1995-01138-Resolution No. 94-113 Recorded 12/15/1994REVIEWED
Row
95-011?8 LEGAL COUNSEL
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
013'7-1'43
A Resolution Adopting Amendments
To the Final Periodic Review
Order For Factor 1 Subfactor 1(B)
Cumulative Effects For Riparian Areas. * M.`fi Cn
RESOLUTION 94-113 C) CO
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted wa Final
Periodic Review Order by Resolution 92-062; and
WHEREAS, the Land Conservation and Development Commission
issued a remand order 93 -RA -883 requiring the county to complete a
cumulative effects analysis of development actions in riparian
areas; and
WHEREAS, Deschutes County conducted a cumulative effects
analysis pursuant to 93 -RA -883 and OAR 660-19-057(1)(b)(B) of
development actions on properties inventoried under Goal 5 as
containing riparian habitat; and
WHEREAS, the findings of the county cumulative effects analysis
are reported in a document titled "Deschutes County Riparian Area
Cumulative Effects Analysis - July 1986 - December 1990" and show
there to be no cumulative effects resulting in a significant loss of
inventoried riparian habitat; now therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, as follows:
Section 1. That the Factor One Subsection 1 (B), Cumulative
Effects section (page 5 - 11) of the County Periodic Review Order
adopted by Resolution 92-062 (County Periodic Review Order) is
hereby amended to include as part of the findings adopted therein
the findings attached hereto as Exhibit A and by this reference
incorporated herein.
Section 2. That except as amended herein, the County Periodic
Review Order, as it may have otherwise been amended, is unaffected
by this resolution.
Section 3. That the amendment to the Periodic Review order
concerning riparian areas is supported by the findings contained
therein and the findings in the document titled "Deschutes County
t'-
.,-
1 - Resolution 94-113 (December 14, 1994) /VICROFILMED 19
95
-P-"
FEB 08 1,9,9F)
0137-1744
Riparian Area Cumulative Effects - July 1986 - December 1992"
attached hereto as Exhibit B and by this reference incorporated
herein.
DATED this 14th day of December, 1994.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
NANCY E SC LANGEN, Chair
ATTEST: TOM T ROOP, Co issioner
Recording Secretary BARRY H. SLAUGHTER, Commissioner
2 - Resolution 94-113 (December 14, 1994)
0137-1745
EXHIBIT A
Periodic Review Order Factor 1, Subfactor 1(B)
Riparian Areas
These findings on cumulative effects concerning riparian areas were
developed and adopted in response to a requirement in the Land
Conservation and Development Commission's Remand Order 93 -RA -833
that the County assess the cumulative effects of implementation
actions on the protection of riparian habitat located in the areas
identified below. This remand order requirement was imposed on the
County to ensure compliance with OAR 660-19-057(1)(b)(B) and OAR
660-19-055(2)(a). The County was required to conduct an analysis of
cumulative impacts of implementation actions affecting riparian
areas to determine whether there had been a significant loss of
riparian habitat resulting from county -permitted development actions
such that there had been a change in the circumstances on which the
plan and zoning ordinances were based.
The county economic, environmental, social and energy consequences
analysis and decision for riparian areas (ESEE) defines riparian
habitat as: areas adjacent to rivers, streams, lakes or ponds where
there is vegetation that requires free or unbound water or
conditions that are more moist than normal. The ESEE identified
three areas which may contain significant riparian habitat:
1. The area within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of an
inventoried river or stream.
2. The area adjacent to an inventoried river or stream and located
within the flood plain mapped by the Federal Emergency
Management agency and zoned flood plain by the county.
3. The area adjacent to a river or stream and inventoried as a
wetland on the National Wetlands inventory.
The County conducted a cumulative effects assessment to examine the
effects of development actions on properties with riparian habitat
meeting the above definition in the three identified areas. The
scope of this assessment was limited to the effect of land use
actions approved by the county during the period between June 30,
1986 and December 31, 1992. These dates were selected to correspond
to the period between the adoption of the Deschutes County/City of
Bend River Study implementing ordinances and the submittal of the
County's final periodic review order.
A description of the methodology of the study and the findings of
the analysis are presented in a report titled "Deschutes County
Cumulative Effects Analysis - July 1986 - December 1994" (November
1 - Exhibit A (Resolution 94-113) (December 14, 1994)
0137-1746
14, 1994). The following findings are a summary of the findings in
the report, which was adopted by Resolution 94-113.
1. There are approximately 286 miles of riparian habitat along 30
inventoried rivers and streams subject to the County Goal 5
program. During the study period, 107 properties adjacent to
8 of these streams had land use applications. Eighty-six
percent of the land use actions were along either the Deschutes
(76 applications) or Little Deschutes (16 applications) Rivers.
2. The regulations implementing Goal 5 for riparian habitat have
prevented significant loss of riparian habitat on properties
subject to land use actions during the study period. The
cumulative effect of development actions on riparian areas are
not significant enough to require amendment to the county Goal
5 program for riparian areas.
Out of 153.9 acres of riparian habitat on the surveyed
properties, less than one half acre of riparian habitat
deteriorated from the pre -development condition. The riparian
habitat on 79 percent of the parcels surveyed showed no change
as a result of the land use action. The habitat improved on 6
percent of the parcels. Fifteen percent of the parcels showed
riparian habitat deterioration.
3. Deterioration of riparian habitat is limited to the south
county, mostly on the Deschutes and Little Deschutes Rivers in
the area between Sunriver and La Pine. Habitat deterioration
is occurring on 1/4 to 1/2 acre lots in areas already platted
and substantially developed prior to the regulations to
implement Goal 5 for riparian areas.
4. Deterioration of riparian habitat occurs where conditions of
approval are not met or enforced.
5. Upland vegetation within the 100 foot setback area has been
altered on approximately 50 percent of the properties with
Landscape Management permits. This is a violation of
conditions of approval. In comparison, 84 percent of the
properties in the study group adhered to the conditions for the
wetland riparian habitat.
6. Streamside properties north of the Bend urban area have not
experienced a deterioration of riparian habitat as a result of
land use actions. The canyon topography on many properties
limits access to the riparian areas and development occurs on
rimrocks above the river.
7. Parcels with extensive riparian wetland have not experienced
deterioration.
8. The deletion of section 18.88 (E), from the Wildlife Area
2 - Exhibit A (Resolution 94-113) (December 14, 1994)
0137-1747
Combining Zone (Ordinance 92-042) has had no cumulative effect
on riparian habitat. This provision required consultation with
the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to determine minimum
lot size.
Based upon the findings summarized above, the County concludes that
the cumulative effects of implementation actions under the County's
plan and land use regulations on protection of riparian habitat, as
described herein, has not resulted in a significant loss of
inventoried riparian habitat. Accordingly, pursuant to OAR 660-19-
057(1)(b)(B) and OAR 660-19-055, there has not been by reason of a
significant loss of riparian habitat resulting from County -approved
development actions a substantial change in the circumstances upon
which the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, Deschutes County/City
of Bend River Study and the implementing land use regulations for
riparian habitat were based. Consequently, the current regulations
affecting riparian habitat are working as they were designed to to
protect riparian habitat, and there is no need for the County to
take new steps to achieve compliance with the goals in this respect.
3 - Exhibit A (Resolution 94-113) (December 14, 1994)
0137--1748
EXHIBIT B
Resolution 94-113
DESCHUTES COUNTY
RIPARIAN AREA CUMULATIVE
EFFECTS ANALYSIS FOR
LAND USE ACTIONS
JULY 1986 -- DECEMBER 1992
Deschutes County Planning Division
November 14, 1994
TABLE OF CONTENTS 0137-1749
4J
Summary............................................... 1
Background............................................ 3
Methodology........................................... 3
Findings.............................................. 6
Table 1 - Properties/Applications in Riparian Areas -
July 1986 through December 1992 ................. 20
Table 2 - Riparian Areas and Land Use Applications.... 24
Table 3 - Riparian Habitat Change ..................... 25
Table 4 - Vegetation Altered in Riparian Areas........ 27
Table 5 - Development in Wetland & Flood Plain........ 29
Appendix A - Riparian Area ESEE Findings and
Decision ......................................... 31
Appendix B - Data Report Form ......................... 46
i
SUMMARY
01.37--1750
Deschutes County Riparian Area Cumulative Effects Analysis
For Land Use Actions July 1986 - December 1992
The Deschutes County Riparian Area Cumulative Effects
Analysis is limited in scope to the land use actions approved
by the county during the period between June 30, 1986 and
December 31, 1992. The analysis was required as part of
periodic review and includes land use actions along the
rivers and streams inventoried and subject to the County
Statewide Planning Goal 5 riparian program.
Unless otherwise specified, the riparian habitat evaluated in
this assessment is the area immediately adjacent to a river
or stream where there is vegetation that requires free or
unbound water or conditions that are more moist that normal.
1. There are approximately 286 miles of riparian habitat
along 30 inventoried rivers and streams subject to the
County Goal 5 program. During the study period, 107
properties adjacent to 8 of these streams had land use
applications. Eighty-six percent of the land use
actions were along either the Deschutes (76
applications) or Little Deschutes (16 applications)
Rivers.
2. The regulations implementing Goal 5 for riparian habitat
have prevented significant loss of riparian habitat on
properties subject to land use actions during the study
period.
Out of 153.9 acres of riparian habitat on the surveyed
properties, less than one half acre of riparian habitat
deteriorated from the pre -development condition. The
riparian habitat on 79 percent of the parcels surveyed
showed no change as a result of the land use action.
The habitat improved on 6 percent of the parcels.
Fifteen percent of the parcels showed riparian habitat
deterioration.
3. Deterioration of riparian habitat is limited to the
south county, mostly on the Deschutes and Little
Deschutes Rivers in the area between Sunriver and La
Pine. Habitat deterioration is occurring on 1/4 to 1/2
acre lots in areas already substantially developed prior
to the regulations to implement Goal 5 for riparian
areas.
4. Deterioration of riparian habitat occurs where
conditions of approval are not met or enforced.
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 1
0137-1751
5. Upland vegetation within the 100 foot setback area has
been altered on approximately 50 percent of the
properties with Landscape Management permits. This is a
violation of conditions of approval. In comparison, 84
percent of the properties in the study group adhered to
the conditions for the wetland riparian habitat.
6. Streamside properties north of the Bend urban area have
not experienced a deterioration of riparian habitat as a
result of land use actions. The canyon topography on
many properties limits access to the riparian areas and
development occurs on rimrocks above the river.
7. Parcels with extensive riparian wetland have not
experienced deterioration.
8. The deletion of section 18.88 (E), from the Wildlife
Area Combining Zone (Ordinance 92-042) has had no
cumulative effect on riparian habitat. This provision
required consultation with the Oregon Department of Fish
and Wildlife to determine minimum lot size.
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 2
Background 0187-1752
The Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC)
periodic review remand order 93 -RA -883, required the county
to:
Assess the cumulative effects of implementation actions
on the protection of riparian habitat located within:
(1) Landscape management river and stream corridors;
(2) 100 feet of the ordinary high watermark of
perennial streams;
(3) The flood plain zone or base flood area.
If the county finds that the cumulative effects of
implementation actions has resulted in a significant
loss of inventoried riparian habitat, amendments to the
plan and/or land use regulations will be necessary to
comply with periodic review (OAR 660-19-055(1).
As part of periodic review, the county amended the
Comprehensive Plan inventory of significant riparian and
wetland habitat and adopted an economic, social,
environmental and energy consequences analysis (ESEE) to
comply with OAR 660-16 (Ordinance 92-041). The ESEE findings
and decision was subsequently amended (Ordinance 94-007) to
respond to the periodic review remand order (93 -RA -883).
