2001-392-Ordinance No. 2001-018 Recorded 4/27/2001VOL: CJ2001 PAGE: 392
RECORDED DOCUMENT
STATE OF OREGON
COUNTY OF DESCHUTES
*CJ2001-392 * Vol -Page Printed: 05/03/2001 13:40:41
DO NOT REMOVE THIS CERTIFICATE
(This certificate constitutes a part of the original instrument in accordance with
ORS 205.180(2). Removal of this certificate may invalidate this certificate and affect
the admissibility of the original instrument into evidence in any legal proceeding.)
I hereby certify that the attached instrument was received
and duly recorded in Deschutes County records:
DATE AND TIME:
DOCUMENT TYPE:
Apr. 27, 2001; 2:40 p.m.
Ordinance (CJ)
NUMBER OF PAGES: 24
MARY SUE PENHOLLOW
DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK
c�REVIEWED
"26
LEGAL COUNSEL
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES CO , Rri" N-
7 o
An Ordinance Amending Title 23, the* ; _.
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, *%'
ca ,
of the Deschutes County Code, to amend * -a
the Fish and Wildlife Chapter of the Plan.
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-018
WHEREAS, Sunriver Resort Limited Partnership submitted an applicatiai i f"r' a
legislative amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Chapter of the Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Planning Commission, after conducting a public
hearing on the proposed amendment in accordance with applicable law, has forwarded the
proposed changes to Fish and Wildlife Chapter of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan to
the Board of County Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, after notice was given and hearing conducted on April 4, 2001 before the
Board of County Commissioners in accordance with applicable law, and the Board of County
Commissioners has considered the proposed amendments; now, therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY,
OREGON, ORDAINS as follows:
Section 1. AMENDMENT. Section 23.40.050, Fish and wildlife, of the Deschutes
County Comprehensive Plan is amended to delete Fish and Wildlife Policy 19 as set forth in
Exhibit "A," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with new language
underlined and deleted language shown in str-ilei.
Section 2. FINDINGS. The Board of County Commissioners adopts as its findings and
conclusions in support of the amendment the Findings attached hereto as Exhibit `B," and by
this reference incorporated herein.
Section 3. AMENDMENT. The Resource Element of the Comprehensive Plan is
amended to include a new ESEE Analysis in support of the amendment to Section 23.40.050 as
set forth in Exhibit "C," attached hereto and by this referenced incorporated herein.
DATED this 0iJ fday of April, 2001.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUT S CO T , OREGON
Tom DeWolf, Chai
ATTEST: Dennis R. Luke, Commi sinner
�NUA,k� +Zda�_ -
Recording Secretary Michael M. Daly, Co issioner
PAGE 1 OF 1 - ORDINANCE NO. 2001-018 (4/4/01)
Exhibit "A"
23.40.050. Fish and wildlife.
A. Introduction. The protection of fish and
wildlife resources has been a on-going
controversy in Deschutes County. Both those
committed to the protection of the resources
and those who wish to subdivide or otherwise
develop in sensitive wildlife areas have often
pressed their positions, sometimes resulting
in court action to resolve the conflict.
It is recognized that failure to protect fish and
wildlife resources will result in loss of habitat
and loss of endangered species, declining
tourist expenditures, loss of recreational
opportunities and loss of quality of life.
Already, Deschutes County has witnessed the
serious degrading of the cold -water fishery
by irrigation withdrawals, loss of sensitive
deer winter rangelands to development and
the disturbance of deer migration corridors
due to residential and recreational
construction.
Testimony by representatives of the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife indicates
that their studies have shown that there is
significant deer migration from the Deschutes
National Forest west of the Deschutes River
to wintering ranges east of the river identified
as the North Paulina, Devil's Garden and
Hole in the Ground Ranges. They further
expressed a belief, based on their training and
experience, that rural housing at a density of
more than one residence per 40 acres can
seriously threaten deer winter survival, and
that rural residents often own dogs which,
especially in packs allowed to run at large,
are a threat to all wildlife.
One type of area of particular concern is the
riparian area or wetlands along streams and
lakes. These areas not only serve as essential
habitat for many species and as migration
corridors for big game, but are particularly in
need of protection because of their limited
nature.
Not only do the wetter, more forested areas of
the County provide wildlife habitat, but the
dry high plains in the eastern portion of the
County have large populations of sage grouse
and antelope. These wildlife species are
highly dependent on the open relatively
undeveloped character of this area for their
survival.
