site driveway except for delivery of product to properties on Morgan Road south of the site 
driveway. Quarry traffic may also travel to and from the site driveway to the Town Quarry at 
12542 Morgan Road to the south. The applicant shall submit a plan to the County Engineering 
Division indicating all the measures included to enforce this restriction for review and approval. 
35. The applicant shall provide and maintain adequate intersection sight di stance and 
adequate stopping sight di stance at the site driveway intersection with Morgan Road . Adequate 
intersection sight distance for drivers turning left into the site shall also be provided and 
maintained. In addition, no plantings at maturity, retaining walls, embankments, fences or any 
other objects shall be allowed to obstruct vehicular sight distance. Minimum intersection sight 
distance, at the d1ivcway intersection with Morgan Road, shaJl be 41 5 feet northerly and 645 feet 
southerly along Morgan Road, measured 14.5 feet back from the edge of the travel lane. 
Minimum stopping sight distance shall be in accordance with AASHTO standards, appropriately 
adjusted for grades and m easured along the middle of the individual tTavellanes. Minimum 
intersection sight di stance for drivers turning left into the site shall be 415 feet measured from 
the driver's location at the intersection to the middle of the oncoming travel lane. (Roadway 
Standards section 240 and AASHTO Tables 9-6, 9-8, and 9-14). 
36. The applicant shall provide a plan and profile exhibit, based on survey data, illustrating 
adequate intersection sight distances and adequate stopping sight distances for the driveway 
approach intersection with Morgan Road. 
37. The applicant shall comply with County Roadway Standards clear zone requirements in 
accordance with Roadway Standards section 245. 
38. The applicant shall provide an Engineer's cost estimate to Clackamas County 
Engineering, to be reviewed and approved, for the asphalt concrete, aggregates, curbs, sidewalks 
and any other required public improvements required herein. 
39. The applicant shall install and maintain a 30-inch "STOP" sign, with the bottom of the 
sign positioned five feet above the pavement surface, at the driveway intersection with Morgan 
Road . (Manual on Unifonn Traffic Control Devices) . 
40. All traffic control devices on private property, located where private driveways intersect 
County facilities shall be installed and maintained by the applicant, and shall meet standards set 
forth in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and relevant Oregon supplements. 
71840-0001/ LEGAL29S01403.2 
41. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any proposed structures, the applicant sball 
submit to the following to the Clackamas County Engineering Division: 
a. Written approval from the local Fire District for the planned access, circulation, fire lanes 
and water source supply. The approval shall be in the form of site and utility plans stamped and 
signed by the Fire Marshal. 
b. Written approval from the appropriate surface water management authority (SWMACC) 
for surface water management facilities and erosion control measures. 
c. A set of street and site improvement construction plans, including a striping and signing 
plan (including but not necessarily limited to defined lane Jines, stop bars, pavement arrows, etc), 
for review, in conformance with Clackamas County Roadway Standards Section 140, to Deana 
Mulder in Clackamas County's Engineering Division and obtain Written approval, in the fonn of 
a Development Permit. 
1. The permit will be for road, driveway, drainage, parking and maneuvering area, and other 
site improvements. 
n . The minimwn fee is required for eight or fewer, new or reconstructed parking spaces. 
For projects with more than eight parking spaces, the fee will be calculated at a per parking space 
rate according to the current fee s tructure for commercial/industrial/multi-fam.ily development at 
the time of the Development Permit application. 
111. The applicant shall have an Engineer, registered in the state of Oregon, design and stamp 
the construction p lans for all required improvements. 
42. Before the County issues a Development Permit, the applicant shall submit a construction 
vehicle management and staging plan for review and approval by the County DTD, Construction 
and Development Section. That plan shall show that construction vehicles and materials will not 
be staged or queued-up on public streets and shoulders without specific authority from the 
County DTD, Engineering Division. 
Washington County: 
43. Prior to the commencement of site clearing and mining operations, the applicant and/or 
operator shall comply with the requirements set forth in the letter dated August 30, 20 I 3 from 
Naomi Vogel, Assoc. Planner, of the Washington County Dept. ofLand Use and Transportation 
and attached as an Addendum to these conditions of approval. 
44. Prior to the commencement of site clearing and mining operations, the applicant and/or 
operator shall provide written veri£cation to the Clackamas CoWlty Planning and Zoning 
Division and Engineering Division that the Washington County requirements have been satisfied 
or guaranteed. 
71840-0001/LfGAL29501403.2 
Groundwater Rel.ated Conditions: 
45. Additional monitoring wells and hydrogeologic testing, coupled with ongoing 
groundwater level monitoring, will establish baseline conditions and identify early groundwater 
level declines should they occur during mining operations. Onsite observation wells currently 
focus on water-bearing zone #3. Prior to excavation to elevation -100 feet mean sea level (msl), 
three additional borings (core holes) shall be completed to directly identify and characterize 
water-bearing zone #4. Pressure transducers with dedicated dataloggers shall be installed to 
automate monitoring of groundwater leveJs. All three installations shall be located and protected 
to allow long-term use without disruption by mining. The existing observation wells shall be 
replaced if and when they are decommissioned due to the progression of mining activity. 
46. Long-term groundwater level monitoring shall focus on water-bearing zones #3 and #4, 
and automated monitoring shall include existing and new observation wells. Monitoring data 
shal l be reviewed and reported to DOGAMI at quarterly intervals for a minimum of2 years, and 
shall continue per DOGAM1 requirements until mining activities are complete. This monitoring 
program shall documerJt current conditions and idcnti f)r any recommended mitigation measures' 
that must be implemented to counter substantial loss of the water resource for the nearby 
residences. 
47. Packer tests and slug tests shouJd be performed during drilling to estimate the water-
bearing zone's hydraulic conductivity, which will facilitate mitigation and dewatering system 
design. The tests shouJd focus at the design depths for the proposed infiltration benches and at 
water-bearing zones #3 and #4. 
48. Subject to documented access permission from private property owners, the monitoring 
of existing offsite wells associated with the properties listed below is required. The following 
property owners and properties have been identified as having a potentially high risk of conflict 
with groundwater quantity: 
a. Fred Smith, 12551 SW Morgan Road, Sherwood; 
b . Lee and Andrea Patrick, 12535 SW Morgan Road, Sherwood; 
c. James B. and Marilyn Kramer, 12525 SW Morgan Roa~ Sherwood; 
d. James P. Kramer, 12885 SW Morgan Road, Shenvood; and 
e. Mark S.'Platt, 12557 SW Morgan Road, Sherwood. 
Subject to access authorization, monitoring protocols shall include the development of a baseline 
well status report for the five domestic wells within 90 days after commencement of Site 
construction. If access is provided, the Site Operator will monitor water levels within 30 days of 
a request from a property owner to assess potential impacts. In the event private well monitoring · 
7184{}-0()()l / LEGAl29501403.2 
indicates a measured loss of20 percent or greater in daily domestic water supply, tl1e following 
shall occur: 
a_ Supplemental mitigation shall be provided including, but not limited to, deepening or 
replacement of private wells to tap deeper aquifers that are isolated from shallower 
mining impacts; 
b_ Within 72 hours the applicant/operator shall provide not less than 400 gallons o f 
potable water for domestic use per 24 hour period by water tanker or other source to 
the above referenced affected owner_ In the event that the provision of potable water 
becomes necessary, as requested by the affected property owner(s), a temporary 
above-ground potable water storage container shall be provided on the affected 
parceL The container shall provide no less than 400 gallons of storage_ 
49 _ Mitigation measures, including infiltration benches or injection wells along the south 
property boundary, shall be designed, built, and monitored to proactively avoid offsite impacts. 
Infiltration benches shall be constructed above water-bearing zone # 3 (about 75 feet msl) in rock 
suitable to faci litate infiltration_ Water applied to the infiltration bench provides a positive 
hydrostatic head in the rock mass that reduces groundwater declines adjacent to the quarry. The 
additional test borings, instrumentation, and monitoring, as well as observed seepage into the 
active quarry shall be utilized for development of final design and evaluation of mitigation 
measures_ Should proactive infiltration fail or be deemed inappropriate, well improvements such 
as resetting pumps at deeper depths, well deepening, or changes in well operation and storage 
capacity shall be considered as alternate mitigation options to alleviate water quality or quantity 
impacts. 
49a. In the event the applicant/operator implements injection wells or infiltration trenches as a 
groundwater quantity mitigation measure, applicant/operator will implement the groundwater 
quality baseline testing and periodic monitoring program outlined in the Shannon & Wilson 
Final Hydrogeologic Evaluation Report dated October 29, 2013 (Exhibit 92) to ensure that the 
injection/infiltration water complies with the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 and subsequent 
amendments_ 
50_ The quarry' s excavation depth shaU be maintained above water bearing zone #4 
identified in the Shannon & Wilson Final Hydrogeologic Evaluation Report dated October 29, 
2013 (Exhibit 92)-
51. Prior to mine operation, a final Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) 
Plan shall be developed for the facility substantially consistent with the sample document 
provided by the U.S_ Environmental Protection Agency and shown in Appendix M of the 
Application_ 
Acoustic Related/Noise Control Conditions: 
71&40-0001/ L£GAL29501403.2 
52. The Quarry operator shall comply with the recorrunendations contained in the noise study 
prepared by Daly-Standlce and Associates, Jnc. (DSA) dated September 23, 20 13 and the 
supplemental letter dated September 5, 2013 by DSA. 
53. Noise mitigation barriers shall be constructed in accordance with the DSA report along 
portions of the western and southern property lines. 
54. The Quarry operator shall utilize polyurethane or rubber screens or proximate berms or 
buffers in accordance with the DSA report in order to mitigate the noise impacts associated with 
operation of crushing and screening equipment when it is located in Crusher Operating Area #1; 
this requirement ends when the crushing and screening equipment is relocated to Crusher 
Operating Area #2. Both Crusher Operating areas are depicted on Figure #3 of the DSA report. 
55. The Quarry operator is not required to monitor or mitigate noise impacts to any off-site 
dwelling or property in the event the owner of the off-site dwelling or property grants the Quarry 
operator a written and recorded noise easement al lowing umnonitored and unmitigated noise 
impacts from the Quarry on the property and/or at the dwelling. 
55a. Noise generated by blasting activities shall comply with the DEQ noise standard of 
98dBC, slow response, at all noise sensitive receptors as identified in the Tonquin Quarry Goal 5 
Noise Study dated September 18, 2013. 
Drilling and Blasting Related Conditions: 
56. The Quarry operator shall comply with the blasting plan prepared by Wallace Technical 
Blasting, Inc. dated April 12, 2013. 
57. Notice of blasting eventS shall be posted at the Extraction Area in a manner calculated to 
be seen by landowners, tenants and the public at least 48 hours prior to the blasting event. In the 
case of ongoing blasting activities, notice shall be provided once each month for the period of 
blasting activities, and specify the days and hours when the blasting event is expected to occur. 
57 a. Blasting activities shall comply with the Z-curve vibration limits adopted by reference by 
the Oregon State Fire Marshal, as depicted in the foJJowing figure: 
71&40-000l}LEGAL29501403.2 
(254.0 mmlsec) 
10 ~----~------------~-------------------------
~ 
(..) 
0 
_, 
w 
> 
w 
_, 
0 
i= 
a: 
< Q. 
(25 • .C mmJsec) 
_______ / 
/ 
I 
O.SO lro/tW>C 113 mmlsec:]. pl'l!llc1" 
10 
2 inh"': (50.8 mrnlse-c:) 
Blast Vibration Frequency, Hz 
Wetland I Resource Related Conditions: 
100 
58. Mining and processing shall not occur within 100 feet of the mean high water line of 
Rock Creek and otherwise within the mapped riparian corridor as identified in the Clac.kamas 
County Comprehensive Plan River and Stream Corridor Area maps. 
59. The applicant and/or operator shall not fill, excavate or otherwise disturb wetlands on the 
property until applicant first obtains appropriate permits from the Oregon Department of State 
Lands (DSL) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and implements any required pre-
disturbance mitigation measures. The applicant shall provide County Planning and/or 
WES/SWMACC with copies of any annual monitoring reports required by DSL and/or Corps. 
60. Within 90 days after commencement of site construction, the quarry operator shall 
provide the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge and Clackamas County with calculations 
showing planned reductions in contributing upland watershed that will result in measurable 
71840-000 l/LEGAl29501403.2 
declines in surface water flowing towards the Refuge. Jn compliance with WES/SWMACC 
standards, the proposed operation shal l provide repk'11ishment water for wetlands to maintain the 
average rainfall contribution during the rainy season (November-May). Subject to participation 
by the Refuge, Dcpartntent of State Lands and other applicable agencies, wetland recharge rates 
to the Refuge may be enhanced (increased). 
61. The Quarry operator shall monitor annual water levels witbin the undisturbed buffer areas 
to the offsite portions of Wetlands B and C, and take appropriate actions to maintain pre-
disturbance wetness in those wetlands. The operator may install distribution systems 
(infiltration trenches, drip lines, etc.) for the replenishment water in the undi sturbed buffer where 
such installation results in removal of no more than 15% of the native trees and shrubs located in 
such buffers as of June 1, 2013 . 
62. The operator shall not excavate witllln tbc boundaries, as determined by the DSL, of any 
on-site portion o f Wetland B or C when there is surface water within the on-site portion of such 
wetland area. 
62a. The operator shaiJ install a clay barrier between the excavation area and buffer for the 
preserved portions ofWetlands B and C. Said clay barrier shall be compacted to prohibit water 
intrusion from Wetlands B and C into tbe excavation boundary. 
63. Tbe operator shall install and maintain an elevated area (above existing grade) of 
approximately 20 feet in width between the excavation boundary and the south edge of the 
proposed 50 foot buffer to the off-site portion ofWetland B (found in the northwest comer of the 
subj ect property). This elevated area is lobe located outside of the excavation boundary, but can 
be occupied by an access road, storm water faciliti es, or other activities ancillary to those 
occurring within tbe excavation boundary. 
64. The operator shall maintain the approximate same condition of the undisturbed buffers as 
exist on the effective date of Clackamas County land use approval to facilitate wi ldlife 
movement and protect adjacent wetland functions. The undisturbed buffers are located 
immediately east and north of the Kramer parcel, adjacent to Rock Creek and the 50 foot buffer 
where Wetland B extends offsite to the north. Such maintenance shall include, but not limited 
to, control of increased Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygrass growth, replacement of dead 
trees (> 12 in. DBH) when more than 10 percent have died, and related vegetative management. 
65. Any artificial lighting for exterior illumination shall not directly cast light into the 
Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge and undisturbed buffer areas where pre-disturbance 
vegetation has been preserved. 
66. \Vhere perimeter landscaping is required, the applicant shall install native trees and 
shrubs in accordance with County screening regulations for perimeter areas and PGE easement 
policies (where applicable). 
71840-0001/l£GAU9501403.2 
67. Access roads adjacent to the northerly and westerly mining area boundaries shall include 
a gravel surface consisting of crushed rock with nominal sizing of at least one inch maximum 
dimension. 
Air Quality Related Conditions: 
68. The Quarry Operator shall comply with OAR 340-200 through 340-246 requirements . 
69. The Quarry Operator shall comply with 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart 0000 requirements. 
70. The main facility access road shall include a gravel surface consisting of crushed rock 
with nominal sizing of at least one inch maximum dimension within 300 feet of any public road. 
71. The main facility access road shall be watered to prevent the generation of dust within 
300 feet of any public road. 
72. The operator shall maintain a truck wheel wash system for product trucks exiting the 
access road to the public road to reduce soi l track-out onto the public road. 
73. Onsite surfaces travelled by off-road or on-road mobile sources shall be watered 
whenever significant visible dust emissions (opacity approaching 20%) arc observed behind or 
beside a moving vehicle. 
74. Water sprayers shall be used to control dust emissions from crushers and screens 
operating onsitc. 
74a. Upon commencement of quarry operations, Morgan Road shaU be cleaned with a street 
sweeper, not less than twice a month within the improved right-of-way between the site entrance 
and the Morgan Roadffonquin Road intersection. Upon commencement of reclamation 
activities, street sweeping shall occur in this same area once a week. 
75. The majority (51% or more in terms oftotal fleet horsepower) of diesel engines powering 
off-road equipment shall meet federal Tier 2 off-road engine standards or better. This 
requirement can be met by using equipment with engines originally built to meet these standards 
or through retrofit to reduce emissions to these levels. 
76. Onsite idle times for heavy heavy-duty diesel truck engines shall be limited to no more 
than five minutes per truck trip. 
Conditions Agreed to with the Metropolitan Service District (Metro) Related to proposed 
Tonquin Ice Age Trail - Per letter dated October 7, 2010 (Tab C, Application) 
77. If Metro determines, by official enactment, that the east boundary of the subject property 
is an appropriate location for a portion of the Tonquin Trail, then the property owner will agree 
to the following implementation measures: 
71840-0001/LEGAI29S01403.2 
a. Dedication of a 20' trail casement within 50 feet of the Morgan Road right-of-way (south 
ofTonquin Road) and within 50 feet of site's east boundary (north ofTonquin Road) as shown 
on the attached exhibit, and subject to the following: 
1) Agreement from Portland General Electric that the proposed easement can be placed 
within the 50' powerline easement for overhead utilities adjacent to the Morgan Road right-of-
way. 
2) If necessary, agreement from Clackamas County for placement of their requested 8' 
public utility easement within the proposed trail easement. 
b. Placement of trail crossing signage (shown below) at the site egress to notify quarry 
traffic of bicycle and pedestrian activity. One sign will be provided for site egress. Replacement 
signs will be provided when necessary. 
TRAIL 
X-ING 
c. Additional signage requiring exiting vehicles to stop prior to crossing of the trail shall be 
provided. 
d. Tntil maintenance by the quarry operator will be limited to the area of the trail crossing 
and 10 feet north and south of that crossing. Trail maintenance to include the follo wing: 
1) The trail shall be swept weekly. 
2) Other maintenance items include sign replacement, litter pickup and clearing of brush on 
an "as needed" basis. 
e. An internal wheel wash shall be implemented for trucks leavin'g the site. 
f. The property owner shall provide a sight obscuring fence along the west edge of the of 
the Portland General Electric easement adjacent to the Morgan Road right-of-way. 
71840-000l/LEGAl295014D3.2 
Conrutions Proposed by the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries 
{DOGAMI) for a Surface Mining Operating Permit for the Tonguin Quarry - February 
14, 2011 {See Exh. 19): 
78. TI1e following conditions of approval in thjs section were generated by DOGAMI staff 
for the proposed Tonquin Quarry. These proposed conditions accompanied a DOGAMI staff 
recommendation of approval. Although they will require minor amendments in order to reflect 
updated report dates, small adjustments to the mining plan, etc., these conditions very closely 
represent those that DOGAMJ will impose upon the Tonquin Quarry {Note: verified by Planning 
staff in email message dated August 27, 2013 from Isaac Sanders ofDOGAMI; See Exh. 19). 
Where these may conflict with other conditions, the more restrictive shall apply. 
79. Clearly mark the DOGAMI permit boundary and required setbacks in the field, visible to 
all equipment operators. 
80. Salvage, stockpile and retain all avai lable soil and overburden material for final 
reclamation. Soil and overburden stockpiles and berms must be seeded in a cover crop lo reduce 
erosion. 
81. Implement the provisions in the Daly- Standlee & Associates noise abatement study. 
82. Implement all aspects of the Westlake Consultants SWPCP to ensure all storm water is 
contained within the DOGAMI permit boundary. A DEQ NPDES 1200-A permit wiJ l be 
required before any storm water or pumped ground water is discharged to jurisdictional 
wetlands, Rock Creek or off site. 
83. Submit a stamped slope stabili ty study to DOGArvtJ for approval before creating any 
final excavated slope in excess of 40 feet in height. All fi ll slopes steeper than 2H: 1 V must be 
covered by a DOGAMI-approved engineered storm water drainage plain prior to final slope 
construction. 
84. Maintain a minimum 50-foot property line setback for excavation and processing along 
Tonquin Road, SW Morgan Road and the southern boundary. A 25-foot setback will be allowed 
along the western and the northwestern boundaries. Sound and noise berms, stockpiling of 
aggregate materials, construction of internal access roads, construction of DOGAMl-approved 
recharge trenches, and construction ofDOGAMI-approved storm water control measures are 
allowed within the setback areas. 
85. Install a ground water monitoring well to a depth of -100 feet AMSL with minimum 10-
foot screened intervals over the three water-bearing zones identified in the Hydrogeologic 
Evaluation Report dated June 7, 2010. Position the well in the setback on the west side of the 
infiltration trench shown in Plate 3. 
71840-000VLEGAL29501403.2 
86. Install a continuous water level recorder in the well and begin rccon:ting water level 
measurements one {1) week prior to dewatering activities. Also collect a baseline sample for 
water chemistry from the newly installed well, prior to dewatering activities, and analyze for 
turbidity, oil and grease, nitrogen as nitrate/nitrite, total iron, and colifonn . 
87. Submit a report to DOGAMI, within 30 days following installation ofthe wel l, 
documenting the well construction details, a location map, and the water chemistry analyses 
from the baseline sample. Submit the water level data on a semi-annual basis to DOGJ\Ml in a 
hydrograph format. 
88. Install additional wells, if determined necessary by DOG AMI, based oo the findings of 
the water level mouitoring data, and as p it dewatering is expanded. 
89. Prior to conducting p it dewatering, submit cross sectional drawings showing the design 
(i .e . depth and construction) of t11e perimeter recharge struc tures depicted jn Plate 3, as well as 
th e recharge bench described in the supplemental notes for 5a,b ofthe July 2, 20 10 reclamation 
p lan. 
90. Modify recharge trench d imensions (i.e. lengthen or deepen) if deemed necessary by 
DOGAMl. 
91. Submit an annual report to DOGAMI that summarizes the bJasting information for each 
year. 
92. Reclaim all rock benches by replacing a minimum of 4 feet of growth medium, and 
revegctating with Douglas-fir trees planted on 10-foot centers. 
93. Agree that if mining operations disturb any area outside of the permit area or area 
designated for active mining in the reclamation plan, including but not limi ted to disturbances 
caused by landslide, erosion or fly rock, the operator must restore the disturbed area to a 
condition that is comparable to what it was prior to the disturbance. Further, if areas outside of 
the perruit boundary or outside of the area proposed for active mining in the reclamation plan are 
disturbed, DOG AMI may increase the amount of the required financial security to cover the cost 
of such restoration. 
Clackamas County WES/SWMACC related conditions: 
94. The Water Envirorunent Services (WES) department, a Department of Clackamas 
County, has reviewed the application for the above development. WES manages and operates 
the Surface Water Management A gency of Clackamas County (SWMACC). SWMACC 
provides surface water management and erosion control services in the Tualatin drainage ba-;in 
for those areas within Clackamas County and not within City boundaries such as Lake Oswego 
or Tualatin. SWMACC was formed by Clackamas County as a direct result of the 1986 lawsuit 
71840-0001/LEGAt29501403.2 
filed by the Northwest Environmental Defense Center against the Uruted States Environmental 
Protection Agency. 
95. The proposed development is inside SWMACC boundaries and is subject to the Rules & 
Regulations and Standard Specifications. Therefore, the applicant/operator is required to submit 
plans for review and approval through Water Environment Services. The current Rules and 
Regulations for Surface Water Management apply. The current rates and charges for SWMACC 
apply. 
96. The applicant submitted a preliminary report to SWMACC- "Offsite Storm water 
Analysis for the Poole Quarry" dated February, 2013 from Bernard Smith of Westlake 
Consultants, Inc. The preliminary report identified the separate responsibilities for perrn.itting for 
surface water management. The surface mining operation will be permitted by the Oregon 
Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI). SWMACC shal.l review and permit 
surface water related items for those areas outside of the mining operations boundary (Extrac6on 
Area). SWMACC shall review and permit the storm water impacts that arc outside tbe 
extraction area boundary, including the storm plan, report, erosion control and onsite wetland 
buffers. 
97. The onsite quarry operations are administered by the DOGAMI. The mining operations 
shall have a clear excavation/extraction boundary established in the field. 
98. DOGAMI will administer the mining operation permit and the methods that the mining 
operation uses to control impacts to surface water. The erosion and sediment control plan for the 
mining operations will be submitted, inspected and permitted by DOGAMI or the Oregon DEQ, 
wruchever is appropriate. The applicant is required to coordinate with state and local agencies to 
determine if a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Stormwater Discharge Permit 
(NPDES) 1200-C or 1200-A is applicable. 
99. The development is subject to the Surface Water Management Rules & Regulations of 
the SWMACC for storm drainage and erosion control to the extent discussed above. 
1 00. The costs of the required and proposed surface water management facilities shall be 
borne entirely by the applicant. 'This development is subject to a storm water System 
Development Charge (SDC). 
101. This development is subject to a minimum plan review fee for Surface Water plan review 
102. This development is subject to a minimum plan review fees for erosion control plan 
review. Final plan review fees are based on the area to be disturbed. Plan review fees are due 
with the first submittal for plan review. A NPDES Permit for erosion control may be required if 
the disttrrbed area administered by SWMACC is greater than one acre. 
7184()-(l()()l/LfGAI29501403.2 
I 03. Complete erosion control plans, shall be submitted to Water Euvironment Senrices and 
reviewed for conformance to the SWMACC stonnwater regulations. Plans must be signed and 
sealed by an engineer registered in the State of Oregon and shall be submitt ed to the Technical 
Services Coordinator. 
104. On-site detention facilities shall be designed to reduce the 2-year storm to ~ of the 2-year 
storm. 
105. Water quality facil ities must be designed to .treat the remove 65 percent of the 
phosphorous from the runoff from 1 00 percent of the newly constructed swfaces. 
106. Stormwater infiltration shall be provided. Infiltration systems must be sized to infiltrate 
the entire runoff volume from a one-half inch 24-hour rainfall event within a period of 96 hours. 
107. An Upstream and Downstream Stormwater Drainage analysis is required. Drainage must 
be routed around the site to an acceptable outfall or through the on-site conveyance/detention 
system. 
108. All springs, seeps, wetlands, sensitive areas, and required buffers shaH be clearly shown 
and noted on the plans and identified by a certified professionaL ln addition, the location of any 
proposed buildings shall be shown on the plans so that potential stonn water impacts can be 
effective! y evaluated. 
109. Any impacts to natural resource areas and required buffers shall be protected . SWMACC 
requires a mimmum 50-foot wide buffer to retained wetlands and creeks . Any proposed work 
within jurisdictional waters also requires a permit from the Oregon DSL and COE and copies of 
the permit shall be submitted to the SWMACC prior to construction plan approval. 
11 0. The applicant is required to protect the retained natural resource area and associated 
buffer. The means of protection can be a tract with development restrictions, a conservation 
easement, a restricted development area or some other means acceptable to the WES/SWMACC 
and the Clackamas County Planning and Zoning Division. 
111. The approva1 of the land use application does not include any conclusions by the 
SWMACC regarding acceptability by the DSL or COE of the wetland delineation. This decision 
should not be construed to or represented to authorize any activity that will conflict with or 
violate the DSL or COE requirements. It is the applicant's responsibility to coordinate with the 
DSL or COE and (if necessary) other responsible agencies to ensure that the development 
activities are designed, constructed, operated and maintained in a manner that complies with the 
DSL or COE approval. 
112. The developer is required to address long term maintenance of the surface management 
facilities. The owner shall submit a written storm water maintenance agreement to the 
SWMACC. The agreement shall indicate that the owner will have the on-site storm sewer 
7184(}.00(}l)LEGAL19SD1403.2 
facilities inspected at least once per year (August or September), and clean or repair the facilities 
as needed. All sediment and debris removed shall be disposed of to an approved site. 
Blackberry vines and dead vegetation shall be removed once annually during the months of 
Augu st or September. This agreement shall be signed by the owner and notarized, and the 
original copy sent to Water Environment Services. 
113. Prior to final civil plans approval, a final storm water civil p lan and report shall be 
submitted and approved. The plans must be stamped by an Oregon State licensed civil engineer. 
The civi l engineering p lans shall be designed accordjng to the Surface Water Management 
Agency of Clackamas County Rules and Regulations and Standard Specifications and as directed 
by the SWMACC during the plan review process. Any substantial deviation from the approved 
construction plans must have prior approval of the WES. 
114. SWMACC shall review and approve the plans for the storm sewer systems for those 
areas outside of the mining operations boundary prior to commencement of site preparation and 
mmmg. 
Addendum-Washington County Dept. of Land Use and Transportation R ecommended 
Condition s of Approval: 
(See following pages) 
71840-0001/LfGAl29501403.2 
Augu!>t 30. ;:ot > 
CI:-~Cka11as County Planning O ovrsivn 
cio Riel( M~:;lnlut: 
Clackamas County OTO 
~ 50 Bea•J!!rcreek Hoad 
Oh:gon City. OR 97045 
Re: Proposocf Comprehensive Plan A mendmenUZonlng M~p AmendrncntlMincral & 
Aggregate Overlay Di11tricl S •te Plan Review 
Clac kama s Cou nty Ca~efile No. Z0287 -1J-CP/Z0288-13-Z/Z0289-13 ·MAR 
Thnnk you for the oppori undy to re•1iew a~d com tncnt on tl)e t~ bove ncted appl.r.al•on bra 
propo~e<J quarr·~ ope>ratron tu be located ::tt lhe south·.vest corner of SW Tonqu~n i1 o::~d <Jnd SW 
Morg~'l Read ;n CI.'JC!(3 r1la:> County Washmgton counry Land ~J:;c ~nd Tr.Jnsp0rtatror·. submrf~ 
the folk>~~ ~ng ~O'lditron!'; of Oppr (1V111 lor uccess to SW Tc nquin Road 
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 
~aff fr0m bath ccunri~s p;eviousl1 agreed tha~ 'VVc. snJ~gtcn Co1Jrliy \v~ti b~ res con~·:.~:~ for the 
revrew, J=· t!ffl'l•lh :~l and ir.st::ectior~ of fequit eJ road •nlptovcm er.ts on SVJ T onqu1:1 Roao, anrj 
that C lac ~arna s County VJ•\1 be respcns1bte fo· the same on SW r..!orga, HoLid 
I. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY SITE DEVELOPMENT OR BUILDING PE.RMITS BY 
C LACKAMAS COUNTY: 
A. sr jhmrt ti-e follow:nq lo Wast'tingtoo County Lar d Use ano Tran s;x-rtatron Puo:1c 
Assurance St()fl (!>OJ· B-: G· 3843}. 
71840-0001/LEGAL29501403.2 
1. A cop~· of C l.:lrtamas COI.w,t{s final Notice of Decis ;o;l signed ana da!ed 
2 . Corrt!)ICted "uesogn Opt·on·· form 
3 S5,0CQ 00 Administration Ot?posil. 
NOTE: tltt; /".ri.:M:I:., ,• ; ttJ,,,., !h:ru ~:.d Js (I ~''C' !~-f'Gt:"O~·y '"'--,..-...,., ;.., o.t;.••r: f•• ~, , , . . 1•Ji W.;rsh .. " :1( t"· •i 
Gc:Jt~~,. ,;r_•r·.,-:'"'-~ JJf(JI.. I: k ·d / 1) rJJ "'! •. ,(',,'C;lf! t ,.'J<:It • ..ltf?if r. ·~,, ,' \ ,_' /,. tO ,. •• ~r'K f ; 41 'Pil 1'.1."'1. lie ':J 
;rp:,; .ot j,.f .,>I'!J. , u :. uu.'!l :1(lj\ lf) tlfl:, ·"'· · ·t•i ,• ;;~ 'fC ·- r .ldJ~rititlfJ','),'I C. t', .I J '.." A·itrrtl t,',"',IJ , I'•'• ~··) .· :·,··o&:~it 
,-'-!m tlf :Ti f uuf1: d a>fh ; VC7 · ~ olrP ~~ttfll.iJl•; r:l 'AJ: 'JJ! ;: w::ol; ;~.sr_ J0 L ; C ·,'Iol4. :lo-4} $<4 ) 'tf.ll •'' ,, ,·:, ,I,', t ! llftf 1.J 
fht? : t :::,,f!.f.' v! i' ••~ J''4. '1f~-f rt •n .~ · ur· w::s.".'.~i-11fl .r:a':,•t\.,1.' .1~C('; :If•' ~ rr,;J:trl •g I.J,.', t- ••' 'l•t• ,,· 
fi~ •OS ,t,.·•;',' !lit JC!Q!Jti :d c;d IC CfJ.,(:r 1/!e r.!':full.:tl•.""J I;.J'K: /1: "1 o :; fT:~ 5JJ ~~: • .., !••: f},. •• •#:.ru· ~·· • l 
: ;l .' f!~i r !N 11 ~e dll•'~ )lf·tj L-V;, : fl lf' l!}f( •'l ' :.,~:nl)' ,..._, ,, : ~~~t . c~luff', }.' r-' ·!",,:. t"fl ... ,r •"I::J••.· -1' J,N;.. '· .. 