The ESEE analysis and decision inventories the significant
riparian area in the county, identifies conflicting uses and
describes the county program to protect the riparian habitat
and allow limited conflicting uses.
To comply with the remand order, Deschutes County has
conducted a cumulative effects analysis of development
actions in riparian areas identified in the ESEE decision
(Appendix A). This analysis is required by Periodic Review
Factor One under ORS 197.640 and OAR 660-19-057(1)(b).
Methodology
OAR 660-19-057 requires the county to assess the cumulative
effects of implementation actions on the protection of Goal 5
resources. Riparian areas are a Goal 5 resource.
The county economic, environmental, social and energy
consequences analysis and decision for riparian areas (ESEE,
See Appendix A) defines riparian habitat as: areas adjacent
to rivers, streams, lakes or ponds where there is vegetation
that requires free or unbound water or conditions that are
more moist than normal. The ESEE identified three areas
which may contain significant riparian habitat:
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 3
0137-w1753
1. The area within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark
of an inventoried river or stream.
2. The area adjacent to an inventoried river or stream and
located within the flood plain mapped by the Federal
Emergency Management agency and zoned flood plain by the
county.
3. The area adjacent to a river or stream and inventoried
as a wetland on the National Wetlands inventory.
The cumulative effects assessment examined riparian habitat
meeting the above definition in the three identified areas.
The scope of this assessment is limited to the effect of land
use actions approved by the county during the period between
June 30, 1986 and December 31, 1992. These dates were
selected to correspond to the period between the adoption of
the Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study implementing
ordinances and the submittal of the County's final periodic
review order.
The River Study resulted in the adoption of the provisions in
the zoning ordinance that implement the county program to
meet Statewide Planning Goal 5 for riparian areas. The
measures include conservation easements, 100 foot setback
from ordinary high water mark, fill and removal conditional
use requirements, landscape management zone adjacent to
certain rivers and streams and other provisions described in
the ESEE attached as Appendix A.
The development activities reviewed include the following:
conditional use permits for construction in the floodplain,
conditional use permits for fill and removal, setback
exceptions, landscape management permits and partitions.
These land uses actions are subject to one or more of the
county measures to.implement Goal 5 for riparian areas.
Table 1, "Properties/Applications in Riparian Areas", lists
the properties with streamside frontage that have had land
use applications submitted within the time frame of the
study. There are 107 properties with land use applications.
Site visits were made to 70 properties. Approximately 65
percent of the properties in the total group were visited and
are contained in the data. The data analysis discussed below
pertains only to the properties where a site visit was made.
An attempt was made to conduct site visits to all properties
which had either setback exception, conditional use permit,
or a combination of applications submitted for them. Because
of prohibited access, four of these were not visited. Site
visits were not made to properties where the application was
denied (SE90-3, CU89-145, CU91-96, CU91-106, and V91-1).
Fifty-six properties on the Deschutes River had only
landscape management permit applications. Staff conducted
site visits to a sample of half of the landscape management
permits on the Deschutes River.
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 4
0137-1754
An inventory form (Appendix B) was developed to record data
from the application file and site visits. The form was
reviewed by the planning commission, LCDC staff and
interested public. The form is set up to record information
on the pre -development and post -development conditions of the
riparian habitat and conditions implemented to protect the
habitat. A computer data base was set up to record the data
from the inventory forms.
The following findings provide an assessment of the quality
of the riparian areas in the study group. For the purpose of
this analysis, the riparian area referred to in this report
includes only portions of the property that were immediately
adjacent to rivers or streams and contained vegetation that
was dependent on the water regime of the stream. Portions of
the property which exhibited characteristics typical of
upland environments were not included in quantification of
acres of habitat improved or deteriorated. However,
observations were made concerning these upland portions
because the area within the 100 foot setback from the
ordinary highwater mark is considered by the county as pari
of the overall riparian corridor.
A determination has been made for each property as to whether
the quality or quantity of the riparian habitat has improved,
deteriorated or stayed the same since the time the land use
action was approved. The quantity of the riparian area is
linked directly to the increase or decrease in the amount of
riparian vegetation (i.e. vegetation removal is considered
deterioration). The assessment, therefore, was based
primarily on the addition of new and/or clearing of existing
vegetation in the riparian area. Additional factors
considered were bank erosion, construction in the riparian
area, and to a limited extent, the land uses and riparian
habitat in the surrounding' -area. These factors were examined
and quantified.
The assessment does not include a discussion of the
cumulative effects of activities outside of the county
jurisdiction. Such activities include water level
fluctuations due to irrigation water storage and release,
permitted agricultural practices, federal land management
activities, or private, commercial forest practices.
However, finding number 14 examines whether there has been an
unanticipated substantial change in circumstances for
population, grazing, drought, timber harvest, enforcement of
the goal 5 program or septic installations since the adoption
of the comprehensive plan and land use regulations
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 5
0137-1755
Findings
1. There are approximately 286 miles of riparian habitat
along 30 inventoried rivers and streams subject to the
County Goal 5 program. One hundred and seven properties
with inventoried riparian habitat had land use appli-
cations. Eighteen properties had multiple land use
applications.
Approximately 160 stream miles are under federal jurisdiction
(US Forest Service or BIM). The county does not regulate
riparian areas on federal land. The remaining 126 miles of
stream are bordered by private or state owned land. Table 2
shows the distribution of private and federal river miles on
the streams in the county with private land and the number of
properties with land use applications during the study
period.
2. The regulations implementing Goal 5 for riparian areas
have slowed the adverse cumulative effect of developemnt
in riparian areas.
A comparison of the observations made on properties developed
prior to 1986 and the data gathered in this study illustrates
that the regulations are protecting the riparian habitat when
they are followed.
The land use regulations that currently govern streamside
development have been in place since 1986. Prior to 1986,
the regulations were much more permissive as to the type of
streamside development that could occur. Although not
quantified in this analysis, development undertaken prior to
1986 was observed during the site visits. Development during
this period typically included: removing the entire riparian
and upland vegetation, ornamental landscaping including lawns
to the edge of the stream, boat docks and slips, retaining
walls, and dwellings constructed closer than 100 feet from
the stream. This type of development is generally found on
the smaller lots which were developed south of Sunriver prior
to 1986.
After the regulations changed in 1986, many of the
development practices that were previously common were no
longer permitted. Data collected for this analysis, reveals
that development after 1986 has typically adhered to the
requirements of these regulations. However, in six cases,
unpermitted development such as boat docks, boat slips, and
retaining walls were observed. The construction of these
amenities is a violation of the regulations that have been
established.
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 6
0137-1756
3. Both the Deschutes River and Little Deschutes River in
the area between Sunriver and La Pine have experienced
the most intensive development during the study period.
Approximately 70 percent of the development occuring along
rivers and streams in the county between 1986 and 1992 has
occurred in this area. Other areas of development include:
The Deschutes River in the Redmond/Terrebonne area, Fall
River, Spring River, Tumalo Creek, Squaw Creek and Indian
Ford Creek.
Approximately 12 percent of the vacant riparian parcels in
the south county were developed during the study period.
South of Sunriver there are 1,242 parcels with frontage on
either the Deschutes, Little Deschutes, Fall and Spring
Rivers. The assessors data indicate that 647 stream front
lots are currently developed; 595 are vacant. During the
study period, 70 vacant parcels in the south county were
developed; an additional 20 parcels had a land use action on
property that was already developed.
In the county north of Sunriver, there are 716 stream front
parcels. 429 are developed and 287 are vacant. During the
study period 14 vacant parcels were developed and 3
previously developed parcels had a land use action on the
property.
4. On the properties in the study group where a site visit
was made, less than one acre out of a total of 153. 908
acres of riparian habitat deteriorated.
Table 4 shows on a site by site basis the total amount of
riparian area on each parcel included in the study group.
The total riparian area examined in -this analysis was 153.908
acres. For the purpose of this discussion the riparian area
is defined as the area supporting plants that depend on
periods of wet soil; upland vegetation is not included.
One large parcel containing 96 acres of riparian habitat has
been excluded because it is not typical of the rest of the
study group. Also, on this large parcel no riparian area
was lost due to the development. These 96 acres represent 62
percent of the area studied and tend to skew the data.
Therefore, it is the remaining 69 parcels which include 57.9
acres of riparian area (38 percent of the area studied) that
comprise the most revealing data.
Table 4 also shows the amount of riparian area altered prior
to the land use action and the amount of area altered after
development. It is the difference between these two figures
for each property that reveals if there has been a reduction
in the total riparian area on the site. Prior to the land
use permit applications subject to this study (excluding the
large acreage parcel), the data show that 48.13 acres of
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 7
0137-175 i
habitat were in a natural unaltered condition. After the land
use permits the data show that 47.86 acres remain unaltered.
Therefore, 0.267 acres of riparian habitat were altered as a
result of the land use application. The total riparian
habitat altered on all subject properties is less than one
half acre. Only one quarter acre of the alteration occured
during the study period.
While the total area of alteration may not be a significant
amount, most of the depletion is occurring on properties that
have approximately 100 feet of stream frontage and 1000
square feet of riparian area in a very narrow band. In
riparian areas of this size, even a small removal of the
vegetation can be significant. The removal is significant
when considered with adjacent properties where the habitat
has also been altered. It is the effects of the minor
alterations on small parcels near each other that
cumulatively equate to a larger deterioration.
Li. Alteration of upland vegetation outside of the riparian
zone is occuring within the 100 foot setback. The area
within the 100' setback has been altered despite the
restrictive conditions imposed.
When examining the riparian area, the data collected
indicates that property owners have adhered to the conditions
of their approval 84 percent of the time. Although not
quantified, notes taken during site visits reveal that
approximately 50 percent of the properties visited did not
conform with the conditions of approval that pertained to
retention of vegetation in the 100' setback area. While much
of the 100' setback area is deemed upland (i.e. contains
vegetation such as lodgepole pine and juniper that do not
rely on the water in the stream), the quality of this area
can be very important to the area that is considered
riparian.
The upland areas along the rivers and streams in which
observations of deterioration have been made are in the
Landscape Management Combining Zone. The Deschutes County
Zoning Ordinance section 18.84.010 states: "The purpose of
the LM Zone is to maintain scenic and natural resources of
the designated areas and to maintain and enhance scenic
vistas and natural landscapes as seen from designated roads,
rivers and streams". In most cases, but not all, the
conditions of approval stipulate that dead and dying
vegetation can be removed to reduce fire hazard but all other
vegetation must be retained. As observed, the removal of
living vegetation from these areas is not meeting the intent
of this zone.
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 8
0137-1758
The removal of native vegetation (trees, shrubs and grasses)
and replacement with lawn and lava rock is the most common
occurrence. Shade and soil stability provided by the upland
vegetation are two factors important to the riparian habitat
that are lost when vegetation in the 100 foot setback area is
eliminated. The resulting direct sunlight and erosion that
can occur may eventually lead to deterioration of the
riparian area.
6. most of the habitat deterioration occurs along the
Deschutes and Little Deschutes Rivers, south of
Sunriver, where the land is divided into lots less than
one acre and development already exists.
Nine of the 11 properties identified as deteriorated in Table
3 are along the Deschutes River and Little Deschutes River in
the south county area. In the south county area of the
Deschutes and Little Deschutes Rivers, many lots have been
created at sizes of 1/4 to 1/2 acre. Many of these lots were
developed prior to 1986 which was the beginning year for this
study. Many of these parcels were developed in a more urban
than rural manner because regulations prior to the River
Study were less restrictive than current regulations.
Typical development prior to our study period consisted of
clearing native vegetation and replacing it with ornamental
landscaping, as well as constructing boat docks, decks and
retaining walls. In most cases, this type of development
resulted in the removal of some or all riparian vegetation.