Throughout committee discussions and
public testimony, the public expressed
concern that local fish and wildlife resources
be protected. As part of the County periodic
review of the comprehensive plan, the goals
and policies have been reviewed by the
public, the Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife, the Planning Commission and the
Board of County Commissioners. During
periodic review the County also updated the
fish and wildlife inventories and completed
Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy
analysis of conflicting uses and developed
programs to protect the significant Goal 5
wildlife resources.
To protect important fish and wildlife
resources the following goals and policies are
established:
B. Goals.
1. To conserve and protect existing fish and
wildlife areas.
2. To maintain all species at optimum levels
to prevent serious depletion of
indigenous species.
3. To develop and manage the lands and
waters of this County in a manner that
will enhance, where possible, the
production and public enjoyment of
wildlife.
4. To develop and maintain public access to
lands and waters and the wildlife
resources thereon.
5. To maintain wildlife diversity and
habitats that support the wildlife diversity
in the County.
C. Policies.
1. In light of the need to protect deer winter
range and to be consistent with plan
policies restricting rural sprawl, the
Metolius, North Paulina, Tumalo and
Grizzly deer winter ranges shall be
protected by special zones. The winter
ranges shall be as designated on the Big
Game Habitat — Wildlife Area
Combining Zone Map contained in this
plan's resource element. Within the
PAGE 1 OF 3 — EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2001-18 (4/4/01)
Exhibit "A"
winter ranges the minimum lot size shall
be 40 acres, except that in the Rural
Residential Zone and the Multiple Use
Agricultural Zone planned or cluster
developments are required for new land
divisions. In planned and cluster
developments man's activities must be
limited to 20 percent of the
development's lands with 80 percent left
as open space. The density of planned
and cluster developments shall be
determined by the underlying zone.
2. The County shall enforce an animal
control ordinance which prohibits dogs to
be at large or not under the complete
control of a capable person.
3. In the Bend/La Pine deer migration
corridor identified in the comprehensive
plan resource element, new land
divisions, where the underlying zone is
Rural Residential — 10, shall be cluster
developments.
4. Because public access to fish and wildlife
areas is so important to the economic and
livability aspects of Deschutes County,
walking easements and periodic boat
access points shall be provided in areas
where public river access is limited, as
determined appropriate by the County
and State Department of Fish and
Wildlife.
5. Consistent with Policy 4 and in order to
protect the sensitive riparian areas, as
well as to protect people and property
from flood damage, the zoning ordinance
shall prohibit development (except
floating docks) within 100 feet of the
mean high water mark of a perennial or
intermittent stream or lake. Exceptions
may be permitted on lots created prior to
November 1, 1979 where adherence to
the 100 -foot setback would cause a
hardship.
6. In addition to State and Federal laws,
County ordinances shall require all
identified nesting sites for eagles,
ospreys, prairie falcons or other species
listed on the Oregon State or Federal
threatened or endangered species list
shall be protected.
7. Sensitive bird habitat sites (bald eagle,
golden eagle, osprey, great grey owl,
prairie falcon nests, great blue heron
rookeries, and sage grouse leks) and
mammal habitat sites (Townsend's big -
eared bat hibernating and nesting caves)
identified in the Resource Element of this
plan shall be protected by a Sensitive
Bird and Mammal Overlay Zone. A
protection program acceptable to the
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
for the nests or sites shall be submitted
by the applicant for a development or
land use permit and used implemented
during and after construction of the
development.
S. The antelope range and antelope winter
range identified on the Big Game
Habitat -Wildlife Area Combining Zone
Map included in the Resource Element of
this plan shall be protected by a wildlife
area combining zone. The minimum lot
size for new parcels shall be 320 acres.
The Rural Service Centers of Brothers,
Hampton and Millican shall be exempt
from the provisions of the Wildlife Area
Combining Zone.
9. The areas containing land identified as
significant elk habitat on the Big Game
Habitat Map — Wildlife Area Combining
Zone Map included in the Resource
Element of this plan shall be protected by
a wildlife area combining zone. The
minimum lot size for new parcels shall
be 160 acres in the combining zone.
10. The County shall notify the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife of all
land use applications for lands located in
the WA Combining Zone or the Sensitive
Bird and Mammal Overlay Zone.