-,t t)(C)PCf CJ•)'S'!) c-u!, (, 'fty ,.,II !:r.· rc lw!fJ.. •/ r<: l i •c ~~,.:p.,'.t;;Pl/ ,-i..C."\:_;t..: r,~.) !!... . /1/ ~j· J!~ J.2,j 
.···IJ•''•Ji -'f ·~ vt .. •.stl.;_,g'Ot' c. , JJili~~J·~r_~:?.. !!.!d.•!. ''!lm~; ;(- ~-~,· .. s. Jt.eJ;;. ;.'.!.:..1.!.!..,;, 
~:r .. ' 'JP!''!j (! Of CD f )!.-·{ (9.!!JJJ_'J£22 _ _l;r,_, ,••,:,~ :._t_·~ ,, I,J!2_:, \Jt ::J ·"::')<.~·;J t:vS'•; .,.,_,~·:' l Jf.' J•'!J,'r-r i(ll"rf• 
.::; :; .r''k'~ :') (.Q\.¢' / l jt; t:CtS[ c.' ., .. ,~~r_k :f.L.1_CJ:..-J!J.:.:c.2!.l!~.:.J.:.:£:_./•~J-''··fr">t!."':. ~:~ -. 'i .J.::po.-,,s w:~· 
J;~~C!IJ ' '·'Ujf ;n (J~ ,)f;[JfiC.:r- t!_ 
4. Prel,m:r.ary cer.rfica!ion of adeq-..ate jnterse<:!<O!I sight d1stance pre!)<\red 
and stamped by a regiStered professio!'lal engtneer. for the follow:r.g 
locat,:>ns: 
a. l.,ters.ec1ion cf SW Morgan Ro~d af SW Tonqulrt Road (based on 
ac-.ceptable ·,ndus~rt slandar:j lor hea'Jy trucks}; awJ 
'ThLI2!!l[<flli!?j!tf . .SC:Jhk :aholl sha 'l M'Cil.id<L il deta 1?.<1 list _of __ ~!))' 
i:tlf)IOVQ[pcnts required WolhiJl vr outside or exisling righ!-9f-\v:'ly th;,t_;!!!; 
~r.e!lsafy !Q pm yidt; Ncguate inlersection ... s'!JhJ .di_G.\i!.P~~ 
5. Thre€ (3} sets of comp1111e e09ireering ~ns for the COn$lrvction :;( ;~e 
follcwing pub,ic ilflpro,·ements-
a Road v,idening. strip"'9· shoulders. roadside dralf('laga. and other 
reqt1ired irnp ro;.oements {inclUding neu:ss<try nghl of.v:ay a.')olor 
easements) to accommod<~te a 'l':e:;~ocund left-tum lane on SI/'J 
Tooquin Roao at SW Morgan Read . wi!h a rl,~lmu•n storage lengtn 
of 125 feat ar.d approp<~ate tapers (cefer :o Tr;<ffic Staff Report 
uated Au,;ust 14. 2G13) . 
fiOTE: P;my (pr:~ provide :; S!lft((:'tJ!l: h;vu/ o.' {X:J.n flf1!1 ,"Vo!ilo ,"<lformMx~'' r·~ 
d.t:tve!cp an <t!Xilrote cosr o.stlt.•>;JJ" lr>r 1.'1e ;.,fH!Jm (<Jflf) r~prr)•,-emC!r;: 
b Any imprDYomcnls necessary to provide adequa1r;, intersecUon sigh! 
d :sfance pursuant to the preliminary sight oistance certrficarion 
noted In I.A.4.a. or th!f; leuer. 
c. Adequate illt.mtnation at the intel'sectlon of SW Tonquin Read and 
S'W Morg~ Rood. 
NOTE: ,~tk•r,._•l•tt! Jlfuin : •o ftrJI( • siM11 ccnsnl ~f ~~ /fJ'~jJ t)~u;: :tt/\}·w&JIJ 1£.yf;-J.'r• ·: ... ~i:J .;• 
~;,j,~J.·rJ n .a.."a IJ~Ctftf,J !r . .rrllr;..-,, ry JTIOlir.JeiJ JJt a mtt ~;t) )t Jn l JJPII"l:Jf:fll '!J ' 'o'{/(: .' .-;: ;.ou lcJc;!, 
lli~ tJt,,'i~.:.JC !Hdtif pnN:·:: ,{ Ovd•(stJ:t.l. Ti1e _r;.tt• •,.~ -:..• •n.'J } ........... .;1 a.~JJt: ;tl fJJ;i~(..·!t;·~ 
Ttpe /.J.I !Fst.~tJt)!,.~·r l rli · c.:.»t~ .-;r,,,_'J J":ot.: ~t"'(j , i.·l U1o a·-oa C~ilr':C•! l•t ;'I{,· ::nhu. · 
JO.f unJs of !t~ .. •>h~O.f!• :t.-ut Tllf.· (~_,, ,.,. :;jt,uf/ be \!~en!cd Sf ;;tJ ·)lt~i~S f•.:-
C~lftrrlfllo L., shu ;.tJ!alif ) t1 r~u.J !f / HJ f.·•·;~;,.y. ~JI~"ty pckl!t t>: o OV.Btfli (~~ •""U:,:.-, ,rft-~· 
;'rt{crrW>C.Ji~~ a:oJ' ;rs r.JtJ!ioe:tl f1y 11)~ '· ~··fru~ u rl•nr ,-:;. :.rn:: (/fJ"'tt'(:!opt!r _, ho.tt lllC'~ Jlnt 
t eqc•i >€·me;>l.'; ,;r f!'i(.' C<!;uU('tiCirf ~( I ~rod 11:.,: ltJ:('( rn1ilsp<'Yf" lm:r F(nf><ilvuj 
IJfwfTW"!JJfiC •. ,·> :,.;,(iJ>cf.tt",f::;. t.-.:u.'i! : r ::.w.~ .:.:JJ; Ht:.v !Jii! l.:,~icl~ ·114-;~t..n; t!H? ;tfY:.}·-:nooo 
lrH~~cf:loo .erer. Sl•••• l.i(J d ,.,inu:uu ol ~ .5 fjj)~o~  ' r•c •P.•'Ji l~fnrtl ;;,',.Hrjjfe;)}f(l.'t !t!!Yt:-! 
al (tft() roodw., y r;/.1.JJ./ttitfJ,~; :W l.'tD t~ r.:.v"~ ii·<J c"A:-t lf'lfJ" f.·rif'tt: i: ••!rioef!r l.ttoy 
'~'"QUf'c fltrtf,Tr~.'i;.f, In tu.fct.'r;cm Nll!'!l M,...)ve-.sriJI•:!liJ '~ itiit:IJ : '·' 
d. Dctined fane lines. stop ba•s. ar.d pavement arrows .:>n SW MQ(gan 
Road at J:s mlersec1ion with SW Tor~<.~uin Road. 
6 Cosc estimate <Jnd proi)Ortiona lily analysrS for f ulure !ert-tarr. lane 
irnprO'IIernel'll on SW To•~qt,in Road, as described In I.A.5.a. abo'.'c. for 
COilslderalion by U"'C Cou'nt;r EnglneP.f C::>st estima!e shall indLJde 
purchase of addition;}~ off-slle rigm-of·way or eawn•ents reqvrred to 
faaliJatc construction o l the lett-~urn lane. 
8 attain a Washington County Facility Ponni1 upon comp4el.on o i the followrng· 
P1>9e 2 C·f ~ 
71840-0001/lEGAL29501403.2 
1. Obtasn Washrngton Cou:1ty Enginer:::rin g Oivis·on approva l. Sllt:Jf:!ct l o 
ccnct.rrence frorli Clackamas C:ounl>'· of the ssghl dislonc.e cerl.rtearron an-1 
plans in Co.,drliCftS I A 11 ar.d 5 J b()vf'. Clnd pro•!ide a firan:i;;.l assul(lncc 
fer tile wrrstrudior' o( 1/;e im:Jrovements requir;;d pursu<Jrt to r.ond.ucns 
I AS. b. lhi\J d . above. 
NOTE: r.'rtt ~":,'s3h.\·,~(Jil f'Autrl;, P ·JJ,.tic A..tS.UfiJi~(\ .. • lfoJ I{ ,'fhi' :Jtmd tneo r'=':p,.;r.:d ~vnU .. \ ,II.~ ·'10 :'~Kriffl :"' .~ 
/<; rn..: HFF!kr~.··$ I'Ap(fJ! .. ~nt!J.ftl."CJ alter s Jtl.7 Itt"'-..• .3:7:'1 ,'Ji ~Jlrf!·.·tt.l ~)/ ltu: J)llt~·.~· .mt.:tv ~·e rtl(o r l( 
Ql'~irrttr.f.~>g piM13 
2 Sut~"lit payment of a r rc:pc:)l110r.ata sharo 'or future construction o! a 
decfrcate<l ler:-lurn iane as nR~cr ibAd in Cor.diti<Y.l I.A :i ;:J . at>G11~ ( ~<1t:lt•;J•rg 
nghH>I·•'JOY ~·r eJ:;erncnt ct. Jrll\-<r f u m~; '"an amoun! ;o be OetP,rmined :y 
!he \o\'ashr()Qion C:c""'' ) F •).)Jl>Co ' t 
3 Provide evtden::e rhar the documents requ.red by corod1ro" : C. lutve t,een 
recoH.fed 
C The lc ii01N1ng documc:11s S'IAII be, execuleu <:md recO!ded v~h lt\o apprcpr,<lfe 
Count)' or Counties : 
1. Dedica~ior. of Clddottoual rig~t-()!~11'~'/ to provide a rnininH.J!ll of '.5 ft>cl frou1 
-eac"l sida of cenlcrl· fl~ a long t11<J srlc·~ frentage of SW Tonquu> Road. 
i'ICludrng aaequate comer rad•us at SW Morgan Road. 
2. 0(.-dk:al•on of any on-site righ:-c f-',va)" C<" easements ~~C!!SS<rr 't to 
eccorr.modalc future COI)StrtJctil)(l o~ a left-tum lane as dr::scrt!:eLI i·1 
Col'dnioo I.A .5 a 3bove. ~ 11ciL.::n ~-l adequate ptavetnt~nt widlh for <'I 
min;mum oi 125 feel c f storage, apprOJ.,:tto;~ t3per~. required ~hl.>tMer~ 
tO<~ds.de ::Jr<t;nage , adeqaafa nter,;~ti<:r. sight d istance. et-:::. 
3_ Dedicauon cf on-sr,.c sight dis!ance easements neocied to proYid<: 
adequate intl:!rse..:tic'1 sigl •l di:;tance. pursuant to condition LA 4 a bow. 
4. Oedicebon of any elf-site s•ght drstance e<~se.rr.enti:;) n.::-cdcti to pruy de 
-adequn (o if>terst~c.• on s:yn t d.stance. ou•suant :o ~c~.dition I.A 4 abcvc. ,; 
deterrn:ned necessary by the County Ft'9rn~c 
NOTE; Ft'F.pbt:~fKY" cl dG<.UrTie.-!s lc.•r toc(.l('(L.a.tJ~r • • u:f,,H ~~:,.)..• t~t::~Jf(lll C'.Jtmty s/tetl ~ cr .. ('q~;.-u~d 
\ >l'ttl Sool7 y,.,.,,'!.: . .'VIISI~.-o?lc;a Cor"~.)· ~-"9•r..N.'?.''if:>u~.'t,y r;;.r·:;;;;n cSOJ. ,-16-nJ..Jj 
U. PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF QUARRY OPERATIONS ON THE SITE: 
·A , All conditlo'1s rndica,ed atKJve shall have been P1o1 
B. 1\Jl required publ•c im ;>rovemenls pursuant to CO"'drtions J.A 5. b. 1hru d sh<~'l oe 
comp~eted and accepled by Wash•ngton CotJr.ly 
C . Submit and obtain Wasllir.gton Couniy appre;val or !·nal certrfic<Jtion of adequa:c 
intersectron s<ghf distance (as dcs~.:rir.t!c1 in Cond •:•on I.A.4. ;~bc•·e). t::iepar~d a'ld 
7184()..()()()1/LEGAL29501403.2. 
stamr.ed IJy a regislere{i J:ftGfessional e:1gn:er. u1=;,n completton of requue~ 
impm·:ements. 
T har.k ycu agatn !or I no opporturuty to comrr.e:1t Ple01se send a copy of Clackamas COI.J•llf's 
netiC<! ol oens.on on the condtl .onal use ~rm<t appl c.atoon who1:' rt bt:comes ava!lab!!l II yc,, ha vt: 
,)f\y questlc r.s, pl~~as~ contact r.1e at 503-846· 7639. 
. ' . . ' ~ I ~ ;wtr:i V<l!JI"I 
Asso~; · ate rJa:-nef 
i 
\I 
\ 
-\ -. · .. 
. \ 
- : (J .. 11y .!-; hlld; •W:H, t;aur \ty [C\~ir--!...o(: :" {v••• ~~ n t.J I f 
.l•n·t"' Zl .1. :"" J •ff·· i' •' ·•iv""·l, rntJI: W:·N ·J\JJ UnnC...O"'\ ~·11i:J " 1'\ .. .ul.' 
u .. , . .,,. : ;, ~~~~ 'l.f ' : ip·:o r . tU •· ~~ .•. :'.Aowlt t·r~,ce ~f'\i"i.:QJ:-1 '.va. t '' ., .;1 :J 
f~· .. k '-"",.H. . .- I:.., l;pc·- u!rur•;; .s,....,,tur J:,.,..,.,c,;• (-.. Ia C·Jn.:Wt; 
~A ~!t •:,tJIInrr 1·,.. •r•;u, f iulr liL•J"" . J I : (•J:f,.. t1 ~JI] 
71840-0001/LEGAL29S014{)3.2 
• •• J 
1 ' . 
,: I : 
.\t: !-11' i I~ '' II , 
·r I< ·\ Fl• ll ' ST.·\ F F I~ f. 1'0 11 I 
T( J'\() l ' l l\ (II ,\IW \ 
<. 1.. \( h. .\ ,\1 -\ !'- t O l ·;o-; I \ 
WASHINGTON COUNll' 
OREGON 
'1 - ~, ... ;{ -.. -, i .:\:tn lll h. .. 1 t:: L1 •• : ~\._ .. .~ kt·. r:11r, . i ·· , , ! 1, : r: ,·:·· ...... 1 j \ ·lt : p: ~ .. '~', 11 ~ j_. ~ i ... : ~ · .: ·11 t1 . 
:-·:c • . ·i -' ~ : ... _ 1-. p .:... •. :r .. !ll :·1 =:,.: ,,. ,.,-'·· .l•f• !'• ··I~ \'. ; ,.H,._ t'l :l f< ,.,:,! .1LJ ~.,~ \,.- \l to: _::n ,,.,_ ..:!_ , · .·~ 
t !.Ht..j.fl t.,"' {_• ' ll: . ~: · l' •h.!;\·.: p:~:~• t .· . .._ ... ;• .. ·, ·l 1 Ht! ·.l.-. t i ' I 'Tf~·-·dt··,~ !• l "'l·,: r,, •· t:'-
:·,!.._ j .. l·r"• .. ·J..::..•\tl • j' ll ~·J ii•;;.,·, .:-..· ... :o·.t'l .l ll.;t ll l t ,., . . , ... :1· ' :''•-' ..,,--tiJ :: '-\ .~;.1 ,-, .. ,, 
, ·,!·:11:.- l •.•.t.J ·.~o·~·,·-..., :• •. ~ ... -.L· .. : -.,1.1 l ill l j'• · ~ ~ou . .-nt .• ! .. •·.:.:. · ., ... L: •liJJ·,· l,l ·l•\ I .• 
\•. l'·::o ~:Jnll • . u:-:\ 1~.~:. 1 r !\'• •f· ·· ·l-1 _ .. n .. l·. _,. _._- ... l J- ... l' ', .. If"'' ··: : ... ·.· 
,:., .• l·~·~•-•· lh ..... -.~ .-: J ·. :·,r,p ..... f.,., ,_,.._ :·d t t ;; .-. l: "'·'d !,..; 1,. 1 'i'' ' ' ' " ill t at..!_\ -!1 ':,,· .... \~·-• :•···· · - 1 ~~--.,_. 
I t• ·~ qll:lll~ • ":a.,i '~ \\' J .Litf ollf l 1-\t': ~~ -;. : ~l ,·: ' \ \ i·.!.t:!'dr• J: l •,.d 1·_,. _ \:0 • • -.~:- 1 : ;.•!1•,1 l,t ,: • hl ~t·." \ • . •, 
ll !o. il· .. , p,:.:J : ,:d:~:- t n. · t -~ rt.~! :. · :·· ll.t:l··l.f~:y ~\, .. · \" , · ·~·1 • H . ·~··· •:L .·: th\.·l •; l..::-- ... ~~\h a i ·.·. , : .,~-, 
'.\ -l'·.l ! inv.··•!": C.:-•• ·. : ·l•. t h •::t:! • ·- llll ·- l..!: ~j< • p .'•t •·11l :, _ _.,,. , ... ·l·· · ~:-: It llt1\ .... ·L···:·· ; .- ...... , 1. · ..: 
{n!...: ' ~-t..·Lt \· •• ._ 
'I'· ' • It 1 1 ,,_~,1 j l · , I ! 
·~ r .d)·;.'"· "J ._, u.p.iL "-'-•· •:·_,, ~ ' I •~ .... :n).t·· • . : .rd:- . · 1; ... ..: • .-r· :--.tlt l.: ' " ' ' .. • .. -\ · .,t , i'.• . . , • . \ t• 1 
·r~·l, ! !..._-: l'i:: .. ! l~:- ~•n! t • •. 11~11T •. ~.I: · i · of' -...;_1 .. ;,. 11'l•.'• • . .. 1: 1· .. ~..:.::, ·. j l.11: til t~',. ,'l~l • .l t•l'>: 
~--. ·\ .. • ... ·.-: : ~ : t;•.: .a ~•:•··- t\'1 ... ·· •1 
J. TL-.: : ;i ' L' I ': • ;.: ; t ','r·ll:• H: (!~ ·r·.: :!1: flh'·i ·li.-.:·.1 ! ...... ~ ·!- ' I \11'-. 1)1. 1 ~ .... ,d.,: 'h.· : r it• r'· ~.:r I ·r. :r: /. ·-
=·,, h~ \ :\~f:•:l ;_, ! ';) 1: 11 - :~ · ,· ... :· '"" f.;li..' \\ 0..,: 
w • .- hi«<~tuh C04.4of y. ll('JhHlmrnt o f L• nd lJ . .. & T nto.• porlll\ in n 
-; l ':"t-.· · ,·:·r._,,_ ,:-: .. -. . .J .- .. ,' • ~. 1 '.'.;: : .. :.; · , ·,'1'\ . ~ 1 ~ "-·I· ·r,_ . .::. :.t .~ ltl 't ' i p ; -, '· ' · r.,; 1':: 1 • .• 1 , ,· ,} ; ,,·: , -.• •• 
I;.~- , !·,\ .•} olo . ,. -·lro;·· • IL I .I• -1 .. '·': , : J :: ·: ~-r-.~: 
r .. ;. 1 .. ,. ~-: 11 . , ., 
7I 84().{)()()1/LEGAL29501403.2 
I"IUJ<Vl ( ' I .U 1- HU'Oifl 
1"0:\"<)1 I 'J (ll".\ lmY 
CL_\ C h:,\ \ l AS Uli:;'IIT\ 
.\u~·u..;l · -1, i •'IJ 3 
f'.,~;;.· ~ 
{(· ~ ~ :·: ~~O d.tih, ~r~p-: .. .\'HJ l i'~ ('S.!.:~ :L..· ... L., J·~ !IL._~,.,,!,u lt it; f - .,: :'\h·1 r{'.:~-: I!,)UI ,lll•. l i ··. ·, ·.t J .. 
.J [,I ; I '): I;,,. I' ,\·1 j•.:, .. ~ h<>•Jr; 
't : 1 ... 'no: I iflj';h-: tin '#i! t.'4..'1!. \I:!Jt.: l \\ u~l:JL,...: 4. •!~ ( ttUI H_ .. · t~ J I ,,)IL_1 h •U '"':,t ,._· ~· ~·:: a !U J'<.';, &.: I .( 
Hi.n c:)~c.: i t :: .. c ~· .:r ... :~: J .1~l)' \ns fl ;.; · •: 1:,~ ~nir i : ·~·.;:n !•ll:'\h:: .n-.:.1. 1: .. d ... :.'" :·!h ... t: J.c !~ '"-" 
_, _ l ·H~ : ,cl~i tJ!;·.; ·;~- J :!: i iltiK' in: pc.:-· .. arc1 u: l-J;.: : '.V .. _-h nt:,'.l-u' t \'tt:1!Y _j ·n :jdt.:· inn '':·_u.: ~ 1 .. .1_. ..-._,1 
f•)' lhl· ' ~t:ci..JJ_, .\1'.1 .nh~ : )~·1 ;)•·.•h h~ . :1-.. , .. ,t !t ~ha:' l i-.j ' .·:··YI !!.~ !.:=' t:h ·, 
1 . .-,-t "lur:J 
(li!C!"HY! i o>r l ; ·' 's r .... ..: H~-:. 
:-·:C\v ·! .n:,·"·" i~.-, -~,;j.:;->: ~::•oft;.-:..1 c · 
Yt:.•· 
~l~o.H:J I 
\V;~rr:m: 
.\;\ ~;~ :::i;·., il.,.~~ j; th .. -:,:.ll1....•\C !.~l.fl.:~ ; (,~ s·:·t 'I' ·"''I'HI ;-:. f ;:,·~ ~ g), • •:~iHl'· · t, .It lht: i: l:,..:tS:...'ot l h'!1 ·.~·~·: -..~ 
\.. ::~i n·J.ttCJ to.·  <·p-.:r;~ l~t~ a~ };,"• ,·f ,,, <\ ,:rvlc·:: (~ •\1' ·"''~l!~:- .. h:li'll'. 1: t" '.\::,: kd:t) r :·..l. !.••at::; 
( '.l! '~itrly , .1 'A\·:-;:h. ·n ~ n.J J,·Jc '.LC :J . • ~ IL i'll S \V 'l t 'i:l !Jt; ll l {,•.t(i ;~ 1 : h\" l t :L.~··;r-lli , lll i ~ ·,, · 1 ._, . , ::. !' ll . ..:d 
~~r: J.Jl ;!. dt~ \\''~-.:kd; • :·· .·\ ,\ J j't.!lfk Jl \·ur, t ·1.:.{ :\ \·:~:rctr. :t.l Ju! · :lg. Jh..., ... P,\,1 r-~·;'tl~ ;"-.: ~ r h~;"'.cd =~=, :ite 
trf,ffj,· ,.o1 l·.n .. l'"''· · .. \; 1 ~h t:,.: p:"f'"\...:d d.·, :: l t..t ;_)):t-.· ;:~ ;:J,j, ... ,~~·. buund ~ .. ' !1 t :J11: l ~.ro.: \\'; :I :d~:4' h.c· 
w~lf: .;1J~O:l) Jtt:-ir~~ l h~ ;\:'vlJ;.-.. t!~> h•.!h: v: ,ilt 4llL' t lf:';:0n":~:~ d o . .' \.t~\.\~jl)l'1'-t'Jt :hi..: !:::·11 'JJ .:[ !~1;}\' j'~''-l t- 1 : .. •, 
l ~5 :-~·--~ (• ( ~tt--:.~:-. 
. :\ :- J :)d;cnt~·.J in lh·: :tpplinwt engineer·~ :qx•:·l th.: •,'""<!~:; ,. ,. ,.,·h t ,Jj •:U :l~.: f:•••l• :b,•. \1· 11~.-ln Ro,, l 
t:r•rth\:-.::L.:td :!J)p:·;,.tli: .1ll•nc.: '\\\' ·1 '"'---luin l{ ;•.:d t, , h·t h :h.: "'""·! .u.tl " ·,::>( \:1 ·.;:-; ;:, ,1 :·: t c ~·l :h,• 
i:l:l•"lr·. ~:w r,;f,n<! :.: f:·r hc:J\", •.wel;s. 
1. '- ~,,~ l~ l l " .f ( (I \'.'i's~b,~und k fi :u: n .~~ ' k" ·~'t lh :~:; u:uu~: l ! ; : •. • r;:~,· of il) f~•! l (· ~·. S\\/ 'l't ··r:qllt!l 
K( •~HI .~· 1bc e; l ~,- · .. ~~t'li l~!: '", t! • S\V \lor;.,•n j{,,~u . 
7184().{)()()1/LEGAL29501403. 2 
Exhibit B to Board Order 
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Approving the Land Usc Applications for the 
Tonquin Aggregate Quarry 
BEFO RE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 
OF CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OREGON 
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW APPROVING THE LAND USE 
APPLICATIONS FOR THE TONQUIN AGGREGATE QUARRY 
In the matter of Applications for: (1) a 
Post-Acknowledgment Plan 
Amendment to the Clackamas County 
Comprehens ive Plan to Designate a 
Goal 5 Significant Mineral and 
Aggregate Resource Site in Chapter 
Ill, Table 111-02 of the Plan; (2) a Zoning 
Map Amendment to Apply the Mineral 
and Aggregate Overlay (MAO) 
Designation; and (3} Site Plan Review 
Application for Proposed Aggregate 
Mining and Processing Operations, on 
Property Zoned RRFF-5, Located at 
the Southwest Corner of Tonquin 
Road and Morgan Road. 
COUNTY FILE NOS. 
Z0287-13-CP 
Z0288-13-ZAP 
Z0289-1 3-MAR 
PREAMBLE 
In this matter, the Clackamas County Board of Commissioners ("Board") considered 
applications from Tonquin Holdings, LLC rApplicant") for a post-acknowledgment 
comprehensive plan amendment ("PAPA Application"), corresponding zoning map 
amendment ("Zone Change Application"), and site plan review ("Site Plan Review 
Application") to allow development of an aggregate mining and processing operation on 
undeveloped land in the RRFF-5 zoning district. The three appl ications shall be 
collectively referred to herein as the "Applications." 
For the reasons explained below, and based upon the identified evidence and argument 
in the record, the Board finds that the Applications satisfy all applicable approval criteria. 
The Board has considered the opponents' issues and contentions to the contrary and 
does not find these to be persuasive for the reasons discussed herein. Accordingly, the 
Board approves the Applications, subject to the conditions identified below. 
Summary of Project 
The Applications request pennission to mine and process aggregate materials from an 
approximately 34-acre site located at the southwest comer of the intersection of Morgan 
71840.{)00JILEGAU 875823 I .5 
Road and Tonquin Road ("Property"). The total excavation area is approximately 26 
acres in size and will be set back between 25-100 feet from the Property lines. The 
mining area wi ll be surrounded by a fence for safety, and where possible, natural 
vegetation will remain along the Property lines to provide a visual buffer. Noise 
mitigation barriers will be located within the setbacks. 
Appl icant has estimated that there are approximately 9,500,000 tons of in-place rock 
reserves on the Property. Excavation will occur in four phases over 15-20 years, 
prog ressing from the north to the south and southwest until a quarry floor of 
approximately minus(-) 100 feet MSL is achieved. Once excavated, the material will be 
processed on-site through a crusher and then hauled off-site. The Property will be 
reclaimed by backfilling with clean fill dirt for redevelopment, as a llowed in the 
underlying RRFF-5 zoning district. In addition to the quarry, the proposed operation 
includes a temporary office, parking, and scale area. 
The Property is currently undeveloped, with the exception of a Portland General Electric 
transmission line that traverses the Property in a north-south direction. Tri-County 
Investments, LLC is the owner of the Property. 
Notice 
On August 12, 2013, the County transmitted notice of the Applications to the 
Department of Land Conservation and Development ("DLCD") in accordance with ORS 
197.610. A copy of that notice is set forth in the record. 
On July 25, 201 3, the County mailed notice of the public hearings on the Applications to 
owners of property located within 2,000 feet of the Property, Community Planning 
Organizations, agencies, and other interested persons. A copy of that notice is set forth 
in the record. A revised notice of the public hearings on the Application was mai led to 
persons described in this section on October 10, 201 3. A copy of that notice is set fo rth 
in the record. 
Planning Commission Proceedings 
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Applications on September 16, 
2013. At the hearing, the Planning Commission accepted oral and written testimony 
from staff, the Applicant, public agencies, proponents of the Applications, opponents of 
the Applications, and others. At the conclusion of the testimony, Commissioner Wagner 
moved, and Commissioner Andreen seconded, a motion to keep the record open until 
September 24, 2013, at 12 noon, and to continue the rebuttal and staff report to 
September 30, 2013. The Planning Commission passed the motion 6-0. 
The Planning Commission reconvened on September 30, 2013. A t this meeting, the 
Planning Commission accepted rebuttal testimony from the Applicant and then closed 
the hearing. After closing the hearing, the Planning Commission proceeded into 
deliberations. 
-2-
71840~lfLEGAL287 58231.5 
The Planning Commission reconvened on October 7, 2013. At this meeting, the 
Planning Commission continued its deliberations. After concluding its deliberations, the 
Planning Commission adopted a series of motions relating to different aspects of the 
Applications. These motions are detailed in the Staff Report to the Board presented at 
the October 30, 2013 Board meeting. 
The Planning Commission was not required to and did not make an overall decision or 
recommendation to the Board on the Applications; however, the Planning Commission 
did recommend consideration of several issues also detailed in the Staff Report to the 
Board There were no procedural objections that arose from the Planning Commission 
proceedings. 
Board Proceedings 
The Board conducted a de novo review of the Applications. 
On October 30, 2013, the Board held a public hearing on the Applications. Chair John 
Ludlow and Commissioners Paul Savas, Martha Schrader, and Tootie Smith were 
present Commissioner Jim Bernard was absent At the commencement of the 
hearing, Assistant County Counsel Nate Soderman read the quasi-judicial 
announcements required by ORS 197.763 into the record. Mr. Soderman asked the 
Board if any members had any ex parte contacts, bias, or conflicts of interest to report. 
No Board members made any disclosures. No one from the public challenged the 
ability of any member of the Board to participate in the matter. 
At the hearing, Rick Mcintire presented the Staff Report. Then, the Applicant presented 
its case, which included oral testimony by Matt Wellner, regarding the general aspects 
of the project; Steven Pfeiffer, regarding the scope of the hearing, applicable criteria, 
and related legal issues; Jerry Wallace, regarding the impacts from and oversight of 
blasting at the quarry; Gary Peterson, regarding potential impacts to wells in the vicinity 
of the quarry; and Phil Scoles, regarding measures that will prevent or mitigate impacts 
from the quarry to wetlands and wildlife. Following the Applicant's presentation, the 
Board accepted public testimony. No persons other than the applicant and applicant's 
consultant team spoke in favor of the Applications. The following persons spoke in 
opposition to the Application: Sparkle Anderson, on behalf of the Far West CPO; Erin 
Holmes, on behalf of the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife; Mary Symes; Vicki 
Norris; Hilde Coeckx; Jos Jacobs; David Crawford; Erin Madden, on behalf of Friends of 
Rock Creek; Tristan Hartfield; Gary Dimbat; John Jenkins; Narendra Varma; Phillip 
Ballarche; Rex Scott; Sharon Scott; Lee Patrick; Andrea Patrick; Marilyn Kramer; and 
Jim Kramer. The Applicant declined to provide oral rebuttal but requested the 
opportunity to provide written rebuttal on a condensed schedule. 
The Board then closed the public hearing and held the record open as follows: 
-3-
7 l84Q-OOOJfLEGAL2875823 I .5 
• Until November 4, 201 3, at 5pm to allow any party to submit argument or 
evidence on any issue; 
• Until November 8, 201 3, at 5pm to allow any party to submit rebuttal argument or 
evidence; and 
• Until November 12, 201 3, at 12 noon to allow the Applicant to submit final written 
argument. 
Various parties submitted written argument and evidence into the record in accordance 
with this schedule. These materials are all included in the record in this matter. 
The Board reconvened on November 13, 201 3. All Board members were present. At 
the commencement of the meeting, the Board members disclosed the fo llowing ex parte 
contacts: Chair Ludlow and Commissioners Savas and Smith disclosed site visits. 
Commissioner Savas disclosed that he bumped into Mr. Wellner at an unrelated 
meeting and they had a brief conversation at that lime, but it would not affect his ability 
to remain impartial on the Applications. Commissioner Bernard disclosed that he had 
received inquiries from neighbors on the Applications but the conversations were 
general in nature and would not affect his ability to remain impartial on the Applications. 
Commissioner Bernard also stated that he reviewed the record and Board proceedings 
from October 30, 2013, so he would be able to participate in this matter. No one 
challenged the ability of any Board member to participate in this matter. 
The Board then proceeded to deliberate on the matter. At the conclusion of 
deliberations, Commissioner Smith moved to approve the Applications, subject to staffs 
proposed conditions, as modified by the Applicant in its November 4, 201 3, open record 
submittal. Commissioner Bernard seconded the motion. After further deliberations, the 
Board also passed motions amending the main motion to request a new condition 
pertaining to use of a street sweeper on Morgan Road with some regularity and to 
request a new or amended condition addressing storage of interim potable water for 
one or more of the five properties identified in Condition 48. 
The Board adopted the motion, as amended, 5-0. Chair Ludlow directed staff to return 
with an implementing ordinance at a later meeting. 
Applicable Criteria 
The County's July 25, 2013 public notice identified the following criteria as applicable to 
the Applications: · 
"Sections 309, 708, 1202 and 1302 of the Zoning and Development 
Ordinance {ZOO). The Post-Acknowledgment Comprehensive Plan 
amendment (PAPA) is subject to the Statewide Planning Goals, Oregon 
Administrative Rule Chapter 660, Division 23 and may be subject to one 
or more of the following applicable policies in the Clackamas County 
Comprehensive Plan including; Chapter 2, Citizen Involvement; Chapter 3, 
Water resources, Mineral and Aggregate Resources, and Noise and Air 
-4-
71840-000 IILEGAL28 7 5823 I .5 
Quality; Chapter 4, Land Use Plan Designations; Chapter 5, 
Transportation; Chapter 7, Public Facilities and Services; Chapter 8, 
Economics; and Chapter 11 , The Planning Process." 