Table 4 shows that 13 properties in the study had altered
vegetation prior to 1986.
The conditions of approval for properties developed during
the study period typically provide that vegetation must be
retained, new vegetation must be native to the area, no
structures in the conservation easement area, etc.. These
conditions exist in order to maintain the natural character
of the area. However, this analysis has determined that some
property owners in south county neighborhoods, where urban
style development is prevalent, have ignored the conditions
of their approval and developed their property in a manner
similar to their neighbors. In some cases the destruction of
native vegetation that may have been retained by the original
permitee has been altered by a subsequent owner who was
unaware of the conditions of approval. For some properties,
this has resulted in a deterioration to the riparian area.
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 9
913'7-1759
7. Compliance with the conditions of approval for the land
use permit is the most important factor in the
maintenance of the riparian area habitat.
Table 3, "Riparian Habitat Change", shows that the current
quality of the riparian habitat has a direct link with
adherence to the conditions of approval. Out of 70 total
properties visited, 11 sites (16 percent) failed to meet the
conditions of their approval. The riparian area has
deteriorated in all but one of these cases. In 59 out of 70
(84 percent), the conditions of approval were adhered to. In
four of these cases the habitat quality was improved, in one
case the quality deteriorated and in 54 cases the quality
stayed the same.
Table 4, "Vegetation Altered in Riparian Areas", illustrates
the sum area of riparian habitat change that has occurred
both prior to and after the permit approval for the property.
A comparison of Table 4 and Table 3 shows that the properties
which have experienced a net loss of riparian area closely
correspond with the properties which have not met the
conditions of their permit approval. However, The same
comparison also reveals that there are some properties that
have met all the conditions of their approval when developed,
but still resulted in an overall loss or deterioration of
riparian area. This result stems from conditions of approval
that do not contain all the necessary provisions for habitat
maintenance (i.e. vegetation retention and conservation
easements).
After examining the conditions of approval tied to the permit
and conducting site visits, it was evident that the more
specific the conditions were (i.e. conditions which required
retention of vegetation including upland vegetation), the
less impact there was to the riparian area. Land use permits
which did not contain such conditions of approval resulted in
greater adverse impact.
The type of approval granted also has a significant bearing
on the degree of impact. Of the three most common approvals
granted (setback exception, conditional use and landscape
management), setback exceptions have resulted in the greatest
occurences of riparian habitat deterioration. There were it
setback exception applications (development within 100 feet
of ordinary high water mark). Of these, 3 (27 percent) did
not meet the conditions of approval and deterioration of the
riparian habitat and loss of upland vegetation resulted.
This is compared to a 14 percent deterioration for both
conditional use and landscape management permits.
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 10
0137-1760
Conditional use and landscape management permits have also
resulted in habitat improvements in 7 percent and 5 percent
of the cases, respectively. There was no improvement to
habitat for setback exception permits. In cases where the
conditions of approval for all permits are similar, the data
indicates that it is the distance of the development from the
riparian area that plays an important factor in habitat
retention.
Table 5, "Wetland and Floodplain Development" provides data
concerning wetlands and flood plains for each property and
whether or not development has occurred in these areas. A
comparison of Table 5 and Table 4 reveals that development on
portions of the property that are designated floodplain or
wetland has no obvious correlation to the loss of riparian
habitat other than the removal of vegetation for construction
purposes. Thirteen properties had development permitted in a
wetland or flood plain. Of the 13, 3 showed deterioration of
riparian habitat. In all 3 cases, the conditions of approval
were not met or enforced.
8. Noncompliance with conditions or lack of enforcement is
the reason for deterioration of riparian habitat.
In most cases, the appropriate conditions of approval have
been applied but no follow up either during or after
construction has occurred. Enforcement of conditions would
further reduce deterioration of riparian habitat.
Inclusion of all applicable conditions as well as the correct
combination of conditions will give the county the security
that all enforceable measures to retain the natural riparian
area have been enacted. Of all the properties included in
this analysis, there is only one instance where the
conditions of approval have been met and the riparian area
still experienced a degree of deterioration. The reason is
that not all the appropriate or applicable conditions that
could have been applied were applied.
Through site visits, file review and discussions with
property owners, various reasons for deterioration of
riparian habitat are apparent. In some instances,
individuals have purchased property that was developed by a
previous owner. Initially these properties may have
conformed with the conditions imposed. The new owners,
unaware of the conditions of approval that still apply to the
property because they are not recorded, may make changes to
the natural features which had previously been preserved.
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 11
0137-1761
There are also cases of blatant disregard for the conditions
of approval. The feeling of "it's my property and I will do
with it what I please" was expressed by owners concerned
about regulations which have further restricted how they can
develop their property since the time they originally
purchased. However, this sentiment was relatively uncommon.
A lack of public knowledge about the importance of the
riparian areas is also common. An example is the case of a
property owner that has cleared all the vegetation from the
river bank along his property. A few years later the same
property owner notices that erosion is beginning to occur and
wants to build a retaining wall. In the past, this scenario
was permitted and did occur. This led to the loss of
significant riparian habitat. Regulations are now in place
to prevent this from happening, but enforcement is the key to
making the regulations work. Public education aimed at
preventing destruction of riparian habitat or erosion could
also be used as an effective tool.
9. The most common infraction that has led to the
deterioration of riparian areas has been the cutting or
clearing of vegetation.
During the site visits, various methods of vegetation removal
were observed. The methods ranged from simple cutting or
pruning to complete clearing down to bare earth. Various
stages of vegetation removal were also observed. In some
cases, the riparian area had been completely cleared of
native vegetation and landscaping had been done. In other
cases, vegetation had been cleared and preparation for
landscaping was in progress. Five of the 11 properties that
showed deterioration had an unpermitted dock or excavation
for a boat slip.
10. Certain physical characteristics ensure that the
riparian areas of some properties will not deteriorate
despite the conditions that are or are not imposed upon
development.
The streams in the north county typically flow through steep
canyons. The development on these canyon properties occurs
on the canyon rims high above the river. The impaired access
to the riparian areas on these properties makes any
alteration to the riparian area difficult and unlikely.
Properties that contain large area of wetland also have
physical limitations for development. Along the Little
Deschutes River and Deschutes River in the south county,
large areas of wetland are typically left undisturbed. Also,
parcels of approximately an acre or larger are more difficult
to clear and landscape. Through site visitation, it has been
determined that a lack of surrounding development, larger
parcel size and impaired access to the stream (because of
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 12
0137-1762
wetlands or rim rock settings) results in a reduced potential
for impact to the riparian habitat.
11. The data shows that deterioration or improvement of
riparian habitat is not correlated to the existance of a
conservation easement. Conservation easements do not
always insure that riparian areas will be maintained.
The Deschutes County Code Section 18.116.220 requires
conservation easements to be conveyed to the county as a
condition of approval for all land use actions along the
rivers and streams listed as perennial streams. Conservation
easements for landscape management applications were not
required as a condition of approval until 1992. Therefore,
half of the land use actions in the study did not require
conservation easements as a condition of approval.
The intent of the conservation easement is to maintain a 10
foot wide natural buffer adjacent to the stream and to limit
future impacts which could occur in the riparian areas.
Conservation easements rarely include public access. On most
streamside properties, the 10 foot width of the conservation
easement encompasses most of riparian area because, unless
there is adjacent wetland, riparian vegetation is limited to
a narrow band. Therefore, on these properties, the objective
of protecting riparian vegetation is achieved. However, in
cases where there is adjacent wetland, the riparian habitat
often extends beyond the area covered by the conservation
easement. In these instances, only a portion of the riparian
area is protected by the conservation easement. However, the
data shows that wetland areas are usually maintained in a
natural condition.
Of 70 properties included in the analysis, 34 required a
conservation easement. Most of the land use actions
requiring easements were setback exceptions and conditional
use permits. Conservation easements have been requirements
of these approvals since 1986. The majority of the
properties included in the study group had a land use action
approved from the period 1990 -1992 (61 out of 67
properties). The majority of these actions were landscape
management permits. Many of the properties in the group also
had additional land use actions which were approved prior to
1990.
Of the 34 properties with conservation easements, eight (24
percent) have experienced a deterioration in riparian
habitat. This is compared to the entire study group of 70 in
which 11 (16 percent) experienced deterioration. Also, 3 (9
percent) properties with conservation easements experienced
improvement in conditions, compared to 4 (6 percent) for the
entire group. Twenty properties (59 percent) with
conservation easements experienced no change in habitat
conditions compared to 53 properties (76 percent) for the
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 13
0137-1763
entire group. This data reveals that while the intent of the
conservation easement is to protect resources, the limited
area which is included in the easement narrows the scope of
protection provided.
12. The conditions and regulations which govern development
along rivers and streams do not require that the
riparian area be improved as development occurs. The
conditions of approval only serve to maintain the
existing riparian conditions as they were at the time of
permit approval.
Four properties in this study have riparian habitat that has
improved since the land use action was granted. Two of these
improved sites were a result of restoration/enhancement
programs that were done with the help of the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). The enhancement
plans designed by ODFW have resulted in an increase in
vegetation and a reduction in bank erosion in the riparian
areas. The owners of two additional properties included in
this analysis have indicated that ODFW has targeted their
river frontages as areas in need of bank stabilization and
restoration. Programs designed to use native vegetation and
riprap to restore these eroded river banks are to begin this
fall.
The remaining two properties in this study which have
improved riparian habitat are a result of the actions of the
landowners. The property owners have taken it upon
themselves to plant, transplant and thin vegetation as well
as to maintain natural blowdowns in an effort to improve the
overall riparian habitat on their land. This effort has
resulted in an increase in young, healthy growth along the
river. The improvement is very evident when compared to
adjacent developed properties where owners have not actively
engaged in habitat improvement.
13. The deletion of section 18.88 (E) from the Wildlife Area
Combining Zone (Ordinance (92-042) has had no cumulative
effect on riparian habitat.
As part of periodic review the county amended Title 18.88,
the Wildlife Area Combining Zone, (Ordinance 92-042) to
delete the following text:
E. In riparian areas, the minimum parcel size shall be that
determined by the County Sanitarian and Planning
Director or Hearings Body, with advice from the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife, necessary to protect
the health and safety of the public as well and fish and
wildlife resources.
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 14
0137-1704
This section was deleted because the standards were not clear
and objective as required by OAR -16-010(3). Also, the scale
of the map in the comprehensive plan showing riparian areas
was too small to accurately indicate the location of riparian
area.
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and the County
sanitarian are provided with an opportunity to comment on all
proposed partitions and subdivisions which contain land in
riparian areas. Prior to the deletion of the provision
neither ODFW nor the County sanitarian ever recommended a
minimum lot size larger than that allowed by the underlying
zone designation. The smallest minimum lot size permitted
outside of rural service centers or urban growth boundaries
is 10 acres. The health and safety of the public is
protected by Department of Environmental Quality rules which
are administered by the County Environmental Health Division.
There have been 4 partition applications submitted during the
study period. The riparian habitat associated with these
partitions has stayed in the same condition or improved.
Conditions have been implemented to leave the habitat as open
space.
TP -89-712, Rim at Aspen Lake, is a subdivision. The riparian
area along Squaw Creek is included in a lot with an open
space designation.
TP -90-741, Spring River Road, a four lot cluster development
on the Deschutes River has been approved. No residential
development has occurred to date. One of the four lots
containing the riparian wetland is dedicated open space.
TP -92-779, vandevert Ranch, contains 96 acres of riparian and
wetland habitat on the Deschutes- River.- The condition of the
habitat has improved because an ongoing habitat restoration
project conducted with the approval of the Oregon Department
of Fish and Wildlife.