11. The County shall work with ODFW and
the Deschutes Basin Resource
Committee to review existing protection
of riparian and wetland area vegetation
and recommend comprehensive plan and
ordinance amendments, if necessary, by
December 31, 1993.
12. When site specific information is
available to the County on the location,
quality and quantity of threatened and
endangered fish and wildlife species
PAGE 2 OF 3 — EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2001-18 (4/4/01)
Exhibit "A"
listed by State or Federal wildlife
agencies and the Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife develops protection
criteria for the species, the County shall
proceed with a Goal 5 ESEE analysis in
compliance with OAR 660 Div. 16.
13, The County shall review the La Pine and
Bull Flat elk habitat areas and the
Metolius deer migration corridor
designated as "1B" Goal 5 resources
during the next periodic review or as
additional information on the location,
quality and quantity of the habitat areas
becomes available.
14. The County shall maintain an inventory
of County -owned property in the
Bend/La Pine deer migration corridor.
Prior to sale or exchange of County
owned property in the corridor, the
County shall consult the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife to
determine the value of the land for deer
migration and make reasonable efforts to
consolidate properties to maintain habitat
characteristics important to preserving
the migration corridor.
15. The County shall work with ODFW to
identify specific areas where the County
and ODFW shall encourage public
retention and acquisition of land or seek
conservation easements for the protection
of the deer migration corridor.
16. The County shall retain and encourage
public ownership of significant fish and
wildlife habitat and riparian areas.
17. County -owned land shall be managed to
protect and enhance fish and wildlife
habitat except where a conflicting public
use outweighs the loss of habitat.
18. The County shall notify the Oregon
Division of State Lands and the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife of any
development applications for land within
a wetland identified on the National
Wetlands Inventory maps.
any peftion e
eenibining zone --shall net be—aeeepted
..,diRg e pletie of the !'',..,n ,'s Goal
The County shall eemplete the Goal 8
Deems, 1992.
2819. The County shall encourage the
formation of nonprofit land trusts for the
protection of fish and wildlife habitat,
wetland, riparian and natural areas. The
County should provide support and
assistance when deemed appropriate by
the Board of County Commissioners.
(Ord. 2001-18 § 1, 2001; Ord. 2001-016 § 2,
2001; Ord. 2000-17 § 1, 2000; Ord.95-038,
1995;Ord. 92-040, 1992;Ord. 80-203, 1980)
PAGE 3 OF 3 — EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2001-18 (4/4/01)
EXHIBIT B
FINDINGS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SUPPORTING ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AND TO CHAPTER 18.88 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE
Purpose:
The purpose of these findings is to support the Board of County Commissioner's (the
"Board") adoption of legislative text amendments to both the Resource Management
Element of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and Chapter 18.88 of the
Deschutes County Code ("DCC"). Pursuant to DCC Section 22.12.030, Sunriver Resort
Limited Partnership ("Applicant") submitted concurrent applications for the text
amendments. The amendments will allow the County to accept an application for a
conditional use permit for a destination resort within the boundaries of the Bend/La Pine
Deer Migration Corridor, but outside of the Deer Migration Priority Area established by
the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.
2. The amendment to the Comprehensive Plan (PA -00-10) will eliminate Fish and Wildlife
Policy 19 of the Comprehensive Plan. Policy 19 currently provides:
"An application for a destination resort, or any portion thereof, in a wildlife area
combining zone shall not be accepted pending completion of the County's Goal 8
destination resort mapping process. The County shall complete the Goal 8 destination
resort mapping process by December 31, 1992. "
The Comprehensive Plan amendment includes an amendment of the analysis of the
economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences ("ESEE") of protecting the
Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor.
3. The amendment to DCC Chapter 18.8 8, Wildlife Area Combining Zone (TA -00-13), will
amend Section 18.88.040(C), Uses Permitted Conditionally, by adding the reference
"Subject to subsection E," to clarify that the conditional uses allowed in the Bend/La Pine
Deer Migration Corridor are permitted subject to the use limitations in DCC Section
18.88.040(E). The amendment also adds a new subsection (D) that will include the
following language:
"Subject to Chapter 18.113, destination resorts are allowed as a conditional use in that
portion of the WA Zone designated as the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor as long
as the property is not in an area designated as "Deer Migration Priority Area " on the
1999 ODFW Map submitted to the South County Regional Problem Solving Group. "
The amendments to DCC Section 18.88.040 will also delete subsection 18.88.040(F),
which includes language identical to the language of Fish and Wildlife Policy No. 19.