For the reasons explained below, the Board finds that the County is preempted from 
applying local criteria to the PAPA Application and Zone Change Application. Instead, 
the provisions of OAR Chapter 660, Division 23 are applicable to these two applications. 
Record Before t he Board 
The record before the Board consists of the following : 
• Oral testimony presented by the Applicant and other parties at the public 
hearings in this matter on September 16, 2013; September 30, 201 3; and 
October 30, 2013, as reflected in the official recordings of these hearings. 
• Written testimony (and an aggregate rock sample) set forth in Exhibits 1-144. 
GENERAL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS RELATED TO THE APPLICATIONS 
(Z0287 -13-CP/Z0288-13-ZAP/Z0289-13-MAR) 
1. The Board finds that, as described above, the County has followed the correct 
procedures in this matter by providing requisite notice to area landowners, DLCD, and 
other affected government agencies and by conducting multiple public hearings for the 
Applications in accordance with the quasi-judicial procedures required by state and local 
law. Further, the Board finds that no one has raised any objection to the County's 
procedures in this matter or to the impartial ity of any member of the Planning 
Commission or the Board. 
2. As find ings supporting approval of the Applications, the Board hereby accepts, 
adopts, and incorporates within this Decision by reference, in their entirety, the following 
materials: the Applicant's narrative for the PAPA Application and the Zone Change 
Application dated June 5, 2013; the Applicant's narrative for the Site Plan Review 
Application dated June 5, 2013; and the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated 
September 10, 2013 ("Staff Report"). The above-referenced documents shall be 
referred to in these findings as the "Incorporated Findings." The findings below (the 
"Supplemental Findings") supplement and elaborate on the findings contained in the 
materials noted above, all of which are incorporated herein by reference. 
3. The Board finds that the Applicant's two application narratives, the Applicant's 
testimony received at the public hearings, the Staff Report, and the Applicant's 
November 4, 2013, letter, and the additional sources cited in these findings explain the 
need for imposing Conditions of Approval #1-1 14. The Board finds, based upon this 
substantial evidence, that each of these conditions is a reasonable condition that is 
feasible for the Applicant to comply with and is necessary to satisfy the applicable 
criteria presented in the Staff Report and the Supplemental Findings presented below. 
-5-
71840-0001/LEGAL2875823 1.5 
4. The Board finds that the record contains all evidence and argument needed to 
evaluate the Applications for compliance with the re levant criteria . 
5. The Board finds that it has considered these relevant criteria and other issues 
raised through public testimony. 
6. The Incorporated Findings list a ll of the applicable approval criteria, and 
demonstrate compliance with these approval criteria. These supplemental findings 
elaborate upon and clarify the Incorporated Findings, and primarily address issues 
raised in opposition to the Applications. These Supplemental Find ings are grouped into 
issues, with findings included in response to each issue. The issues are organized in 
traditional outline format and are assigned chronological numbers and alphabetical 
letters as appropriate. In the event of a conflict between the Incorporated Findings and 
the Supplemental Findings, the Supplemental Findings shall control. 
SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS FOR THE PAPA AND ZONE CHANGE APPLICATIONS 
I. STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS (" GOALS" ) 
The Board finds that the Oregon Statewide Planning Goals apply to the PAPA 
Application and the Zone Change Application because they request post-
acknowledgment plan amendments. ORS 1 97.175(2)(a); Beaver State Sand and 
Gravel, Inc. v. Douglas County, 43 Or LUBA 140 (2002) (post-acknowledgment plan 
amendment to add a new site to County's Goal 5 inventory must comply with applicable 
Goals). For the reasons explained below, the Board f inds that the PAPA Application 
and the Zone Change Applicat ion are consistent with the Goals. 
Goal 1 : Citizen Involvement. 
To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for 
citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. 
Goal 1 requires local governments to adopt and administer programs to ensure the 
opportunity for citizens to be involved in a ll phases of the planning process. The County 
has adopted such a program for PAPA's, and it is incorporated within the CCCP and 
CCZDO and has been acknowledged by LCDC. Among other things, the County's 
program requires notice to citizens, agencies, neighbors, and other interested parties 
followed by multiple public hearings before the County makes a decision on the 
Applications. The Board finds that the County has complied with its adopted notice and 
hearing procedures applicable to PAPA's, including the notice requirements of CCZDO 
1302. Further, no one objected to the procedures followed by the County in this matter. 
Therefore, the Board finds that the PAPA Application and the Zone Change Application 
are consistent with Goal1. See Wade v. Lane County, 20 Or LUBA 369, 376 (1990) 
(Goal 1 is satisfied as long as the local government follows its acknowledged citizen 
involvement program). 
-6-
71840-000IILEGA1 .287S823 l .S 
Goal 2: Land Use Planning. 
To establish a land use planning process and policy framew ork as a basis 
for a ll decisions and actions re lated to use of land and to assure an adequate 
factual base fo r such decisio ns and actions. 
The Board finds that the provisions of OAR chapter 660, division 23 establish the land 
use planning process and policy framework for considering the PAPA Application and 
the Zone Change Application. Further, the evidence in the record, which includes 
detailed expert reports across a number of disciplines, demonstrates that the PAPA 
Application and the Zone Change Application satisfy all applicable substantive 
standards of OAR chapter 660, division 23. As such, there is an adequate factual base 
for the County's decision. Therefore, the Board finds that the County has met the 
evidentiary requirements of Goal 2. 
The Board further finds that Goal 2 requires that the County coordinate its review and 
decision on the Applications with appropriate government agencies. The County 
provided notice and an opportunity to comment on the Applications to affected 
government agencies, including nearby cities and the State Department of Land 
Conservation and Development. The Board addresses the comments from these 
agencies in the findings below. Therefore, the Board finds that the County has met the 
coordination requirements of Goal 2. 
The County finds that the PAPA Application and the Zone Change Application are 
consistent with Goal 2. 
Goal 3: Agricultural Lands. 
To preserve and maintain agricultural lands. 
Goal 3 is not applicable to a zone change from one non-resource designation to 
another. Caldwell v. Klamath County, 45 Or LUBA 548 (2003). The Property is located 
in the RRFF-5 zoning district, and the Board finds that the County does not apply this 
district to resource lands. See generally CCCP at IV-55 through IV-59. No one 
. contended on the record that Goal 3 was an applicable approval criterion. Therefore, 
the Board finds that Goal 3 is not applicable to the Applications. 
Goal 4: Forest Lands. 
To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and to protect 
the state's forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest 
practices that assure the continuous growi ng and harvesting of forest t ree 
species as the leading use on forest land consistent with sound management o f 
soil, ai r, water, and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational 
opportunities and agriculture. 
-7-
71840-000J fLEGAl287582J J .5 
The Property is not located on designated forest resource land. No one contended on 
the record that Goal 4 was an appl icable approval criterion. Therefore, the Board finds 
that Goal 4 is not applicable to the Applications. 
Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces. 
To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and 
open spaces. 
Goal 5 identifies mineral and aggregate resources as a significant resource. As applied 
to mineral and aggregate sites, Goal 5 is implemented by OAR 660-023-0180. For the 
reasons explained in these Supplemental Findings in response to OAR 660-023-
0180(5)(b)(D), which reasons are incorporated herein by reference, the Board finds that 
there is substantial evidence in the whole record to support the conclusion that the 
PAPA Applicat ion and the Zone Change Application satisfy the requirements of OAR 
660-023-01 80, including how the location, quantity, and quality of the mineral and 
aggregate resource on the Property is significant; the identificat ion of confl icts between 
. the Project and allowed uses, including all other inventoried Goal 5 resources; 
identification of reasonable and practicab le measures to minimize these conflicts; and 
the analysis of the economic, social, environmenta l, and energy consequences of 
allowing, not allowing, or limiting the Project based upon the only conflict that cannot be 
minimized. 
For these reasons and the additional reasons set forth at pages 9-10 of the Staff 
Report, the Boardfinds that the PAPA Application and the Zone Change Application are 
consistent with Goal 5. 
Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality. 
To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of 
the state. 
The Board finds for the reasons explained in these Supplemental Findings in response 
to OAR 660-023-01 80(5)(b)(A), which reasons are incorporated herein by reference, the 
Applicant has minimized the conflicts between the Project and a llowed uses, including 
conflicts relating to discharges to air, water, and land. Further, the Board f inds that the 
County has implemented Goal 6, in part, by adopting provisions of CCZDO 708 that 
apply directly to the Site Plan Review Application and are designed to maintain and 
improve the quality of the a ir, water, and land resources. For the reasons explained in 
these Supplemental Findings in response to CCZDO 708.05.C. and H. below, which 
reasons are incorporated herein by reference, the Board finds that the Site Plan Review 
Application satisfies these provisions, subject to conditions. Further, the Board finds 
that no one contended on the record that the Project was inconsistent with Goal 6. 
Accordingly, the Board finds that the PAPA Application and the Zone Change 
App lication are consistent with Goal 6. 
-8-
7 1840.0001/LEGAL18758231.5 
Goal 7 : Areas Subject to Natural Hazards. 
To protect people and property from natural hazards. 
The Board finds that there are no identified or inventoried natural hazards in the general 
area of the Property, and the Project is not located within the designated floodplain. 
Further, the Board finds that the Project includes measures designed to reduce risk to 
people and property from natural hazards, including a surface water management plan 
to reduce or avoid potentially adverse flooding impacts to off-site properties due to 
stormwater runoff. No one contended on the record that the Project did not satisfy Goal 
7. The Board f inds that the PAPA Application and the Zone Change Application are 
consistent with Goal 7. 
Goal 8: Recreational Needs. 
To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors, 
and where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational 
facilities including destination resorts. 
The Board finds, fo r two different reasons, that the Project will not interfere with any 
exist ing recreational facilities. First , the Project does not involve any designated 
recreational or open space lands or affect access to any significant recreational uses in 
the area. Second, although the Property is adjacent to the Tualatin River National 
Wildlife Refuge ("Refuge"), for the reasons explained below, and based upon the 
evidence in the record, the Board finds that the Project will not conflict with the Refuge 
and its recreational goals. In fact, the Project includes several conditions, such as 
setbacks, noise barriers, limited hours of operation, and fencing that the Board finds will 
minimize any impacts of the Project to the Refuge, including its related recreational 
aspects. Finally, as required by Condition 77a, Applicant will faci litate the siting of 
addit ional recreational faci lities by dedicating a 20-foot wide trail easement along the 
eastern portion of the Property (in the event Metro determines by official enactment that 
it is an appropriate location for the Tonquin Ice Age Trail). The Board finds that the 
PAPA Application and the Zone Change Application are consistent with Goal 8. 
Goal 9: Economic Development. 
To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of 
economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's 
citizens. 
In general, Goal 9 is only applicable to areas within urban growth boundaries. The 
Property is located outside the Metropolitan Portland Urban Growth Boundary. OAR 
660-009-001 0(1 ). Therefore, the Board finds that Goal 9 is not applicable to the Project. 
Alternatively, to the extent Goal 9 is applicable, the Board finds that the Project furthers 
the objectives of this goal by providing a material (rock) that is essential to the 
-9-
71840-000 J/LEGAL2875823 J .5 
construction of a variety of infrastructure projects. Development of these infrastructure 
projects will support a variety of economic acti vities across the state. The Board finds 
that the PAPA Application and the Zone Change Application are consistent with Goal 9, 
to the extent it is applicable at all . 
Goal10: Housing 
To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. 
The Board finds that Goal 10 is not applicable to the Project because the Property is not 
located within the Metropo litan Portland UGB and because it does not concern lands 
proposed for urban reserve designation or planned for urban residential housing. 
Further, the PAPA Application and Zone Change Application do not change the 
underlying zoning designation, which a llows rural residential uses. Finally, the Project 
anticipates future uses after reclamation, which may include residential uses. However, 
the Board finds that the Project nevertheless furthers the objectives of this goal by 
provid ing a material (rock) that is essential to the construction and rehabilitation of many 
forms of housing in the Portland Metro and surrounding areas. Therefore, the Board 
finds that the PAPA Application and the Zone Change Application are consistent with 
Goal 10, to the extent it is appl icable at all . 
Goal 11 : Public Facilities and Services. 
To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public 
facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. 
The Property is not located within, or served by, any public or private water or sewer 
service district See page 13 of the Staff Report. Further, the Project does not require 
the extension of public sewer, water, or storm drainage facilities, and Applicant does not 
propose to extend same. Further, for the reasons explained in these Supplemental 
Findings in response to OAR 660-023-01 80(5)(b)(B) and CCZDO 708.05.H below, 
which reasons are incorporated herein by reference, the transportation and stormwater 
systems are adequate to serve the Project, subject to identified conditions. Finally, 
County Planning staff stated that designating the Property as a significant aggregate 
site would not affect the planning for public facilities or services by the County or any 
nearby City. See page 14 of Staff Report. No one contended on the record that the 
PAPA Application and Zone Change Application would not be consistent with Goal 11. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Board finds that the PAPA Application and the Zone 
Change Application are consistent with Goal 11 . 
-10-
71840-DOOIILEGAU8758231 .5 
Goal12: Transportation. 
To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation 
system. 
The Board finds that the Project will further the objectives of this goal by providing a 
material (rock) that is essential to the construction and reconstruction of a variety of 
transportation projects. including roads, airports, railroads, sidewalks, and bikeways. 
Goal12 is implemented by the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule ('TPR"), which 
requires local governments to determine whether or not a proposed PAPA will 
"significantly affect" an existing or planned transportation facility. OAR 660-01 2-
0060(1 ). A PAPA will "significantly affect" an existing or planned transportation facility if 
it will : (1) change the functional classification of a facility; (2) change standards 
implementing a functional classification system; (3) as measured at the end of the 
planning period, result in types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the 
functional classification of an existing facility; or ( 4) degrade the performance of an 
existing facility either below applicable performance standards, or if already performing 
below these standards, degrade it further. /d. 
LUBA has stated that the initial question under the TPR is "whether the plan 
amendment causes a net increase in impacts on transportation facilities, comparing 
uses allowed under the unamended plan and zoning code with uses allowed under the 
amended plan and zoning code." Griffiths v. City of Corvallis, 50 Or LUBA 588, 593 
(2005). This is commonly applied to require that an applicant compare the traffic 
associated with a reasonable worst case scenario development under the existing 
zoning district with a reasonable worst case scenario under the proposed zoning district. 
The Board finds that the Project will not significantly affect any existing or planned 
transportation facilities. In support of this conclusion, the Board relies upon the ''worst 
case scenario" analysis prepared by Applicant's transportation consultant, Kittelson & 
Associates, Inc. ("KAI"). In that analysis, KAI compared the reasonable worst-case trip 
generation scenario of the Property under the existing zoning designation (RRFF-5, with 
no MAO) with the reasonable worst-case trip generation scenario under the proposed 
zoning designation (RRFF-5, w ith MAO). See Appendix H of the Applications. This 
comparison indicated that the Property would generate more trips under the proposed 
zoning designation; however, at the end of the planning period (2035), all site access 
points and off-site intersections were fo recast to perform within acceptable performance 
standards during weekday AM and PM peak hours. Based upon these results, KAI 
concluded that the Applications would not significantly affect any existing or planned 
transportation faci lities for purposes of the TPR. The Board finds that transportation 
engineers with both the County and Washington County reviewed and concurred with 
KAI 's conclusions. See pages 15-16 of the Staff Report. No substantial evidence was 
presented that undermined this testimony. 
-11 -
71840-000 l/LEG:\L2875823 1.5 
Therefore, the Board finds that the PAPA Appli cation and the Zone Change Application 
are consistent with Goal 12 and the TPR. 
Goal 13: Energy Conservation. 
To conserve energy. 
Based upon the testimony of Applicant and the concurrence of County Planning staff, 
the Board finds the Project wil l have at least two significant positive energy 
consequences. First, the Board finds that mining the aggregate resource will facilitate 
completion of many needed transportation improvements. which will, in turn, provide 
greater capacity and smoother road surfaces. As a result, the Board finds that vehicles 
on roads throughout the region will be able to consume less fuel because they will 
spend less time idling in traffic and/or confronting substandard road conditions. 
Second, the Board finds that the energy consequences of allowing a mine are also 
positive because the Property is less than one mile from each of the respective city 
limits of Sherwood, Tualatin, and Wilsonville, all locations where there is a significant 
amount of growth and demand for aggregate. Locating a mine near these markets will 
reduce the d istance the product must travel to the consumer, resulting in lower fuel 
consumption. The Board finds that the Property's proximity to major transportation 
corridors, such as Interstate 5, also reduces fuel consumption and energy impacts 
compared to more remote locations. As support for this conclusion, the Board accepts 
Applicant's testimony that a proposed site in Molalla requiring 250 truck trips would 
generate an additional 3,750 miles in haul distance, add 83 hours of travel time, use an 
additional 469 gallons of fuel. and add approximately $15,000 to the project cost. See 
Applicant letter re: "Discussion of Economic Benefits" dated November 4, 2013 (Exhibit 
113). No one presented substantial evidence that undermined this testimony. 
The Board finds that the PAPA Application and the Zone Change Application are 
consistent with Goal 13. 
Goal 14: Urbanization. 
To provide for an orderly and efficient transition f rom rural to urban land 
use. 
The Board finds that Goal 14 is not an applicable approval criterion for three reasons. 
First, the Property is located outside of the Metropolitan Portland Urban Growth 
Boundary, and it is not a designated Urban Reserve. Second, the proposal does not 
involve a change in location of the UGB. Third, the Property is zoned for rura l uses, and 
the proposal does not change this fact. 
-12-
71840-000 1/LEGA128 758231.5 
Goal 15: Willamette River Greenway. 
To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, scenic, historical, 
agricultural, economic and recreational q ualities of lands along the Willam ette 
River as the Willamette River Greenway. 
The Board finds that no portion of the Property is located in the Willamette River 
Greenway, and no lands within the Greenway are affected by th is proposal. Therefore, 
the Board finds that Goal 15 is not an applicable approval criterion for the PAPA 
Application and the Zone Change Application. 
Goal16: Estuarine Resources 
To recognize and protect the unique environmental, economic, and social 
values of each estuary and associated wetlands; and 
To protect, maintain, where appropriate develop, and where appropriate 
restore the long-term environmental, economic, and social values, divers ity, and 
benefits of Oregon's estuaries. 
The Board finds that no portion o f the Property or the designated impact area is located 
within an estuary. As a result, the Board finds that the Project wi ll not adversely affect 
any estuarine resources. According ly, the Board finds that Goal 16 is not applicable to 
the PAPA Application and the Zone Change Application. 
Goal17: Coastal Shorelands. 
To conserve, protect, where appropriate, develop and where appropriate 
restore the resources and benefits of all coastal shorelands, recognizing their 
value for protection and maintenance of water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, 
water-dependent uses, economic resources and recreation and aesthetics. The 
management of these shoreland areas shall be compatible with the 
characteristics of the adjacent coastal waters; and 
To reduce the hazard to human life and property, and the adverse effects 
upon water quality and fish and wildlife habitat , resulting from the use and 
enjoyment of Oregon's coastal shorelands. 
The Board finds that no portion of the Property or the designated impact area is located 
within a coastal shorelands area. As a result, the Board finds that the Project will not 
adversely affect any coastal shorelands resources. Accordingly, the Board finds that 
Goal 17 is not applicable to the PAPA Application and the Zone Change Application. 
Goal18: Beaches and Dunes. 
To conserve, protect, where appropriate develop, and where appropriate 
restore the resources and benefits of coastal beach and dune areas ; and 
-13-
71840-000 l!LCGAL28 75823 1.5 
To reduce the hazard to human life and property from natural or man-
induced actions associated with these areas. 
No portion of the Property or the designated impact area is located within a designated 
beach or dune. As a result. the Board finds that the Project will not adversely affect 
beach or dune resources. Accordingly, the Board finds that Goal18 is not applicable to 
the PAPA Application and the Zone Change Application. 
Goal 19: Ocean Resources. 
To conserve marine resources and ecological functions for the purpose of 
providing long-term ecological , economic, and social va lue and benefits to future 
generations. 
The Property does not include or abut any ocean resources, and the Project will not 
impact any ocean resources. No party contended in the County proceedings that Goal 
19 was applicable to the PAPA Appl ication and the Zone Change Application. 
Therefore, the Board finds that Goal 19 is not applicable to the PAPA Application and 
the Zone Change Application. 
II. OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES 
OAR 660-023-0180 Mineral and Aggregate Resources 
(3) An aggregate resource site shall be considered significant if adequate 
information regarding the quantity, quality, and location of the resource 
demonstrates that the site meets any one of the criteria in (a) through (c) of this 
section, except as provided in subsection (d) of th is section: 
(a) A representative set of samples of aggregate material in the deposit on the 
site meets applicable Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) 
specifications for base rock for air degradation, abrasion, and soundness, and 
the estimated amount of material is more than 2,000,000 tons in the Willamette 
Valley, or more than 500,000 tons outside the Willamette Valley; 
QUALITY 
The Board finds that a representative set of samples from the site meet ODOT 
specifications for base rock as required by this rule. As support for this conclusion, the 
Board relies upon the results of industry-standard tests, which demonstrated that six 
samples of aggregate materials from the site meet ODOT specifications for base rock, 
together with expert opinions from two different geologists who independently analyzed 
the samples collected from the site. 
Specifically, the Board finds that the Applicant presented test results reporting that six 
samples of aggregate materials from the site satisfied applicable criteria set forth in 
ODOT's Standard Specifications for Highway Construction (revised 2008, current 
-1 4-
7 I840-{)00J /LEGAU875823J .5 
edition) Section 02630 for air degradation, abrasion, and Sodium Sulfate soundness. 
See Table 1 of Appendix A of the Applications. The Board f inds that an ODOT-
accred ited aggregate testing laboratory, ACS Soils Testing, Inc. ("ACS"), conducted 
these tests in accordance with industry standard . See Appendix A of the Appl ications 
(Aggregate Resource Evaluation and Significance Determination prepared by Kuper 
Consulting LLC). No party challenged the methodology or results of these tests once 
the samples were identified. The opponents' primary challenge with respect to the 
quality of resource, which is discussed more fully below, related to a single sample that 
failed to satisfy ODOT specifications. The Applicant also submitted a portion of one of 
the six samples into the record in this matter. See Exhibit 97. No party contended that 
the submitted sample failed ODOT's specifications. Additionally, no party submitted a 
different sample from the site that failed ODOT's specifications. The Board finds that 
the six samples of aggregate material from the site meet applicable ODOT 
specifications for base rock for air degradation. abrasion, and soundness. 
Further, the Board finds that these samples are a "representative set of samples of 
aggregate material in the deposit on the site" as required by the Goal 5 rule based upon 
the testimony of two different geologists. First, the Kupers testified that the samples 
were representative because they fol lowed industry standard in selecting them. See 
Kuper Consulting letter to Planning Commission dated September 20, 2013 (Exhibit 
65b ). Specifically, the Kupers testified that they characterized the site and selected 
samples based upon the Kupers' analysis of published geologic maps, the Kupers' 
familiarity with the geology in the immediate vicinity (which includes many productive 
aggregate quarries), the Kupers' review of subsurface work completed by other 
consultants (including 14 air track borings, which indicated that the resource was 
consistent across the site, and 11 excavated trenches, which demonstrated the amount 
of topsoil and weather rock that covered the basalt). fd. Further, the Kupers testified 
that the samples were geographica lly distributed across the site and spanned the outer 
edges of the proposed mine in order to allow the Kupers to further analyze the site 
geology in three dimensions. /d. 
Second, HGSA testified that the samples were "representative" because they were 
selected from all three core holes and from varying depths on the site. See HGSA Peer 
Review of Site Aggregate Resources (Exhibit 90}. Further, HGSA noted that the 
number and location of the samples was reasonable in light of the relatively small size 
of the site (34 acres) and the well-known geology of the area. /d. Specifically, HGSA 
noted that literature in the f ield has established that the area encompassing the site is 
part of the Columbia River Basalt Group, where rock units are estimated to be more 
than 1,000 feet thick. /d. As a result, HGSA concluded that the site warranted less 
exploration and sampling than a location along Oregon's coast, where the rock body 
was thinner, more discontinuous, and thus more uncertain. /d. 
The County finds that these test results and related expert opinions constitute 
substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the site satisfies the quality 
threshold of OAR 660-023-0180(3)(a). 
Although Ms. Madden and Dr. Lewis contend that the site is not "significant" because a 
-15-
7 18~0.0001/LEGAU875823 1 . 5 
single sample failed to satisfy ODOT specifications, the Board denies this contention 
because the Board finds that the Goal 5 rule does not require that each sample from the 
site meet all ODOT specifications. Rather, the rule requires that a "representative set of 
samples" meet these specifica tions. 
Further, although Ms. Madden and Dr. Lewis contend that the Applicant has not 
generated sufficient samples from the site to carry its burden of demonstrating that the 
Applications satisfy the quality standard of the Goal 5 rule, the Board denies th is 
contention. The Board finds that the only two geologists who testified on the record 
both opined that the six samples from the site that meet ODOT specifications are 
''representative" in light of the re latively small size of the site (approximately 34 acres). 
the varied location and depth of samples, the extensive pre-sampling trenching and air 
track borings, the established geology of the site, and the existence of six highly 
productive aggregate mines in the area drawing from the same geologica l formation. 
See Appendix A to Applications, Kuper Consulting letter dated September 20, 2013 
(Exhibit 65b), and HGSA Peer Review of Site Aggregate Resources (Exhibit 90). No 
geologists rebutted this testimony or offered a counter-opinion regarding the quality of 
aggregate material in the deposit on the site. 
Although Dr. Lewis contends that the data in the six samples reflected the existence of 
"two populations" of rock on the site, the Board denies this contention because. as 
noted above, the only geologists who testified on the record testified with great 
confidence that the samples were "representative" in nature. Dr. Lewis is not a 
geologist but a statistician. As a result, the Board finds ihat Dr. Lewis has expertise with 
statistics. but he is not an expert in characterizing or analyzing the distribution of 
subsurface rock materials or in understanding how many samples are necessary to be 
urepresentative" for purposes of the Goal 5 rule at a given site. Therefore, the Board 
finds Dr. Lewis' testimony regard ing the quality of the material in the deposit on the site 
to be less credible than the testimony offered by the Kupers and HGSA on this subject. 
Additionally, although Ms. Madden contends that the Applicant is proposing improper 
"blending" of high-quality and low-quality samples to obtain samples that satisfy the 
quality standard, the Board denies this contention because it misconstrues the facts. In 
fact, the Applicant did not conduct any such "blending" in order to demonstrate 
compliance with the Goal 5 ru le. As explained in their significance analysis, the Kupers 
analyzed each of the samples independently without blending. See Appendix A of the 
Applications. The Kupers' reference to "blending" referred to the common practice of 
blending higher quality basalts with lower quality basalts once mining is occurring on a 
site, long after significance has been demonstrated. Further, the Kupers offered the 
statement to explain that, even if lower quality aggregate exists, it can and will ultimately 
be used, which justifies the Kupers' point that the intent of the "significance" standards 
is to ensure that only commercially viable mines are approved. See Kuper Consulting 
LLC letter dated September 20, 2013 (Exhibit 65b). 
Finally, although Ms. Madden suggests that the Applicant's consultants engaged in 
"cherry-picking" of more favorable samples in an effort to skew the results, HGSA 
refuted this contention by explaining that the Kupers adhered to industry standard in 
-16-
71 840.{)001/LEGAL2875823 1.5 
their selection of aggregate samples. See HGSA Letter dated November 7, 2013 
(Exhibit 143). Further, HGSA noted that the rule itself calls for "samples of aggregate 
material," not samples of non-aggregate materials. /d. The Board further finds that Ms. 
Madden has not presented any evidence of improper sample selection by the Appl icant 
or its consultants. For these reasons, the Board denies Ms. Madden's contentions on 
this issue. 
On the basis of the testimony presented, and for the reasons stated above, the Board 
finds that a representative set of samples of aggregate material in the deposit on the 
site meets applicable ODOT specifications for base rock for air degradation, abrasion, 
and soundness. 
QUANTITY 
The Board finds that the site is located in the "Willamette Valley" as that term is defined 
in OAR 660-023-0180(1)(m) because the site is located in Clackamas County. 
Therefore, the Board finds that the rule requires that the estimated amount of material in 
the deposit on the site must exceed 2,000,000 tons. The Board finds that the estimated 
amount of quality material in the deposit on the site is more than 2,000,000 tons. As 
support for this conclusion, the Board relies upon the Kupers' expert testimony that at 
least 9,500,000 tons of in-place aggregate exists in the deposit on the site. See 
Appendix A of the Applications. The Kupers reached this conclusion by examining a 
base topographic map and the logs of the on-site subsurface exploration; making 
allowances for setbacks, slopes, and the anticipated mining depth; and then 
interpolating the location of the resource between known points of elevation. !d. 
Westlake Engineering ("Westlake") supplemented this analysis by conducting industry-
standard volumetric models. /d. The Board finds that the Kupers' analysis and 
testimony is particularly credible in light of their extensive expertise characterizing 
aggregate mines. See Appendix N of the Applications. 
The Board also finds support for its conclusion that the estimated amount of quality 
material in the deposit on the site exceeds 2,000,000 tons in testimony presented by 
HGSA, which estimated that there were 14,997,868 mineable tons of aggregate 
material in the deposit on the site. See HGSA report dated October 23, 2013 (Exhibit 
90). HGSA determined that the "proven reserve" within 100 feet of the surface, after 
factoring in buffers and slopes, was at least 4,532,459 tons. ld. The Board finds this 
independent analysis to be compelling because J. Douglas Gless, the author of the 
HGSA report, also has extensive experience estimating the quality and quantity of 
aggregate materials, as set forth on his resume in the record. /d. 
The Board finds that opponents' contentions to the contrary do not undermine the 
Kupers' analysis and conclusions. First, although Dr. Lewis raises various contentions 
that call into question the Applicant's sampling methodology, the Board denies these 
contentions. For example, although Dr. Lewis contends that because the Applicant has 
not taken enough samples, the Applicant could be overstating the volume of aggregate 
supply by nearly double, the Board denies this contention for two reasons. First, for the 
reasons stated in response to the quality standard in this rule, the Board finds that the 
-17-
71840.()001/l..EGAL2875823 I .5 
Applicant's sampling methodology is sound, and thus, the Applicant has not 
overestimated the amount of material on the site. Second, the Board finds that, even 
assuming Dr. Lewis is correct and approximately 50% of the material is ubad rock" (to 
use his term), the estimated amount of aggregate materia l in the deposit on the site is 
still more than 4,750,000 tons, which exceeds the minimum quantity requirements of the 
rule by more than double. Additionally, although Dr. Lewis contends that the Applicant's 
analysis is incomplete because the Applicant has only collected samples within 1 00 feet 
of the surface, the Board denies this contention as well because, even if all of the 
material deeper than 100 feet below the surface fai led to meet quality specifications, 
HGSA's uproven reserve" of 4,532,459 tons is all located within 100 feet of the surface. 
Further, although Dr. Lewis and Ms. Madden contend that the variabi lity in the sampling 
data indicates that there are two populations of rock in the deposit on the site, the Board 
denies this contention because it is irrelevant. The relevant inquiry under the quantity 
standard is whether the estimated amount of quality material is more than 2,000,000 
tons. The Applica nt has easily demonstrated that this is the case. That there may be 
some evidence that some material in the deposit on the site would not meet quality 
standards does not take away from the fact that the estimated amount of quality 
material is more than four times the minimum threshold. 
The Board denies Dr. Jenkins' contentions for another reason: Unlike the Kupers, Dr. 
Jenkins is not a geologist; he is a stati stician. Thus, for the reasons explained in the 
findings addressing the qual ity standard, the Board finds Dr. Lewis' testimony regard ing 
the quantity of the material in the deposit on the site to be iess credibie than the 
testimony offered by the Kupers and HGSA on this subject. 
Finally, although Ms. Madden contends that HGSA offered a non-conservative yardage 
to tonnage conversion rate (1.25) in estimating the amount of aggregate material in the 
deposit on the site, the Board denies this contention based upon the rebuttal offered by 
HGSA, which explained that a more typical conversion rate ·would be 1.7 tons per cubic 
yard. See HGSA letter dated November 7, 2013 (Exhibit 143). HGSA also noted that 
its estimate of the quantity of material on the site was especially conservative because 
HGSA first subtracted overburden and non-aggregate quality layers before applying the 
conservative conversion rate of 1.25 tons per cubic yard. /d. 
LOCATION 
The Board finds that the site meets the locational requirements of this rule for three 
reasons. First, for the reasons explained above, which reasons are incorporated by 
reference, the Board finds that the site is located in the "W illamette Valley" and meets 
the quality and quantity thresholds applicable to an aggregate site in the Willamette 
Valley (more than 2,000,000 tons). 
Second, the Board f inds that the site is located in an area replete with aggregate 
resources. As support for this conclusion, the Board relies upon testimony from the 
Kupers that the site is underlain by basalt flows associated with the Columbia River 
Basalt Group Grande. See Appendix A of the Applications. These flows have been 
-18-
71840-000J.'LEGA.l2875823 I .5 
associated with productive aggregate mines in the area. The Board finds that there are 
numerous active and inactive aggregates quarries in the surrounding area, including to 
the north, Eaton Quarry, Coffee Lake Quarry, and Tigard Sand & Gravel; to the north 
and east, Town Quarry, Knife River Quarry, and a reclaimed quarry that is now the 
Tualatin Fire & Rescue Department faci lity; and to the south, the inactive Clackamas 
Quarry, which has been reclaimed into a residential home site. /d. Additionally, the 
Board finds that the Property was formerly permitted for aggregate mining in 1982. /d. 