MP -92-61, Indian Ford Creek, a 3 lot partition, has been
approved by the Board of County Commissioners; however, the
final decision has not been issued. A condition prohibiting
livestock grazing in the riparian areas was included in the
approval.
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 15
0137-1765
14. In accordance with the provisions of OAR 660-19-057, the
county finds that, with regard to riparian habitat,
there has not been a substantial change in circumstances
in the conditions, findings or assumptions upon which
the comprehensive plan or land use regulations related
that would cause the comprehensive plan or land use
regulations to not comply with the goals.
The findings below address the changes in circumstances for
population, grazing, timber harvest, drought, septic
approvals and enforcement of the Goal 5 program.
Population Growth
Although the county population has substantially increased
since the 1970's, the growth was anticipated in the
comprehensive plan. The substantial change in population has
not caused a significant increase in the number of stream
front lots or a cumulative effect on riparian habitat.
The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 1979,
included projections for population growth through the year
2000. The 1979 projected population in the Comprehensive
Plan for the year 1995 was 103,000. Portland State
University Center for Population Research and Census (CPRC)
projections for 1980 - 1990 projected a 1995 county
population of 88,800. The 1990 projection for 1995 is
92,245. In July 1993, CPRC estimated the county population
at 86,800. Therefore, the population growth in the county
has not exceeded the projections of the original
comprehensive plan and is still in line with the most current
projections from CPRC.
Most of the population growth has occurred within the urban
growth boundaries of Redmond and Bend. The riparian areas in
the south county have experienced a significant increase in
development. However, this development has occurred on pre-
existing lots and was anticipated in the comprehensive plan.
The minimum lot size was increased from one acre to 10 acres
for all of the exception areas. Therefore, very few new
river front lots have been created since adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance.
Grazing
The county finds that there has not been a substantial change
in circumstances related to grazing in riparian areas. The
county does not have data on the amount of riparian area that
was grazed in the past relative to how much is grazed today
However, several large properties that were formerly cattle
ranches are now resort or residential developments. So,
there may be an overall decrease in the riparian area that is
subject to grazing.
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 16
0137-1766
The quality of the riparian area on certain properties may
have deteriorated over time as a result of grazing. However,
agricultural use including grazing is a permitted use in the
exclusive farm use, forest, rural residential and multiple
use agriculture zones. The county zoning does not regulate
agricultural practices in these zones. In 1993 the state
legislature adopted "right to farm" provisions as state law
that protect accepted farming practices from being considered
trespass or a nuisance.
Timber Harvest
Since adoption of the Goal 5
there have been significant
commercial forest activities
lands. These changes have
riparian habitat.
program for riparian habitat
changes in the regulation of
on both private and federal
increased the protection of
Since 1972 the state legislature and the Oregon Department of
Forestry have adopted laws and administrative rules to
strengthen the protection of forest riparian habitat. There
have been major amendments in 1991 and again in 1994. The
cumulative effect of these changes is beneficial to riparian
areas. Timber harvest in riparian areas on federal land is
regulated by the federal government. Administration of
timber harvest in riparian areas on federal lands is also
more strictly regulated than in the past.
In the past decade here has been a significant harvest of
dead lodgepole pine in the south county in riparian areas.
This harvest is in response to mountain pine beetle
mortality. The harvests on private land have been conducted
with approval of the Oregon Department of Forestry in
compliance with their regulations for protecting riparian
areas. Some projects have been done in cooperation with the
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to use dead lodgepole
to provide in stream large woody material for habitat
enhancement and bank stabilization.
Drought
The continuing drought conditions over the last decade have
caused a reduction in water quantity and in some cases a
decrease in water quality. The drought may have caused some
mortality of riparian vegetation. Drought is a natural
cyclical occurance. However, when coupled with the seasonal
fluctuating water levels caused by irrigation withdrawals,
the effect may be more significant than drought would be in a
stream without water appropriations for irrigation or
domestic use. The water levels in streams is regulated by
the Oregon Water Resources Department.
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 17
Enforcement of Goal 5 Program
0137-1707
Lack of enforcement of the county Goal 5 program for riparian
areas is the most significant factor in the deterioration of
riparian habitat on properties with land use actions approved
by the county. A task force is currently meeting to review
and make recommendations regarding code enforcement
department staffing, procedures and priorities. Because of
staffing limitations code enforcement is currently limited to
responding to complaints. Violations which present a risk to
public health or safety are given first priority.
Since 1989, the county has received thirty-six complaints
regarding violations to the county code on riverfront
properties. The complaints include removal of vegetation,
fill and removal in wetland, illegal dock construction.
Twenty-five of the cases have been closed because of
compliance. The remaining 11 cases are active; three
citations have been issued.
Septic System Approvals
The County Environmental Health Division is responsible for
enforcing the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
regulations for on-site sewage disposal systems. The
cumulative effect on water quality as a result of the county
administration of DEQ regulations has been positive.
The county has denied 181 new site evaluation applications in
the south county. Twenty-nine of the denials are on
riverfront properties. The county sometimes re-evaluates
previously approved site evaluations at the time a septic
installation application is made. In the south county, since
1991, eighty lots previously approved have been denied
because of implementation of DEQ regulations and more
knowledge about the soil and hydrology of the area. Based
on the existing rate of denial and research done on the soils
and water table, a number of the un -evaluated lots will be
denied for placement of septic systems.
15. The Planning Commission and the Board of County
Commissioners directed staff to consider rezoning flood
plain along Indian Ford Creek as part of cumulative
effects analysis.
On August 17, 1994, the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) staff met with county staff to discuss the planned
flood plain mapping project in the county. In the late
1980's, the county requested FEMA to map the flood plain
along a five mile stretch of the Deschutes River south of
Sunriver. FEMA has funding and is ready to begin that flood
study and mapping project. County staff asked if it would be
possible to add an additional three miles of Indian Ford
Creek to the scheduled mapping project. FEMA responded that
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 18
0137-1708
there was not funding to complete additional unscheduled
mapping at this time.
Mapping options for Indian Ford Creek flood plain are:
a. The Board of County Commissioners could make a formal
request to FEMA to map the Indian Ford Creek flood
plain. This could take from three to five years to fund
and complete.
b. The flood study and map could be completed by a
contractor. A private contractor could be hired by the
county or by a private party. FEMA would review a flood
study and flood plain map completed by a qualified
contractor if the mapping was done to meet FEMA
specifications.
There is no evidence that any proposed or existing structural
development has occurred in the flood plain or wetland of
Indian Ford Creek. Therefore, no negative cumulative effect
has occurred in the riparian area due to lack of flood plain
designation on Indian Ford Creek. Flood plain zoning
requires a conditional use permit for most new development
located within the flood plain. There is extensive wetland
mapped by the US Fish and Wildlife Service on the National
Wetland Inventory maps for Indian Ford Creek. This wetland
area is subject to the county fill and removal regulations.
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 19
0137--1769
TABLE 1
PROPERTIES/APPLICATIONS IN RIPARIAN AREAS
JULY 1986 THROUGH DECEMBER 1992
ADDRESS TOWNSHIP FILE NUMBER
DESCHUTES RIVER:
70585
NW 89th Ct.
14-12-15A/300
LM -90-68
* 70595
NW 89th Pl.
14-12-15A/200
LM -92-5
* 6460 NW Atkinson Rd.
14-12-36B/3200
LM -92-12
6110 NW Yucca Ave.
14-12-36B/2100
LM -91-30
* 1731 NW 57th Way
15-12-01D/1500
LM -92-164
* 627 NW 67th St.
15-12-11D/300
LM -92-115
6145 NW Kingwood Ave
15-12-12/300
LM -92-68
60769
River Bend Dr.
18-11-23A/600
LM -90-47
60755
River Bend Dr.
18-11-23A/900
LM -90-8
18821
Baker Rd.
18-11-23C/700
LM -91-114
56332
Solar Dr.
20-10-13A/25600
LM -92-72
* 56316
Solar Dr.
20-10-13A/25400
LM -90-87
56296
Solar Dr.
20-10-13A/25100
LM -89-22
17066
Blue Heron Dr.
20-10-13D/22500
LM -90-76
* 17064
Blue Heron Dr.
20-10-13D/22600
LM -90-25
55943
Wood Duck Ct.
20-10-24A/4600
LM -88-4
* 55919
Wood Duck Dr.
20-10-24A/6200
LM -91-1
* 55915
Wood Duck Dr.
20-10-24A/6400
LM -90-46
of
of of
LM -91-20
55907
Wood Duck Dr.
20-10-24A/6800
LM -90-70
* 17187
Blue Heron Dr.
20-10-24A/300
LM -90-41
* 55695
Gatehouse Ln.
20-10-24A/303
LM -91-135
17165
Blue Heron Dr.
20-10-24A/700
LM -91-122
* 17105
Blue Heron Dr.
20-10-24A/1600
LM -92-26
17049
Blue Heron Dr.
20-10-24A/2300
LM -90-55
55945
Wood Duck Dr.
20-10-24A/5200
LM -92-162
16970
Spikerman Ct.
20-10-24C/103
LM -89-13
16879
Pony Express Way
20-10-24C/700
LM -91-111
16831
Pony Express Way
20-10-24C/1700
LM -92-153
* 55697
Big River Dr.
20-10-25B/900
LM -91-31
55693
Big River Dr.
20-10-25B/1000
LM -90-82
* 55080
Forest Ln.
20-10-25B/3800
LM -90-59
* 55367
Big River Rd.
20-10-26D/6300
LM -91-84
* 55128
Forest Ln.
20-10-35B/3300
LM -92-120
16489
Beaver Dr.
20-10-35B/3800
LM -90-93
16523
Beaver Dr.
20-10-35B/7100
LM -91-92
* 54978
Mallard Dr.
20-10-35C/4300
LM -90-83
56668
Lunar Dr.
20-11-07B/2300
LM -92-82
56648
Lunar Dr.
20-11-07B/2600
LM -89-20
* 56528
Eclipse Dr.
20-11-07C/3300
LM -90-34
it
of to
LM -90-71
* 56424
Eclipse Dr.
20-11-07C/5100
LM -90-98
* SITE VISIT COMPLETE
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 20
0137-1770
ADDRESS TOWNSHIP FILE NUMBER
DESCHUTES RIVER - Continued
17288
Merganser Dr.
20-11-18B/6700
LM -91-21
* 17304
Merganser Dr.
20-11-18B/6400
LM -90-11
* 17252
Merganser
20-11-18B/7400
LM -90-40
* 17216
Merganser Dr.
20-11-18B/8200
LM -90-57
17217
Merganser Dr.
20-11-18B/8300
LM -91-136
17231
Merganser Dr.
20-11-18B/9100
LM -90-69
17265
Merganser Dr.
20-11-18B/9900
LM -90-103
56025
Snow Goose Rd.
20-11-18C/6700
LM -92-169
* 17208
Crane Dr.
20-11-18C/7300
LM -91-60
14323
Burgess Rd.
20-11-18C/600
LM -92-163
* 55959
Wood Duck Dr.
20-11-19B/24600
LM -92-43
* 54783
Red Fox Ln.
21-10-02B/1900
LM -92-90
* 54679
Silver Fox Dr.
21-10-03A/800
LM -91-94
* 54611
Silver Fox Dr.
21-10-03A/2900
LM -91-39
* 16319
Sheep Ln.
21-10-10A/1000
LM -90-63
* 19962
Juniper Ln.
16-12-31D/6400
LM -91-6
if it
of of
SP -91-3
17056
Blue Heron Dr.
20-10-13D/2280
5E-90-8
55841
Wood Duck Rd.
20-10-24A/8700
SE -90-3
* 55519
Big River Dr.