1J:\DOCUME- J:\DOCUME—I\tracyt\LOCALS—I\Temp\Sunriverv. 7 - FINDINGS -WILDLIFE TEXT
4. The amended ESEE associated with the text amendments complies with Statewide
Planning Goal 5 and its implementing administrative rule, OAR 660-023. The
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, DCC Chapter 18.88, and the ESEE have been
conducted in compliance with the requirements contained in OAR 660-23 for a post -
acknowledgement plan amendment ("PAPA") affecting a wildlife habitat resource.
Background:
On November 1, 1979, the Board adopted its Comprehensive Plan, including goals and
policies for the protection of fish and wildlife resources. The Fish and Wildlife Chapter
of the Resource Element of the Comprehensive Plan includes inventories and discussion
of the fish and wildlife resources throughout the county. On November 1, 1979, the
Board also adopted PL -15, containing provisions for the Wildlife Area Combining Zone.
6. As part of the periodic review process required by the Oregon Department of Land
Conservation and Development and in compliance with Goal 5, on August 5, 1992, the
Board adopted a new Fish and Wildlife Chapter to the Resource Element of the
Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan through Ordinance No. 92-041. The
addition included the inventory, conflicts analysis and the analysis of the ESEE
consequences of protecting County fish and wildlife resources. At the same time, the
Board adopted amendments to the goals and policies in the Fish and Wildlife Chapter of
the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan through Ordinance No. 92-040
and amendments to DCC Chapter 18.88, the Wildlife Area Combining Zone, through
Ordinance No.92-042. The Board further amended DCC Chapter 18 by adding new
wildlife areas to the Wildlife Area Combining Zone, including the Bend/La Pine Deer
Migration Corridor through Ordinance No. 92-046.
As of August 5, 1992, the County had not yet completed a distinct Goal 8 process of
mapping areas as eligible for destination resort siting. Based upon the incomplete status
of that project, the amendments to both the Comprehensive Plan and DCC Chapter 18.88
contained provisions that prohibited applications for destination resorts within the
Wildlife Area Combining Zone pending the completion of the County's Goal 8
destination resort mapping process. Pursuant to the language included in the ESEE, the
Goal 8 mapping project was to be completed by December 31, 1992.
7. On February 7, 1992, the County initiated a process of designating lands eligible for
destination resorts in compliance with Goal 8. The Board adopted a package of
destination resort siting ordinances, Ordinance Nos. 92-001 through 92-004, to
implement the Goal 8 program.
Through Ordinance No. 92-002 the County amended the Deschutes County Year 2000
Comprehensive Plan by adopting a map to allow for the siting of destination resorts on
certain land in Deschutes County. The Goal 8 mapping project was completed through
two phases. Initially, the County excluded all areas that are precluded from destination
resort siting pursuant to the Goal 8 regulations, including especially sensitive big game
habitat as mapped by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ("ODFW").
2J:\DOCUME-1\tracyt\LOCALS-1\Temp\Sunriver v. 7 - FINDINGS - WILDLIFE TEXT
Therefore, the four areas shown on the ODFW map as areas of especially sensitive big
game habitat, the Tumalo deer winter range, the Metolius deer winter range, and two
areas of antelope winter range, were excluded from consideration. The County also
excluded an antelope range near Horse Ridge and most of the Millican antelope ranges
from mapping consideration even through they were not included in the ODFW map.
The County did not exclude areas within the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor from
destination resort mapping consideration because it was not recognized as especially
sensitive big game habitat pursuant to Goal 8.
In the second phase, the County mapped forest lands eligible for resort siting, and the
County completed the Goal 8 mapping project in 1993 through Destination Resort
Ordinances 93-029, 93-030 and 93-031. As a result of the phased mapping process, some
Rural Residential 10 ("RR -10") and Forest Use 2 ("F-2") zoned lands within the
boundaries of the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor were included in the destination
resort overlay map as being eligible for destination resort siting.
8. In 1996, LCDC adopted a set of revised regulations, OAR Chapter 660, Division 23, for
implementation of Statewide Planning Goal 5. The revisions were intended to replace the
regulations at OAR Chapter 660, Division 16 for most resources. The Board processed
the amendments in this case pursuant to the requirements of the revised regulations
because OAR 660-023-0250(2) provides that the requirements of the revised regulations
are applicable to PAPAS initiated on or after September 1, 1996.