Finally, the Board finds that the quarries within the geographic area that includes the 
Property produce good to high quality aggregate for base, riprap, fill , and embankment 
fi ll materials. /d. 
Third, for the reasons explained in response to subsection (d) below, which reasons are 
incorporated herein by reference, the Board finds that the site consists entirely of Class 
Ill , IV, and VII soils. Therefore, the resource on the site is not rendered not significant 
due to the presence of high-quality soils in this location. 
(b) The material meets local government standards establishing a lower threshold 
for significance than subsection (a) of this section; or 
The Board finds that this subsection is not applicable because the County has not 
adopted standards establishing a lower threshold for significance than subsection (a) of 
th is section. 
(c) The aggregate site was on an inventory of significant aggregate sites in an 
acknowledged plan on September 1, 1996. 
The Board finds that the Property is not significant under this subsection because it was 
not on an inventory of significant aggregate sites in an acknowledged plan on 
September 1, 1 996. · 
(d) Notwithstanding. subsections (a) and {b) of this section, except for an 
expansion area of an existing site if the operator of the existing site on March 1, 
1996, had an enforceable property interest in the expansion area on that date, an 
aggregate site is not significant if the criteria in either paragraphs (A) or {B) of 
this subsection apply: 
(A) More than 35 percent of the proposed mining area consists of soil classified 
as Class I on Natural Resource and Conservation Service (NRCS) maps on June 
11,2004;or 
(B) More than 35 percent of the proposed mining area consists of soil classified 
as Class II, or of a combination of Class II and Class I or Unique soil, on NRCS 
maps available on June 11 , 2004, unless the average thickness of the aggregate 
layer within the mining area exceeds: 
(ii) 25 feet in Polk, Yamhill, and Clackamas counties 
-19-
7 J 840-000 l/LEGA1.2875823 1.5 
The Board finds that the criteria in paragraphs (A) and (B) do not apply because, 
according to the applicable NRCS maps, the site consists entirely of Class Il l, IV, and 
VII soils. See Aggregate Resource Evaluation and Significance Determination prepared 
by Kuper Consulting, LLC in Appendix A of the Applications. Therefore, no Class I or II 
soi ls are present. Furthermore, as further explained in Appendix A, after reviewing 
water well reports and the area's geologic conditions. the Kupers opined that the basalt 
bedrock on the site extends to an elevation of at least -160 feet MSL. Because the 
average existing e levation of the Property is approximately 150 MSL, the Board finds 
that the average thickness of the mining area is approximately 300 feet, well above the 
25-foot minimum. For these reasons. the Board finds that the Property is not rendered 
not significant due to soi ls. 
In sum, the Board finds that the site is significant based upon its quality, quantity, and 
location. 
(5) For significant mineral and aggregate sites, local governments shall decide 
whether mining is permitted. For a PAPA application involving an aggregate site 
determined to be significant under section (3) of this rule, the process for this 
decision is set out in subsections (a) through (g) of this section. A local 
government must complete the process within 180 days after receipt of a 
complete application that is consistent with section {8) of this rule, or by the 
earliest date after 180 days allowed by local charter. 
The Board finds, for two reasons, that the County has correctly processed the 
Applications. First , as explained below, the County applied the criteria in subsections 
(a) through (g) of this section to decide that mining is permitted on the Property. 
Second, the Board finds that it is adopting an ord inance approving the Applications on 
February 27, 2014, a date that is within the time period allowed by this rule , as extended 
by the Applicant. Specifically, the County deemed the Applications complete on July 
16, 2013. The Applicant provided the County two separate extensions to the County's 
obligation under ORS 215.427. These extensions were dated December 10, 2013 and 
January 28, 2014 and each provided the County an additional 30 days to take f inal 
action on the application for a total extension period of 60 days. Therefore, as 
extended, the County had 240 days in which to make a decision under this rule, and the 
County has made its decision within 226 days. No one contended that the County 
committed a procedural error under this section. Therefore, the Board finds that it has 
complied with the procedural requirements of this section. 
(a) The local government shall determine an impact area for the purpose of 
identifying conflicts with proposed mining and processing activities. The impact 
area shall be large enough to include uses listed in subsection (b) of this section 
and shall be limited to 1,500 feet from the boundaries of the mining area, except 
where factual information indicates significant potential conflicts beyond this 
distance. For a proposed expansion of an existing aggregate site, the impact 
area shall be measured from the perimeter of the proposed expansion area rather 
-20-
71840 .()001/LEGA [.2875823 1.5 
than the boundaries of the existing aggregate site and shall not include the 
existing aggregate site. 
The Board finds that the impact area for purposes of identifying conflicts with the 
proposed mine under the Goal 5 rules is limited to 1 ,500 feet from the boundaries of the 
mining area ("Impact Area") . See map at Tab D, Exhibit 6 of Applications. For the 
reasons explained below, the Board finds that there is no factual evidence in the record 
that indicates significant potential conflicts beyond this distance. 
EXPANSION OF IMPACT AREA TO ADDRESS NATURAL RESOURCE IMPACTS 
Opponents contend that the County should expand the Impact Area to include 
additional Goal 5 inventoried resources to the north and to the southeast of the 
Property, the Board denies these contentions for three reasons. First, the Board finds 
that there is no basis to expand the Impact Area to include additional Goal 5 resources. 
OAR 660-023-0180(5)(a) permits expanding the Impact Area beyond 1,500 feet from 
the boundaries of the mine, but only when "factual information indicates significant 
potential conflicts beyond th is distance." Opponents submitted a map and a paragraph-
long explanation from their attorney identifying other potential resources. See letter 
from Erin Madden dated September 16, 2013 and attached map (Exhibit 48). The map 
and letter do not explain in what way the development of the mine will cause a 
"significant potential conflict" with these resources. As such, the Board finds that the 
opponents have not presented "factual information" sufficient to require the Board to 
expand the Impact Area to include the additional resource.areas. 
Second and in the alternative, the Board finds that Ms. Madden and Mr. Leyda have 
presented "factual information" of "significant potential conflicts" with these additional 
resources based upon "loss of forested and wetland habitat on the proposed quarry 
property within an extensive wildlife corridor;" however, the Board finds that there will 
not be significant potential conflicts on this basis, and the Board therefore declines to 
expand the Impact Area. As support for this conclusion, the Board relies upon the 
testimony of scientist Phil Scoles of Terra Science Inc. ('TSI"), who concluded that 
development of the quarry "would not create a constriction [in the wildlife corridor} that 
adversely affects wildlife." See TSI Letter dated October 29, 2013 (Exhibit 98). Mr. 
Scoles reached his conclusion after examining the entire context of the corridor, which 
begins well north of the Property near the Tualatin River and then continues south to the 
Willamette River. See map attached to TSI Letter dated October 29, 2013 (Exhibit 98). 
As the map depicts, the corridor varies in width from approximately 3100 feet in width to 
as few as 75 feet in width. /d. Mr. Scoles calculated that, even with development of the 
quarry, the corridor would be approximately 1600 feet wide, much larger than other 
areas of constriction, and still sufficient to allow animals to feed, pair, and nest, in part 
due to the additional buffers installed around the mining area. /d. Although the Oregon 
Department of Fish and Wildlife ("ODFW") presented a wildlife corridor map, the Board 
finds that this map does not undermine the TSI map because the ODFW map is very 
generalized in nature, does not identify the Property, does not identify the locations of 
any Goal 5 resources, and is not accompanied by any rebuttal of the TSI map. See 
-21-
7 1840.000 J/ lEGAl..28758231.5 
ODFW Letter dated September 16, 2013 (Exhibit 32). The Board also finds that Mr. 
Leyda did not directly rebut Mr. Scoles' October 29, 2013 testimony regarding the 
wildlife corridor at all. 
Further, a lthough Ms. Madden testified that the home ranges for bobcat, coyotes, and 
woodpeckers extended from several thousand acres to several kilometers and thus the 
Impact Area should be expanded commensurate with same, the Board finds that it is 
unreasonable to conclude that there will be significant potential conflicts over such a 
broad area. Rather, as Mr. Scoles testified, the Property represents a very small 
percentage of the total home range for these animals. See TSI Letter dated November 
8, 2013 (Exhibit 141 ). The Board finds that a reasonable person would rely upon this 
testimony to conclude that there would not be significant potentia l conflicts due to loss 
of a wildlife corridor caused by the Project. 
The Board rel ies on three other bases to conclude that there is insufficient evidence of 
"significant potentia l conflicts" beyond 1,500 feet. First, the Board relies upon Mr. 
Scoles' testimony that the existence of wildlife within the area, which is already 
dominated by aggregate mines, is prima facie evidence that wild life have tolerated and 
adapted to impacts of mines on habitats. See TSI Letter dated November 4, 2013 
(Exhibit 11 9). Second, the Board finds that the Project conditions of approval will 
adequately control impacts to offsite natural resources relating to dust, noise, vibration, 
lighting, traffic, groundwater, and stormwater. /d. The fact that these cond itions protect 
resources within the 1,500-foot area ensures that locations that are even fa rther away 
are also adequately protected. Third, the Board relies upon and incorporates by 
reference the findings set forth below in response to opponents' contentions concerning 
conflicts with Goal 5 resources. as a basis to conclude that there is no basis to expand 
the Impact Area . 
EXPANSION OF IMPACT AREA TO ADDRESS TRAFFIC IMPACTS 
Although the City of Wilsonville contends that the County should expand the impact 
area to consider impacts to Day Road and Graham's Ferry Road, the Board finds that 
there is no legal basis to expand the Impact Area on these grounds. For the reasons 
explained below in response to OAR 660-023-0 180( 5 )(b )(B), the Board finds that the 
Applicant's Transportation Impact Analysis prepared by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 
("TIA") complies with the requirements of that subsection because it evaluates potential 
confl icts to local roads used for accessing the mine within one mile of the entrance to 
the mining site, and this radius includes an intersection with an arterial road. See TIA at 
Appendix H of the Applications'. Further, the TIA addresses each of the potential 
conflict areas recited in the ru le. !d. 
The Board finds that the plain language of the rule only requ ires expanding the one-mile 
rad ius when local roads accessing the mine have not yet intersected with an arterial 
road. In the case of the proposed quarry, SW Morgan Road is a local road, and it first 
intersects with an arterial at SW Tonquin Road, which is well within one mi le of the 
-22-
71840-000IILEGAL2875823 I.S 
Property. Therefore, there is no basis in this case to expand the impact area to 
examine transportation conflicts outside of a mile. 
Even if there were a legal basis to expand the impact area fo r transportation review, the 
Board finds that the City has not estab lished that the roads in question {Grahams Ferry 
and Day) are classified as "local roads" as required by the rule. LUBA has held that the 
term "local roads" refers to streets classified as local roads in the applicable 
transportation system plan. Morse Bros., Inc. v. Columbia County, 37 Or LUBA 85 
(1999). Impacts to arterials (after the f irst arterial) are not re levant. The Board finds 
that Grahams Ferry is classified as an arterial road, and Day Road is a major arterial 
road (but neither is the first arterial road intersected). Therefore, the Board denies the 
City's contention on this issue. 
Based upon the foregoing, the Board limits the Impact Area to 1,500 feet from the 
boundaries of the mining area. 
(b) The local government shal l determine existing or approved land uses within 
the impact area that will be adversely affected by proposed mining operatio ns 
and shall specify the predicted conflicts. For purposes of this section, "approved 
land uses" are dwellings allowed by a residential zone on exist ing platted lots 
and other uses for which conditional or final approvals have been granted by the 
local government. For determination of conflicts from the proposed m ining of a 
significant aggregate resource s ite, the local government shall limit its 
consideration to the following: 
(c) The local government shall determine reasonable and practicable measures 
that would minimize the conflicts identified under subsection {b) of this section. 
To determine whether measures would minimize conflicts to agricultural 
practices, the requ irements of ORS 215.296 shall be followed rather than the 
requirements of this ,section. If reasonable and practicable measures are 
identified to minimize all identified conflicts, mining shall be allowed at the s ite 
and subsection (d) of this section is not applicable. If identified conflicts cannot 
be minimized, subsection {d) of this section applies. 
The Board adopts joint find ings in response to these two subsections below. First, 
regarding uapproved uses," Applicant has identified the following "approved uses" with in 
1,500 feet from the boundaries of the mining area: 
Location Existing Use 
North Undeveloped 
'. 
Dog Kennel 
Northwest Tri-County Gun Club 
-23-
7 ! 840.000JILEGAL2875823J .5 
--
Eaton Quarry 
Tualatin River National Wi ldlife Refuge 
Northeast Tigard Sand & Gravel and Knife River Coffee Lake 
Quarries 
-
East Knife River Quarry 
Town Quarry 
Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue Department training 
center 
West Rock Creek 
Rural residential dwell ings 
- -
South Rura l residential dwellings 
Open farmland 
County Planning staff concurred w ith this list of uses. See Staff Report at 38. 
Although Andrea Patrick testified that she opera tes a dog board ing kennel on her 
property within the Impact Area , the Board finds that this type of operation is a 
conditional use in the applicable RRFF-5 zoning district, and the County has no record 
of an approved conditional use authorizing the kennel on the Patricks' property. See 
Email Correspondence from R. Mcintire (Exhibit 117). Additionally, even if this 
operation were permitted, it would require minimum setbacks of at least 200 feet from 
all property lines. ld. Therefore. for purposes of review of the Applications only, the 
Board finds that the kennel is not an "approved use," and the Board is not required to 
consider conflicts with the kennel use in this location. 
No party has identified any other allowed uses within 1,500 feet of the proposed mining 
and processing area. Therefore, the Board finds that this list accurately describes the 
"allowed uses" within the Impact Area. 
(b)(A) Conflicts due to noise, dust, or other discharges with regard to those 
existing and approved uses and associated activities (e.g., houses and schools) 
that are sensitive to such discharges; 
As explained in more detail below, the Board finds that there are limited confl icts due to 
noise, dust, or other d ischarges to sensitive uses with in the Impact Area; however, the 
Board finds that there are reasonable and practicable measures that will minimize these 
conflicts. The Board adopts these reasonable and practicable measures as conditions 
of approval in order to assure that the identified confl icts are minimized. 
-24-
71840.()00 I !LEG AL187 58231 .5 
1. Noise: 
IDENTIFICATION OF CONFLICTS: 
The Board makes the following findings as to the noise impacts of the Project: 
• Pursuant to DEQ classifications, the Property is a "previously unused industrial or 
commercial site," because it has not been used by an industrial or commercial 
noise source in the 20 years prior to the commencement of mining operations on 
the Property. OAR 340-035-0015(47). 
• As a result, the more restrictive of the following standards apply to the mine: (1) 
the maximum allowable noise levels for industrial and commercial noise sources 
set forth in Table 8 of OAR 340-035-0035, which are set for 1 %, 10%, and 50% 
of an hour; or (2) the "ambient noise degradation" levels which require that any 
"new industrial or commercia l noise source" on a "previously unused industrial or 
commercial site" cannot produce noise sufficient to cause existing ambient noise 
levels to increase by more than 10 decibels ("dB") pursuant to OAR 340-035-
0035(1 )(b)(B). 
• The more restrictive of the two DEQ standards- and thus the one applicable to 
the Property- is the "ambient noise degradation" level (ambient noise levels plus 
10 dB). 
• There are no nearby residences north of the site that would be adversely affected 
by noise from the mine. 
• There are 12 noise-sensitive uses (all single-family residences) within 1,500 feet 
south or west of the site. 
• Blasting noise was not expected to exceed the applicable DEQ standard at any 
residence, assuming the blaster takes appropriate steps to minimize the size of 
the charges used to fracture the rock and the number of holes detonated 
simultaneously. 
• Three of the identified residences in the Impact Area would experience noise 
conflicts under a worst-case noise scenario because the predicted loudest hourly 
statistical noise levels at these residences would exceed the identified "ambient 
noise degradation" level. This worst-case scenario would occur when excavation 
operations occur above the 112-foot elevation in some portions of the excavation 
area and when the processing equipment is located in the initial processing area. 
As support for these conclusions, the Board relies upon the testimony of the Applicant's 
acoustical engineer, Kerrie G. Standlee, P.E. of Daly Standlee and Associates (''DSA"). 
See Tonquin Quarry Noise Study dated September 18, 2013 (Exhibit 65c). In that 
-25-
7 1840-000l/LEGAl28758231.5 
study, OSA reached each of the conclusions adopted by the Board as find ings above. 
/d. The Board finds DSA's testimony to be particularly cred ible due to DSA's substantial 
experience and its utilization of industry-standard equipment and methodologies. See 
Appendix N of the Applications. The Board finds that a reasonable person would rely 
upon DSA's testimony to reach the above conclusions regarding noise impacts 
associated with the Project. 
Further, the Board finds that opponents' contentions to the contrary do not undermine 
DSA'~ testimony. The Board addresses each of the opponents' contentions below. 
METHODOLOGY CONCERNS AS TO RESIDENCES 
First, a lthough Erin Madden contends that DSA incorrectly measured ambient noise 
levels and incorrectly predicted noise levels from the Project as to area residences. the 
Board denies this contention because it misconstrues applicable law and the evidence 
in the record. The Board finds that DSA correctly measured ambient noise levels and 
predicted future noise levels in its analysis . 
Although Ms. Madden contends that DSA erred by fa iling to make noise measurements 
either 25 feet toward the noise source from affected residences or that point on the 
noise-sensitive property line nearest the noise source, the Board denies this contention 
because the Board finds that, as permitted by OAR 340-035-0035(3), DSA utilized an 
alternative measurement approach outlined in DEQ's "Sound Measurement Procedures 
Manual" to conduct ambient noise measurements for residences in the vicinity of the 
Property. See Memorandum from DSA dated September 27, 2013 (Exhibit 66b) and 
Memorandum from DSA dated November 8, 2013 (Exhibit 142). Further. the Board 
finds that DSA was justified in utilizing this alternative measurement approach because, 
otherwise, area residents would have been able to deny access to their properties and 
thus thwart DSA's ability to conduct noise measurements. /d. 
Additionally, although Ms. Madden contends that DSA erred by conducting noise 
predictions at the residences rather than "25 feet toward the noise source from that 
point on the noise sensitive building nearest the source," the Board denies this 
contention because DEO's "Sound Measurement Procedures Manual" does not require 
pred ictions at the 25-foot location unless that is the loudest location. See Memorandum 
from DSA dated September 27, 201 3 (Exhibit 66b). 
Further, the Board finds that DSA correctly made noise predictions for the two affected 
residences. First, as to residence R5, the Board finds that, due to topography and the 
"shadow effect" of berms, the location 25 feet toward the Project would be in a " noise 
reduction" zone while the residence R5 would not. Therefore, DSA correctly selected a 
prediction point at the eastern edge of the residence where the noise reduction effect 
was less. Similar circumstances prevail as to residence R12. As support for its 
conclusions regarding residences R5 and R12, the Board relies upon DSA's rebuttal of 
Ms. Madden's contention. /d. 
-26-
71840.{)001/LEGAL28758231.5 
Although Ms. Madden offered a response to DSA's rebuttal, the Board finds this 
response restated her previous points on this issue and the Board further finds that no 
party provided a compell ing rebuttal to DSA's September 27, 2013, memorandum. 
Compare Madden letter dated September 24, 201 3 (Exhibit 55) and Madden letter 
dated November 4, 201 3 (Exhibit 132). Accordingly, the Board agrees with the 
substantial evidence presented by DSA regarding the measurement and prediction of 
noise levels near residences. 
METHODOLOGY CONCERNS AS TO REFUGE 
Further, although Madden contends that the Applicant failed to make ambient noise 
measurements or predictions for impacts to the Refuge property, the Board finds that 
Ms. Madden is mistaken on both of these points. First, the Board finds that, with the 
Refuge's permission, DSA measured ambient noise levels at a location on the Refuge 
property. See DSA Study, Figure 4 (Exhibit 65c) and Refuge permission form attached 
to DSA memorandum dated November 8, 201 3 (Exhibit 142). Second, DSA utilized a 
variety of locations to predict noise impacts (including many points on the Refuge), as 
shown in the DEQ compliance boundaries. See DSA Study, Figures 5, 6, 8, and 9 
(Exhibit 65c) and DSA memorandum dated November 8, 201 3 (Exhibit 142). 
Opponents did not present evidence that rebutted or undermined this evidence. 
Therefore, the Board denies Ms. Madden's contention on this issue. 
Finally, although Ms. Madden and Mr. Leyda contend that noise impacts from the 
Project will adversely affect wildlife, the Board denies this contention based upon the 
findings and evidence cited in response to OAR 660-023-0180(5)(b)(D), which findings 
are incorporated herein by reference. 
IMPACTS TO CITY OF TUALATIN 
Additionally, although the City of Tualatin contends that the Project will generate noise 
levels that will adversely affect livability in the City, the Board denies this contention 
because DSA determined that "worst case" predictions of noise impacts from the mine 
on the nearest residences in Tualatin would be well below existing ambient noise levels 
at these locations and thus would have no discernable impact on Tualatin residents. 
See DSA memo dated October 21, 2010 (Exhibit 120). No one presented substantia l 
evidence to rebut this testimony. Therefore, the Board finds that noise from the Project 
will not constitute a significant conflict with Tualatin residences. 
BLASTING NOISE 
Although Ms. Madden contends that noise associated with blasts at the Project will 
likely be 133 dBA and thus exceed the pain threshold, the Board finds that Ms. Madden 
misconstrues the testimony of the Applicant's blasting expert, Jerry Wallace. In fact, Mr. 
Wallace testified that the applicable limit was 133 dB(L), not 133 dBA. See Wallace 
letter dated November 7, 2013 (Exhibit 138). As DSA explained, the applicable dB(L) 
standard referenced by Mr. Wallace is an overpressure limit, where the majority of the 
-27-
71840.0001/LEGAl2875823 1.5 
energy is below the low-frequency cut-off of hearing for a healthy adult. See DSA 
memorandum dated November 8, 2013 (Exhibit 142). By contrast, the dBA limit", which 
is not applicable here, refers to the sound energy that fal ls in the range of human 
hearing. /d. DSA further stated that a sound level of 133 dB(L) would correspond to an 
A-weighted overall sound level significantly lower than 133 dBA and nowhere near the 
pain threshold. /d. Based upon the expert testimony of Mr. Wallace and DSA, the 
Board finds that noise f rom blasts at the Project will not exceed the pain threshold. 
The Board further finds that noise from blasts at the site will not create a significant 
conflict with sensitive uses because such noise will not exceed the applicable standard 
of 98 dBC, slow response, set forth in OAR 340-035-0035. As support for th is 
conclusion, the Board relies upon the testimony of Mr. Wallace, who stated that it was 
feasible to meet the DEQ standard, subject to compliance with industry standard 
practices set forth in the blasting plan. See Wallace letter dated November 7. 2013 
(Exhibit 138). The Board finds that imposing the following condition of approval will 
ensure that blasting noise will comply with the DEQ st9ndard and thus, by definition, 
ensure that blasting noise will not create a significant conflict: 
"55a. Noise generated by blasting activities shall comply with the DEQ 
noise standard of 98 dBC, slow response, at all noise sensitive receptors, 
as identified in the Tonquin Quarry Goal 5 Noise Study dated September 
18, 2013." 
MEASURES TO MINIMIZE CONFLICT: 
The Board finds that reasonable and practicable measures will minimize the limited 
conflicts identified by DSA. Specifically, the Board finds that implementing the following 
mitigation measures on the site will ensure that noise levels at each of the residences 
would conform with DEQ standards: 
• To mitigate the drill noise, use a close-up barrier or curtain system and construct 
a barrier along the south and west sides of the mine 
• To mitigate noise from the crushing and screening equipment, use polyurethane 
or rubber screens or close-up barriers around the screens and barriers around 
the initial processing area 
As support for this conclusion, the Board relies upon DSA's conclusions in the noise 
study. See Tonquin Quarry Noise Study (Exhibit 65c). The Board has incorporated 
these reasonable and practicable mitigation measures into the conditions of approval for 
the Project as follows: 
• "52. The Quarry operator shall comply with the final noise study prepared by 
Daly-Stand lee and Associates, Inc. (DSA) dated September 23, 2013 and the 
supplemental letter dated September 5, 2013 by OS A." 
-28-
7 J 840..000 ULEGAI2&75&2J I .5 
• "53. Noise mitigation barriers shall be constructed in accordance with the DSA 
report along portions of the western and southern property lines." 
• "54. The Quarry operator shall utilize polyurethane or rubber screens or 
proximate berms or buffers in accordance with the DSA report in order to mitigate 
the noise impacts associated with operation of crushing and screening 
equipment when it is located in Crusher Operating Area #1; this requirement 
ends when the crushing and screening equipment is relocated to Crusher 
Operating Area #2 . Both Crusher Operating areas are depicted on Figure #3 of 
the DSA report. 
• "55. The Quarry operator is not required to monitor or mitigate noise impacts to 
any off-site dwelling or property in the event the owner of the off-site dwelling or 
property grants the Quarry operator a written and recorded noise easement 
allowing unmonitored and unmitigated noise impacts from the Quarry on the 
property and/or at the dwelling ." 
Because DSA has determined that these measures will ensure conformance with the 
applicable DEQ standard. the Board finds that these measures will, by definition, 
minimize noise conflicts from the mine for purposes of OAR 660-023-0180. 
Accordingly, the Board adopts them as conditions of approval for the Project. 
ii. Dust: 
IDENTIFICATION OF CONFLICTS: 
The Board finds that there will be potential dust conflicts associated with the Project, at 
least when mining operations are occurring above the water-bearing zones. As support 
for this conclusion, the Board relies upon the analysis of projected dust impacts of the 
mine prepared by the Applicant's air qual ity expert, Brian Patterson, Ph.D. of Golder 
Associates ("Golder"). See Appendix I of the Applications. 
The Board finds that Dr. Patterson's testimony is particularly compelling because it is 
based upon his experience and expertise in evaluating the air quality impacts of other, 
more intensive mining operations and his knowledge of DEQ's air quality standards set 
forth in OAR chapter 340 division 208. 
MEASURES TO MINIMIZE CONFLICTS: 
The Board further finds that these conflicts are minimized to a level that is not significant 
through compliance with the following reasonable and practicable measures, which the 
Board imposes as conditions of approval on the Project: 
• "70. The main facility access road shall include a gravel surface consisting of 
crushed rock with nominal sizing of at least one inch maximum dimension within 
300 feet of any public road. 
-29-
7 184!l-OOOI/LEGA128758231 .5 
"71 . The main faci lity access road shall be watered to prevent the generation of 
dust within 300 feet of any public road. 
• "72. The operator shall maintain a truck wheel wash system for product trucks 
exiting the access road to the public road to reduce soil track-out onto the publ ic 
road . 
• "73. Onsite surfaces travelled by off-road or on-road mobile sources shall be 
watered w henever significant visible dust emissions (opacity approaching 20%) 
are observed behind or beside a moving vehicle. 
• "74. Water sprayers shall be used to control dust emissions from crushers and 
screens operating onsite." 
As support for this conclusion, the Board relies upon Dr. Patterson's testimony that 
implementing the following mitigation measures on the site would ensure that fugitive 
dust levels would conform with DEQ standards. See Appendix I of the Applications. 
The Board finds that, because Dr. Patterson concluded that these measures would 
ensure conformance with DEQ standards, these measures will , by definition, minimize 
dust conflicts from the mine for purposes of OAR 660-023-01 80. Although some 
opposition testimony expressed concerns about dust, the Board finds that it did not 
undermine the evidence presented by Dr. Patterson. 
Based upon the evidence cited above, the Board finds it necessary to impose the above 
five conditions on its approva l of the Project to ensure conformance with applicable 
DEQ dust standards and to minimize dust conflicts associated with the Project. 
i ii. Other Discharges: 
The Board finds that other potential discharges at the site include: (1) diesel engine 
emissions from onsite mobile equipment and vehicle travel; (2) combustion byproduct 
emissions from use of explosives during blasting operations; and (3) stormwater. 
Diesel Engine Emissions: 
IDENTIFICATION OF CONFLICTS: 
The Board finds that there will be potential conflicts with allowed uses in the Impact 
Area resulting from the use of mining equipment and vehicles that generate diesel 
engine exhaust, which contains pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, 
sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter. As support for its conclusion, the Board relies 
upon the Golder report. See Appendix I of the Applications. 
MEASURES TO MINIMIZE CONFLICTS: 
-30-
7 1&40 OOOJILEGAL2875823J.5 
The Board further finds that these conflicts are minimized to a level that is not significant 
through compliance with the following reasonable and practicable measures, which the 
Board imposes as conditions of approval on the Project: 
• "45. The Quarry Operator shall comply with OAR 340-200 through 340-246 
requirements. 
• "46. The Quarry Operator shall comply with 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart 0000 
requirements." 
"52. The majority (51% or more in terms of total fleet horsepower) of diesel 
engines powering off-road equipment shall meet federal Tier 2 off-road engine 
standards or better. This requirement can be met by using equipment with 
engines originally built to meet these standards or through retrofit to reduce 
emissions to these levels. 
• "53. Onsite idle times for heavy heavy-duty diesel truck engines will be limited to 
no more than five minutes per trip." 
As support for this conclusion, the Board relies upon Dr. Patterson's testimony that 
implementing these measures would ensure that diesel emission levels would conform 
with DEQ and EPA standards. See Appendix I of the Applications. The Board finds 
that, because Dr. Patterson concluded that these measures would ensure conformance 
with applicable DEQ an9 EPA standards, these measures will, by definition, minimize 
diesel emission conflicts from the mine for purposes of OAR 660-023-0180. The Board 
finds that Dr. Patterson's testimony was unrebutted. 
Based upon the evidence cited above, the Board finds it necessary to impose the above 
four conditions on its approval of the Project to ensure conformance with applicable 
DEQ and EPA air quality standards and to minimize conflicts resulting from diesel 
exhaust associated with the Project. 
Combustion Byproduct Emissions: 
IDENTIFICATION OF CONFLICTS: 
The Board finds that there will be no potential conflicts associated with combustion 
byproducts (including criteria pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and 
particulate matter) resulting from explosives used in blasting at the Project. As support 
for this conclusion, the Board relies upon the Golder report, which analyzed the release 
of these combustion byproducts and determined that they would not create conflicts 
with residential uses in the Impact Area because these emissions are very short-lived . 
See Appendix I of the Applications. The Board also relies on the fact that there was no 
rebuttal testimony. 
MEASURES TO MINIMIZE CONFLICTS: 
-31-
71840.000 ltl.EGAL2875823 1.5 
Because there are no identified conflicts associated with combustion byproduct 
emissions, the Board finds that it is not required to identify or adopt measures that 
would minimize such conflicts. 
Water: 
IDENTIFICATION OF CONFLICTS: 
The Board finds that there will be no potential conflicts with approved uses in the Impact 
Area due to stormwater discharges. As support for this conclusion, the Board re lies 
upon two sources. First, as to stormwater, the Board relies upon testimony from the 
Project civil engineer, Westlake. See Offsite Stormwater Analysis dated April 20, 2013 
at Appendix D of the Applications. As explained in Westlake's report, Applicant will 
develop and implement a stormwater contro l plan in accordance with the Best 
Management Practices in the Water Environment Services Erosion Prevention and 
Settlement Control Planning and Design Manual dated December 2008. /d. Further, 
Westlake explained that the Appl icant has designed the Project such that there will be 
no offsite stormwater point discharge from the Property. !d. In short, there will be no 
stormwater flowing from the Property to offsite locations. 
The Board finds that there will be potential conflicts with approved uses in the Impact 
Area due to the Project's use of replenishment water to the offsite portions of Wetlands 
Band C. 
The Board further finds that there will be potential conflicts with approved uses in the 
Impact Area in the event Applicant attempts to counteract groundwater dewatering by 
use of re-injection measures. 
MEASURES TO MINIMIZE CONFLICTS: 
Because there are no identified conflicts associated w ith offsite stormwater discharges, 
the Board finds that it is not required to identify measures that would minimize such 
conflicts. 
The Board finds that the potential conflict associated with using replenishment water is 
minimized to a level that is insignificant for the reasons set forth in these Findings in 
response to OAR 660-023-0180(5)(b)(D) pertaining to replenishment water and the 
retained wetlands, and subject to imposing Conditions 59-64. These reasons and 
conditions are incorporated herein by reference. 
The Board finds that the potential conflict associated with the use of re-injection 
measures to counteract groundwater dewatering is minimized to a level that is 
insignificant for the reasons set forth in these Findings in response to CCZDO 708.05.H 
pertaining to groundwater quality and 9uantity, and subject to imposing Conditions 45-
-32-
71840-000 Jtl,EGAL2875823 1.5 
51, including Condition 49a. These reasons and conditions are incorporated herein by 
reference. 
(B) Potential conflicts to local roads used for access and egress to the mining 
s ite within one mile of the entrance to the mining site unless a greater distance is 
necessary in order to include the intersection with the nearest arterial identified 
in the local transportation plan. Conflicts shall be determined based on clear and 
objective standards regarding s ight distances, road capacity, cross section 
elements, horizontal and vertical alignment, and similar items in the 
transportation plan and implementing ordinances. Such standards for trucks 
associated with the mining operation shall be equivalent to standards for other 
trucks of equivalent size, weight, and capacity that haul other materials; 
IDENTIFICATION OF CONFLICTS: 
The Board makes the fo llowing findings as to each potential conflict to local roads used 
fo r access and egress to the mining site within one mile of the entrance to the mining 
site: 
• Sight Distance: There are existing trees, shrubs, roadside embankment slopes, 
and other obstructions along SW Tonquin Road and SW Morgan Road that are 
located within the recommended intersection sight triangles at both the SW 
Tonquin Road/SW Morgan Road intersection and the proposed site access 
driveway on SW Morgan Road. This may create a potential conflict to local 
roads. 