20-10-26A
SE -91-2
* 55950
Wood Duck Dr.
20-10-24A/4400
5E-91-3
go of
of it
CU -91-101
it of
it if
LM -91-76
* 16485
Beaver Dr.
20-10-35B
5E-91-6
to of
to of
LM -91-137
* 56484
Eclipse Dr.
20-11-07C/3900
SE -91-4
if it
If of
CU -91-119
* 56051
Snow Goose Dr.
20-11-18C/6300
SE -88-3
* 70000
83rd St. (Rdmd)
14-12-22D/500
CU -87-58
3031
SW 58th St.
15-12-25/400
CU -89-145
67406
Cline Falls Rd.
15-12-36B/4200
CU -91-106
* 8097
SW 77th St.
16-12-1OD/100
CU -90-13
it of
it n
124-90-3
* 56462
Eclipse Dr.
16-12-31D/300
CU -88-140
* 55949
Wood Duck Ct.
20-10-24A/4500
CU -91-24
17205
Milky Way
20-11-18C/1800
CU -92-149
* 7433
SW 77th
16-12-10/101
CU -90-212
of it
If to
LM -90-101
* 17153
Milky Way
20-10-13D/1970
CU -90-185
It of
to if
LM -90-79
* 17196
Crane Dr.
20-10-13D/22500
LM -90-30
* 55937
Wood Duck Ct.
20-10-24A/4700
CU -90-166
it of
It of
LM -90-62
* 55645
Gatehouse Ln
20-10-24C/306
CU -91-79
* 55006
Mallard Dr.
20-10-35B/1080
CU -91-163
of of
of it
LM -91-123
* 17258
Merganser Dr.
20-11-18B/7300
CU -92-179
of 11
If if
LM -92-157
* 17410
Spring River Rd.
20-11-00/800
TP -90-741
* SITE VISIT COMPLETE
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 21
0137-1771
ADDRESS TOWNSHIP FILE NUMBER
LITTLE DESCHUTES RIVER:
56175
School House Rd.
20-11-17C/100
LM -92-87
* 55563
Huntington
Rd.
20-11-30A
LM -91-12
* 55117
Huntington
Rd.
20-11-31A
LM -92-103
* 55098
Lazy River
Dr.
20-11-31B/800
LM -91-139
* 55066
Lazy River
Dr.
20-11-31B/1100
LM -92-92
* 53428
Bridge Dr.
21-10-23A/3100
LM -90-19
* 55031
Huntington
Rd.
21-11-31A/800
LM -91-4
* 17600
Vandevert Rd.
20-11/1900
CU -90-198
" of
of of
TP -92-779
55550
Lazy River
Dr.
20-11-30A/1500
VL -91-1
* 55031
Huntington
Rd.
20-11-31A/800
LM -91-4
* 55015
Huntington
Rd.
20-11-31C/200
LM -92-39
* 16768
Donner Pl.
21-10-23D/1700
LM -92-143
* 17340
Mike Ct.
20-11-31C
CU -90-59
* 17336
Mink Ct.
20-11-31C/2200
CU -90-114
* 53567
Riverview Dr.
21-10-23A/800
CU -89-106
it if
" of
CU -91-99
53835
Bridge Ct.
22-10/208
CU -92-95
SPRING RIVER:
* 56824
Besson Rd.
20-10-01CD/3100
SE -90-1
* 16550 Skyliner Rd. 18-10-02/302 LM -92-10
* 16318 Skyliner Dr. 18-10-10AA/1100 SE -91-1
It of it " CU -91-49
it to if " LM -92-33
* 16292 Skyliner Dr. 18-10-10AB/1400 SE -87-7
of it of it CU -87-96
SQUAW CREEK:
* 17423 Mountain View Rd. 14-11-19D/900 LM -92-134
* 16220 Hwy. #126 (Sis) 15-10-10/100 LM -92-116
of of If it SP -92-119
* 69300 Hawks Flight Dr. 14-10-35C/1700 CU -90-141
to If of it TP -89-712
INDIAN FORD CREEK:
* 69750 Camp Polk Rd. 14-10-27C/7000 CU -92-190
of of it of MP -92-61
* SITE VISIT COMPLETE
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 22
ADDRESS
1a:1NM1171&1N11�i
* 15016 Fall River Dr.
* 15080 Fall River Dr.
* 15084 E. River Loop Rd.
* 15124 E. River Loop Dr.
If of
DRY RIVER:
26600 Hwy #20
* SITE VISIT COMPLETE
TOWNSHIP
20-10-31D/301
20-10-31D/700
20-10-31D/800
20-10-31D/301
it of
18-14/1400
0137-17"12
L40AABZ il� :rl:
LM -90-5
SE -88-4
5E-90-5
SE -89-14
LM -92-7
CU• -91-96
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 23
0137-1773
3
Table 2
RIPARIAN AREAS AND LAND USE APPLICATIONS
Stream Private Miles Federal Miles Applications
Deschutes River
46
29
78
Little Deschutes
21
0
16
Tumalo Creek
11
2
3
Squaw Creek
10
15
3
Indian Ford Creek 6
3
1
Crooked River
5
0
0
Three Creek
4
4
0
Trout Creek
4
4
0
Paulina
4
8
0
Bull Creek
4
6
0
Fall River
3
4
4
Dry River
3
24
1
Dry Creek
2
4
0
Cache Creek
2
5
0
Spring River
1
0
1
TOTALS:
126
108
107
The remaining
15 inventoried streams
are entirely
on federal
land and include
approximately 52 miles
of stream.
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 24
TABLE 3
RIPARIAN HABITAT CHANGE
CD. LUTS. R I P TAXMAP.......
HAB I TAT. CHC
CNT
COND. MET?
CUB6140
201107CO04300
D
1
N
CU90166
201024AO04700
D
1
N
*
2
CU90198
2011000001900
I
1
Y
CU9199
211023P000800
I
1
Y
*
2
CU8758
141222DO00500
S
1
Y
CU90114
201131C002200
S
1
Y
CU9013
161210D000100
S
1
Y
CU90185
201013DO19700
S
1
Y
CU90212
1612100000101
S
1
Y
CU9059
201131CO02300
S
1
Y
CU91163
201035BO10600
S
1
Y
CU9124
201024A004500
S
1
Y
CU9179
201024COOG306
S
1
Y
CU92179
201118BOO7300
S
1
Y
CU92190
141027CO07000
S
1
Y
LM9025
201013DO22600
D
1
N
LM9098
201107Ce0510e
D
1
Y
LM91139
2011318000800
D
1
N
LM92103
201131A00140e
D
1
N
LM9239
201131B000200
D
1
N
LM9243
2011198024600
D
i
N
�**
6
LM9011
201118BOO6400
I
1
Y
LM9292
2011318001100
I
1
Y
LM9019
211023AOe310Q@
S
1
Y
LM9030
201013D020500
S
1
Y
LM9040
201118B007400
S
1
Y
LM9041
201024R000300
S
1
Y
LMS046
201024ROO6400
S
1
Y
LM905
201031DO00301
S
1
Y
. LM9057
201118BOe82ee
S
1
Y
LM9059
201035B003800
S
1
Y
LM9063
21101OA001000
S
1
Y
LM9071
201107CO03300
S
1
Y
LM9063
201035CO04300
S
1
Y
LM9087
201013A025400
S
I
Y
LM911
201024A006200
S
1
Y
LM91127
20113OA000200
S
1
Y
LM91135
201024C000303
S
1
Y
LM9131
201025B000900
S
1
Y
LM9139
21100 3,AO02900
S
1
Y
0137-17"14
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 25
TABLE. 3
CD. LUTS. RIP TAXMAP........ HABITAT. CHG CNT COND. MET?
LM914
201131AO00800
S'
1
Y
LM916
161231DO06400
S
1
Y
LM9160
201118CO07300
S
1
Y
LM9184
201026DO06300
S
1
Y
LM9194
211003A000800
S
1
Y
LM9210
1810000000302
S
1
Y
LM92115
151211DO00300
S
1
Y
LM92116
1510100000100
S
1
Y
LM9212
1412368003200
S
1
Y
LM92120
2010358003300
S
1
Y
LM92134
141119DO00900
S
1
Y
LM92143
211023DO01700
S
1
N
LM92164
151201D001500
S
1
Y
LM9226
201024A001600
S
1
Y
LM925
141215AO00200
S
1
Y
LM9290
211002BM900
S
1
Y
•
iFiFi(•
33
SES64 201031DO00700 D
SE8914 201031DO07600 D
SE914 2011070003900 D
SE877
181010ABO1400 S
SE883
2011180006300 S
SE901
201001CD03100 S
SE905
201031D008000 S
SE911
181010AA01100 S
SE912
2elO26AO09200 S
SE913
201024AO04400 S
SE916
201035B006400 S
TP89712
141035C001700 S
TP90741
201106DO08200 S
TU9129
211026DO00900 S
1 N
1 N
1 N
3
1 Y
1 Y
1 Y
1 Y
1 Y
1 Y
1 Y
1 Y
1 Y
1 Y
1 Y
II
70
013'7-17"15
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 26
TABLE 4 0137-17"76
VEGETATION ALTERED IN RIPARIAN AREAS
CD. LUTS. RIF TAXMAP------- FRE. AREA. ALT POST. AREA- ALT ACRES---- %PRE %POST
CU92190
141027CO07000
0.000000
0.000000
1.6528
0
0
CU9758
141222D000500
0.00013130
0.0014}000
0.90013
0
CU90212
1612100000101
0.000000
0.000000
0.5509
0
0
CU9013
161210DO00100
0.00130130
0.0000121+4
0.559
0
n4
CU90185
201013 DO197Q10
0.000000
0. 000000
0.4017
0
0
CU9124
201024A004500
0.000000
0.005210
0.0521
0
10
CU90166
2 01024AO04700
0.000000
0.008190
0. 009 1
0
90
CU9179
201024CO00306
0.023-20
0.023220
0.0258
90
90
CU91163
201035B0i0800
0.0130000
0.000000
1.1478
0
0
CU90198
2011000001700
9.600000
9.600000
96.0000
10
10
CU88140
201107CO04300
0.000000
0.013760
0.0344
0
40
CU92179
2011188007300
0.000000
0.000000
0.0482
0
0
CU90114
201131CO02200
0.000000
0.000000
10.3305
0
0
CU9059
2011310002300
0.000000
0.000000
8.0348
0
0
CU9199
211023A000800
0.000000
0.000000
0.0413
0
0
LM92134
141119DO00900
0.000000
0.0400000
0.13321
0
0
LM925
141215A000200
13.0013000
0.000000
0. 203
0
0
LM9212
141236BOe3200
0.000000
0.000000
0:0688
+6
0
LM92116
1510100000100
0.000000
0.00001313
0.1721
0
0
LM92164
151201D00150f1c .