The County's consideration of this PAPA is limited to a specific resource site, the
Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor. Therefore, pursuant to OAR 660-023-0250(4),
the Board is not required to revise acknowledged inventories or other implementing
measures, for the resource site or for other Goal 5 sites in the county, that are not affected
by these amendments.
9. The Deschutes County Planning Commission conducted public hearings on March 8,
2001 and two workshops on January 25, 2001 and March 22, 2001, to consider the
proposed amendments to the Resource Management Element of the Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan and DCC Chapter 18.88. On March 22, 2001, the Planning
Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendments.
10. The Board held a public hearing on April 4, 2001, to consider testimony on the proposed
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and DCC Chapter 18.88.
Compliance with Goal 5:
11. The Board finds that it is appropriate to address the issue of whether to allow destination
resorts within the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor through a PAPA in compliance
with Goal 5. During the previous periodic review process, the Board deferred a
determination on this issue until the County completed the Goal 8 mapping process.
Now that the Goal 8 mapping is finished, the Board finds that the Bend/La Pine Deer
Migration Corridor and the conflicting destination resort use are important relative to
3J:\DOCUME-1\tracyt\LOCALS- I\Temp\Sunriver v. 7 - FINDINGS - WILDLIFE TEXT
each other and, based on OAR 660-023-0040(5)(b) and the amended ESEE analysis, the
destination resort use should be allowed in a limited way that protects the Goal 5
resource. Specifically, destination resorts should be limited to areas within the
destination resort overlay that are outside of the Deer Migration Priority Area.
12. Goal 5 is satisfied through the amended ESEE for the Deer Migration Corridor, adopted
through Ordinance No. 01- . Pursuant to the requirements of Goal 5, the amended
ESEE addresses the adequacy of the resource information, identifies potential conflicts
with the resource, analyzes the economic, social, environmental, and energy
consequences of protecting the resource by limiting and prohibiting specific conflicting
uses, decides the level of protection needed for the resource based upon that analysis, and
provides a specific program to achieve that goal. Goal 5 is further met through the
adoption of amendments to the Resource Management Element of the Deschutes County
Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, Ordinance No. 0l -_, and amendments to DCC
Chapter 18.8 8, Ordinance No. 01-_, because these amendments accomplish the
specific program for protection of the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor identified in
the amended ESEE.
13. In compliance with the requirements of Goal 5 and OAR 660-023-0030, the County has
worked with ODFW to obtain the most recent and accurate inventory information on the
Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor. Since these amendments only affect the Bend/La
Pine Deer Migration Corridor, the County has neither collected nor considered
information regarding other resources or resource sites.
The inventory information relied upon by the Board in adopting the amendments includes
the existing ESEE, the ODFW Central Region Reports 86-2 and 92-1, the ODFW
modified South Deschutes County Forest Zone and Deer Migration Habitat Map that
designates the ODFW Deer Migration Priority Area, information from ODFW regarding
1999 tracking studies conducted as part of the South County Regional Problem Solving
program, the South Deschutes County Destination Resort Eligible Properties in Low
Priority Deer Migration Area map, the Wildlife Analysis and Report for Bend/La Pine
Deer Migration Corridor Text Amendment prepared by Lynn Sharp of URS, the March
21, 2001 supplemental letter from Ms. Sharp, and the March 21, 2001 letter from
Deschutes District Wildlife Biologist Steven George. Each of these information sources
is described in the amended ESEE and is incorporated herein by reference. No other
inventory information on the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor was submitted
during the local process and there was no conflicting evidence relating to the Goal 5
resource.
The Board finds that inventory information on the Bend /La Pine Deer Migration
Corridor is adequate to complete the Goal 5 PAPA.