• Access Spacing: The proposed site access driveway on SW Morgan Road is 
located approximately 41 5 feet south of the SW Tonquin Road/SW Morgan Road 
intersection and thus exceeds both County and Washington County minimum 
spacing standards for a full-access driveway. 
• Road Capacity: The SW Tonquin Road/SW Morgan Road intersection and the 
proposed site access driveway on SW Morgan Road are forecast to operate 
within acceptable performance standards established by Washington County 
(V/C ratio of 0.90 or less) and the County (LOS 0 or better), respectively, during 
the AM and PM peak hours in both 2015 and 2035, with the proposed mine 
operation. No road capacity improvements are required as a result of the 
proposed development. 
• Cross Section Elements: SW Tonquin Road has a two-lane cross-section with a 
pavement width of approximately 24 feet, which is adequate to accommodate 
traffic generated by the mine. As needed, the roadway will be widened to 
accommodate a new westbound left-turn lane. SW Morgan Road does not 
currently meet the County's cross-section standards for the appl icable road 
classification. 
-33-
7 1840.()00 l /LEGAI.2875823 1.5 
• Horizontal and Vertical Alignment: The horizontal alignment of the affected 
segment of SW Morgan Road is appropriate. Although the horizontal alignment 
of SW Tonquin Road is generally acceptabfe, Washington County is proposing 
an improvement project that will substantially rea lign this segment of the roadway 
to increase the radii of a couple of curves a long SW Tonquin Road and improve 
horizontal alignment in these locations. Washington County's project is funded 
and scheduled for construction in spring 2015. Vertical a lignments of both SW 
Tonquin and SW Morgan Roads are adequate. 
• Truck Turning: The existing pavement width within the SW Tonquin Road/SW 
Morgan Road intersection is adequate to safely accommodate the turning 
movements of trucks that will serve the mine; however, the lack of pavement 
markings to provide defined lane lines, stop bars. and pavement arrows could 
create a safety conflict. 
• Westbound Left Turn Lane: After modeling existing conditions, KAI determined 
that the SW Tonquin Road/SW Morgan Road intersection currently meets the 
threshold for a westbound left-turn lane on SW Tonquin Road. Although the turn 
lane is not required for capacity or operational reasons, the lack of a separate 
turn lane in this location could create a safety conflict. 
As support for these conclusions, the Board relies upon the testimony of the Applicant's 
traffic engineer, Kitte lson & Associates, Inc. ("KAI"), who completed an analysis of 
existing cond itions, projected transportation impacts of the proposed mine, and 
compliance w ith applicable standards. See TIA in Appendix H of the Applications. In 
the TIA, KAI reached each of the conclusions adopted by the Board as findings above. 
In sum, the Board finds that there will be potential conflicts to local roads associated 
with the Project due to: (1) inadequate sight distance at both the SW Tonquin Road/SW 
Morgan Road intersection and the proposed site access driveway on SW Morgan Road ; 
(2) potential safety conflicts at the SW Tonquin Road/SW Morgan Road intersection 
due to the lack of pavement markings to provide defined lane lines, stop bars, and 
pavement arrows; and (3) potential safety conflicts on SW Tonquin Road due to the lack 
of a separate westbound left-tum lane. 
MEASURES TO MINIMIZE CONFLICTS: 
The Board further finds that reasonable and practicable measures will minimize these 
conflicts. Specifically, KAI concluded that implementing the following mitigation 
measures on the site would minimize these potential conflicts to local roads for 
purposes of OAR 660-023-0180: 
• Prior to mine operation, adding pavement markings on SW Morgan Road at the 
approach to the SW Tonquin Road intersection to provide defined lane lines, stop 
bars, and pavement arrows. 
-34-
71840-000 J!LEGAl28758231.5 
• Clearing and/or modifying existing trees. shrubs, roadside embankment slopes, 
and other obstructions along both SW Tonquin Road and SW Morgan Road 
within the areas shown on Figures 13 and 14 of the TIA to provide the required 
sight distances consistent with County standards. 
• Adding a westbound left-turn lane at the SW Tonquin Road/SW Morgan Road 
intersection as a potential safety enhancement, with Applicant only required to 
pay its proportionate share for the improvement, consistent with the 
recommendation of Washington County staff. 
Although Ms. Madden contends that Applicant has not demonstrated that it is feasible to 
comply with the condition relating to clearing vegetation and other obstructions because 
some of the vegetation and obstructions are located on properties owned by third 
parties, the Board denies this contention. In fact, the Appl icant responded to this 
contention by submitting an executed, recorded Right of Entry for Clearing Purposes 
that allows Applicant to enter the third party's property to complete the clearing. See 
Exhibit 11 5. The Board finds that this evidence demonstrates that compliance with sight 
distance standards is feasible. 
Further, although several opponents express concern about the Project generating 
increased traffic (particularly truck traffic), the Board finds that this testimony was 
generalized and speculative in nature. It was not presented by an expert, and it did not 
reasonab ly ca ll into question the conclusions reached by KAI. Therefore, the Board 
finds that a reasonable person would rely upon KAI's testimony to conclude that, subject 
to the above-referenced conditions, the Project will minimize all potential impacts to 
local roads used for access and egress to the mining site within one mile of the site 
entrance. The Board further finds that County staff and Washington County staff have 
proposed conditions of approval. See Staff Report at pages 88-92 (Conditions 21 -44). 
The Board finds that these proposed conditions incorporate KAI 's proposed conditions 
and are reasonable, practicable, and will minimize any traffic conflicts with local roads. 
Accordingly, the Board imposes these measures as conditions of approval on the 
Project. 
(C) Safety conflicts with existing public airports due to bird attractants, i.e., open 
water impoundments as specified under OAR chapter 660, division 013; 
IDENTIFICATION OF CONFLICTS: 
As specified in OAR chapter 660, division 013, and ORS 836.623, the County is only 
permitted to regulate water impoundments when they are located within 10,000 feet of a 
runway outside of an approach corridor and within 40,000 feet of a runway within an 
approach corridor for an airport with an instrument approach ("Regulatory Zone"). The 
Property is not located within the Regulatory Zone of any public airports. Thus, the 
Board finds that the proposed mining use will not cause any safety conflicts with any 
existing public airports. 
-35-
71840-000I!LEGA L2875823 1.5 
MEASURES TO MINIMIZE CONFLICTS: 
Because there are no identified safety conflicts with existing public airports, the Board 
finds that it is not required to identify measures that would min imize such conflicts. 
(D) Conflicts with Goal 5 resources within the impact area that are shown on an 
acknowledged list of s ignificant resources and for which the requirements of 
Goal 5 have been completed at the time the PAPA is initiated; 
IDENTIFICATION OF CONFLICTS: 
The Board makes the fol lowing findings as to the existence of conflicts with inventoried 
Goal 5 resources: 
Metro Regional Resources: No conflicts because: (1) there are no such 
inventoried resources within this area of the County; and (2) such inventoried 
resources in Washington County are redundant with other inventoried resources 
that would not be subject to significant conflicts. 
• Riparian Corridors: No conflicts because Project would avoid any intrusion into 
inventoried riparian corridors and would preserve a 100-foot setback to the 
adjacent Rock Creek Corridor. Further, the Project would not cause dewatering 
of the Rock Creek Corridor because it is sustained by precipitation, upgradient 
runoff, and low permeable soi ls that perch water. 
• Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers: No conflicts because no inventoried resources 
w ithin 20 miles of the Property. 
Oregon Scenic Waterways: No conflicts because no inventoried resources within 
10 miles of the Property. 
Oregon Recreation Trails: No conflicts because no inventoried resources located 
within the Impact Area. 
• Natural Areas: No conflicts because no inventoried Natura l Areas within the 
County and because Project would not remove or interfere with the use of 
Washington County's inventoried Natural Area (Tonquin Scablands). 
Wilderness Areas and Open Space: No conflicts because no inventoried 
Wilderness Areas within 20 miles and no inventoried Open Space within 1 mile of 
the Property. 
• Scenic Views and Sites: No conflicts with County-inventoried viewpoints on 
Parrett Mounta in because the Project will be indistinguishable from neighboring 
lands to the north, south, and west due to the distance from the viewpoints and 
the preservation of the rocky knoll on the west side of the Property. No conflicts 
-36-
71840-000 l/LEGAL2875S23 1.5 
with Washington County-inventoried scenic features because they are located 
outside the Impact Area and the Project would not interfere with views of these 
features. 
• Wetlands: Conflict with 1. 78 acres of on-site wetlands that will be removed and/or 
filled to allow for mining. Potential conflicts with avo.ided portions of Wetlands B 
and C due to their dependence upon upgradient contributing watershed that 
Project would remove. 
• Wildlife Habitat: No confl icts in the County because no inventoried wildlife habitat 
resources. Potential conflicts with Washington County-inventoried resources due 
to noise and vibration disturbances, which would redirect wildlife movement 
around the Property. 
As support for these conclusions. the Board relies upon the analysis of the scientists at 
TSI , who conducted an analysis of potentia l conflicts between the Project and 
inventoried Goal 5 resources. See "Goal 5 and Natural Resource Assessment Report 
fo r the Proposed Tonquin Quarry Project," by TSI dated April 2013 at Appendix E of the 
Applications. In that report, TSI reached each of the conclusions adopted by the Board 
as findings above. /d. The Board finds TSI's testimony to be particularly credible due to 
the site-specific nature of TSI's observations. TSI's knowledge of the Project, TSI's 
scientific training, and TSI's experience conducting natural resource assessments. See 
TSI Resumes at Appendix N of the Applications. 
' ' 
Further, the Board finds that opponents' contentions to the contrary do not undermine 
TSI's testimony. The Board adopts specific findings as to each of these contentions 
below. 
REPLENISHMENT OF OFFSITE WETLAND HYDROLOGY 
Although Ms. Madden, Mr. Leyda, and others contend that Applicant's proposal to 
replenish hydrology to the retained portions of Wetlands Band Cis not feasible and 
thus, there is a significant conflict between the Project and those retained wetlands, the 
Board denies this contention. The Board finds that Applicant's proposed wetland 
replenishment system is both technically feasible and will mitigate adverse impacts to 
wetland hydrology caused by removing portions of Wetlands B and C. As support for 
this conclusion, the Board relies upon testimony from Applicant's civil engineer and 
Applicant's natural resources scientists. First, Applicant's civil engineer, Westlake, 
submitted a detailed description and depiction of the proposed infiltration system, 
together with ca lculations of the amount of basin that was impacted and the amount of 
replenishment water that would need to be provided. See Westlake Memorandum re: 
Wetland stormwater replenishment" dated September 24, 2013 (Exhibit 65f). 
Westlake's memorandum further explains that providing clean water to wetlands is a 
common practice and subject to stringent requirements from federal, state, and local 
agencies. /d. Bernard Smith, Project civil engineer, also stated that he had obtained 25 
such permits. /d. In reaching its conclusion that the system is feasible, the Board also 
-37-
71840-000 l/LEGAL18 7 5823 1.5 
relies upon testimony from Applicant's natural resource scientists, TSI, which explained 
how the system would mimic existing conditions by delivering subsurface water and 
would not result in untoward impacts to the retained wetlands. See TSI Letters dated 
October 29, 2013 (Exhibit 98) and November 8, 2013 (Exhibit 141 ). The Board also 
relies upon Applicant's proposal to install a clay barrier between the excavation area 
and the buffer for the preserved wetland in order to prohibit water intrusion from the 
wetlands "backflowing" into the excavation boundary, which TSI has opined will be 
effective for this purpose. See TSI Letter dated November 4, 2013 (Exhibit 119). The 
Board finds the testimony from TS I and Westlake to be compelling both in its detail and 
in its site-specific nature. Finally, the Board relies upon Conditions 59-64, includ ing 
62a, to ensure that Applicant will appropriately replenish offsite wetland hydrology. 
Further, the Board finds that opponents failed to undermine the testimony presented by 
Westlake and TSI regarding the wetland replenishment system. Although Mr. Leyda, 
the Refuge, and ODFW all contend that the proposed replenishment system would not . 
adequately mimic natural recharge because there has been inadequate modeling and 
because the system will not account for variations in rainfall intensity, the Board finds 
that the opponents are mistaken. The Board finds that Westlake utilized an appropriate 
hydro logy model that ca lculated both the amount of each wetland basin that was lost by 
wetland removal and the average amount of precipita tion during the local rainy season 
to predict the expected water necessary to sustain the subject wetlands. See Westlake 
Memorandum re: 'Wetland stormwater replenishment" dated September 24, 2013 
(Exhibit 65f). Based upon its modeling, Westlake concluded that the Project would 
need to pump 0.1 cfs water on a continuous basis from November to May to provide the 
water volume lost by removing the watershed upgradient of the impacted Wetlands B 
and C. /d. No one specifically chal lenged Westlake's methodology. In denying the 
opponents' contention on this issue, the Board also relies upon the following testimony 
from TSI explaining how the infiltration system emulates existing conditions: 
"This approach provides a consistent subsurface base flow that 
replenishes the avoided and offsite wetlands. This type of infi ltration 
system mimics the way these wetlands are naturally sustained - water is 
delivered via subsurface flow, because pre-quarry conditions do not have 
measurable amounts of runoff. Thus, the offsite wetlands would continue 
to have water levels that naturally rise and fall in response to periods of 
unusually high or low rainfall, because they would stil l receive water inputs 
in the form of direct rainfall and subsurface recharge from adjacent, offsite 
slopes. And as an added precaution, a network of shallow observation 
tubes would be established along the fringes of each avoided wetland to 
provide regular feedback on the water levels (fluctuations, duration, etc.) 
to inform the quarry operator if any adjustments are needed to properly 
susta in the wetlands." 
See TSI Letter dated October 29, 2013 at 6 (Exhibit 98). Based upon the testimony 
from Westlake and TSI, the Board finds that Applicant has refuted opponents' 
-38-
71840-000 l!LEGA.l28758231.5 
contention that Applicant has not completed adequate modeling and has not accounted 
for variat ions in rainfa ll in developing the wetland replenishment system. 
Although Mr. Leyda further contends that the proposed wetland infiltration system will 
de liver impaired water to the remaining portions of Wetlands B and C, potentia lly 
ca using scouring of wetlands, allowing sediment to enter wetlands, and/or creating 
increased turbidity, the Board denies th is contention because Applicant's proposed 
infiltrat ion system will be similar to pre-mining conditions where precipitation inf iltrates 
the ground, then moves verti ca lly to a naturally confining layer (claypan, bedrock), then 
flow s subsurface toward each wetland. A s support for this conclusion, the Board relies 
upon testimony from TSI expla ining that the replenishment system functions in this 
manner. /d . The Board also relies upon TSI's expert opinion that the replenishment 
water would be substantia lly cleaner than urban stormwater and that there would no 
opportunity for scouring, sediments, or turbidity because the water would be delivered 
subsurface. /d. The Board finds that, a lthough Mr. Leyda submitted supplemental 
test imony after this TSI Letter, Mr. Leyda 's supplemental testimony did not offer any 
surrebuttal on the water quality issue. See Leyda Letter dated November 8, 201 3 
(Exh ibit 134 ). Further, the Board finds that Mr. Leyda's initia l testimony on the water 
quality issue was general in nature and grounded in literature, not a specific 
examination of the proposed system in context. See Leyda Letter dated September 23, 
201 3 (Exhibit 57). Accordingly, the Board finds that TSI 's detailed and site-specific 
testimony is more reliable on th is issue. 
On similar grounds, the Board denies contentions by Mr. Leyda and Ms. Madden that 
the replenishment system will result in an increase in invasive weeds or changed plant 
diversity. TSI testified that one advantage of the system was its ability to trap invasive 
weed seeds and prevent them from flowing into the retained wetlands. See TSI Letter 
dated November 8, 2013 (Exhibit 141 ). 
Although Mr. Jenkins contends that the wetland replenishment system is also defective 
because it does not replace groundwater flow to the retained wetlands, the Board finds 
that there is considerable testimony in the record from Applicant and the Refuge that the 
wetlands are primarily fed by precipitation, not groundwater. See Holmes Letter dated 
September 23, 2013 (Exhibit 57); TSI Letter dated October 29, 2013 (Exhibit 98); and 
Shannon & Wilson Letter dated November 8, 2013 (Exhibit 140). The Board finds this 
testimony more reliable than Mr. Jenkins' testimony for two reasons. First, the Board 
finds that the testimony that the wetlands are fed by precipitation was made by three 
independent parties, one of whom is opposed to the Project. Second, the Board finds 
that Shannon & Wilson has not simply asserted this point but has explained why Mr. 
Jenkins is incorrect: Topographic maps indicate that the wetlands are surficial ponds in 
closed basins atop the basalt. See Shannon & Wilson Revised Hydrogeologic Report 
(Exhibit 92). As such, the Board finds that these wetlands are isolated from and not 
connected with water-bearing zones that are connected to regional groundwater 
supplies. ld. Mr. Jenkins made a subsequent written submittal into the record in which 
he restated his point; however, he did not offer any additional response to Shannon & 
Wilson's point regarding water elevations. See Jenkins Letter dated November 8, 201 3 
-39-
71840-000 IILEGAL28 75823 1.5 
(Exhibit 134). As such, the Board f inds that Mr. Jenkins did not adequately rebut 
Shannon & Wilson's testimony. Therefore, the Board denies Mr. Jenkins' content ion on 
this issue. 
Further, although Mr. Jenkins contends that Applicant has not demonstrated that the 
proposed clay barrier component of the replenishment system is feasible because 
Applicant has not provided any design or analys is to support the concept, the Board 
finds that Mr. Jenkins is incorrect. In fact, Applicant has provided a detailed drawing of 
the proposed clay barrier. See Westlake Exhibit attached to TSI Letter dated November 
4, 2013 (Exhibit 11 9). That letter also includes a detai led description of the purpose and 
composition of the clay barrier, as well as TSI's opinion that the clay barrier will be 
effective: 
"Although both wetlands [B and C) naturally slope away f rom the 
excavated quarry, the c lay barrie r would serve to prevent wetland water 
from seeping toward the pit * * * The barrier, shown on the attached fi gure 
from Westlake Consultants, would be constructed by excavating a 3- to 4-
foot wide trench to the depth of the underlying bedrock or an existing clay 
layer atop of the bedrock. The trench would be backfilled with a 15 
percent bentonite clay/85 percent soil mixture , or other water barrier 
system. The barri er would rise at least 6 inches above the elevation of the 
adjacent wetland, then it would be capped with either road construction 
materials or topsoil. When complete, the barrier wou ld prevent both 
replenishment water and wetland water from 'backflowing' toward the 
quarry area." 
/d. at 1. Based upon this evidence, the Board finds that Mr. Jenkins' contention 
misconstrues the record. Therefore, the Board denies Mr_ Jenkins' contention. 
Although Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Leyda contend that there is no evidence that the 
replenishment system will remain in place and effective through and after site 
reclamation, the Board finds that Mr. Jenkins is incorrect. The Board finds that 
Applicant has proposed to rebuild the contributing watershed to the avoided portions of 
Wetlands B and C once mining is complete in order "to provide a permanent water 
source for the wetlands in perpetuity." See TSI Letter dated October 29, 20 13 at 1-2 
(Exhibit 98). The Board has relied upon the Applicant' s representations to that effect in 
making its finding. The Board 's approval of the Applications necessari ly requires 
compliance with all representations made by Applicant in this proceeding. See Perry v. 
Yamhill County, 26 Or LUBA 73, 87-88, aff'd 125 Or App 588, 865 P2d 1344 {1993). 
Further, the Board finds that the language of the applicable conditions quoted below 
{Conditions 59, 60, and 61) does not limit the duration of App licant's obligation to 
provide replenishment water. As a result, it is reasonable to conclude that the obligation 
extends through reclamation . Therefore, the Board does not find Mr. Jenkins' and Mr. 
Leyda's contentions on this issue persuasive. 
-40-
71 84{)..000 l/LEGAL28758231.5 
Finally, although opponents contend that the adverse effects to the retained wetlands 
will include ancillary adverse effects to habitat or wildlife, the Board denies these 
contentions because, based upon the substantial evidence cited above, there will be no 
adverse impacts to offsite wetland hydrology and thus, no ancillary adverse effects to 
habitat or wildlife. 
IMPACTS TO ROCK CREEK 
Although Ms. Madden, Mr. Jenkins, and Mr. Leyda contend that development of the 
Project will constitute a significant conflict with the Rock Creek riparian corridor, the 
Board denies this contention for three reasons. First, Applicant will retain the required 
70-foot buffer along Rock Creek. See TSI Goal 5 report set fo rth at Appendix E of the 
Applications. Second, the Board finds that Rock Creek is primarily fed by runoff and 
groundwater flow from the east by northeastern flank of Parrett Mountain. See TSI 
Letter dated November 8, 201 3 (Exhibit 141 ). By contrast, the Property and its vicinity 
primarily drain to the east toward Coffee Lake Creek. /d. The Board finds that only 
approximately 15 acres of the Property drains to Rock Creek, and only 10.7 of those 
acres would be excavated by the Project, which is a very small percentage of the total 
Rock Creek watershed. /d. 
Third, the Board finds that the Project will not dewater Rock Creek. As support for this 
conclusion, the Board relies upon expert testimony from the Project hydrogeologist that 
Project impacts to Water-Bearing Zones #2 and #3 will not impact Rock Creek or its 
associated Wetland D because these Water-Bearing Zones are not connected with 
Rock Creek or Wetland D due to differences in elevation. See Shannon & Wilson 
Rebuttal Memorandum dated November 4, 201 3 (Exhibit 118). Although Mr. Leyda 
contends that the loss of portions of Wetlands B and C will adversely affect Rock Creek 
because these wetlands are hydraulically connected with the creek, the Board finds that 
no significant relationship exists between these wetlands and Rock Creek. As support 
for its conclusion, the Board relies upon testimony from Shannon & Wilson that 
Wetlands B and C are not hydraulically linked to Rock Creek because they are located 
at different elevations: 
"This one location extends across the elevation boundary for Rock Creek 
(about +150 feet msl) and has been identified as Wetland D. This one 
location represents the only identified wetland that is directly associated 
with the Rock Creek wetlands complex due to its matching elevation and 
association with the scour channel fill . Otherwise, in our opinion, no 
wetlands associated with Rock Creek or Coffee Lake Creek!Seely Ditch 
have a significant hydrogeologic relationship with, nor the potential for 
adverse impacts associated with the Tonquin Holdings LLC quarry 
proposal." 
See Shannon & Wilson Revised Hydrogeologic Evaluation at 32 (Exhibit 92) and 
Shannon & Wilson Rebuttal Memorandum dated November 4, 2013 (Exhibit 118). The 
Board finds that although opponents reiterated their contention in later submittals, they 
-41-
71840-000lilEGAI.2875823 1.5 
did not offer any meaningful rebuttal of the points made by Shannon & W ilson. 
Therefore, the Board denies the opponents' contentions on this issue. 
WILDLIFE CORRIDOR 
Although opponents contend that the Project will create a significant, unminimized 
conflict by disrupting a wildlife corridor, the Board denies this contention for three 
reasons. First, the Board finds that this subsection is concerned with conflicts with Goal 
5 inventoried resources, and neither the County nor Washington County has designated 
an area-wide wildlife corridor as an inventoried resource. For this reason alone, the 
Board finds that there is no merit to the opponents' contention. 
Second, the Board finds that the Project does not create a conflict with Washington 
County-designated habitat due to disruption of a wildlife corridor. As support for this 
conclusion, the Board relies upon the testimony of scientist Phil Scoles, who concluded 
that development of the quarry "would not create a constriction [in the wildlife corridor] 
that adversely affects wildlife." See TSI Letter dated October 29, 2013 (Exhibit 98). Mr. 
Scoles reached his conclusion after examining the entire context of the corridor, which 
begins well north of the Property near the Tualatin River and then continues south to the 
Willamette River. See map attached to TSI Letter dated October 29, 2013 (Exhibit 98). 
As the map depicts, the corridor varies in width from approximately 31 00 feet in wid th to 
as few as 75 feet in width. /d. Mr. Scoles calculated that, even with development of the 
quarry, the corridor would be approximately 1600 feet wide, much larger than other 
areas of constriction, and still sufficient to allow animals to feed, pair, and nest , in part 
due to the additional buffers installed around the mining area. /d. The Board finds that 
Ms. Madden and Mr. Leyda did not present an alternative map depicting wildlife 
movement in the area that contradicted Mr. Scoles' testimony. For that matter, Mr. 
Leyda did not directly rebut Mr. Scoles' October 29, 2013 testimony regarding the 
wild life corridor at all. 
Thi rd, and in the alternative, the Board finds that the Project will create a significant 
conflict with Washington County designated habitat resources, but the conflict is 
minimized for the reasons explained below under the heading "Measures to Minimize 
Conflicts.'' 
NOISE IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE 
Although opponents contend that noise generated by the Project will create a significant 
conflict with the Refuge and off-site habitat areas, the Board denies this contention for 
the reasons explained below. 
First, although Mr. Leyda and Ms. Madden contend that Applicant erred in relying upon 
median noise levels and human-weighted units (dBA) rather than considering impacts 
from loud noises that are short in duration, the Board denies this contention for two 
reasons. First, the Board finds that the study re lied upon by Mr. Leyda (Francis and 
Barber, 2013) gave very little information about the noise levels that were studied. See 
-42-
71840-000 l/LEGA128758231.5 
DSA Memorandum dated November 8, 2013 (Exhibit 98). As such, the Board finds that 
th is study is of little value for the assertion offered by Mr. Leyda . Second, the Board 
finds that the opponents' contention is misplaced because the types of noises typically 
generated by the Project will be more in the nature of steady sounds that last for a 
longer period of time rather than the short, sudden noises opponents are concerned 
about. /d. Therefore, the Board finds that there is little value in attempting to model 
such short, sudden noises and no identified basis to mitigate for same. 
Additionally, although Mr. Leyda and Ms. Madden contend that a portion of the Refuge 
is located within the "noise compliance boundary" in DSA's report, indicating that noise 
levels within that boundary may exceed DEQ levels, the Board finds that this fact does 
not support the opponents' position for four reasons. First, the Board finds that, once 
the noise conflict minimization measures outlined in these Supplemental Findings in 
response to OAR 660-023-0180(5)(b)(A) are implemented, the noise compliance 
boundary extends only a few feel onto the Refuge. See Figure #8 of DSA Revised 
Noise Study (Exhibit 65c). As such, the vast majority of the Refuge is unaffected. 
Second, the Board finds that no particular noise compliance standards are applicable to 
the Refuge or to wildlife in general because neither is a "noise sensitive use" under the 
OEQ standards or a "noise sensitive unit" under the County's noise ordinance (County 
Code 6.05.020). As support for this conclusion, the Board relies upon the analysis of 
the applicable DEQ and County definitions made by DSA. See DSA Memorandum 
dated November 8, 2013 (Exhibit 142). Opponents did not present evidence that either 
of these provisions would be applicable. Additionally, opponents did not identify any 
other authority that might establish noise standards that are applicable to the Refuge or 
to wildlife in general and yet would be violated by the Project. 
Third, the Board finds that OSA drew the boundary in a very conservative location 
because it is the L50 standard, or the location where the noise level would be exceeded 
50% of the time over the course of an hour. !d. In other words, the Board finds that 
Project noise will not typica lly reach these levels for this extended a period of time. 
Finally, the Board finds that DSA's ambient noise measurements at the Refuge in 
existing conditions were as high as 52dBA, only 3 dBA below the DEQ standard. if it 
applied. /d. This measurement indicates that the Refuge is already experiencing quite 
noisy conditions. For these reasons, the Board denies the opponents' contention 
regarding the DEQ noise compliance boundary. 
Further, although Mr. Leyda, Ms. Madden, and Ms. Holmes contend that even though 
the area is already noisy, development of the Project may nevertheless cause adverse 
effects to wildlife, including limiting foraging , pairing success, or number of offspring, the 
Board denies this contention because it is not supported by substantial evidence in the 
whole record. Instead, the Board adopts and relies upon the testimony of TSI, who 
concluded that the Project would have no such ill effects: 
-43-
71840-000 J/LEGAL28758231 .5 
"According to the project acoustical engineer (Daly-Standlee & Associates, 
April 2013), the proposed sound mitigations employed by the Tonquin 
quarry would not increase ambient noise. The wildlife uti lizing the Tonquin 
quarry site and adjacent lands are defacto [sic] evidence that these 
species are accl imated to these regular and frequent noises. This is 
consistent with a Corps of Engineers study on an endangered woodpecker 
near Savannah, GA that found that nearby artillery blasts at a military 
installation did not affect the nesting success or productivity of that 
species. (Footnote omitted.] Similarly, a U.S. Forest Service technical 
paper in 1998 reported that logging truck noise did not evoke any 
response of northern goshawks. [Footnote omitted .] Based upon this 
research, quarry related noise would not significantly change existing 
conditions and associated effects on wild life, nor their behavior that 
facil itates plant propagation." 
TSI Letter dated October 29, 2013 at 5 (Exhibit 98). The Board finds this testimony 
compelling because it considers existing conditions, how those conditions will be 
affected by development of the Project, and then offers an expert prediction based upon 
case studies. Although opponents cite general studies to the contrary, the Board finds 
the opponents' testimony less reliable because it does not apply those studies in 
context the way TSI has. Therefore, the Board denies the opponents' contentions on 
this issue. 
UNLAWFUL "TAKE" OF WILDLIFE 
Although Ms. Madden and Mr. Leyda contend that development of the Project will result 
in an unlawful "take" of red-legged frog and Western pond turtles, the Board denies this 
contention for three reasons. First. the Board finds that OAR 635-044-0130(1 )-which 
prohibits the "take" of any protected wildlife-is not an approval criterion applicable to 
the Applications because no provision of law (the "take" rule, the Goal 5 rule, statute, 
local code, or case law) states as much. Second, and likewise, the Board finds that the 
County lacks the authority to enforce "take" rules in this context because, again, no 
provision of law grants this authority. On these two points, the Board finds it notable 
that although a representative of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife--the 
agency that adopted and administers the "take" rule--testified in opposition to the 
Applications, she did not assert that the Project would cause a "take" of any wildlife. 
Third, the Board finds that, even if the "take" ru le applied , a reasonable person would 
not conclude, based upon the evidence in the whole record, that development of the 
Project would actually result in a "take." In fact, as noted by TSI, the Property does not 
contain any habitat likely utilized by Western pond turtles. See TSI Letter dated 
November 4, 201 3 (Exhibit 11 9). See a/so Letter from Oregon Department of Fish and 
Wild life dated September 16, 2013 (Exhibit 32) (noting the existence of turtle habitat off-
site but not noting any on-site). Although Mr. Leyda disputed this contention, the Board 
denies Mr. Leyda's contention because, unlike TSI, Mr. Leyda has not conducted an on-
site survey of the Property. Further, although Mr. Leyda noted that other Western pond 
-44-
71840.{)001/LEGAU875&2J 1.5 
turtles have been observed in the vicinity, none of the observations occurred on the 
Property, and at least one sighting was to the south of the Property, where TSI agreed 
that turtle habitat existed. /d . 
Furthermore, although the Property contains assumed red-legged frog habitat, the 
Board finds that it is unlikely that clearing/mining will cause a "take" of any of these frogs 
for two reasons. /d. First, the Board finds that Applicant has agreed not to initiate 
wetland impacts when there is standing water in the wetlands, thus avoiding impacts to 
frogs in their most vulnerable egg and tadpole stages (when they are still in water). /d . 
Second, Applicant's proposed plan to clear in swaths that progressively approach the 
outer edge of wetlands will provide sufficient warning to frogs to allow them to relocate 
away from the Property. /d. Although Mr. Leyda submitted a supplemental response to 
this TSI letter, Mr. Leyda's response did not address TSI's contentions regarding the 
red-legged f rog in any new or uirrerent way. See Leyda Letter dated November 8, 201 3 
(Exhibit 135). Therefore, the Board finds that opponents have not undermined TSJ's 
testimony that the Project will not result in a "take" of any wildlife. 
GEOLOGIC FEATURES 
Although several opponents expressed concern about impacts to the Tonquin 
Scablands geologic features, the Board denies these contentions for two reasons. First, 
the County has not designated that portion of the Tonquin Scablands within the County 
as an inventoried Goal 5 resource. Therefore, impacts to these features are not 
relevant to the conflicts analysis under this subsection of the rule. Second, although 
Washington County has designated a portion of the Tonquin Scablands as an 
inventoried Goal 5 resource, the Board finds that the Project will not create a confl ict 
with this resource because the Project wi ll not remove or interfere with use of the 
Tonquin Scablands in Washington County. As support for this conclusion, the Board 
relies upon the expert testimony of TSI. See "Goal 5 Natural Resource Assessment 
Report for the Proposed Tonquin Quarry Project" prepared by TSI in Appendix E of the 
Applications. Opponents have not presented evidence to undermine this testimony. 
Therefore, the Board finds there is no basis to grant the opponents' contention on this 
issue. 
INVENTORY OF THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 
Although the Oregon Department of Fish and Wild life ("ODFW") contended that 
additional habitat analyses are necessary before the Project can be approved , the 
Board finds that there is no basis under the applicable approval criteria to require 
additional habitat analyses on lands that are not Goal 5 inventoried resources. 
Therefore, the Board denies ODFW's contention . 