0.000000
0.000000
0.0482
0
0
LM92115
151211DO00300
0.000000
0.000000
0.055
0
0
LM916
161231DO06400
0.013770
0.013770
0.1377
10
10
L.M9210
lsiee00000302
el. 0000013
0.000000
0.3443
0
0
LM9087
201013AO25400
0.000000
0.000000
0.1[1413
0
0
LM9030
201013D020500
0.000000
0.000000
0.0091
0
0
LM9025
201013D022600
0.00095
0.008550
0.0095
10
90
I�M9041
201024A000300
0.000000
0.000000
0.0188
0
0
LM9226
201024A001600
0.005700
0.005700
0.0057
100
100
LM911
201024AO062etl
0.002980
0.002980
0.0298
10
10
LM9046
201024AO06400
0.0000x8
0.000000
16.0436
0
0
LM91135
201024C000?.03
0.000000
0.000000
0.0401
0
0
LMS131
2010258000900
0.008280
0.008280
0.Q*92
90
90
LM9184
20M26DO06300
0.051030
0.051030
0.0567
90
90
L4905
201031D000301
0.000000
0.0000013
0. e-229
0
0
LM92120
2010358003300
0.000000
0.0(b0000
0.0367
0
0
LM9059
201035EC103600
0.000000
0.0000x0
1}.2295
0
0
LM9083
20le35C0043eG
0.000000
0.000000
0.1005
0
0
U19071
201107C003300
0.022900
0.022900
0.0229
100
100
LM9096
201107C005100
0.000000
0.019410
0.0647
C
30
LM9011
2011188006400
0.000000
0.000000
Q.eZ74
0
0
LM9040
ZOIIIBBZ07400
0.020000
0.000000
0.2172
0
0
LM9057
201118801382013
0.006190
0.008190
13.0091
90
90
LM9160
2011180007300
0.000000
0.000000
0.0137
0
0
LMS24 3
2 01119 EL024600
0.0000210
0.00 5013
0. 0155 LIN
0
1 Q+
L1491127
20113OR000200
0.000000
0.0001300
2.0661
0
0
11914
201 131 A000800
e. +210000141
0. 000200
3.OZOO
0
0
LM92102
2011.31A001400
0.0013000
0.131951'112.
0.03913
13
5
LM9239
201131 B00020e
0.00:'121110
0. 13578713
e. 13643
0
913
LMS 1134
2131131 BOOOSOO
0. 000000
0. 0325130
0. 21325
13
100
LM9292
201131BOO1100
L}. 131321000141.130130014
1 -_9i
0
13
LM9290
2110025004900
0. 0'.00000
0. 01301314113
0. 121872
l
0;
a_.h19194
21100.A000800
0.00+21000
0.000000
0.0535
121
fA
!_:*191 39
21 1003POO2900
01. 020200
0. 0213200
0. af-MO
10
10
._1 :`:0C, 31
._ i 1 01 OAOO! OOO
0- k11Z11l000
0- �1111�1�
-:,. G -)S9 1
0
0
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 27
0137-1777
TABLE 4
VEGETATION ALTERED IN RIPARIAN AREAS
CD.LUTS.RIP TAXMAP....... PRE. AREA. ALT POST. AREA. ALT ACRES.... %PRE %POST
LM9019
211023 A003100
0.000000
0. 000000
0.1549
0
0
LM92143
211023D00I700
0.000000
0.000000
2.2773
0
0
SE911
181010AA01100
0.000000
0.000000
0.1418
0
0
SE677
181010AB01400
0.000000
0.000000
0.2548
0
0
SE901
201001CD03100
0.000000
0.000000
0.0569
0
0
SE913
201024A004400
0.020000
0.006350
0.0635
0
10
SE912
201026A009200
0.010780
0.010780
0.1078
10
10
SE884
201031D000700
0.000000
0.082640
0.1033
0
80
SE8914
201031D007600
0.000000
0.002180
0.0218
0
10
SE905
201031D008000
0.000000
0.000000
0.0206
0
0
SE916
2010358006400
0.000000
0.000000
0.0826
0
0
SE914
201107MG3900
0.000000
0.006880
0.0344
0
20
SE883
201118C006300
0.012840
0.012840
0.0642
20
20
TP89712
141035C001700
0.000000
0.000000
1.6528
0
0
TP90741
201106D008200
Q!. 000000
0.000000
17..3000
0
0
TU9129
211026D000900
0.000000
0.000000
0.1056
0
0
* *+e
9.780840
lei. 048430
153. 9078
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 28
TABLE 5
0137-1778
DEVELOPMENT IN WETLAND &
FLOOD
PLAIN
CD.LUTS_RIR TAXMAR.......
LOT.WET?
CNT
LOT.FLOOD?
CNT
CNT
IF DEV
DEV..
DEV.
BOTH
WET
FLOOD
1007
CU92190
141027CO07000
Y
1
Y
1
1
N
N
N
CU8758
141222DO00500
N
0
Y
1
0
N
N
N
CU90212
1612100000101
N
0
N
0
0
N
N
N
CU9013
161210DO00100
N
0
Y
1
0
N
N
N
CU90185
201013DO19700
Y
1
Y
1
I
N
N
N
CU9124
201024AO04500
N
0
Y
1
0
N
Y
Y
CU90166
20-1024AO04700
Y
1
Y
1
1
N
Y
N
CU9179
201024CO00306
N
@
Y
1
0
N"
Y
Y
CU91163
"- 201035B)ZIOS0e
Y
1
Y
1
1
N
Y
N
CU90198
2011000001900
Y
1
Y
1
1
Y
Y
Y
CU88140
201107CO04300
N
0
Y
1
0
N
Y
N
CU92179
201118B007300
N
0
Y
1
0
N
Y
N
CU90114
201131CO02200
Y
1
Y
1
1
Y
Y
N
CU9059
2011 31C@02300
Y
1
Y
I
1
N
Y
N
CU9199
211023A@00800
N
0
N
0
0
N
N
Y
7
13
7
LM92134
141119DO00900
N
0
N
0
0
N
N
N
LM925
141215R000200
N
0
Y
1
0
N
N
N
LM9212
1412368003200
N
0
Y
1
0
N
N
N
LM92116
1510100000100
Y
1
Y
1
1
N
N
N
LM92164
151201De015ee
N
0
Y
i
0
N
N
N
LM92115
151211D@00300
N
0
Y
1
0
N
N
N
LM916
161231D@06400
Y
1
Y
1
1
N
N
N
LM9210
1810000000302
N
0
N
0
0
N
N
N
LM9087
2010138025400
N
0
N
0
0
N
N•
N
LM9e3e
201@13D@2050@
N
0
N
0
0
N
N
N
LM9025
2 0101.?,DO22603
N
e
Y
1
0
N
N
N
LM9041
201024A@@@300
N
0
Y
1
0
N
N
N
LM9226
201024ROO1600
N
0
Y
I
0
N
N
N
LM911
201024A@@6200
N
0
N
0
@_
N,_
N
N
LM9046
201024A0064@@
Y
1
Y
1
1
.N
Y
N
LM91135
20W24C000303
N
0
Y
1
0
N
N
N
LM9131
20102580009@e
N
0
N
0
0
N
N
N
LM9184
201026M0630e
N
0
Y
1
0
N
N
N
LM905
201031DO00301
N
0
N
0
0
N
N
N
LM92120
201035B003300
N
0
Y
1
0
N
N
N
LM9059
2e1035B@03800
Y
1
N
e
@
N
N
N
LM9083
201@35C004300
Y
1
Y
1
1
N
N
N
LM9e71
201107CO03300
N
0
Y
1
0
'N
Y
N
LM9098
201107C0051@@
N
0
Y
1
@
N
N
N
LM9011
2011188006400
N
0
N
0
0
N
N
N
LM9040
2011188007400
N
0
Y
1
0
N
N
N
LM9057
2011188008200
N
0
N
0
e
N
N
Y
LM9160
201116CO07300
N
0
N
0
0
N
N
N
LM9243
2011198024600
Y
1
Y
1
1
N
Y
N
LM91127
201130AZOO200
Y
i
Y
i
1
N
N
N
LM914
201131AO00600
Y
1
Y
1
1
N
N
N
LM92103
201131A001400
Y
1
Y
1
1
N
N
N
LM9239
2011318000200
Y
1
Y
1
1
N
N
N
LM91139
201131B000800
Y
1
Y
i
1
N
N
N
LM9292
2011318001100
Y
1
Y
1
1
N
N
N
LM9290
2110028001900
Y
1
Y
1
1
N
N
N
Riparian
Cumulative Effects
Study -
November
14,
1994
Page 29
0137-1779
TABLE 5
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 30
DEVELOPMENT INWETLAND & FLOOD
PLAIN
CD.LUTS.RIP
TAXMAR.......
LOT.WET?
CNT
LOT.FLOOD?
CNT
CNT
IF DEV
DEV..
DEV_
BOTH
WET
FLOOD
1001
LM9194
211003A000800
N
0
N
0
0
N
N
N
LM9139
211003ROO2900
Y
1
Y
1
1
N
N
N
LM9063
211010A001000
Y
1
Y
1
1
N
N
N
LM9019
211023A003100"Y
1
Y
1
1
N
N
N
LM92143
211023DO01700
Y
1
Y
1
I
N
N
N
*
17
29
16
SE911
181010AA01100
N
0
N
0
0
N
N
Y
SE877
181010AB01400
N
0
N
0
0
N
N
Y
SE901
201001CDO3100
Y
1
Y
1
1
N
N
Y
SE913
201024ROO4400
N
0
Y
1
0
N
Y
Y
SE912
2010268009200
N
0
N
0
0
N
N
Y
SES84
201031DO00700
Y
1
N
0
0
N
N
Y
SES914
201031DO07600
N
0
N
0
0
N
N
Y
SE905
201031DOO8000
N
0
N
0
0
N
N
Y
SE916
201035BOO6400
Y
1
Y
1
1
N
N
Y
SE914
201107CO03900
Y
1
Y
1
1
N
N
Y
SE883
201118C006300
Y
1
Y
1
1
N
N
Y
5
5
4
TP89712
141035CO01700
Y
1
Y
1
1
N
N
N
TP90741
201106DO08200
Y
1
Y
1
1
N
N
N
2
2
2
TU9129
211026DO00900
N
0
Y
1
0
N
N
N
0
1
0
**
31
50
29
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 30
APPENDIX A 0137-1780
RIPARIAN AREA - ESEE FINDINGS AND DECISION
Inventory
Riparian areas are areas adjacent to rivers, streams, lakes or
ponds where there is vegetation that requires free or unbound
water or conditions that are more moist than normal. Riparian
areas form an interconnected system within a watershed. At the
water's edge they define the transition zone between aquatic
systems and terrestrial systems. Riparian areas often contain a
diversity of vegetation not found in upland areas. Riparian
areas are limited in Deschutes County and are important habitats
for both fish and wildlife.
In Deschutes County significant riparian habitat is located in
one or more of the following three areas:
1. The area within 100 feet of the ordinary high
water mark of an inventoried river or stream.
The 100 foot wide area may contain both riparian
vegetation and upland vegetation. Wetlands and flood
plain are also frequently within 100 feet of a stream
or river. In some cases the riparian vegetation may
extend beyond 100 feet from the ordinary high water
mark if it is a designated wetland or flood plain.
In forested areas, the Oregon Department of Forestry
identifies the riparian management area along Class 1
streams as an area on each side of a stream averaging
three times the stream width but not averaging less
than 25 feet or more than one hundred feet.
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
Land Use Planning Guide contains a section
identifying protection policies and standards for
various habitats and species. The recommended model
ordinance for riparian areas in the handbook
identifies a 100 foot area as measured from the
ordinary high water line of all Class I and Class II
streams.
2. The area adjacent to an inventoried river or
stream and located within a flood plain mapped
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and
zoned Flood Plain by the county.
The flood plain may extend beyond 100 feet from the
ordinary high water mark of the stream and may
contain wetland.
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 31
0137-1781
3. The area adjacent to a river or stream and
inventoried as a wetland on the National
Wetlands Inventory Map.
A riparian wetland may extend beyond 100 feet from
the ordinary high water mark and may be included in a
flood plain.
The county has not conducted an inventory of riparian areas
adjacent to lakes and ponds on private land. However, many of
these areas are included in the National Wetland Inventory Maps
and are subject to County, State and/or Federal wetland fill and
removal regulations. Riparian areas adjacent to the many lakes
on federal lands are managed and protected under the federal land
and resource management plans and are not included in the county
inventory and are not considered in the ESEE analysis of
conflicting uses.