a. The location of the resource is clearly defined through the previously adopted
Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor. The County added the migration corridor
to the Wildlife Area Combining Zone through Ordinance No. 92-040. The
mapping was based upon ODFW tracking data indicating that mule deer use the
4JADOCUME-1\tracyt\LOCALS—I\Temp\Sunriver v. 7 - FINDINGS - WILDLIFE TEXT
identified corridor as a migration route between their summer range in the forest
along the east slope of the Cascades to the North Paulina deer winter range
northeast of the Paulina Mountains and to the Hole -in -the -Ground and Devil's
Winter Garden winter ranges near Fort Rock. The amendments implemented
through this PAPA refine the existing migration corridor by adopting the Deer
Migration Priority Area designated on ODFW's 1999 South Deschutes County
Forest Zone and Deer Migration Habitat Map. The amendments identify land
within the corridor but outside of the Deer Migration Priority Area as appropriate
for destination resort development if those lands meet all requirements of the
County destination resort ordinance, DCC Chapter 18.113. Although the
amendments are narrowly focused on limiting a particular conflicting use within a
small segment of the corridor, the County has considered impacts on the entire
Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor throughout this Goal 5 process.
b. ODFW has recently produced updated inventory information on the quality and
quantity of the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor. Over twenty years of
ODFW studies and tracking data indicates that the quality of the resource as a
migration route and the quantity of deer using the route vary within the corridor
itself. ODFW conducted deer track counts along a 40 -mile transect from 1978 to
1991 and published the results in ODFW Central Region Administrative Report
Nos. 86-2 and 92-1. Based upon the number of deer tracks counted in each area,
the reports identify areas of high, moderate and low frequency of use within the
corridor. In 1999, based upon the earlier reports and additional unpublished
tracking studies in the area, ODFW produced the 1999 ODFW Wildlife Migration
Priority Area Map for the South County Regional Problem Solving Project.
ODFW further indicated in the March 21, 2001 letter to the County that recent,
unpublished deer track counts indicate that the historical patterns of deer
migration use remain unchanged in the areas already mapped by ODFW in the
earlier studies. Consequently, the Board finds that the quality of the entire
Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor is important to the County's wildlife
priorities. The Board further finds that, based upon.historical and recent ODFW
data, the quality of migration areas within the corridor includes both priority areas
and those areas with a low frequency of use.
14. In compliance with the requirements of Goal 5 and OAR 660-023-0040, the Board's
decision to adopt this PAPA is based upon an analysis of the economic, social,
environmental, and energy consequences of protecting the migration corridor by limiting
destination resort use. Through Ordinance No. 01- , the Board has adopted an
amended ESEE. The new ESEE amends the Deer Migration Corridor section of the Fish
and Wildlife Inventories Conflict ESEE Analysis adopted in 1992 as part of the
Deschutes County Year 2000 Plan through Ordinance No. 92-041. This amendment does
not affect any other section of the 1992 ESEE analysis.
The analysis and the findings included in the amended ESEE for the Deer Migration
Corridor are incorporated herein by reference. The Board concludes that the ESEE
demonstrates that both the resource site and the conflicting uses, including destination
5J:\DOCUME-1\tracyt\LOCALS-1\Temp\Sunriver v. 7 - FINDINGS - WILDLIFE TEXT
resorts, are important compared to each other because the benefits to the County resulting
from each use are significant enough to warrant a program that protects each use in a
limited fashion. In addition, the conflicting uses are not so detrimental to the Goal 5
resource that they should be prohibited entirely under OAR 660-023-0040(5)(a).
Therefore, pursuant to OAR 660-023-0040(5)(b), destination resorts should be allowed in
a limited way that protects the resource. (This level of protection for a significant
resource site was previously recognized as a "3C" designation pursuant to the former
regulations.) The Board finds that destination resorts should be allowed as a conditional
use within the boundaries of the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor, so long as they
are outside of the area mapped by ODFW as the Deer Migration Priority Area. The
Board finds that limiting resort development to parcels within the destination resort
overlay and outside of the Deer Migration Priority Area will direct future resorts to areas
that have proven to be successful for resort development. Resort development in such
areas will enhance the economic and social opportunities associated with resorts while
protecting the high priority segments of the migration corridor. The Board finds that the
amendments, coupled with existing regulations, ensure that any future application for a
destination resort within the wildlife corridor must demonstrate that the subject site is
outside the Deer Migration Priority Area and within the Destination Resort Overlay, and
the resort proposal must comply with all requirements in DCC Chapter 18.113. The
program to achieve Goal 5 is amended as detailed in the ESEE. All elements of the
existing program not specifically amended by Ordinance No. 01- remain in effect.