The Board further finds that, in conjunction with completing its Goal 5 resources 
analysis, TSI completed a comprehensive assessment of the Property for a variety of 
threatened and endangered species, including those listed by the County, state 
agencies, federal agencies, and the Refuge as occurring within two miles of the 
-45-
71840.000lfLEGAl287582J 1.5 
Property. /d. As reported by TSI, the Property does not appear to support any of these 
species. /d. The Board finds the opponents' statements suggesting the possibility that 
other species could be present to be speculative. Further, the Board finds that TSI's 
sensitive species assessment methodology, which included review of literature, 
interviews with other biologists, and multiple site vis its, was reasonable. /d. Although 
ODFW contends that TSI's species assessment methodology did not meet industry 
standards, ODFW did not explain this contention with any specificity. See ODFW Letter 
dated September 16, 2013 (Exhibit 32). As a result, the Board finds that this contention 
is inadequately developed to allow Applicant to respond in a more specific way than 
what is in the record, and thus, this contention does not provide a basis to deny or 
further condition the Applications. 
HEAVY METALS AND ACID RUNOFF 
Although Mr. Leyda contends that surface mining wou ld expose rock having damaging 
quantities of acidity and metals, the Board finds that the chemistry of basalt rock does 
not result in acid runoff. As support for this conclusion, the Board relies upon TSI's 
testimony to this effect, including the scientific literature cited therein. See TSI Letter 
dated October 29, 2013 (Exhibit 98). The Board further finds that because basalt does 
not result in acid runoff, there is no basis to conclude that wetland replenishment water, 
which wi ll come into contact with basalt, wi ll release meta ls and lower the pH of offsite 
wetland waters or impact wetland w ildlife. /d. Mr. Leyda did not dispute TS I's testimony 
on this issue. Therefore, the Board denies Mr. Leyda's contention on this issue. 
CONFLICTS WITH OTHER AGGREGATE RESOURCE SITES 
Additionally, the Board finds that there will be no significant conflicts between the 
Project and the three inventoried aggregate sites within the Impact Area. As support for 
this conclusion, the Board re lies upon the analysis of Dorian Kuper of Kuper Consulting 
LLC, who concluded that there would be no such conflicts between these uses due to 
the similarity in their operations. See Kuper Letter dated June 3, 2013 set forth in 
Appendix M of the Applications. The Board finds that Ms. Kuper's analysis is 
particularly credible in light of her extensive experience as a geologist (over 30 years) 
and her knowledge of aggregate operations in the vicinity. See D. Kuper Resume set 
forth in Appendix N of the Appl ications. The Board finds persuasive that no one, 
including adjacent and nearby quarry operators, rebutted or called into question Ms. 
Kuper's testimony on this issue. Therefore, the Board finds that a reasonable person 
would rely upon Ms. Kuper's testimony to find no significant conflicts. See Sanders v. 
Yamhill County, 34 Or LUBA 69, 107 (1998) ("In the absence of any cited evidence to 
the contrary, we accept as reasonable the county's conclusion that mineral and 
aggregate uses and geothermal uses have similar impacts and conflicts."). 
OPPONENTS' ADDITIONAL CONTENTIONS 
Although opponents raised concerns about other environmental impacts, including 
impacts to neotropical migrating bi rds and impacts to Metro-designated "habitat of 
-46-
71840~l.'LEGAL28758231.5 
concern," the Board denies these contentions because the County is only permitted to 
consider "[c)onnicts with other Goal 5 resource sites within the impact area that are 
shown on an acknowledged list of significant resources and for which the requirements 
of Goal 5 have been completed at the time the PAPA is initiated." OAR 660-023-
0180(5)(b)(D). Opponents have not established that the identified resources are 
inventoried Goal 5 resources, and the Board finds that they are not. 
The Board finds that opponents raised a series of other contentions pertaining to Goal 5 
resources. The Board finds that these contentions lack merit, are speculative, and fa il 
to account for the considerable conflict minimization measures that the Project will 
include. Further, the Board finds that Applicant has adequately rebutted these 
contentions. In support of these findings, the Board adopts and incorporates by 
reference TSI 's Goal 5 assessment set forth in Appendix E of the Applications and the 
f indings and conclusions in TSI's letters dated September 24. 2013 (Exhibi t 65e); 
October 29, 2013 (Exhibit 98); November 4, 2013 (Exhibit 119); and November 8, 2013 
(Exhibit 141 ). 
MEASURES TO MINIMIZE CONFLICTS: 
For inventoried Metro Regional resources, riparian corridors, federal wild and scenic 
rivers, Oregon scenic waterways, Oregon recreation trails, natural areas, wilderness 
areas, open space, scenic views and sites, and aggregate sites, the Board finds, based 
upon the sources cited above, that no confl ict exists. As a result, the Board finds that 
no measures are needed to minimize conflicts with these resources. 
For the Washington County-inventoried wildlife habitat, the Board finds that the conflict 
is minimized to a level that is not significant through compliance with the following 
measures: 
• 50-foot setbacks from the remainders of Wetlands B and C to preserve existing 
wetlands and uplands 
• 1 00-foot minimum setback from Rock Creek and the land immediately east of the 
Kramer property to preserve existing upland 
• 25-foot setback along the west by northwest and north by northeast Property 
lines to include fence and landscape screening 
• 50-foot setback along the south Property line to include noise barrier and 
landscape screening 
• 50-foot setback along the east Property line 
• Implementation of erosion control methods where landscaping must be removed 
• Irrigation of plantings to promote rapid growth and reduce summer drought stress 
-47-
7 l 840-000 l ll.EGAI28758231.5 
• Time-sensitive measures such as limitations on general hours of operation and 
blasting frequency 
• Regular use of dust control sprayers on equipment and on-site roadways and 
use areas 
As support for this conclusion, the Board relies upon TS!'s testimony that these 
measures will minimize the identified conflict. See TSI's Goal 5 assessment set forth in 
Appendix E of the App lications. The Board finds that the Project operating plan, as 
conditioned, incorporates all such measures. 
For the avoided wetlands, the Board finds that the conflict is minimized to a level that is 
not significant through compliance w ith the following measures, which the Board 
imposes as conditions of approval on the Project: 
"59. The applicant and/or operator shall not iill , excavate or otherwise 
d isturb wetlands on the property unti l appl ica nt first obta ins appropriate 
permits from the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) and the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and implements any required pre-
disturbance mitigation measures. The appl icant shall provide County 
Planning and/or WES/SWMACC with copies of any annual monitoring 
reports required by DSL and/or Corps." 
"60. Within 90 days after commencement of site construction, the quarry 
operator shall provide the Tualatin River National Wifdlife Refuge and 
Clackamas County with calculations showing planned reductions in 
contributing upland watershed that will result in measurable declines in 
surface water flowing towards the Refuge. In compliance with 
WES/SWMACC standards, the proposed operation shall provide 
replenishment water for wetlands to maintain the average rainfall 
contribution during the rainy season (November-May). Subject to 
participation by the Refuge, Department of State Lands and other 
applicable agencies, surface water flows to the Refuge may be enhanced 
(increased)." 
"61. The Quarry operator shall monitor annual water levels within the 
undisturbed buffer areas to the offsite portions of Wetlands B and C, and 
take appropriate actions to maintain pre-disturbance wetness in those 
wetlands. The operator may install distribution systems (infiltration 
trenches, drip lines, etc.) for the replenishment water in the undisturbed 
buffer where such insta llation results in removal of no more than 15% of 
the native trees and shrubs located in such buffers as of June 1, 2013." 
"62a. The applicant/operator shall install a clay barrier between the 
excavation area and buffer for the preserved portions of Wetlands B and 
-48-
71840-000!IlEGAI28758231.5 
C. Said clay barrier shall be compacted to prohibit water intrusion from 
Wetlands Band C into the excavation boundary." 
"62. The operator shall not excavate within the boundaries, as determined 
by DSL, of any onsite portion of Wetland B or C when there is surface 
water in the onsite portion of such wetland area." 
"63. The operator shall install and maintain an elevated area (above 
existing grade) of approximately 20 feet in width between the excavation 
boundary and the south edge of the proposed 50 foot buffer to the offsite 
portion of W etland B (found in the northwest corner of the subject 
property). This elevated area is to be located outside of the excavation 
boundary, but can be occupied by an access road, stormwater facilities, or 
other activities anci llary to those occurring within the excavation 
boundary." 
"64. The operator shall maintain the approximate same condition of t11e 
undisturbed buffers as exist on the effective date of Clackamas County 
land use approval to facilitate wildlife movement and protect adjacent 
wetland functions. The undisturbed buffers are located immediately east 
and north of the Kramer parcel, adjacent to Rock Creek and the 50 foot 
buffer where Wetland B extends offsite to the north. Such maintenance 
shall include, but is not limited to, control of increased Himalayan 
blackberry and reed canarygrass growth, replacement of dead trees (>12 
in. DBH) when more than 10 percent have died, and related vegetative 
management." 
As support for this conclusion, the Board relies on TSI's testimony that these measures 
would minimize the identified conflict. /d. Although Ms. Holmes contends that Condition 
61 does not capture the biological diversity and uniqueness of the area because it 
establishes a single date (June 1, 2013) for detem1ining site conditions, rather than a 
range of dates, the Board denies this contention. The Board finds that the purpose of 
the condition is to establ ish a single baseline that is roughly the date Applicant filed the 
Applications w ith the County. Selecting a range of dates would be inconsistent with this 
purpose. 
Although Ms. Madden, Mr. Leyda, Ms. Ruther, and Ms. Holmes contend that the 
proposed buffers around the retained wetlands should be 100 feet in width to provide 
adequate protection for these resources, the Board denies th is contention for three 
reasons. First, the Board finds that, in several cases, the buffer provided is 100 feet. 
For example, the buffer for the reta ined portion of Wetland Cis 100 feet (50 feet of 
wetland buffer, 50 feet of upland buffer), and the buffer for Wetland 0 , which is upland 
forest, is more than 100 feet. See TSI Letter dated October 29, 2013 (Exhibit 98). 
Second, the Board finds that although the buffer along the retained portion of Wetland B 
is only 50 feet , th is width meets the standard required by the County for wetlands in 
urban and rural areas; e.g. SWMACC service area. /d. Third, the Board finds that 
-49-
7 1840-000 I.'LEGAL28758231.5 
Applicant has agreed to carefully maintain the buffers to prevent encroachment into any 
buffers. /d. Finally, although Ms. Madden contends that the buffer along Wetland C 
should be wider because the area is steeply sloped, the Board finds that the area has 
slopes less than 25%; therefore, the buffer satisfies SWMACC standards. See 
Appendix B of the Applications. 
For the 1.78 acres of wetlands that would be removed/filled , the Board finds that there 
are no measures to minimize the identified conflict with these resources. As support for 
this conclusion, the Board relies upon TSI's conclusion to this effect: 
"The quarry would remove and/or fill approximately 1.78 acres of on-site 
wetlands. Although the quanry would comply with all state and federal 
removal/fi ll permitting requirements, including implementing all required 
mitigation measures, the total loss of 1. 78 acres of on site wetlands would 
constitute a conflict that cannot be minimized for Goal 5 purposes. Thus, 
the applicant is submitting an analysis of the positive and negative ESEE 
consequences resulting from a decision to allow, limit, or prohibit the 
quarry under the circumstances." 
/d. at iv. For the reasons set forth above and discussed in detail in TSI's Goal 5 Report 
and supplemental letters, the Board finds that, with the exception of the conflict with 
1.78 acres of wetlands, there are measures that will minimize identified conflicts to a 
level that is not significant, and the Board has conditioned its approval to incorporate 
such measures. The Board's analysis of the positive and negative economic, social, 
environmental, and energy consequences resu lting from a decision to allow, limit, or 
prohibit the Project is set forth below. 
(E) Conflicts with agricultural practices; and 
IDENTIFICATION OF CONFLICTS: 
The Board finds that the Project will not generate any significant connicts with 
agricultural practices on surrounding lands. As support for this conclusion, the Board 
rel ies upon the results of Applicant's agricultural survey. See Appendix J of the 
Applications. The Board finds that Applicant's survey identified 28 parce ls (some under 
the same ownership or operation) with low-intensive, small-scale agricultural activities 
(limited to livestock grazing, raising chickens, and growing clover, fruit, and 'Christmas 
trees), within one mile of the Property. /d. As depicted on the map attached to the 
survey, the concentration of agricultural practices in the survey area is between 0.5 and 
1.0 miles from the Property. /d. Moreover, the Board finds that the survey results 
reflect that agricultural practices are occurring on only one property that abuts the 
Property. /d. In short, the Board finds that only isolated, small-scale agricultural 
practices are occurring on surrounding lands. 
Further, as explained above, the Board finds, based upon the testimony of various 
Project consultants, and subject to adoption and implementation of various minimization 
-50-
71840.000 I!LEGAL2875823 1.5 
measures, there will be no significant conflicts between the Project and allowable uses, 
including farm uses, within the Impact Area. 
The Board finds that, due to the limited nature and small scale of existing agricultural 
practices, the relative lack of proximity to the mining operation, and the various 
measures that will minimize Project conflicts to a level that is insignificant, the Project 
will not force a significant change in or significantly increase the cost of accepted farm 
or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use. Therefore, there 
will be no conflicts between the Project and agricultural practices. 
As additional support for its conclusion, the Board finds that County Planning staff 
concurred with Applicant's testimony on this issue. See Staff Report at 49-50. 
Although Vicki Norris testified that she lives approximately one-half mile away and 
raises chickens, operates a mobile fruit stand, and a small orchard, and that she is 
concerned that the Project will degrade the groundwater, light, and air, the Board finds 
that Ms. Norris' testimony was vague, not supported by any specific evidence, and did 
not contend that the Project would force a significant change in or significantly increase 
the cost of accepted farm or forest practices on her property. For that matter, the Board 
finds that no opponents presented any meaningful rebuttal to the findings set forth in the 
agricultural survey. To the contrary, the Board finds that Narendra Varma testified that 
he operates a farm approximately one mile from the Project, which is in the vicinity of 
the existing active quarry operations, and he intends to expand his operations and hire 
6-11 additional employees over the next three years. See Email from Narendra Varma 
dated November 8, 2013 (Exhibit 136). 
Therefore, the Board finds that a reasonable person would rely upon the agricultural 
survey, the staff concurrence, and Mr. Varma's testimony to support the conclusion that 
the Project will not generate any significant conflicts with agricultural practices on 
surrounding lands. 
MEASURES TO MINIMIZE CONFLICTS: 
Because there are no identified conflicts with agricultural practices, the Board finds that 
it is not required to identify measures that would minimize such conflicts. 
(F) Other conflicts for which consideration is necessary in order to carry out 
ordinances that supersede Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries 
(DOGAMI) regulations pursuant to ORS 517.780; 
The Board finds that there are no other conflicts for which consideration is necessary 
because the County does not have any ordinances that supersede DOGAMI regulations 
pursuant to ORS 517.780. 
(d) The local government shall determine any significant conflicts identified under 
the requirements of subsection (c) of this section that cannot be minimized. 
-51 -
71840.000 I !LEG A L28 7 5823 1.5 
Based on these conflicts only, local governments s hall determine the ESEE 
consequences of either allowing, limiting, or not allowing mining at the s ite. 
Local governments shall reach this decision by weighing these ESEE 
consequences, with consideration of the following: 
(A) The degree of adverse effect on exis ting land uses within the impact area ; 
(B) Reasonable and practicable measures that could be taken to reduce the 
identified adverse effects; and 
(C) The probable duration of the mining operation and the proposed post-mining 
use of the site. 
For the reasons explained in response to subsections (3) and (4) above, the proposed 
conditions of approval will minimize all identified conflicts, with the exception of conflicts 
to 1.78 acres of significant acknowledged Goal 5 wetlands located on the site. 
Therefore, the Board finds that it is required to conduct an analysis of the ESEE 
consequences of the mine that is limited to assessing this significant conflict. 
Based upon this conflict only, the Board finds that the ESEE consequences of allowing, 
not allowing, or limiting the mine are as follows: 
Economic: 
Allowing Mine: The Board finds that the economic consequences of allowing the mine 
are myriad and positive. For example, Project operations will provide direct economic 
impacts by creating jobs and generating ad valorem fax revenue. As support for this 
conclusion, the Board relies upon Applicant's testimony that the Project will employ 10-
15 full-time employees with an average annual compensation of $60,000 (and total 
employee income between $600,000 and $900,000) and generate ad valorem tax 
revenue exceeding $140,000 (plus potential rollback taxes to remove the Property from 
deferral). See Applicant letter re: "Discussion of Economic Benefits" dated November 4, 
2013 (Exhibit 11 3). Although Mr. Varma contends that the Property would generate 
more ad valorem tax revenue as a rural residential subdivision rather than as a mine, 
the Board denies this contention because Mr. Varma has not presented any evidence 
that it is feasible to develop the Property in this manner. Instead, the Board finds that 
the shallow rock bed and wetlands on the Property might preclude establishing septic 
systems for homes in this location. /d. Mr. Varma had the opportunity to rebut this 
contention but did not do so. 
The Board further finds that preparation for Project operations will also provide 
significant economic benefits, such as payment of permitting fees, wetland mitigation 
credits, and consultant and material fees associated with the proposed local roadway 
improvements. As support for this conclusion, the Board relies upon Applicant's 
testimony that the Project will pay permit fees and system development charges in 
excess of $100,000; will pay wetland mitigation fees in excess of $127,000; and will 
-52-
71840..()00l/LEGAl2875823l.5 
construct public improvements exceeding $250,000. /d. The Board finds that all of 
these economic impacts will, in turn, have a multiplier effect, as the revenue generated 
is passed on to third parties who then spend or invest it in the regional economy. !d. 
Although Mr. Varma contends that the Project will not have a multiplier effect because it 
will not attract any supporting businesses, the Board denies this contention because it 
takes too narrow a view of the economic impacts of the Project. As stated above, 
properly construed, the economic impacts of the Project are multi-faceted and not 
limited to whether addit ional businesses are generated . 
Finally, the economic consequences of allowing a mine on the Property also provide 
cost-savings because the Property is proximate to the cities of Sherwood, Tualatin, 
Wilsonville, as well as to major transportation faci lities, resulting in lower transportation 
and delivery costs, and in turn, lower costs for end users of the aggregate product. As 
support for this conclusion, the Board accepts Applicant's testimony that, compared to 
the Project, a proposed site in Molalla requiring 250 truck trips would generate an 
additional 3, 750 miles in haul distance, add 83 hours of travel time, use an additional 
469 gallons of fuel, and add approximately $15,000 to the project cost. /d. No one 
presented substantial evidence that undermined this testimony. 
Although Mr. Varma, Mr. Jacobs, and Ms. Madden contend that there is no 
demonstrated publ ic need for aggregate from the Project because a nearby quarry, 
Tigard Sand & Gravel, has sufficient unmined aggregate supply to serve the market for 
many years, the Board denies this contention for four reasons. First, the Board finds 
that the neither the Goal 5 rule nor any other standard affirmatively requires that 
Applicant demonstrate a public need for the Project. 
Second, to the extent that public need is relevant to completing the ESEE, the Board 
finds that Applicant refuted the opponents' testimony on this issue by explaining 
significant factors that qualify predictions that TS&G can or will actually mine all of its 
aggregate supply. See Wellner Letter dated November 8, 2013 (Exhibit 139). 
Specifically, Applicant noted that the TS&G site is entirely in the Urban Growth 
Boundary and thus is subject to pressures to develop with urban uses, Washington 
County has approved and scheduled construction of 124th Avenue directly across the 
TS&G site, and both a high-voltage power line corridor and natural resources exist on 
the site. The Board finds that all of these factors likely limit the ultimate mining and 
marketing of TS&G's existing aggregate reserve and thus refute opponents' testimony 
on th is issue. 
Third , the Board finds that all of the opponents' testimony is grounded in the email 
testimony of Roger Metcalf, a Vice-President at Tigard Sand & Gravel. See Attachment 
2 to Madden Letter dated November 4, 2013 (Exhibit 132). The Board finds that Mr. 
Metcalf's testimony is less credible on this issue because Applicant is a potential 
competitor to TS&G in the aggregate market. As such, it is in Mr. Metcalf's business 
interest for the Board to deny the Applications. The Board discounts the opponents' 
testimony accordingly. 
-53-
71 840-000 I /LEGAl28 7 5823 1.5 
Fourth, the Board finds in the alternative that the opponents' testimony does not warrant 
denying or further conditioning the Applications because the opponents' testimony is 
incomplete. The Board reaches this conclus:on because if the market does not support 
development of the Project, it will not develop, and none of the Project consequences-
positive or negative-will result. While opponents' testimony addresses the absence of 
positive consequences, it fails to account for the absence of negative consequences. 
As such, it is incomplete. Therefo re, the Board denies the opponents' contentions 
regarding public need. 
The Board finds that there are no negative economic consequences to removing the 
wetlands and allowing the Project. Although Mr. Varma contends that developing the 
Project will reduce economic productivity due to citizens being stuck in traffic behind 
Project trucks, the Board denies this contention for three reasons. First, it is not 
supported by any evidence, such as an economic study or expert testimony. Second, 
the TIA refutes the contention that there will be any adverse traffic impacts associated 
with the Project. Instead, all study intersections will meet appl icable performance 
standards, and Applicant will complete safety and capacity improvements in the area . 
See TIA in Appendix G of Applications. Third, Mr. Varma's contention ignores the 
potentia l increases in economic productivity that will result from aggregate from the 
Project being used to complete area transportation projects. 
Further, although Mr. Varma contends that development of the Project will deter other 
development in the area, the Board denies this contention because it is speculative and 
not supported by any evidence. It appears to the Board that Mr. Varma's subsequent 
testimony that he intends to hire 6-11 new employees over the next three years to work 
at his business that is located approximately one mile from the Property does not 
support the claim that the Project will deter other development. See Varma Email dated 
November 8, 2013 (Exhibit 136). 
Not Allowing Mine: The Board finds that if the County does not allow the mine in order 
to preserve the wetlands, the County will not reap any of the economic benefits 
associated with the Project and described above. 
The Board finds that there are no identifiable positive economic consequences to 
preserving the wetlands and not allowing the Project. Although Ms. Madden contends 
that there are "difficult to quantify" positive economic consequences associated with 
preserving wetlands, including limiting flooding and related economic losses, the Board 
denies this contention. The Board finds that Ms. Madden has not adequately explained 
how preservation of these particular wetlands would actually result in less flooding and 
economic loss, or for that matter, why the remaining offsite wetlands would not be able 
to adequately perform this function. As a result, the Board finds that the connection 
between preserving the wetland and the positive economic benefit is simply too 
speculative and remote to weigh heavily in this balance. 
Likewise, although Ms. Madden contends that the loss of the wetlands could result in a 
loss of visitors to the Refuge and a loss of "associated revenue for surrounding 
-54-
71840~00 I/LEGAU8758231.5 
communities," the Board finds that Ms. Madden's contention is speculative and not 
supported by any evidence of the revenue impact of Refuge visitors or how that revenue 
impact is affected by the loss of wetlands that are not even located in the Refuge. The 
Board denies Ms. Madden's contention on this point. 
Limiting Mine: The Board finds there are no identifiable positive economic 
consequences of preserving the wetlands and limiting the mine. 
The Board finds that the negative economic consequences of limiting the mine are the 
loss of at least a portion of the positive economic consequences of allowing the mine. 
Further, in the event the County approves the mine but limits its extent by also requiring 
preservation of the conflicted wetlands, it will be tantamount to not allowing the mine at 
all because it would not be financially feasible to conduct mining operations on the 
Property in such a limited area. In that case, the Board finds that the negative 
economic consequences of limiting the mine are the loss of all of the positive economic 
consequences of allowing the mine. 
As support for this conclusion, the Board relies upon Applicant's testimony to this effect. 
See W ellner Letter dated September 24, 201 3 (Exhibit 65g). The Board also relies 
upon testimony from Westlake Engineering that a revised mining plan that preserved 
Wetlands A, B, and C would reduce the volume of potential basalt rock resources by 45-
55%, and that this reduction in mine-able area would actually increase due to 
operational considerations, including staging, storage, and work areas. See Westlake 
Wetland Preservation Concept Mining Plan (Exhibit 114 ). The Board also finds that this 
evidence refutes Ms. Madden's contention that Applicant did not provide evidentiary 
support for its claim of lost volume associated with preserving the wetlands. 
Social: 
Allowing Mine: The Board finds that the positive social consequences of allowing the 
mine include: ( 1) the positive social esteem for the 1 0-15 workers employed at the mine; 
(2) the social benefits associated with utilizing aggregate from the mine to complete 
needed regional transportation improvements, including potentially some of the more 
than $3 billion in planned improvements identified by the County's Transportation 
System Plan; and (3) the social benefits of Applicant completing the off-site 
transportation improvements along SW Tonquin and Morgan Roads. As support for this 
conclusion, the Board relies upon the testimony of Applicant concerning Project 
impacts. See Wellner Letter dated September 24, 2013 (Exhibit 65g). 
The Board finds that the negative social consequence of allowing the mine is the loss of 
wetland values; however, the Board finds that, on balance, this consequence is low 
because, as explained below, the value of the lost wetlands can be replaced by the new 
wetlands provided as mitigation. 
Not Allowing Mine: The Board finds that the positive social consequence of not allowing 
the mine is the preservation of wetland values. Although Ms. Madden contends that 
-55-
71840.000 L'I.EGAL2875823 1.5 
there is an "existence va lue" associated with the wetlands- "the value that many people 
place on the fact that an environmental amenity exists even if they do not derive specific 
utility from it (i .e. do not 'use' it in some way)"- the Board finds that, to the extent an 
existence value exists in this case at all , it is not substantiated and does not warrant 
further consideration in this analysis. The Board also denies th is contention because 
Ms. Madden does not appear to consider that the "existence value" of the lost wetlands 
cou ld be replaced by the new wetlands provided as mitigation. 
The Board finds that the negative social consequences of not allowing the mine are that 
the 10-15 workers at the mine would not have the social esteem associated with 
employment, the region would not utilize its natural resources to serve the greater good , 
and Applicant would not complete the roadway improvements along SW Tonquin and 
SW Morgan Roads. 
Limiting Mine: The Board finds that limiting the mine will limit the positive and negative 
social consequences described above. The Board finds that the degree to which these 
consequences are limited will be directly tied to the degree that the mine itself is limited. 
However, as stated above, in the event the County approves the mine but limits its 
extent by also requiring preservation of the conflicted wetlands, it will be tantamount to 
not allowing the mine at all because it would not be financially feasible to conduct 
mining operations on the Property in such a limited area. In that case, the negative 
socia l consequences of limiting the mine are the loss of illl of the positive social 
consequences of allowing the mine. 
As support for this conclusion, the Board re lies upon Applicant's testimony to this effect. 
See Wellner Letter dated September 24, 2013 (Exhibit 65g). The Board also relies 
upon testimony from Westlake Engineering that a revised mining plan that preserved 
Wetlands A, B, and C would reduce the volume of potential basalt rock resources by 45-
55%, and that this reduction in mine-able area would actual ly increase due to 
operational considerations, including staging, storage, and work areas. See Westlake 
Wetland Preservation Concept Mining Plan (Exhibit 114). 
Environmental: 
Allowing Mine: The Board finds that the environmental consequences of al lowing the 
mine are neutral. Although development of the Project will result in the loss of wetland 
values, the Board finds that these wetlands are quite small (approximately 1.78 acres) 
and generally isolated in nature. Although Ms. Madden contends that the wetlands are 
not small and isolated but instead preserve broader functions such as enhancing water 
quality in Rock Creek, the Board finds that this contention lacks merit. Rather, the 
Board finds that, as Project hydrologist Shannon & Wilson and Erin Holmes from the 
Refuge testified, the wetlands are sustained by precipitation and are disconnected from 
groundwater flowing to Rock Creek. See Holmes Letter dated September 23, 2013 
(Exhibit 54) and Final Hydrogeologic Evaluation dated October 29, 2013 (Exhibit 92). 
-56-
71840-000 l/LEGAU875823 1.5 
Further, as required by Condition 59, Applicant will complete all removal and fill 
activities in compliance with state and federal permits, which will require implementation 
of off-site mitigation measures in order to achieve "no net loss" of wetland va lues. See 
generally 33 USC Sect. 1344, ORS 196.795 et seq. In this way, the Board finds that the 
wetland resource and fts related values will be rep licated in another location, unlike 
when many other Goal 5 resources are lost. Although Ms. Madden and ODFW contend 
that the wetland values cannot be replicated in another location, the Board denies this 
contention for four reasons. First, the Board finds that wetland mitigation banks 
construct and restore wetlands years in advance of wetland impacts to assure no loss of 
wetland acreage, no temporal loss, and to achieve self-sustaining conditions. See TSI 
Letter dated September 24, 2013 (Exhibit 65e). Second, the Board finds that both state 
and federal wetland permitting agencies recognize mitigation as an appropriate means 
to offset wetland impacts. /d. Third , the Board finds that, in the event that state and 
federal permitting agencies deny the applicable permits due to insufficient mitigation, 
Applicant will be unable to remove the on-site wetlands and will not be able to 
implement its proposed mining plan. In other words, failure to provide adequate 
wetland mitigation will prevent development of the Project and will avoid any related 
adverse impacts to the environment. Fourth, although ODFW contends that no 
mitigation bank can reproduce the unique nature of on-site wetlands, the Board finds 
that ODFW has not explained, based upon substantial evidence, why th is is the case. 
See ODFW Letter dated September 16, 2013 (Exhibit 32) and OOFW Email dated 
September 25, 2013 (Exhibit 68) . . 
Finally, and in the alternative, even if the opponents are correct and the environmental 
consequences of allowing the Project are negative because the wetland values cannot 
be fully replicated elsewhere, the Board finds, for the reasons explained in this ESEE 
that, on balance, the overall positive consequences of allowing the Project exceed these 
few negative consequences of allowing the Project. Therefore, the Board finds that the 
opponents' contention is not a basis to deny or further cond ition the Project. 
Although Ms. Madden further contends that the ESEE is flawed because it fails to 
consider impacts to off-site resources, the Board denies this contention because it is 
simply an extension of the flawed contention that the Project has not minimized all other 
conflicts with Goal 5 resources. For the reasons explained in these Supplemental 
Fin9ings in response to OAR 660-0230-0180(5)(b)(O), the Board has already found, 
based upon substantial _evidence and subject to conditions, Applicant has identified 
measures that will minimize potential conflicts with other Goal 5 resources. For 
example, as to the remaining portions of Wetlands B and C, Appl icant will be preserving 
buffers and providing replenishment water for wetlands to maintain the average rainfall 
contribution during the rainy season. The Board further denies this contention for the 
reasons explained under the heading below "(A) The degree of adverse effect on 
existing land uses within the impact area." 
Finally, although Ms. Madden contends that the County must consider the functional 
values provided by the on-site wetlands in completing this analysis, the Board denies 
this contention because no such assessment is required at this stage. As support for 
-57-
71840-000 IILEGAL28 75823 1.5 
this conclusion, the Board relies upon the testimony of scientist Phil Scoles, CPSS, who 
explained that a functional values assessment (also known as an Oregon Rapid 
Wetland Assessment Protocol ("ORWAP")) will instead be required in order for 
Applicant to obtain cut and fil l permits from the State. See TSI Letter dated November 
8, 2013 (Exhibit 141 ). Mr. Scoles explained that the ORWAP assessment results will 
dictate the nature and extent of m itiga tion needed to ensure "no net loss" of wetland 
functions. /d . Further, the Board finds that the functiona l values assessment provided 
by Mr. Leyda is of limited value because it did not examine the on-site portion o f the 
wetlands, which are the only wetlands subject to this ESEE. 
Not Allowing Mine: For the reasons stated above, the Board finds that the 
environmental consequences of not allowing the mine are also neutral. The Board 
reaches this conclusion because, although not allowing the mine will preserve the 
wetlands, it will also preclude implementation of the "no net loss" mitigation measures. 
Limiting Mine: Due to the "no net loss" rule, the Board finds that the environmental 
consequences of limiting the mine are also neutral. Specifically, limiting the mine in 
order to preserve some of the wetlands will result in a corresponding decline in the "no 
net loss" mitigation measures. 
Energy: 
Allowina Mine: The Board finds that the energy consequences of allowing the mine are 
positive and substantial for two reasons. First, as explained above, mining the 
aggregate resource will faci litate completion of many needed transportation 
improvements, which will, in turn, provide greater capacity and smoother surfaces. As a 
result, vehicles on roads throughout the region will be able to consume less fuel 
because they will spend less time idling in traffic and/or confronting substandard road 
conditions. Second, the energy consequences of allowing a mine are also positive 
because the Property is proximate to the cities of Sherwood, Tualatin, Wilsonville, al l 
locations where there is a significant amount of growth and demand for aggregate. 
Locating a mine near these markets will reduce the distance the product must travel, 
resulting in lower fuel costs. 
The Property's proximity to major transportation corridors, such as Interstate 5, also 
reduces fuel costs and energy impacts compared to more remote locations. As support 
for this conclusion, the Board accepts Applicant's testimony that , compared to the 
Project, a proposed site in Molalla requiring 250 truck trips would generate an additional 
3,750 miles in haul distance, add 83 hours of travel time, use an additional 469 gallons 
of fuel, and add approximately $15,000 to the project cost. fd. No one presented 
substantial evidence that undermined this testimony. 
The Board finds that the negative energy consequences of allowing the mine are that it 
will employ vehicles and machinery that will consume fuel in conjunction with 
completing extraction, processing, and distribution activities. However, the Board finds 
that the Project operator will have at least two incentives to utilize fuel-efficient 
-58-
7!840-000l.'LEGAL2875823 l .S 
equipment. First , the Board finds that fuel is expensive and becoming moreso. 