The three areas described above are further identified in the
Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Plain maps, the U.S. Department of
the Interior National Wetlands Inventory maps, the Deschutes
County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan and Title 18 of the Deschutes
County Code.
Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study
The Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study (1986)
inventoried the following significant riparian habitat and
completed an ESEE analysis of this habitat. The River Study
inventory and ESEE analysis for riparian habitat are
incorporated herein by reference.
The River Study resulted in adoption of a 100 foot setback
for structures and septic systems, fill and removal
regulations, provisions for conservation easements and
prohibition of hydro -electric facilities on certain reaches
of the Deschutes River and its tributaries.
Riparian Area Inventoried In River Study (Table 6-2)
STREAMS ACRES
Deschutes River
1,440
Little Deschutes River
2,920
Paulina Creek
846
Fall River
43
Crooked River
38
Squaw Creek
47
Tumalo Creek
50
Indian Ford Creek
573
5,966
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 32
FEMA Maps
The Federal Emergency Management
plain adjacent to the following
flood plain along these rivers
Plain (FP) by Deschutes County.
0137-1782
Agency (FEMA) maps flood
rivers and streams. The
and streams is zoned Flood
Deschutes River Long Prairie
Little Deschutes River Dry River
Squaw Creek Spring River
Crooked River Indian Ford Creek
Paulina Creek
Portions of Indian Ford Creek and the Deschutes River near
Sunriver have not been surveyed and mapped by FEMA. These
areas are not zoned flood plain. However, the Flood Plain
Zone, Title 18.96.020, states: "When base flood elevation
data has not been provided in the flood insurance study, the
Planning Division will obtain, review and reasonably utilize
any base flood elevation or flood way data available from
federal, state or other sources in determining the location
of a flood plain or flood way."
National Wetlands Inventory Maps
The U.S. Department of Interior National Wetlands Inventory
Maps are the county inventory of wetland habitat. These
mapped wetlands are subject to county, state and federal
fill and removal regulations.
Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan
The Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, adopted
in 1979, mapped riparian areas along the following rivers
and streams. '-`
River or Stream
Ownership
Deschutes River
Private/Federal
Little Deschutes River
Private/Federal
Fall River
Private/Federal
Tumalo Creek
Private/Federal
Three Creek
Private/Federal
Squaw Creek
Private/Federal
Trout Creek
Private/Federal
Dry Creek
Private/Federal
Cache Creek
Private/Federal
Indian Ford Creek
Private/Federal
Cultus River
Federal
Charlton Creek
Federal
Deer Creek
Federal
Cultus Creek
Federal
Quinn Creek
Federal
Fall Creek
Federal
Moore Creek
Federal
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 33
Title 18.88, the Wildlife Area
provision which required advic
of Fish and Wildlife to determ
these mapped riparian areas.
from Title 18.88 by Ordinance
clear and objective standard.
was repealed and replaced with
Zone Map that does not include
0137-1783
Combining Zone, contained a
e from the Oregon Department
ine the minimum lot sizes in
This provision was deleted
92-042 because it was not a
The Comprehensive Plan map
a Wildlife Habitat Combining
mapped riparian areas.
Title 18 - Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance
Title 18.04.030 of the Deschutes County Code includes the
following streams in the definition of "perennial stream."
These streams, in addition to all those listed above, are
subject to the 100 foot setback for structures and septic
systems.
Perennial Streams Listed in Title 18.04.030
Alder Creek
Bottle Creek
Bridge Creek
Brush Draw
Bull Creek
Cache Creek
Charlton Creek
Cultus Creek
Cultus River
Deer Creek
Dry Creek
Fall Creek
First Creek
Full Creek
Goose Creek
Indian Ford Creek
Jack Creek
Kaleetan Creek
Lake Creek - Middle Fork
Metolius Creek
Park Creek - East Fork
Park Creek - West Fork
Pole Creek
Rock Creek
Snow Creek
Soap Creek
Spring Creek
Soda Crater Creek
Squaw Creek - North Fork
Three Creek
Todd Lake Creek
Trout Creek
Tumalo Creek - North Fork
Tumalo Creek - Middle Fork
Tumalo Creek - South Fork
All of these streams, except portions of Indian Ford Creek,
Cache Creek and Dry Creek, are located on federal land and
are subject to either the Deschutes National Forest or the
Bureau of Land Management Resource Management Plans.
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 34
Location. Ouality and Ouantity 0137-1784
The extent of riparian area varies depending on the soil, terrain,
aspect, vegetation and hydrology. In the south county, there are
extensive areas of flood plain and wetland adjacent to the
Deschutes and Little Deschutes Rivers. In the north county, where
the Deschutes, Crooked River and Squaw Creek are located in
canyons, the riparian area is typically a narrow band confined by
the canyon.
Native wildlife depend on the limited riparian habitat. According
to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 37 percent of
reptiles, 46 percent of birds and 69 percent of mammals use
riparian habitat. Riparian areas are essential habitat for
waterfowl and significant habitat for upland game birds including
grouse, quail, mourning doves and pheasants. Many non -game
species also depend on the riparian habitat. The riparian
vegetation is also an important component of fish habitat to
stabilize stream banks and provide shade to maintain desireable
water temperatures. The riparian areas are used as migration
corridors by deer and are travel corridors for many other species
of wildlife.
The quality of the riparian areas is poor in some areas of the
south county where extensive development on small lots has
occurred along the Deschutes and Little Deschutes Rivers. Some
land owners have removed native vegetation to the river's edge and
constructed retaining walls and docks, planted lawns or have
removed vegetation to enhance their view of the river.
Some grazing damage has occurred on isolated private tracts in the
canyons of the Deschutes River and Squaw Creek and along Indian
Ford Creek and the Little Deschutes River. However, where
residential development or grazing has not occurred adjacent to
the streams, the riparian vegetation is•generally in fair to good
condition.
The water level in the Deschutes River fluctuates because of
storage and release of water for irrigation from Wickiup and Crane
Prairie Reservoirs. The fluctuating water flows cause erosion and
increased turbidity. Low flows during the fall and winter greatly
diminish the size of wetted area and can render cover near the
banks unsuitable for fish habitat. The low flows also create
unstable streambank conditions leading to erosion. The timing and
velocity of high flows during the spring and summer reduce the
potential for revegetation of stream banks.
In forested riparian areas the width of the significant habitat
area depends on the size (class) of the stream. The Oregon
Department of Forestry (ODF) defines riparian habitat in three
classifications: riparian area, riparian area of influence and
riparian management area.
The ODF riparian area is the wet soil area next to streams lakes,
and wetlands. These areas have high water tables and soils which
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 35
0137-1785
exhibit characteristics of wetness. Water loving plants are often
associated with these areas.
The ODF riparian area of influence is the transition area between
the riparian area and upland vegetation. It contains trees which
may provide shade or contribute fine or large woody material or
terrestrial insects to a stream. It also may contain trees that
provide habitat for wildlife associated with the riparian
management area.
The ODF riparian management area is the area subject to the
regulations in the Forest Practices Act administered by the the
Oregon Department of Forestry along class I streams. The width of
the riparian management area on each side of the stream is 3 times
the width of the streams but not less than 25 feet or greater than
100 feet. This area usually includes a riparian area and riparian
area of influence.
Commercial forest harvest operations are subject to the State
Forest Practices Act and are not regulated by the county.
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 36
0137-1780
Conflicting Uses Determination
Conflicting uses identified include:
1. Fill and removal of material, including vegetation, which
could cause reduction in the size, quality or function of
riparian habitat or cause destruction or degradation of the
riparian vegetation.
2. Locating structural development in riparian areas can reduce
the habitat and the use of structures could cause conflicts
such as harassment or disturbance of wildlife dependent on
the habitat.
3. Cutting of riparian vegetation can remove important shade
from streams needed to maintain water temperature for fish,
eliminate habitat for various' waterfowl, furbearers, and
nongame bird species and can also increase the potential for
erosion or bank instability in riparian areas.
The county does not regulate commercial forest practices;
they are regulated by the Oregon Department of Forestry.
4. Hydroelectric development can alter or destroy riparian
habitat.
5. Locating septic systems in riparian area could cause
pollution of ground and surface water systems. The potential
for this conflict depends on the characteristics of the soil
and hydrology.
The Department of Environmental Quality regulates the
placement and construction of septicsystems. The purpose of
Department of Environmental Quality regulations (OAR 340-71)
is to restore and maintain the quality of public waters and
to protect the public health and general welfare of the
people of the State of Oregon.
6. Recreational use of the riparian area including boat landing
areas, formal and informal trails and camping areas can cause
soil compaction and destruction of vegetation.
7. Overgrazing can cause bank erosion and destruction of
riparian vegetation leading to increased siltation and higher
water temperatures.
Farm use, including grazing is a permitted use in most zones
outside of the rural service centers. ORS 30.930 to 30.947
contains "right to farm" provisions which prohibit right of
action or claim for relief based on nuisance or trespass
arising from a farm or forest practice. Therefore the county
may not be able to regulate grazing activities in EFU or
Forest zoned land.
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 37
0137-1787
8. Irrigation water storage, release and diversion alters the
natural hydrologic cycles in riparian areas causing erosion
and alteration of natural riparian vegetation.
The county does not have have control over -storage, release,
use or diversion of water. Water flows and water
appropriation are regulated and administered by the Oregon
Department of Water Resources.
9. Depending on the hydrology and geology of an area, wells in
or adjacent to riparian areas could affect hydrology and
alter the amount or quality of water in riparian areas.
The State Water Resources Department enforces state statute
(ORS 537) and administrative rules (OAR 690) regarding
construction and maintenance of wells. ORS 537.769 prohibits
adoption of any ordinance, order or regulation by a local
government to regulate the inspection or construction of
wells.
10. Increase in density of residential lots in or adjacent to
riparian areas could result in a decrease of habitat
effectiveness because of disturbance to wildlife.
The minimum lot size for land adjacent to riparian areas
outside of urban growth boundaries and rural service centers
is determined by zone as follows:
ZONE MINI4UN LOT SIZE
Exclusive Farm Use
Farm Parcel
Nonfarm Parcel
Forest Zone
Multiple Use Agriculture
Rural Residential
Flood Plain
Exception area
Non -exception area
23 acres irrigated land or more
20 acres
80 acres
10 acres
10 acres
10 acres
80 acres
The Board finds that new parcels meeting the minimum lot size
in the resource zones (Exclusive Farm Use, Forest,
Non -exception Flood Plain) will not cause an increase in
residential density that would conflict with riparian habitat
values.
Fifty-one new 10 acre parcels could potentially be created in
the Rural Residential, Multiple Use Agriculture and Flood
Plain zone found adjacent to inventoried riparian areas.
This number does not include a 376 acre property along Tumalo
Creek with over a mile of creek frontage. The potential land
divisions are distributed as follows:
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 38
.m
LOCATION
Squaw Creek
Indian Ford Creek
Little Deschutes River
Deschutes North of Bend
Deschutes South of Bend
Tumalo Creek
0137-1788
14
16
4
5
12
Undeveloped 376 acre parcel,
One mile of creek frontage
Creation of new 10 acre parcels would not significantly
increase the overall density of residential use adjacent to
riparian areas because the areas where new parcels could be
created, with the exception of Tumalo Creek, are already
divided into lots considerably smaller than 10 acres.
Economic. Social, Environmental and Energy Consequences of
Conflicting Uses
Although there may be economic, social, environmental and energy
consequences of 1) permitting or limiting water flow; 2) grazing
in the Exclusive Farm Use zones; 3) the number and location of
wells; or 4) commercial forest practices in riparian areas,
regulation of these conflicting uses is not within the
jurisdiction of the county. Therefore, the following ESEE
analysis does not consider the consequences of permitting or
limiting these conflicting uses.
