1 (1) Permawood will install a bike lath at the <br />northern edge of the property; a fence and <br />2 vegetative screen on the south side of the bike <br />path will further shield the river from the <br />3 manufacturing plant.; <br />4 (2) Opponents of the permit did not produce <br />convincing evidence that fugitive toxic <br />5 substances, spillage and accidental discharge due <br />to rain or flooding might cause damage to fish <br />6 and wildlife; and <br />i (3) The evidence does not show that operation of a <br />cement plant on the site prior to 1978 had any <br />8 adverse effects on fish and wildlife along the <br />river." Record at 31. <br />9 <br />10 As in previous assignments of error., petitioner does not <br />11 attack the findings themselves, but claims the findings are not <br />12 supported by evidence in the record - particularly the finding <br />13 that a vegetative screen will protect fish and wildlife <br />14 habitat. 16 Respondents do not come to grips with this <br />15 charge. Instead they simply refer us to the findings and <br />16 insist there is evidence in the record to support them. it is <br />17 axiomatic that where: the sufficiency of the evidence is <br />18 challenged, the burden rests on respondent to identify portions <br />19 of the record containing the relevant evidence. Without <br />20 specific references to the record we can do nothing other than <br />21 sustain the challenge. City of Salem v. Families for <br />22 beaonsible Government, 64 Or App 238, 249, 668 P2d 395 (1983). <br />23 b. Protection of Air, Water and Laid Resources <br />24 <br />Section 11.130(5) of <br />the <br />code <br />requires <br />that "the <br />quality of <br />25 <br />the air:, water, and land <br />reso <br />urces <br />in and <br />adjacent to <br />the <br />26 greenway shall be protected." <br />Petitioner contends the city's <br />Page 30 <br />