Second, because Project operations will be subject to compliance with state and federal 
air quality standards, the Project operator will need to purchase and utilize late-model 
equipment which is designed to comply with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Tier 
2 standards. See Golder Report in Appendix I of the Applications. Thus, the Board 
finds that. on balance, the negative energy consequences are not likely to be significant. 
Not A llowing Mine: The Board finds that the positive energy consequences of not 
allowing the mine are that there will be no utilization of mine-related equipment and 
trucks and thus no related consumption of fuel. 
The Board f inds that the negative energy consequences of not allowing the mine are 
that the region would not reap any of the positive energy consequences of allowing the 
mine. For example, if the mine is not allowed , the aggregate resource underneath the 
Property will not be used to facilitate completion of needed t ransportation 
improvements. As a result , vehicles w ill spend more t ime idling in traffic and thus 
consume more fuel. 
Further, the region will need to locate a mine in another location, likely in a more remote 
location, which will generate additional vehicle miles traveled and a larger carbon 
footprint. As support for this conclusion, the Board accepts Applicant's testimony that, 
compared to the Project, a proposed site in Molalla requiring 250 truck trips would 
generate an additional 3, 750 miles in haul distance, add 83 hours of travel t ime, use an 
additional 469 gallons of fuel, and add approximate ly $15,000 to the project cost. !d. 
No one presented substantial evidence that undermined this testimony. 
Limiting Mine: The Board finds that limiting the mine will limit the positive and negative 
energy consequences described above. The Board finds that the degree to which these 
consequences are limited will be directly tied to the degree that tl:le mine itself is limited. 
Having identified these ESEE consequences, the Board must weigh them with the 
following considerations: 
(A) The degree of adverse effect on existing land uses within the Impact Area; 
In the event the mine is allowed and Applicant removes/fills 1.78 acres of inventoried 
wetlands on the Property, the Board finds that the only adverse effect on existing land 
uses within the Impact Area is the potentia l loss of surface water flow to interrelated 
Wetlands B and C. However, as explained and conditioned above, the Board finds that 
the degree of this adverse effect is greatly limited for two reasons. First, Applicant will 
provide replenishment water for the avoided wetlands to maintain the average rainfall 
contribution during the rainy season in order to ensure that these interrelated wetlands 
are preserved. Second, Applicant will not remove/fill the wetlands until it has obtained 
state and federa l permits, which will require implementation of off-site mitigation 
measures in order to achieve "no net loss" of wetland values. Based upon the 
. -59-
7 I 840-000 IILEGAl28 758231.5 
foregoing, the Board finds that removing/filling the wetland and allowing the mine will 
not result in any adverse effect on land uses within the Impact Area. 
{B) Reasonable and practica l measures that could be taken to reduce the 
identified adverse effects; and 
As explained above, Applicant has proposed reasonab le and practical measures that 
will reduce the identified adverse effect in two ways. First, Applicant will provide 
replenishment water for the avoided wetlands to maintain the average ra infal l 
contribution during the rainy season in order to ensure that the interrelated wetlands are 
preserved. Second , Applica nt will no t remove/fill the wetlands until it has obtained state 
and federal permits, which will require implementation of off-site mitigation measures in 
order to achieve "no net loss" of wetland values. Based upon the foregoing, the Board 
finds that Applicant will be required to complete reasonable and practical measures to 
reduce the identified adverse effect to the avoided wetlands. 
(C) The probable duration of the m ining operation and the proposed post-mining 
use o f the si te. 
Applicant testified that the probable duration of the mining operation is 15-20 years, 
depending upon market demand. As explained in response to subsection (5)(f) below, 
the Board finds that the post-mining uses of the Property are those allowed as of right 
and conditionally under a current map designation or such other uses as may be 
allowed under future alternative designation, of allowed by law. Thus, the Board finds 
that the mining operation is of limited duration, and the proposed post-mining use of the 
Property will be consistent with the law and surrounding uses. 
Based upon the foregoing analysis, the Board finds that, on balance, the positive 
economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences associated with allowing 
the mine outweigh the negative consequences both in number and degree. Further, the 
Board finds that the additional considerations favor allowing tho mine because there is 
only one potential adverse effect to a single land use if the mine is allowed, Applicant 
wi ll implement reasonable and practical measures to reduce that potential adverse 
effect, and the mine will have a limited lifespan followed by reclamation as a permitted 
use. For these reasons, the Board finds that the ESEE supports allowing mining on the 
Property. 
(e) Where m ining is allow ed, the plan and implementing ordinances shall be 
amended to allow s uch mining. Any required meas ures to min imize conflicts, 
including special condi tions and procedures regulating min'ing , s hal l be clear and 
objective. Additional land use review (e.g., site plan review) if required by the 
local government, shall not exceed the minimum review necessary to assure 
compl iance with these requirements and shall not provide o pportunities to deny 
mining for reasons unre lated to these requirements, or to attach additional 
approval requirements, except with regard to mining or processing act ivit ies: 
-60-
71 840-000J/LEGAL28'/5823 I .5 
(A) For whic h the PAPA application does not provide informat ion sufficient to 
d etermine clear and objective measures to resolve identified conf l icts ; 
{B) Not requested in the PAPA application; or 
{C) For which a significant change to the type, location, or duration of the activity 
s hown on the PAPA application is proposed by the operator. 
The Board finds that its approval of the Project complies with this subsection. First, 
contemporaneous w ith its approval of these findings, the Board is adopting an 
ord inance to: (1) designate the Property as a significant Goal 5 resource in Chapter Ill , 
Table 111-02 of the CCCP; and (2) apply the Mineral and Aggregate Overlay (MAO) 
designation to the Property. Second , the Board finds that its conditions of approval are 
clear Gnd objective. As support for this conclusion, the Board finds that the Staff Report 
included 114 of the fina l conditions, and no party contended that these conditions were 
not clear and objective. Third , the Board finds that its decision also approves the Site 
Plan Review Application for the Project , which is consistent with the approvals for the 
PAPA Appl ication and the Zone Change Application. Further, the Board finds that there 
are no additional land use reviews required for the Project. 
(f) Where mining is allowed, the focal government shall determine the post-mining 
use and provide for this use in the comprehensive plan and land use regulations. 
For significant aggregate sites on Class I, II and Unique farmland, local 
governments shall adopt plan and land use regulations to limit post-mining use 
to farm uses under ORS 215.203, uses listed in ORS 215.213(1) or 215.283(1), and 
fish and wildlife habitat uses, including wetland mitigation banking. Local 
governments shall coordinate with DOGAMI regarding the regulation and 
reclamation of mineral and aggregate sites, except where exempt under ORS 
517.580. 
The Board finds that the-P roject is not located on Class I, II, or Unique farmland. See 
Appendix A of the Applications. Therefore, the Board is not required to limit post-mining 
uses to farm uses under ORS 215.203, uses listed in ORS 215.213(1) or ORS 
215.283(1 ), or fish and wildlife habitat uses. 
Further, the Board finds that the Applicant has proposed, and the Board determines, 
that post-mining uses of the Property are those allowed as of right and conditionally 
under a current map designation or such uses as may be allowed under future 
alternative designation, if a llowed by law. 
Finally, the Board finds that the Applicant has included a proposed reclamation plan 
with the Applications. See Appendix B. Plate 4 of the Applications. The Applicant has 
testified that it has submitted this plan to DOGAMI for approval. The Board finds that it 
will have the opportunity to coordinate with DOGAMI during the DOGAMI review 
process in accordance with CCZDO 708.06. 
-61-
7184().{)00 1/LEGA 1..28758231 .5 
The Board finds that the Applications satisfy the requirements of this subsection. 
(g) Local governments shall allow a currently approved aggregate processing 
operation at an existing site to process material from a new or expansion site 
without requiring a reauthorization of the existing processing operation unless 
limits on such processing were established at the time it was approved by the 
local government. 
The Board finds that this section is not applicable because the Project is not a currently 
approved aggregate processing operation at an existing site. 
(7) Except for aggregate resource sites determined to be significant under section 
(4} of this rule, local governments shall follow the standard ESEE process in OAR 
660-023-0040 and 660-023-0050 to determine whether to allow, limit, or prevent 
new conflicting uses within the impact area of a significant mineral and aggregate 
site. (This requirement does not apply if, under section (5) of this rule, the local 
government decides that mining will not be authorized at the site.) 
The Board finds that this provision outlines the procedures for the County to follow if the 
County, in its discretion . intends to allow, limit. or prevent new conflicting uses with in the 
Impact Area of the Project. In this case, neither the Applicant nor any other parties are 
requesting that the County engage in th is discretionary determination at this time. 
Further, County staff have testified that reliance upon the provisions of CCZDO 708.08 
("Impact Area Uses and Development Standardsn) is sufficient to protect the Project 
from new conflicting uses. Therefore, the Board declines to conduct an ESEE to allow, 
llmit, or prevent new conflicting uses within the Impact Area of the Project. 
(8) In order to determine whether information in a PAPA submittal concerning an 
aggregate site is adequate, local government shall follow the requirements of this 
section rather than OAR 660-023-0030{3). An application for approval of an 
aggregate site following sections (4) and (6) of this rule shall be adequate if it 
provides sufficient information to determine whether the requirements in those 
sections are satisfied. An application for a PAPA concerning a significant 
aggregate site following sections (3} and (5) of this rule shall be adequate if it 
includes: 
(a) Information regarding quantity, quality, and location sufficient to determine 
whether the standards and conditions in section (3) of this rule are satisfied; 
For the reasons set forth at page 59 of the Staff Report, which reasons are incorporated 
herein by reference, the Board finds that the PAPA Application includes the information 
required by this subsection. Further, for the reasons set forth above in response to 
OAR 660-023-0180(3), the Board denies the contentions from Dr. Jenkins and Ms. 
Madden that the Applicant provided incomplete information regarding quantity, quality, 
and location of the aggregate material in the deposit. 
-62-
71840-000 I!LEGAL2875823 l.S 
(b) A conceptual site reclamation plan; 
The PAPA Application includes a conceptua l reclamation plan at Figure 6, Tab D. The 
Board f inds that the PAPA Application includes the information required by this 
subsection. 
(c) A traffic impact assessment within one mile of the entrance to the mining area 
pursuant to section {S){b)(B) of th is rule ; 
For the reasons set forth at pages 59-60 of the Staff Report, which reasons are 
incorporated herein by reference, the Board finds that the PAPA Application includes 
the information required by th is subsection. Further, for the reasons set forth above in 
response to OAR 660-023-0180(5)(b)(B), the Board denies the contentions from the 
City of Wilsonville that the Applicant provided incomplete information regarding traffic 
impacts. 
(d) Proposals to minimize any conflicts with existing uses preliminarily identified 
by the applicant within a 1 ,500 foot impact area; and 
For the reasons set forth at page 60 of the Staff Report, which reasons are incorporated 
herein by reference, the Board finds that the PAPA Application includes the information 
required by this subsection. As additional findings in response to this subsection, the 
Board incorporates by reference the findings and conditions set fo rth above in response 
to OAR 660-023-0180(5)(c), which expla in the Applicant's proposals to minimize 
conflicts with existing uses within the Impact Area. 
(e) A s ite plan indicating the location, hours of operation and other pertinent 
information for all proposed mining and associated uses. 
For the reasons set forth at page 60 of the Staff Report, which reasons are incorporated 
herein by reference, the Board finds that the Applications include the information 
required by this subsection. 
(9) Local governments shall amend the comprehensive plan and land use 
regulations to include procedures and requirements consistent with this rule for 
the consideration of PAPAs concerning aggregate resources. Until such local 
regulations are adopted, the procedures and requirements of this rule shall be 
d irectly applied to local government consideration of a PAPA concerning mining 
authorization, unless the local plan contains specific criteria regarding the 
consideration of a PAPA proposing to add a site to the list of significant 
aggregate sites, provided: 
(a) Such regulations were acknowledged subsequent to 1989; and 
-63-
7 I 840-000 l /LEGAU875823 I .5 
(b) Such regulations shall be amended to conform to the requirements of this rule 
at the next scheduled periodic review after September 1, 1996, except as provided 
under OAR 660-023-0250(7). 
The Board f inds that the County has not yet amended its comprehensive plan and land 
use regulations to include procedures and requirements consistent with OAR 660-023-
0180, including specific criteria regarding the consideration of a PAPA concern ing 
mining authorization. Thus, in accordance with this subsection, the Board finds that the 
County is required to directly apply both the substantive requirements and procedures 
of OAR 660-023-0180 when evaluating a PAPA concerning mining authorization. See 
also Morse Bros. , Inc. v. Columbia County, 37 Or LUBA 85 (1999), affd 165 Or App 512 
(2000); Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Lane County, 44 Or LUBA 50, 96 (2003), aff'd 
189 Or App 21 (2003) ("The Goal 5 rule for aggregate establishes a comprehensive 
regulatory scheme that is intended to supersede local review standards for aggregate. ") 
The Board finds further finds that, in accordance with this subsection and the referenced · 
case law, the provisions of the CCCP and the CCZDO are not applicable to the PAPA 
and Zone Change Applications. As a result, the Board does not adopt or incorporate 
the provisions of the Section 1, Part 2 ("Compl iance with Clackamas County 
Comprehensive Plan Policies") or Section 2 ("Zoning Map Change Application (Fi le No. 
Z0288-13-Z)") of the Staff Report in these findings. 
The Board finds that, subject to these findings, the County has properly applied the 
provisions of OAR 660-023-0180 to the PAPA Application and the Zone Change 
Application: 
SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS FOR THE SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION 
The Board finds that the Site Plan Review Application satisfies applicable approval 
criteria set forth in the CCZDO as follows: 
708 MINERAL & AGGREGATE OVERLAY DISTRICT (MAO) 
708.02 DEFINITIONS 
Impact Area. The area surrounding the Extraction Area where conflicting uses 
are regulated to ensure that the resource site is protected to some extent. The 
County determines the Impact Area for each resource site. 
The Board finds that the "impact area" for purposes of CCZDO 708 is limited to the 
Property and does not include any off-site properties. As a result, although Mr. Jacobs 
contends that approva l of the mine will preclude him from developing certain uses on 
his property such as a bed and breakfast facility, the Board denies this contention. No 
aspect of the approval precludes the development of new uses on other properties. To 
the extent that Mr. Jacobs claims he is so limited, the Board finds that it a result of his 
voluntary decision. The Board finds that Mr. Jacobs and other owners of off-site 
-64-
71840-000 IILEGA12875823 !.5 
properties continue to be allowed to develop their properties in accordance with the 
CCCP and CCZDO and upon obtaining any applicable permits. 
708.04 EXTRACTION AREA USES 
A. The County may allow the following uses s ubject to standards of ZOO 
708.05, and any requirements adopted as part o f the Comprehensive Plan. 
1. Mining; 
Applicant has proposed mining within the Extraction Area. Subject to the conditions of 
this approval, the Board allows mining within the Extraction Area. 
2. Processing, except the batching o r blending of mineral and aggregate 
materials into asphalt concrete w ithin two miles of a planted commercial vineyard 
exis ting on the d ate the appl ication w as received for the asphalt batch plant; 
Applicant has proposed processing (not to include an asphalt batch plant) within the 
Extraction Areas. Subject to the conditions of this approval, the Board allows 
processing within the Extraction Area. 
3. Stockpiling of mineral and aggregate materia ls extracted and processed 
ons ite ; 
Applicant has proposed to stockpile mineral and aggregate materials extracted and 
processed on site. See Plate 3 of the DOGAMI Mining and Operations Plan for specific 
locations. Subject to the conditions of this approval, the Board a llows stockpiling within 
the Extraction Area. 
4 . Temporary offices, shops or other accessory structures used for the 
m anagement and maintenance of onsite mining and processing equipment; 
Applicant has proposed a temporary office, parking, and scale area within the Extraction 
Area. See Plates 3 and 3A of the DOGAMI Mining and Operations Plan for specific 
locations. Subject to the conditions of this approval, the Board allows the temporary 
office, parking, and scale area within the Extraction Area. 
5. Sale of mining products extracted and processed onsite; 
Applicant has proposed the sale of mining products extracted and processed onsite 
within the Extraction Area. Subject to the conditions of this approval, the Board allows 
the sale of min ing products extracted and processed onsite with in the Extraction Area. 
6. Storage of transportation equipment or m achinery used in conjunction with 
onsite mining or processing; 
-65-
71840 OOO I/LEGAL2875823 1.5 
Applicant has proposed to store equipment used in conjunct ion w ith the onsite mining 
and processing, including but not limited to a dozer, trackhoe, front-end loader, other 
similar implements, and associated processing equipment. Subject to the conditions of 
this approval , the Board al lows th is storage within the Extraction Area. 
7. Other activities including buildings and s tructures necessary and 
accessory to development or reclamation of the onsite mineral or aggregate 
resource. 
The Board finds that all of Applicant's proposed uses [mining and processing (not to 
include an asphalt batch plant), a management and sales office, parking, an associated 
scale, temporary stockpiling o f material, sale of mining products extracted and 
processed onsite, and the use and storage of equipment for the purpose of mining and 
processing) are a llowed within the Extraction Area . 
B. The County may permit other uses allowed by the underlying zone subject 
to requirements of the underlying zone and requirements of this sect ion for 
protec tion of significant mineral and aggregate sites. 
The Board finds that no other uses are proposed or permitted within the Extraction 
Area. 
708.05 EXTRACTION AREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 
The following standards are the basis for regulating mining and processing 
activities in the Mineral and Aggregate Overlay District. Requirements adopted 
as part of the Comprehensive Plan also apply to mining and processing activities 
in the overlay. Before beginning any mining o r process ing activity, the applicant 
shall show compliance with these standards and requirements adopted as part of 
the Comprehensive Plan program. 
A. Access . Onsite roads used in mining and processing, and access roads 
from the Extraction Area to a public road shall meet the following standards: 
1. All access roads within 100 feet of a paved county road or state highway 
s hall be paved , oiled or watered: 
The Board finds that the Project includes a single access road f rom the Extraction Area 
to a public road (SW Morgan Road), approximately 415 feet south of the intersection 
with SW Tonquin Road. See Site Plan Review Application narrative at 3. As explained 
in the Supplemental Findings in response to OAR 660-023-01 80(5)(b}(A), the Board 
finds it necessary to impose conditions of approval to minimize potentia l dust conflicts 
as follows: 
-66-
7l840-000 l/LEG.'\l..2875823 1.5 
• "70. The main facility access road shall include a gravel surface consisting of 
crushed rock with nominal sizing of at least one inch maximum dimension within 
300 feet of any publ ic road. " 
• "71. The main facility access road shall be watered to prevent the generation of 
dust within 300 feet of any public road." 
• "72. The operator shall maintain a truck wheel wash system fo r product trucks 
exiting the access road to the public road to reduce soil track-out onto the public 
road." 
"73. Onsite surfaces travelled by off-road or on-road mobile sources shall be 
watered whenever significant visible dust emissions (opacity approaching 20%) 
are observed behind or beside a moving vehicle." 
The Board finds that the requirements of these conditions pertaining to access roads 
exceed the requirements of th is standard. Therefore, the Board finds that compliance 
w ith these conditions will ensure compl iance with this standard . 
2. All roads in the Extraction Area shall be constructed and maintained to 
ensure compliance with applicable state standards for noise control and ambient 
air quality. 
For the reasons explained in these Supplemental Findings in response to OAR 660-
023-0180(5)(b)(A), which reasons are incorporated herein by reference, the Board finds 
that all roads in the Extraction Area will be constructed and maintained to ensure 
compliance with applicable state standards for noise control and ambient a ir quality, 
subject to compliance with the following conditions: 
• "52. The Quarry operator shall comply with the final noise study prepared by 
Daly-Standlee and Associates, Inc. (DSA) dated September 23, 2013 and the 
supplemental letter dated September 5, 2013 by DSA." 
"70. The main facility access road shall include a gravel surface consisting of 
crushed rock with nominal sizing of at least one inch maximum dimension with in 
300 feet of any public road." 
• "71. The main facility access road shall be watered to prevent the generation of 
dust within 300 feet of any public road." 
• "72. The operator shall maintain a truck wheel wash system for product trucks 
exiting the access road to the public road to reduce soil track-out onto the public 
road." 
-67-
7 J 840.{)00 l ·'LEGAL287 5823 1.5 
• "73. Onsite surfaces travelled by off-road or on-road mobile sources shall be 
watered whenever significant visible dust emissions (opacity approaching 20%) 
are observed behind or beside a moving vehicle." 
3. All roads in the Extraction Area shall be paved at all points within 250 feet 
of a noise or dust sensitive use existing on February 22, 1996. 
Applicant testified that noise or dust sensitive uses with in 250 feet of the site boundary 
that existed on February 22, 1996 are limited to the homes located at 12535 SW 
Morgan Road (31W04A00104) and 12551 SW Morgan Road (31W04A00902). See 
Site Plan Review narrative at 5. County staff concurred with th is testimony. See Staff 
Report at 69. No one challenged this testimony or contended that other noise- or dust-
sensitive uses existed within this area on February 22, 1996. Accord ingly, the Board 
finds that no specific road locations are proposed within the Extraction Area within 250 
feet of affected uses. The Board further finds that this provision is a continu ing 
obligation. Accordingly, if in the future, any roads internal to the Extraction Area are 
constructed within 250 feet of the affected uses, those roads will be paved. 
B. Screening 
1 . The mining activities listed in Subsection (8)(2) of this Section shall be 
obscured from the view of screened uses, unless one of the exceptions in 
Subsection (8)(4) applies. Screening shall be accomplished in a manner 
consistent with Subsection {8)(3). 
Applicant also submitted a landscape plan identifying existing vegetation and 
topographic features w ithin the Extraction Area that wi ll be preserved to provide 
adequate screening . See Appendix K to Applications. Additionally, in areas where 
existing vegetation and/or topographic features are not adequate to provide effective 
screening or cannot be preserved due to conflicts with mining activi ties, Applicant has 
proposed specific types and densities of plantings. /d. Applicant testified in detail as to 
the screening measures that would be implemented along each boundary of the 
Property. See Site Plan Review narrative at 6-8. No one contended that the Project 
would not comply with this standard. 
Based upon the testimony presented, the Board finds that the Site Plan Review 
Appl ication complies with this standard, subject to obtaining the exceptions identified 
below and subject to compliance with the following cond ition: 
"13. The applicant and/or operator of the quarry shall maintain the 
fo llowing screening measures for the property: 1) a cyclone fence with 
wood slats and/or vegetation, installed around the property; 2) noise 
mitigation barriers in accordance with the Tonquin Quany Noise Study 
dated September 23, 2013; and 3) natural and suppl ied screen ing as 
outlined by the Murase and Associates landscape plan dated April 201 3, 
or as otherwise required herein ." 
-68-
7l840-0001iLEGAl28758231.5 
2. Mining activities to be screened: 
a) All excavated areas, except: areas where reclamation activity is being 
performed, internal onsite roads existing on the date of county adoption, new 
roads approved as part of the Site Plan Review, material excavated to create 
berms, and material excavated to change the level of the mine site to an elevation 
that provides natural screening, 
b) All processing equipment. 
c) All equipment stored on the site. 
The Board finds, for the reasons set forth in response to CCZDO 708.05.B.1, which 
reasons are incorporated herein by reference, the Site Plan Review Application satisfies 
this standard. 
2. Types of screening 
a) Natural screening is existing vegetation or other landscape features within 
the boundaries of the Extraction Area that obscure mining activities from 
screened uses. Natural screening shall be preserved and maintained except 
where removed according to a mining or reclamation plan approved by DOGAMI. 
b) Supplied screening is either vegetative or earthen screening. Supplied 
vegetative screening is screening that does not exist at the time of the Site Plan 
Review. Plantings used in supplied vegetative screening shall be evergreen 
shrubs and trees, and shall not be required to exceed six feet in height when 
planted. Supplied earthen screening shall consist of berms covered with earth 
stabilized with ground cover. 
The Board finds, for the reasons set forth in response to CCZOO 708.05.B.1, which 
reasons are incorporated herein by reference, the Site Plan Review Application satisfies 
this standard. 
3. Exceptions. Supplied screening shall not be required if any of the 
following circumstances exist: 
a) The natural topography of the site obscures mining and processing from 
screened uses. 
b) Supplied screening cannot obscure mining and processing from screened 
uses because of local topography. 
c) Supplied vegetative screening cannot reliably be established or cannot 
survive due to soil, water or climatic conditions. 
-69-
7l840-000 ifLEGA1287S8231 .5 
Applicant testified that it util ized Google Earth and ArcGIS software to closely examine 
existing topography between the proposed mining area and screened uses w ithin 1,500 
feel of the Project. See Site Plan Review Appl ication narrative at 9-10. From this 
review, Appl icant determined that, in most instances, adequate screening was available 
or could be supplied. /d. 
Applicant concluded that in four instances, it was possible that suppl ied screening would 
not be able to obscure mining and processing from screened uses because of local 
topography: 31W04A00200 (Prince). 31W04A00201 (Anderson), 31W04A00204 
(Anderson), and 31W04A01700 (Grossarth). /d. All four uses are located at 
substantially higher elevations than those existing today within the Tonquin Quarry and 
they do not fully benef it from the preservation of the high point ridgeline found along the 
westerly edge of the subject property. /d. 
Accordingly, the Board finds that supplied screening may not be able to obscure mining 
and processing from screened uses in these locations. Therefore, the Board finds that 
there are grounds to grant exceptions to the supplied screening requirement under 
subsection 3(b) in these locations. 
C. Air and Water Quality. The discharge of contaminants and dust created by 
mining and processing shall comply with applicable s tate air quality and 
emissions standards and applicable s tate and federa l water qual ity standards . 
For the reasons explained in these Supplemental Findings in response to OAR 660-
023-0180(5)(b)(A) and CCZOO 708.05.H, which reasons are incorporated herein by 
reference, the Project's discharge of contaminants and dust will comply with applicable 
state air quality and emission standards and applicab le state and federal water qual ity 
standards, subject to relevant conditions imposed in this decision. Therefore, the Board 
finds that the Site Plan Review Application satisf ies this section. 
D. Streams and Drainage. Mining and processing shall not occur within 100 
feet of mean high water of any lake, river, perennial water body or wetland not 
constructed as part of a reclamation plan approved by DOGAMI unless allowed 
by specific provisions adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. 
The Board finds that Applicant's Site Plan Review Application does not propose any 
mining or processing activities with in 100 feet of the mean high water of any lake, river, 
perennial water body or wetland not constructed as part of a reclamation plan, except 
as allowed by the site-specific mining program applicable to the Property. As explained 
in detail above, Applicant is proposing to remove/fi11 1.78 acres of inventoried wetlands, 
subject to obtaining state and federa l permits and to ensuring "no net loss" of wetland 
values. Additionally, Applicant has proposed 50-foot buffers f rom avoided wetlands in 
some locations. The Board finds that these site-specific determinations control over the 
1 00-foot standard set forth in this subsection. 
-70-
71840-000 IIJ..EG AL28 75823! .5 
E. Noise. Mining and processing s hall comply with state noise contro l 
standards. Operators may show compliance with noise standards through the 
report of a certi fied engineer that identifies mitigation m ethods to control noise. 
Examples of noise mitigation measures are siting mining and process ing us ing 
existing topography, using supplied berms, or modifying mining and processing 
equipment. 
The Board finds that the Project will comply with state noise contro l standards, subject 
to incorporating identified mitigation measures, for the reasons set forth in response to 
OAR 660-023-0180(5)(b)(A) of these findings, and subject to imposing Conditions 52, 
53, 54, 55, and 55a. The Board incorporates these reasons and conditions in response 
to th is standard. 
F. Hours of Operation. 
1. Mining and processing is restricted to the hours of 7:00AM to 6:00PM 
Monday through Friday, and 8:00AM to 5:00PM Saturday. Hauling and other 
activities may operate without restriction provided that state noise control 
standards are met. 
2. No operations shall take place on Sundays or the following legal holidays: 
New Year's Day, Memorial Day, the Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, 
and Christmas Day. 
The Board finds that the Project sati sfies th is standard, subject to compliance with the 
following conditions of approval: 
• 
0 4. Mining (including but not limited to excavation and processing) is restricted 
to the hours of 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Friday, and 8:00 AM to 5:00 
PM Saturday. Drilling and blasting is restricted to the hours of 9:00AM to 4:00 
PM Monday through Friday." 
"5. No mining (including but not limited to excavation and processing), dri lling, 
or blasting operations shall take place on Sundays or the following legal holidays: 
New Year's Day, Memorial Day, the Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving 
Day, and Christmas Day. Further, no drilling or blasting operations shall take 
place on Saturdays." 
G. Drilling and Blasting. 
1. Drilling and blasting is restricted to the hours of 9:00AM to 4:00PM 
Monday through Friday. No drilling or blasting shall occur on Saturdays, 
Sundays, or the following legal holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, the 
Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. 
-71-
71840 0001/LEGAL1875823 1.5 
Subject to compliance with Conditions 4 and 5 quoted above, the Board finds that the 
Project satisfies this standard_ 
2. Notice of blasting events shall be posted at the Extraction Area in a manner 
calculated to be seen by landowners, tenants and the public at least 48 hours 
prior to the blasting event. In the case of ongoing blas ting activities, notice shall 
be provided once each month for the period of blasting activities, and specify the 
days and hours when the blasting event is expected to occur. 
The Board finds that Wallace Technica l Blasting, Inc. has provided a series of 
recommendations intended to establish an open line of communication between the 
proposed opera tion and its neighboring properties. See "A Site Specific Blasting Plan to 
Support the Appl ication for a Permit to Engage in Mining Operations at the Tonquin 
Quarry in Clackamas County" from Wallace Technica l Blasting, Inc. dated April 12, 
2013 in Appendix F of the Applications. For example, neighbors can request that their 
names be added to a ca ll/text list to be notified the morning of the event Jd. 
Consistent with neighboring quarries, a series of USBM mandated pre-blast signals will 
be made 5 minutes and 1 minute prior to initiation. /d. Several other recommendations 
are included in the Project blasting plan. !d. The Board finds, based upon the 
testimony in the record, and subject to compliance with the following cond itions, the 
Project satisfies this standard: 
"56. The Quarry operator shall comply with the blasting plan prepared by 
Wallace Technical Blasting, Inc. dated April13, 2013." 
"57. Notice of blasting events shall be posted at the Extraction. Area in a 
manner ca lculated to be seen by landowners, tenants and the public at 
least 48 hours prior to the blasting event. In the case of ongoing blasting 
activities, notice shal l be provided once each month for the period of 
blasting activities, and specify the days and hours when the blasting event 
is expected to occur. " 
H. Surface and Ground Water. Surface and ground water shall be managed in 
a manner that meets all applicable state water quality standards and DOGAMI 
requirements. The applicant shall demonstrate that all water necessary for the 
proposed operation has been appropriated to the site and is legally available. 
SURFACE WATER 
The Board finds that Project surface water will be managed in a manner that meets all 
applicable state water quality standards and DOGAMI requirements. As support for this 
conclusion, the Board relies upon testimony from the Project civil engineer, Westlake 
that the Project complies with stormwater management requirements of all applicable 
agencies, including DOGAMI (as to stormwater generated on-site) and WES (as to 
stormwater generated off-site). See Offsite Stormwater Analysis dated April 20, 2013 at 
Appendix D of the Applications. Further, Westlake explained that Applicant has 
-72-
7 J 840-000 I {LEG A f .287 5 8231.5 
designed the Project such that there will be no offsite stormwater point discharge from 
the Project. ld. 
GROUNDWATER 
Additionally, the Board finds that the Project will maintain applicable state water quality 
standards and DOGAMI requirements perta ining to groundwater. As support for this 
conclusion, the Board relies upon the testimony of Project hydrogeologist Shannon & 
Wilson, which concludes that, although confl icts may occur between the Project and 
nearby residential properties, these conflicts can be minimized by implementing eight 
different monitoring and mitigation measures. See Shannon & W ilson Final 
Hydrogeologic Evaluation Report dated October 29, 2013 (Exhibit 92). The Board finds 
that th is testimony is compelling in light of Shannon & Wilson's extensive experience 
and detailed analysis, which includes reviewing feedback from on-site monitoring wells 
for approximately five years. See G. Peterson and D. King resumes in Appendix N of 
Applications. Accordingly, the Board finds that the measures identified by Shannon & 
Wilson will ensure that the Project complies with applicable state standards regarding 
water quality and DOGAMI requirements pertaining to water quantity. Therefore, the 
Board imposes these measures in the following conditions of approva l: 
"45. Additional monitoring wells and hydrogeologic testing, coupled with 
ongoing groundwater level monitoring, will establish baseline conditions 
and identify early groundwater level declines should they occur during 
mining operations. Onsite observation wells currently focus on water-
bearing zone #3. Prior to excavation to -100 feet mean sea level (msl), 
three additiona l borings (core holes) shall be completed to directly identify 
and characterize water-bearing zone #4. Pressure transducers with 
dedicated dataloggers shall be installed to automate monitoring of 
groundwater levels. All three installations shall be located and protected 
to allow long-term use without disruption by mining. The existing 
observation wells shall be replaced if and when they are decommissioned 
due to the progression of mining activity." 
"46. Long-term groundwater level monitoring shall focus on water-bearing 
zones #3 and #4, and automated monitoring shall include existing and 
new observation wells. Monitoring data shall be reviewed and reported to 
DOGAMI at quarterly intervals for a minimum of two years, and shall 
continue per DOGAMI requirements until mining activities are complete." 