Economic Consequences:
A positive economic
the protection of
fish and wildlife
consequence
habitat which
populations,
natural quality of the areas.
areas are a main reason tourists
of limiting conflicting uses is
will maintain or increase the
vegetation diversity and the
Abundant wildlife and natural
visit the county.
The maintenance of riparian habitat may increase the value of
private property because of the aesthetic values often
associated with natural areas and wildlife. However, requiring
retention of riparian vegetation on residential land adjacent to
rivers and streams may reduce the value of the property
depending on the preferences of potential buyers.
An economic consequence of limiting removal of riparian
vegetation including timber could be a reduction in material
available for the timber industry. Prohibiting forest
management in riparian areas could also increase the incidence
of tree mortality and fire hazard due to insect infestation
which could result in increase cost for controlling wildfire.
Maintaining riparian vegetation can stabilize stream banks and
thereby prevent loss of land due to erosion.
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 39
0137-1783
Restricting or regulating recreational development in riparian
areas could have an economic consequence because fewer sites
would be available for tourists.
Owners of property zoned for 10 acre minimum lot sizes would
face a reduction in the potential value of their property if
they were prohibited from dividing their property adjacent to
riparian areas.
Social Consequences:
The positive social consequence of limiting conflicting uses is
the protection of habitat which has aesthetic qualities
appreciated by both county residents and tourists. Limiting
conflicting uses also helps maintain wildlife populations which
are valued by county residents and visitors.
Limiting conflicting uses such as docks, decks, and other
structures could prevent someone from developing their property
in a manner they desire. Restricting removal of native
vegetation may prevent property owners from increasing their
view of a river or stream or prevent them from developing
introduced landscaping including lawns.
Limiting public improvements such as trails, campgrounds, public
boat launching facilities could result in more crowding in
existing facilities and an inability to expand existing or
develop new facilities for recreation.
Limiting land division in exception areas to create new parcels
in, or adjacent to, riparian areas would have a social
consequence of reducing the number of potential homesites in
areas that are zoned for residential development. The positive
social consequence would be retention of larger areas of open
space free from development. The current minimum lot size in
exception areas is 10 acres. In the Rural Residential and
Multiple Use Agriculture Zone (exception areas) there is the
potential to create a approximately 51 new parcels adjacent to
riparian areas. However, it is unlikely that this many new
parcels will be created because of limitations of topography,
access and flood plain and the desire of owners for parcels
larger than 10 acres.
Environmental Consequences:
The environmental consequences of limiting conflicts with
riparian habitat are positive. The habitat would be retained or
enhanced which results in stable and diverse fish and wildlife
populations and high water quality for fish. Limiting fill and
removal activities associated with construction projects and
stream bank stabilization will maintain water quality for people
and wildlife.
Strictly prohibiting management of forest vegetation in riparian
areas could lead to increased fire hazard due to increased fuel
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 40
0137-1700
build up and tree mortality from insect infestations. Wildfire
could be an environmental consequence leading to destruction of
vegetation and damage to soil causing increased erosion.
Energy Consequences:
Limiting hydroelectric development as a conflicting use could
reduce the opportunity for hydroelectric energy production and
require that power be produced from other sources.
Additional information and ESEE analysis is provided in the
Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study, Chapter 6 and the
River Study Staff Report which are incorporated herein by
reference.
Conclusion•
Based on the above ESEE analysis and the ESEE analysis found in
the Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study, consequences
should be balanced to allow the conflicting uses but in a
limited way in order to protect the resource to the desired
extent (OAR 660-16-010(3)).
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 41
Program
To Achieve Goal 5 For Riparian Habitat
0137-17SA
Policies
and Goals
The Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study resulted in the
amendment of the Comprehensive Plan to include a chapter
entitled Deschutes River Corridor (Ordinance 86-019). Goals and
policies in the Water Resource, Open Space, Recreation, Fish,
and Wildlife sections of this chapter address riparian habitat
protection and enhancement.
The Fish and Wildlife chapter of the Comprehensive Plan has a
policy (Policy #15) to retain and encourage public ownership of
significant fish and wildlife habitat and riparian areas. The
Water Resources chapter contains policies to protect water
quality and reduce erosion (Policy #9).
Zoning Ordinance
Deschutes County has numerous zoning regulations which serve to
protect the riparian resource. Not every regulation applies to
every inventoried stream. Some of these regulations were
adopted primarily to protect other Goal 5 resources; however,
they also provide some protection of riparian resources as well.
For example, the Landscape Management Zone (LM) was adopted to
protect scenic and open space values as seen from the designated
rivers and streams, but it also has provisions to retain
riparian vegetation with a conservation easement within 10 feet
of the ordinary high water mark. The fill and removal
regulations protect wetlands which are frequently riparian
areas. Other regulations such as flood plain restrictions were
adopted to reduce hazards but also serve to prohibit most
development in riparian areas which are also flood plain zones.
The regulations which apply to conflicting uses in riparian
areas are discussed below along with a description of the rivers
and streams where each regulation applies. The following two
provisions apply to all rivers and streams identified in the
inventory:
1. In all zones the county zoning ordinance requires a 100 foot
setback from the ordinary high water mark of all streams or
lakes for all sewage disposal installations and structures.
No structures, septic tanks or drain fields are permitted
within 100 feet of any inventoried River Study or perennial
stream.
2. In all zones a conditional use permit is required for fill
and removal of any material, including vegetation, within a
wetland or within the bed and banks of an inventoried
stream. This provision applies to all wetlands mapped on
the National Wetland Inventory Maps. The bed and banks of a
stream is defined as the container below full bank stage
plus the land 10 feet on either side of the container.
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 42
Flood Plain Zone - Title 18.96 0137,-1792
Where the riparian area is zoned Flood Plain because it is
mapped as flood plain on the FEMA maps, the regulations of Title
18.96 apply. Permitted uses in the flood plain are limited to
agriculture, forest management, open space, and residential uses
not containing structures. Conditional use permits are required
for all other uses. One of the specific purposes of the zone is
to conserve riparian areas and maintain fish and wildlife
resources. The Flood Plain zone also regulates docks and piers
and requires a finding that the structure will not cause the
deterioration of destruction of wildlife habitat.
Landscape Management Zone - Title 18.84
The following rivers and streams are designated as Landscape
Management streams and are subject to the provisions of Title
18.84, the Landscape Management Combining Zone.
Deschutes River Little Deschutes River
Squaw Creek Crooked River
Tumalo Creek Paulina Creek
Title 18.84.080(1) requires retention of vegetation to screen
development which would be visible from the designated river or
stream. This provision may protect riparian vegetation. The
zone includes land within 1320 feet of a state scenic waterway
(segments of Deschutes River) or a federal Wild and Scenic River
(segments of Deschutes River and Squaw Creek), or within 660
feet of the other rivers and streams identified as landscape
management.
Title 18.84.080.(10) requires a conservation easement for
landscape management site plan reviews adjacent to the landscape
management rivers and streams. The conservation easement
includes the area 10 feet from the ordinary high water mark of
the river or stream. The conservation easements shall not
require public access.
Other Provisions in Title 18
Title 18.113.070(D), Destination Resort Zone, requires complete
mitigation of any loss or net degradation of fish and wildlife
resources from destination resort development.
Title 18.113.070(E), Destination Resort Zone, requires
maintenance of riparian vegetation within 100 feet of streams
rivers and significant wetlands in new destination resorts.
Title 18.116.220 requires a conservation easement as a condition
of approval for all land use actions involving properties
adjacent to the Deschutes River, Crooked River, Fall River,
Little Deschutes River, Spring River, Paulina Creek Squaw Creek
and Tumalo Creek in order to protect natural resources, natural
values and water quality. The conservation easement includes
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 43
all property within 10 feet of the ordinary high water mark of
the river or stream. 0137"-171'3
J 1'3
Concurrent with the adoption of this inventory pa and ESEE
analysis, the Board of County Commissioners has directed the
Planning Division to begin the process to amend Title
18.116.220 to add Indian Ford Creek to the list of streams
requiring a conservation easement as a condition of approval for
land use actions involving properties adjacent to certain
streams.
Title 18.128(V) establishes criteria for conditional use permits
for development of hydroelectric facilities. This provision
resulted from the Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study
(Ordinance 86-018). The regulations require river enhancement
and maintenance or enhancement of existing fish and wildlife
habitats.
Federal Wild and Scenic River
Segments of the Deschutes River and upper Squaw Creek are
designated as Federal Scenic Rivers. The U.S. Forest Service is
in the process of developing a management plans for the
Deschutes River. The county is participating in technical
review committees developing the plan.
State Scenic Waterway
The Deschutes River, except for the portion adjacent to the
Sunriver planned development, is designated an Oregon Scenic
Waterway. Development within one quarter mile of state scenic
waterways is subject to review by the Oregon State Parks and
Recreation Department to assure compatibility with the scenic
values along the river. New dams are prohibited. Although, the
principle objective of the State Scenic Waterways is to protect
scenic characteristics, a secondary benefit is retention of
riparian vegetation for screening and scenic qualities.
Commercial Forest Practices
Commercial forest practices in riparian areas on private land
are regulated by the Oregon Department of Forestry. Riparian
area management on federal land is subject to either Bureau of
Land Management or U.S. Forest Service land management plans.
Agricultural Practices
Agricultural practices including grazing are a permitted use in
most zones. In the EFU zone, state statute prohibits
regulations that make farm practices a nuisance or trespass.
Therefore, the county does not regulate farm practices.
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 44
0137-1'794
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) Land Use
Planning Guide identifies acceptable riparian protection
ordinances in its Riparian Handbook for Planners. One of the
referenced ordinances is Deschutes County's. The handbook
specifically describes the 100 foot setback for structures and
the Landscape Management Combining Zone as measures protecting
riparian areas in Deschutes County.
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 45
0137-1705
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 46
"PENDih I3 0137-17%
RsQoXREHMfrS
Z- Conditions (from Findings - what was required to protect resource?)
u- -Retain Vegetation Y / N
b- Plant Vegetation Y / K
c- Conservation Easement? Y / K Width
d. Setback Di -stance rxox River (OHH)
e. Other:
Descriptons:
2. Have Habitat Values lcproved?
Stayed the Same?
Deteriorated?
Describe: (How? why?)
Riparian Cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 46
Sz= aNFORzQaaON
U137 -170I
DESGR=ION= Pre -development
P"�t-= 0 z_ Development Proposal=
Address=
Kame:
Map.
Zone:
Paver=
State Scenic W' r- Y/2i
Federal •R & S? Y/2i
Reiland Hap:
Fp Hap
SiTR VISIT
-D=z
aST'^ATL
Current Aerial Photo f
Site Visit Photo?
2. Riparian Veg Description=
a. Wetland (NWI)?
b. Floodplain (F1RK)? Y / x
c_ other streamside? Y-/ x
Average Width of Riparian Zone= ft_
Area • sq_ :Et.
g Native % Altered ' Unknown
Describe:
3.*Adjacent Riparian Habitat:
4. Su=ounding land use
5. Source of Description:
Findings & Deci si orL _ Site Plan
Applicant Photo Aerial Photo
Site Visit
twit• ' :i Y �• It Y •
Z. Is development in:
a. Reiland (NRI)? Y / N
b. Floodplain (F1RK)? Y / x
c. Zoo ft. Setback? Y / x
Average Width of Riparian Zone:
Area ft.
g Native . *- Altered
Describe:
2. Surrounding Habitat:
3. Surrounding tand Use:
4. Code Enforcement Complaints? Y / K
Riparian cumulative Effects Study - November 14, 1994
Page 47
F-q;F