Compliance with Other Goals:
15. GOAL 1 - CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT. The Board finds that the County satisfied Goal 1
by providing notice and holding public hearings. As required by state and local law,
written notice of the proposed amendments and hearings were provided to the applicant
and fourteen public agencies. Notice was also posted in public locations and published in
the Bend Bulletin newspaper. A public hearing and two workshops were held before the
Planning Commission and one hearing was held before the Board. Pursuant to the
County's Development Procedures Ordinance, codified at DCC Chapter 22 of the
Deschutes County Code, citizen participation was allowed at all hearings.
16. GOAL 2 - LAND USE PLANNING. The County has satisfied Goal 2 by a)
consideration of adequate and current inventory information; b) a revised conflicts and
ESEE analysis and amendments to the ESEE document; c) the existence of a zoning
ordinance that, as amended, will implement the ESEE decisions through clear and
objective standards; d) the adoption of maps showing the areas eligible for resort
development within the Bend /La Pine Deer Migration Corridor; and e) the extensive
factual record generated by the inventory and ESEE process.
17. GOAL 3 - AGRICULTURAL LANDS. These ordinances do not conflict with Goal 3.
None of the properties affected by the amendments are exclusive farm use zones.
Additionally, any conditional use destination resort applications allowed pursuant to
these amendments must still comply with the provisions of DCC Chapter 18.113,
designed to protect surrounding agricultural uses.
6JADOCUME—I\tracyt\LOCALS-1\Temp\Sunriver v. 7 - FINDINGS - WILDLIFE TEXT
18. GOAL 4 - FOREST LANDS. These ordinances do not conflict with Goal 4. While there
are some forest lands included in the destination resort overlay zone, the Goal 8 mapping
project addressed conflicts with forest uses and excluded high-value forest lands from
mapping consideration. Furthermore, any conditional use destination resort applications
allowed pursuant to these amendments must still comply with the requirements included
in the DCC Chapter 18.113, designed to protect forest values.
19. GOAL 6 - AIR, LAND, AND WATER RESOURCES. Goal 6 requires the County to
ensure that all waste and process discharges from future development will not violate
applicable state or federal environmental quality standards. The Goal further requires the
County to implement regulations to protect air, water, and land resources from
degradation due to waste and process discharges. Any additional conditional use resort
development within the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor must still comply with all
of the standards of DCC Chapter 18.113 designed to protect air, land, and water
resources. The standards of DCC Chapter 18.113 will regulate waste and process
discharges from future development consistent with Goal 6.
20. GOAL 7 - AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL DISASTERS AND HAZARDS. The
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and DCC Chapter 18.88 do not permit
development in areas subject to natural disasters. Furthermore, these amendments do not
affect the floodplain requirements of Chapter 18.113 that apply to developed portions of a
destination resort within the FP overlay zone.
21. GOAL 8 - RECREATIONAL NEEDS. These amendments satisfy Goal 8 by allowing
destination resort development on lands mapped as eligible for destination resort siting
through the Goal 8 mapping process. Since the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor is
not identified as "especially sensitive big game habitat," destination resort development is
not excluded from the corridor. The County has chosen to include destination resorts as
an important component of the County's recreational goals because they provide both
internal recreational opportunities and housing for residents and visitors to enjoy the
surrounding recreation. Enjoyment of fish and wildlife is also identified in the
comprehensive plan as an important part of the County's recreational experience.
Consistent with twenty years of ODFW tracking data and analysis and ODFW's 1999
Deer Migration Priority Area Map, the amendments protect wildlife viewing and hunting
opportunities by limiting resort development to the areas outside of the Deer Migration
Priority Area. The destination resort ordinance, DCC Chapter 18.113, further protects
wildlife viewing and hunting by requiring a showing of no net loss of habitat and
mandating the retention of at least 50% open space. In addition, resorts also include golf
courses and cluster housing, which are generally compatible with wildlife habitat, as
evidenced by the current Wildlife Area Combining Zone standards. The County finds
that the amendments will satisfy the recreational needs of the County by protecting
existing recreational opportunities and creating additional opportunities for future
destination resorts, consistent with Goal 8 and the County's destination resort overlay
map.
7J:\DOCUME—I\tracyt\LOCALS-1\Temp\Sunriver v. 7 - FINDINGS - WILDLIFE TEXT
22. GOAL 9 - ECONOMY OF THE STATE. Allowing destination resorts as conditional
uses in those portions of the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor that are outside of the
Deer Migration Priority Area helps achieve the economic goals of the County by
expanding the tourist economy of the state and the region. Destination resorts are vital to
the health, welfare, and prosperity of the County's citizens because they create jobs and
draw visitors to the area. By allowing this type of development within appropriately
mapped areas, the amendments satisfy Goal 9.