"47. Packer tests and slug tests sha_ll be performed during drilling to 
estimate the water-bearing zone's hydraulic conductivity, which will 
facilitate mitigation and dewatering system design. The tests should focus 
at the design depths for the proposed infiltration benches and at water-
bearing zones #3 and #4." 
-73-
71840-000 IILEGAL2875823 1.5 
"48. Subject to documented access permission from private property 
owners, the monitoring of existing o ffsite wells associated with the 
properties listed below is required. T he following property owners and 
properties have been identified as having a potentially high risk of conflict 
with groundwater quantity: 
a. Fred Smith, 12551 SW Morgan Road, Sherwood; 
b. Lee and Andrea Patrick, 12535 SW Morgan Road , Sherwood ; 
c. James B. and Marilyn Kramer, 12525 SW Morgan Road, 
Sherwood; 
d. James P. Kramer, 12885 SW Morgan Road, Sherwood; and 
e. MarkS . Platt, 12557 SW Margan Road , Sherwood. 
Subject to access authorization, monitoring protocols shall include the 
development of a baseline well status report for the five domestic wells 
within 90 days after commencement of site construction. If access is 
provided, the Site Operator will monitor water levels within 30 days of a 
request from a property owner to assess potential impacts. 
In the event private well monitoring indicates a measured loss of 20 
percent of greater daily in daily domestic water supply, the following shall 
occur: 
i. Supplemental mitigation shall be provided including but not limited to 
deepening or replacement of private wells to tap deeper aquifers that are 
isolated from shallower mining impacts; 
ii. Within 72 hours the applicanUoperator shall provide not less than 400 
gallons per 24 hour period of potable water for domestic use, by water 
tanker or other source to the above referenced affected owner. In the 
event that the provision of potable water becomes necessary, as 
requested by the affected property owner, a temporary above-ground 
potable water storage container shall be provided on the affected parcel. 
The container shall provide no less than 400 gallons of storage_" 
"49_ Mitigation measures, includ ing infiltration benches or injection wells 
along the south property boundary, shall be designed, built , and monitored 
to proactively avoid offsite impacts. Infiltration benches shall be 
constructed above water-bearing zone #3 (about 75 msl) in rock suitable 
to facilitate infiltrat ion. Water applied to the infiltration bench provides a 
positive hydrostatic head in the rock mass that reduces groundwater 
decl ines adjacent to the quarry. The additional test borings, 
-74-
71840-000IILEGAL2875823 1.5 
instrumentation, and monitoring , as well observed seepage into the active 
quarry shall be utilized for development of final design and evaluation of 
mitigation measures. Should proactive infiltration fail or deemed 
inappropriate, well improvements such as resetting pumps at deeper 
depths, well deepening, or changes in well operation and storage capacity 
shall be considered as alternate mitigation options to alleviate water 
quality or quantity impacts. 
"50. The quarry's excavation depth shall be maintained above water-
bearing zone #4 identified in the Shannon & Wilson Final Hydrogeologic 
Evaluation Report dated October 29, 2013 (Exhibit 92)." 
"51. Prior to mine operation, a final Spill Prevention Control and 
Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan shall be developed for the facility 
substantially consistent with the sample document provided by the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency and shown in Appendix M of the 
Application." 
As additional support for its conclusion that the Project will sa tisfy groundwater 
standards, the Board relies upon testimony from an independent hydrogeologist that 
implementing the measures recommended by Shannon & Wilson wil l resolve potential 
conflicts with area groundwater users: 
"Farallon concludes that the proactive groundwater monitoring proposed 
between the developing quarry and the potentially impacted residential 
water supply wells will provide the information necessary to implement 
mitigation measures as needed and before moderate or substantial 
impacts to those groundwater users can occur. Farallon concludes that, 
based on the information presented in the Hydrogeologic Report, there are 
sufficient mitigation options to alleviate the potential conflicts with 
identified groundwater users. Farallon also concludes that the proposed 
mitigation measures can also be used to recharge shallower Water-
Bearing Zones 1 and 2 if recharge to those Water-Bearing Zones is 
necessary to mitigate for nearby shallow groundwater users or wetlands." 
See Farallon Consulting Letter dated October 29, 2013 at 3 (Exhibit 91 ). Farallon 
reached this conclusion after independently evaluating Shannon & Wilson 's 
hydrogeologic technical approach, conclusions, and recommendations set forth in the 
Final Hydrogeologic Evaluation Report dated October 29, 2013. /d. 
The Board finds that opponents' contentions to the contrary do not undermine the well-
reasoned conclusions of Shannon & Wilson and Farallon. For example, although Dr. 
Jenkins contends that there is insufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the 
proposed mitigation measures are feasible, the Board denies this contention. As 
support for its conclusion, the Board finds that Conditions 46-50 allow for various types 
of mitigation, as site conditions warrant (i.e ., infiltration trenches, injection wells, well-
-75-
71840-000 l/LEGAl2875823 1.5 
deepening). Therefore, even if one type of mitigation is not successful, Applican t has 
the flexibility to address it in other ways. 
Further, the Board finds that the Project's proposed mining plan commences on the 
northern portion of the Property, which is the location fa rthest from the affected 
residential wells. The Board finds that this fact will allow Applicant ample time (i .e ., 
years) to assess whether the Project is actually causing dewatering impacts before 
there is a substantive loss of use to the residential user. See Farallon Consulting Letter 
dated October 29, 201 3 (Exhibit 91 ). 
Finally, the Board relies upon testimony that the proposed mitigation measures are 
achievable (See Shannon & Wilson Memorandum dated November 4, 2013 (Exhibit 
118)), and that, as a last resort, well deepening is both technically feasible a nd wil l 
serve to mitigate adverse effects to affected wells. See Shannon & W ilson Rebuttal 
Memorandum dated November 8, 2013 (Exhibit 140). Although Or. Jenkins contends 
that well-deepening may not be feasible because increased demand on Water-Bearing 
Zone #4 may not be al lowed, the Board denies this contention for two reasons. First, 
the Board finds that Dr. Jenkins' testimony is speculative because Dr. Jenkins did not 
present any testimony of a moratorium on well-dril ling or deepening of existing, 
domestic, exempt water wells. By contrast, Shannon & Wilson testified that its 
scientists were not aware of any such moratorium. See Shannon & W ilson Rebuttal 
Memorandum (Exhibit 140). Further, the Board finds, fo r the reasons set forth be low 
under the heading "Availability of Water," which reasons are incorporated herein by 
reference, Applicant has demonstrated that all water necessary for the Project has been 
appropriated to the Property and is legally available. 
Although Dr. Jenkins contends that the Shannon & Wilson analysis is deficient because 
it did not include hydrologic field testing of specific water-bearing zones, the Board 
denies this contention because Conditions 46 and 47 require this testing. The Board 
finds that these tests will inform the timing and selection of mitigation measures, as 
needed. 
Further, although Or. Jenkins and Ms. Madden contend that the Property is located in a 
Groundwater Limited Area, the Board finds that opponents have not explained how this 
fact permits the County to deny or further condition the Applications. Therefore, the 
Board denies this contention. 
Although Dr. Jenkins contends that potential contaminants from the Project may enter 
groundwater and potentially pollute offsite wells, the Board finds that Applicant has 
addressed th is concern in two ways. First, as noted above, approval of the Applications 
is subject to Condition 51, which requires Applicant to prepare a Spill Prevention Contro l 
and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan consistent with the EPA sample included in the 
Applications. See Appendix M of the Applications. The Board finds, based upon that 
model and the explanation set forth in the Final Hydrogeologic Evaluation dated 
October 29, 2013, that Applicant's SPCC will, at minimum, include: 
-76-
71840-000 l:LEGA L287582Jl.5 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Facility diagram; 
Site security measures; 
Descriptions of proper petro leum product transfer procedures and other activities 
that might result in a release; 
Descriptions of all appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs), including 
those associated with the containment and other countermeasures that would 
prevent oil spills from reaching navigab le waters; 
A Spi ll Contingency Plan specifically designed for the proposed Tonquin Quarry; 
Personnel training practices and schedule; 
Descriptions of record -keeping practices; and 
Management approval. 
Further. the Board finds that compliance with the SPCC Plan, together with 
implementation of the stormwater management system, will prevent and mitigate 
impacts from spills and will ensure that the mechanical aspects of the mining operation 
(drilling, blasting, crushing , hauling) will not be a possible groundwater contamination 
source. As support for th is conclusion, the Board relies upon the expert opinion to this 
effect from Shannon & Wilson. See Final Hydrogeologic Report dated October 29, 
2013 (Exhibit 92). The Board finds that no one rebutted or challenged this testimony 
with specificity. 
Second, the Board finds that, in the event Applicant implements infiltration benches or 
injection wells in order to offset groundwater dewatering, there are measures that can 
ensure that groundwater will comply with federal standards pertaining to quality. In 
support of this conclusion, the Board relies upon testimony from Shannon & Wilson that 
baseline testing for volatile organic compounds, synthetic organic compounds, 
bacteriological analyses, major ions, and 17 metals, followed by periodic monitoring of 
same, Applicant will ensure groundwater compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act 
of 1974 and subsequent amendments. ld. at 35-36 and Table 6. In order to ensure that 
the Project follows the recommended water quality testing, the Board imposes the 
following condition of approval: 
"49a. In the event the applicant/operator implements injection wells or 
infiltration trenches as a groundwater quantity mitigation measure, 
applicant/operator will implement the groundwater quality baseline testing 
and periodic monitoring program outlined in the Shannon & Wilson Final 
Hydrogeologic Evaluation Report dated October 29, 2013 (Exhibit 92) to 
ensure that the injection/infiltration water complies with the Safe Drinking 
Water Act of 1974 and subsequent amendments." 
No one contended that Shannon & Wilson's program would fail to maintain water quality 
standards. 
Although multiple opponents contend that the Project will cause dewatering of 
groundwater that will adversely affect wetlands and Rock Creek, the Board denies these 
-77-
71840-000 l/LEGAL28758231.5 
contentions for the reasons set forth in response to OAR 660-023-0180(5)(b)(D), which 
reasons are incorporated herein by reference. 
Finally, as additional findings in support of its conclusion that the Site Plan Review 
Application sa tisfies this standard , the Board accepts, adopts, and incorporates by 
reference, the explanations set forth in Shannon & W ilson's submittals into the record 
dated September 30, 2013 (Exhibit 66c); November 4, 2013 (Exhibit 11 8); and 
November 8, 2013 (Exhibit 140). 
AVAILABILITY OF WATER 
Finally, the Board finds that Applicant has demonstrated that all water necessary for the 
proposed operation has been appropriated to the Property and is legally available. As 
support for this conclusion. the Board relies upon two sources. First, the Board relies 
upon the fact that, as an industrial operation, the Project is an "exempt use" under state 
law and thus has a water right not to exceed 5,000 gallons per day. ORS 537.545 . 
Further, the Board finds that, pursuant to this statute, no registration, certificate. or 
permit is required for such use of groundwater. /d. Further, based upon testimony from 
Applicant, the Board finds that Project operations are not anticipated to exceed the 
"exempt use" allocation of 5,000 gallons per day because the Project will require 
minimal use of on-site water (typically just the amount necessary to comply with 
Conditions 72 (truck wheel wash system), 73 (requirement to water surfaces), and 74 
(requiring water sprayers for crushers and screens). See Site Plan Review Appl ication 
narrative at 14-15. The Board finds that this testimony was not rebutted or challenged. 
Second , the Board relies upon testimony from the Project hydrogeologist that, factoring 
in the Project's exempt use alloC<3tion as we ll as rights for current and future users in the 
vicinity, the aquifer will not be overdrawn: 
"The scenario evaluated .by our model suggests that if all current and 
reasonably anticipated future users maximized the ir allotted use, including 
the proposed exempt we ll supplying Tonquin Holdings LLC quarry 
operations, that approximately 85% of the groundwater recharge is 
allocated. Hence overdrafting of the aquifer is not predicted." 
See Shannon & Wilson Final Hydrogeologic Evaluation dated October 29, 2013 at 23 
(Exhibit 92). The Board finqs that, as explained in its report, Shannon & Wilson reached 
this conclusion after conducting a comprehensive analysis of all 50 tax lots located 
within a quarter-mile of the Property, and then making appropriate adjustments based 
upon existing wellloC<3tions, County records regarding lots of record, and anticipated 
uses. /d. at 20-23 and Table 4. Further, the Board f inds that this testimony was not 
rebutted or challenged. Therefore, the Board finds that a reasonable person would rely 
upon the testimony from Applicant and Shannon & Wilson to conclude that all water 
necessary for the proposed operation has been appropriated to the site and is legally 
available. 
-78-
71840-{)()01/LEGAL2875823 I .5 
I. Compliance with Special Conditions. The County may impose additional, 
s pecial conditions to resolve issues specific to an individual site. The conditions 
shall be specifi ed in the site-specific program to achieve the Goal adopted as part 
of the Comprehensive Plan. 
The Board finds that, in order to ensure compliance with applicable approval criteria and 
to resolve issues specific to the Property, it is necessary to impose special conditions on 
the approval of the Project. The conditions are numbered 1-114 and will be specified in 
the site-specific program to achieve Goal 5 that is adopted as part of the CCCP. The 
Board supplements these general find ings in support of the conditions with the more 
specific findings tailored to specific conditions of approval that are set forth throughout 
these findings. 
J . Security. The permittee shall fence the Extraction Area boundary between 
the mining site and any p arce l where dwellings are a principal use. Fencing shall 
be a cyclone type fence a minimum of six feet high. 
Applicant testified that it will install a minimum 6 foot tall cyclone fence with site 
obscuring wood slats around the perimeter of the Project. See Site Plan Review 
Application narrative at 6-8. In most locations, Applicant will place this fence at or near 
the Property boundary. !d. However, Applicant stated that there are a couple of 
sections where sight distance restrictions, wetland setbacks, and existing topography 
will require field verification to identify the most appropriate location for the fence. /d. 
However, the Board finds that, other than at the site access on SW Morgan Road, all 
mining activities will occur on the interior of the perimeter fence. /d . Based upon this 
testimony, the Board finds that the Project satisfies this standard. 
K. Performance requirements. 
1. The mining operator shall maintain DOGAMI and other state agency 
permits. 
2. The mining operator shall carry a comprehensive general liability policy 
covering mining, and incidental activities during the term of operation and 
reclamation, with an occurrence limit of at least $500,000. A certificate of 
insurance for a term of one year s hall be deposited with the County prior to the 
commencement of mining and a current certificate of insurance s hall be kept on 
file with the County during the term of operation and reclamation. 
Applicant has testified that it intends to comply with these requirements and has 
proposed conditions of approval to ensure the same. See Site Plan Review Application 
narrative at 16-17. Further, the Board finds that compliance with these conditions is 
feasible because obtaining the state agency permits and insurance policy is not 
precluded as a matter of law. Based upon this testimony and subject to imposing the 
fo llowing conditions of approval, the Board finds that the Project satisfies this standard: 
-79-
71840-000JILEGAL2875823 1.5 
• "6. The applicant and/or operator shall not initiate mining and activities on 
the Quarry until the State Department of Geology and Mineral Industries 
approves the reclamation plan and operating permit for the Quarry." 
• "8. The applicant and/or operator shall obtain Oregon DEQ approval of a 
Spill Prevention Controls and Countermeasures Plan for the Quarry and 
shall comply with same." 
• "9. Copies of all permits issued for the Quarry shall be provided to the 
County includ ing, but not limited to, any permits issued by DOGAMI, DSL, 
DEQ, the Oregon Water Resources Department, the Oregon Fire 
Marshall's Office, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers." 
• "59. The applicant and/or operator shall not fill, excavate or otherwise 
disturb wetlands on the property until first obtaining appropriate permits 
from the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) and the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers (Corps) and implements any required pre-d isturbance 
mitigation measures. The applicant and/or operator shall provide County 
Planning and/or WES/SWMACC with copies of any annual monitoring 
reports required by DSL and/or Corps." 
• "68. The· Quarry Operator shall comply with OAR 340-200 through 340-
246 requirements." 
"69. The Quarry Operator shall comply with 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart 
0000 requirements." 
• "10. The Quarry operator shall carry a comprehensive liability policy 
covering mining and incidental activities during the term of the operation 
and reclamation, with an occurrence limit of at least $500,000. A 
certificate of insurance for a term of one (1) year shall be deposited with 
the County prior to the commencement of mining, and a current certificate 
of insurance shall be kept on file with the County during the term of 
operation and reclamation." 
708.06 RECLAMATION 
A. No mining shall begin until the permittee provides the county with a copy 
of a DOGAMI Operating Permit or exemption in accordance with ORS 517.750 
through 517.900 and the rules adopted thereunder. 
The Board finds that the following conditions will ensure compliance with this section: 
• "6. The applicant and/or operator shall not initiate mining and activities 
on the Quarry until the State Department of Geology and Mineral 
-80-
71840-000 I.'LEGAI 1 8758231.5 
Industries approves the reclamation plan and operating permit for the 
Quarry." 
• "7. Applicant shall obtain approval from the State Department of 
Geology and Minera l Industries of a reclamation plan for the property 
and shall implement the same." 
Therefore, the Board finds it necessary to impose these conditions on the approval of 
the Project. 
B. The County's jurisdiction over mined land reclamation is limited to 
determining the s ubsequent beneficial use of mined areas, ensuring that the 
subsequent beneficial use is compatible with the Comprehens ive Plan and 
Zoning and Development Ordinance, and ensuring that mine operat ions and 
reclamation activities are consis tent with the program to achieve the Goal 
adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan. 
The mining plan proposes to reclaim the property to elevations suitable to development 
consistent with County requirements in place at that time. The subject site is not 
designated as an Urban Reserve. Therefore, based upon what we understand today 
our expectation is that the intensity of development will be simi lar to that allowed under 
the current zoning. 
C. The County shall coordinate with DOGAMI to ens ure compatibility between 
DOGAMI and the County in the following manner. 
1. When notified by DOGAMI that an operator has appl ied for reclamation plan 
and an Operating Permit, the County shall inform DOGAMI whether Site Plan 
Review approval by the County is required. 
a) If Site Plan Review approval is required, the County shall request that 
DOGAMI delay final action on the application for approval of the reclamation plan 
and issuance of the Operating Permit until after Site Plan Review approval has 
been granted. 
b) If Site Plan Review approval is not required, the County shall so notify 
DOGAMI and the County shall review the proposeq reclamation plan and 
Operating Permit during DOGAMI's notice and comment period. 
2. When reviewing a proposed reclamation plan and Operating Permit 
application circulated by DOGAMI, the County shall review the plan against the 
following criteria: 
a) The plan provides for rehabilitation of mined land for a use specified in the 
Comprehensive Plan, including s ubsequent benefi c ial uses identified through the 
Goal 5 planning process. 
-81-
71840-000ifi..£GAl2875823l.S 
b) The reclamation plan and surface mining and reclamation techniques 
employed to carry out the plan comply with the s tandards of Section 708.05. 
c) Measures are included which will ensure that other significant Goal 5 
resources determined to conflict with m ining will be protected in a manner 
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 
Applicant has provided its DOGAMI Mining and Reclamation Plan Application and 
Preliminary Conditions of Approval. See Appendix B of the Applications. For the 
reasons set fo rth in response to OAR 660-023-0180(5)(f), the Board finds that these 
materials are consistent with the Site Plan Review Application and the above criteria. 
The Board finds that County staff will further coordinate with DOGAMI during the 
DOGAMI permit process to ensure that the final DOGAMI operating permit and 
reclamation plan satisfy the above criteria. Finally, the County finds that the 
requirement in Cond itions 6 and 7 to obtain DOGAMI approvals before commencing 
Project activities ensures that the County will have the coordination opportunity required 
by these sections. 
708.07 SITE PLAN REVIEW 
A. Site Plan Review under the Mineral and Aggregate Overlay District is a 
Planning Director administrative action. An application for a permit shall be 
processed pursuant to Subsections 1305.02(A), {E) and (G) through (I) to the 
extent these Subsections are consistent with the requirements of ORS 215.425 
and 197.195. 
The Board f inds that although Site Plan Review under the Mineral and Aggregate 
Overlay District is typically a Planning Director administrative action under the terms of 
this subsection, the Planning Commission has jurisdiction to hear applicat ions filed 
concurrently with a comprehensive plan amendment application under CCZDO 
1301.01.8.2. Applicant has fi led the Site Plan Review Application concurrently with the 
PAPA Application and the Zone Change Application. Therefore, the Planning 
Commission properly had jurisdiction to hear the Site Plan Review Application, with the 
Board making the final decision fo r the County. 
B . The County shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application 
for the permit based on the conformance of the site plan with the standards of 
ZOO Sections 708, 1006, 1010, and the requirements of the s ite-specific program 
to achieve Goal 5 adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan. 
1006 - Water Supply, Sanitary Sewer, Surface Water, and Utilities Concurrency 
The Board finds that the Project satisfies the applicable requirements of CCZDO 1 006 
based upon the following, all of which are incorporated herein by reference: 
-82-
71840-0001/LEGAL28758231.5 
• The reasons at pages 84-85 of the Staff Report; 
The reasons at pages 19-20 of the Site Plan Review Application narrative; and 
• The reasons set forth in response to CCZDO 708.05. H above. 
1010 - Signs 
The Applications do not request any identification signs on the exterior of the Property in 
conjunction with the Applications. See Site Plan Review Application narrative at 21. In 
order to comply with Condition 77b. and c. concerning the Tonquin Ice Age Trail 
crossing, Applicant is required to install safety signage that will face the interior of the 
Property. Based upon the testimony presented, the Board finds that the sign age for the 
Property is consistent with CCZDO 101 0. 
Site-Specific Program to Achieve Goal 5 Adopted as part of the CCCP 
The Board finds that the Site Plan Review Application conforms with the site-specific 
program to achieve Goal 5 adopted as part of the CCCP because the Board has 
reviewed the Applications together and is issuing a single decision approving all of the 
Applications with a common set of conditions. Accordingly, the Site Plan Review 
Application necessarily conforms with the PAPA Application and the Zone Change 
Application. 
OTHER ISSUES RAISED DURING THE LOCAL PROCEEDINGS 
Impacts to Property Values 
Further, although several area residents expressed concern that development of the 
Project would adversely affect their property values, the Board denies this contention for 
two reasons. First, the testimony from area residents was speculative and not 
supported by any analysis or expert testimony. Second, although the Board 
appreciates the residents' concerns, this issue is not directed at an applicable approval 
criterion. Accordingly, the Board cannot make a decision to deny or condition the 
Project based upon potential impacts to property values. See Buei-Mclntire v. City of 
Yachats, 63 Or LUBA 452 (2011) (error to deny applica tion based upon factor that was 
not applicable approval criterion). 
Impacts Caused by Existing Mines 
Although several residents testified to adverse impacts caused by existing mines in the 
vicinity of the Project, the Board finds that this testimony alone does not constitute 
grounds to deny or further condition the Applications. Although the Board finds the 
testimony of these residents to be credible, the Board also finds that several of these 
mines were approved many years ago, under separate criteria, subject to less restrictive 
conditions, and by a different jurisdiction (Washington County). See testimony of Steve 
-83-
7l840-000J/LEGAU875823 1.5 
Pfeiffer at Board public hearing . Further, the Board finds that it is possible that one or 
more of these mines is not in compliance with conditions that were imposed. As such, 
the Board finds that these mines are not comparable to the Project and are not a 
reliable indicator of the impacts of the Project. Further, the Board finds that, in any 
event, the Project is heavily conditioned to ensure that it sa tisfies all applicable criteria 
and minimizes any potential significant conflicts. Therefore, the Board denies the 
residents' contentions on this issue. 
Blasting Impacts (Other than Noise) 
Although several area residents expressed concern about blasting at the Project 
causing vibration, startl ing of people or animals, or private property damage, the Board 
denies these contentions as speculative. Further, to the extent that opponents' 
testimony is based upon their experience with other mines in the area , the Board denies 
these contentions for the reasons explained above regarding impacts associated with 
o ther mines. 
Further. the Board finds that Mr. Wallace has opined that, subject to compliance with 
the Project blasting plan and providing notice of blasting events, blasting-induced 
impacts will not exceed applicable federal and sta te standards and will operate with 
minimal impact on neighbors. See Letter from Jerry Wallace, undated (Exhibit 88). Mr. 
Wallace has outlined detailed procedures and limitations on blasting at the Project, 
including a requirement that blasting only occur on weekdays between 9am and 4pm, 
providing contact numbers to neighbors, and establishing protocol for drilling, loading, 
and delaying. See "A Site Specific Blasting Plan to Support the Application for a Permit 
to Engage in Mining Operations at the Tonquin Quarry in Clackamas County" from 
Wallace Technical Blasting, Inc. dated April 12, 2013 in Appendix F of the Appli cations. 
Mr. Wallace also testified that blasting at the Project would be subject to compliance 
with the vibration limits shown on a graph known as the Z-cuNe or Siskind curve, which 
would be below the threshold for inflicting damage on even the most fragile of civil 
residential construction. See Wallace letter dated November 4, 2013 (Exhibit 111 ). 
The Board finds Mr. Wallace to be particularly credible to develop the plan and provide 
opinions about compliance with applicable standards because Mr. Wallace has nearly 
40 years of experience as a blaster, including working as a blasting superintendent for a 
contractor that performed drilling and blasting seNices in quarries near the Property. 
See undated Wallace letter (Exhibit 88). 
The Board finds that no credible evidence was presented to rebut Mr. Wallace's 
testimony or to call into question any specific aspects of the blasting plan. Therefore, 
the Board finds that, based upon the evidence in the whole record, a reasonable person 
would conclude that blasting in compliance with the blasting plan and subject to 
adequate advance notice wil l protect the public from vibration, startling of people or 
animals, and private property damage. 
-84-
71840-0001/LEGA !28758231.5 
In order to ensure compliance with these requirements, the Board imposes the following 
three conditions of approval: 
"56. The Quarry operator shal l comply with the blasting plan prepared by 
Wallace Technical Blasting, Inc. dated April 13, 2013." 
"57. Notice of blasting events shall be posted at the Extraction Area in a 
manner calculated to be seen by landowners, tenants and the public at 
least 48 hours prior to the blasting event. In the case of ongoing blasting 
activities, notice shall be provided once each month for the period of 
blasting activities, and specify the days and hours when the blasting event 
is expected to occur." 
"57 a. Blasting activities shall comply with the Z-curve vibration limits 
adopted by reference by the Oregon State Fire Marshal, as depicted in the 
following figure : 
~ 
.. 
c 
~ 
u 
0 
-' 
w 
> 
w 
.J 
0 
i= 
IX 
< 0.. 
{254.0 mmlsec) 
10 ~----~------------------------------------~ 
1 
(2 5.4 mmlsec) 
/ 
/ 
_______ / 
0-50 lrh~ {13 oncnis<!c}. pta.skr 
10 
Blast Vibration Frequency, Hz 
-85-
1 1JI) 
7 I 840-000J /LEGAL2875823 1.5 
Additionally, although some opponents expressed concern that blasting could cause 
damage to the Kinder-Morgan pipeline that traverses the Property, the Board denies 
this contention as speculative. Instead, the Board finds that blasting can safely be 
conducted within 300 feet of the pipeli ne, subject to complying with specific guidelines, 
including providing adequate advance notice to Kinder Morgan of each blast and 
locating blasts outside of the p ipel ine right-of-way. As support for this conclusion. the 
Board relies upon testimony from Don Quinn, Kinder Morgan Manager for Pipeline 
Re locations outlining "reasonable precautionary measures for the protection of the 
health and safety of the Public, the environment, and our pipelines." See October 7, 
2010 Lette r from Don Quinn and attachment set forth at Divider C of the Applications. 
The Board finds that no credible evidence was presented to rebut Kinder Morgan's 
testimony. Therefore, the Board f inds that, based upon the evidence in the whole 
record , a reasonable person would conclude that blasting in compliance with the Kinder 
Morgan guidelines would provide reasonable precautions against damage to the 
pipe line and related concerns for public safety. 
In order to ensure compliance with Kinder Morgan's requirements, the Board imposes 
the following condition of approval: 
"12. Unless otherwise agreed to by Kinder Morgan. the quarry operator 
shall comply with the recommended guidelines dated October 7, 2010 
(including attachment) provided by Kinder Morgan for blasting within 300 
feet of their pipeline." 
As conditioned, the Boa rd finds that the Project addresses the residents' concerns 
about blasting impacts (other than noise). 
Conditional Use Permit Proceedings 
The opponents contend that the County Hearings Officer's findings concerning impacts 
to wetlands a nd wildlife from the previous conditional use proceedings for an aggregate 
mine on the Property are persuasive authority for how issues should be addressed in 
these proceedings. The Board denies these contentions. The Board finds that the 
earlier conditional use proceeding was a separate proceeding, subject to a different set 
of approval criteria, a different local decision-making process, and a different record. 
Accordingly, the Board finds that, in general, how specific issues were decided in the 
conditional use proceedings is not relevant to the instant Appl ications. For the reasons 
set forth in these findings, the Board finds that the Applications, as conditioned, satisfy 
all applicable approval criteria related to these proceedings. 
Use of Clean Fill Material During Reclamation 
Although the Planning Commission debated whether the Applicant could ensure that 
only clean fill material would be imported to the Property during the reclamation 
process, the Board finds that it is feasible for the Applicant to comply with applicable 
-86-
71840-000l/LEGAL28758231.5 
DEQ a nd DOGAMI standards regarding importation of clean fill , subject to imposing the 
fo llowing condition: 
"7. The applicant and/or operator shall obtain approval from OOGAMI of a 
reclamation plan for the subject property and shall implement same." 
As support for its conclusion, the Board relies upon the testimony of the Applicant, 
which explained the applicable OEQ standard, the State's role in enforcing that 
standard, and practices that would be implemented at the Project to monitor and 
manage fill importation, including procedures for addressing fill material that does not 
qualify as clean. See Letter from Matt Wellner dated October 21, 2013 (Exhibit 89). 
The Board finds that no opponents presented testimony that undermined this testimony. 
Therefore, the Board finds that, based upon the evidence in the whole record, a 
reasonable person would conclude that it is feasible for the Applicant to comply with 
applicable OEQ standards regarding importation of clean fill to the Project. 
Easement for Portion of Wetland G on Kramer Property 
Although Jim Kramer contends that because he was required to dedicate a portion of 
Wetland C to the public for conservation purposes, the Applicant should be required to 
do the same as to the portion of Wetland C on the Property, the Board denies this 
contention for two reasons. First, the Board finds that Mr. Kramer's dedication occurred 
in a separate proceeding (a land division), which was subject to different approval 
criteria and review procedures. Second, since the time of Mr. Kramer's dedication, the 
Board finds that LUBA has held that the County cannot require the dedication of a 
conservation easement on private property to the public without compensation unless 
there are findings demonstrating that the exaction of the easement is roughly 
proportional to the projected impact of the Project. Tonquin Holdings, LLC v. 
Clackamas County, 64 Or LUBA 68 (2011 ). The record does not include any evidence 
that would support such findings in this case. Therefore, the Board denies Mr. Kramer's 
contentions on this issue. 
Further, although Ms. Madden contends that the County's approval of the Applications 
could cause the County to be liable if the Kramer wetland easement is violated, the 
Board denies this contention for two reasons. First, Ms. Madden's contention is 
speculative and refuted by the evidence in the record, which, as explained above, 
demonstrates that development of the Project consistent with the conditions of approval 
will minimize any significant conflicts with off-site natural resources. Second, any action 
concerning the easement is outside the scope of this proceeding. Therefore, the Board 
denies Ms. Madden's contentions on this issue. 
Street Sweeping 
The Board finds that there is a reasonable risk that trucks and other vehicles leaving the 
Project will track dirt onto area roadways. Although the Applicant has already proposed, 
and the Board has required, a number of dust control measures, such as watering the 
-87-
71840-000 1/l..EGAL2875823 1.5 
main facility access road (Condition 71 ), maintaining a truck wheel wash system for 
exiting trucks (Condition 72), requiring watering of on-site surfaces whenever visible 
dust emissions are observed (Condition 73}, and requiring use of water sprayers to 
contro l dust emissions from crushers and screens (Condition 74), the Board finds that 
an additional condition of approval is warranted to protect public road surfaces: 
"74a. Upon commencement of quarry operations, Morgan Road sha ll be 
cleaned with a street sweeper, not less than twice a month within the 
improved right-of-way between the site entrance and the Morgan 
Road!fonquin Road intersection. Upon commencement of reclamation 
activities, street sweeping shall occur in this same area once a week." 
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 
Based upon the cited and incorporated evidence and argument and the findings of fact 
and conclusions of law stated above, the Board finds that the Applications, as 
conditioned, satisfy all applicable approva l criteria. Therefore, the Board approves the 
Applications, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit A of the adopting order of the 
Board of County Commissioners. 
-88-
71840-000 I 'I ..EGA L28758231 .5 
1""''''1 '"1'''1'1'"'""' I I I I I II,,,,,,,,,, I,,,"''''' 
~ 
CLACKAMAS 
CO UNTY 
PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING 
OffiCE Of COUNTY COUNSEL 
205 I KAEN RoAD I OREGON (ITY, OR 97045 
Attn: Plan Amendment Specialist 
Dept. of Land Conservation & Development 
635 Capitol Street NE, Ste. 150 
Salem, OR 97301-2540 
• • ~o/,._¢f>Os,.~ •~~~~~ 3: "~ ---~-:::1 AfNIY~s 02 1M $ 03.29° 0004293570 MAq18 20 1 4 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 9 70 4 
4