23. GOAL 10 - HOUSING. Since the area affected by the amendments is outside of an
Urban Growth Boundary, Goal 10 is not applicable. Pursuant to the goal, housing needs
are to be addressed chiefly by measures taken in urban and urbanizable areas.
24. GOAL 11 - PUBLIC FACILITIES. While the amendments allow destination resorts as
conditional uses within new areas, all applicants for future resorts must address facilities
issues pursuant to DCC Chapter 18.113.
25. GOAL 12 - TRANSPORTATION. The amendments allow destination resorts in already
developed areas, thereby making transportation more efficient. Because destination
resorts provide commercial, retail, residential, and recreational uses within the resort
boundaries, vehicle trips outside of the resort boundaries are generally limited and
transportation impacts are further minimized. Additionally, pursuant to the standards of
DCC Chapter 18.113, all applicants for a destination resort must address transportation
issues prior to approval.
26. GOAL 13 - ENERGY CONSERVATION. Destination resort type development is
inherently energy efficient. Since resorts typically include internal services, the
development can provide them at a lesser cost than traditional development.
Additionally, destination resorts provide commercial, retail, residential, and recreational
uses within the resort boundaries, thereby limiting external vehicle trips. Furthermore,
any destination resort development facilitated by this amendment will be sited near
existing development, resulting in a reduction of vehicle trip generation.
27. GOAL 14 - URBANIZATION. The areas eligible for destination resorts that are affected
by these amendments are neither located within an urban growth boundary, nor in areas
planned for expansion. Goal 14 requires the establishment of urban growth boundaries to
separate urbanizable land from rural land. Urban uses are generally restricted to lands
within an urban growth boundary. However, urban uses within destination resort are
specifically permitted on rural land outside of an urban growth boundary under ORS 215
and the corresponding provisions of the Deschutes County Code. Therefore, the
amendments permitting destination resorts outside of the Deer Migration Corridor Area
pursuant to the existing destination resort provisions of DCC Chapter 18.113 are
consistent with Goal 14.
28. GOAL 15 - WILLAMETTE RIVER GREENWAY. The properties affected by these
amendments are not located within the Willamette River Greenway. Therefore, this goal
is not applicable.
8J:\DOCUME—I\tracyt\LOCAL&-1\Temp\Sunriver v. 7 - FINDINGS - WILDLIFE TEXT
29. GOAL 16 - ESTUARINE RESOURCES. There are no known estuarine resources or
associated wetlands located on those properties eligible for destination resorts pursuant to
these amendments. Furthermore, the amendments do not alter any of the existing
estuarine protections currently in place. Therefore, this goal is not applicable.
30. GOAL 17 - COASTAL SHORELANDS. The properties affected by these amendments
are not coastal areas. Therefore this goal is not applicable.
31. GOAL 18 - BEACHES AND DUNES. The properties affected by these amendments are
not coastal areas. Therefore, this goal is not applicable.
32. GOAL 19 - OCEAN RESOURCES. These amendments have no affect on coastal
resources, therefore, this goal is not applicable.
9J:\DOCUME-1\tracyt\LOCALS-1\Temp\Sunriver v. 7 - FINDINGS - WILDLIFE TEXT
EXHIBIT C
AMENDED ESEE:
DEER MIGRATION CORRIDOR
I. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
In 1992, the County updated its inventory of fish and wildlife resources pursuant to Statewide
Planning Goal 5. (Ordinance No. 92-041). As part of the program to achieve the goal, the
County added the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor to the County's Wildlife Area
Combining Zone ("WA Zone"). During the same time period in 1992, under a distinct process,
the County began mapping properties eligible for destination resorts under Statewide Planning
Goal 8. Because the County did not complete the Goal 8 mapping process prior to adopting
Ordinance No. 92-041, the County decided to defer the question of whether to allow destination
resorts in the WA Zone until the County completed its Goal 8 destination resort mapping.
Through Ordinance No. 92-040, the County adopted Policy No. 19 of the Fish and Wildlife
Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, which prohibits the siting of destination resorts in the WA
Zone "pending completion of the county's Goal 8 destination resort mapping process." Policy
No. 19 specified that the County was to complete the Goal 8 mapping process by December 31,
1992.
The County has completed the Goal 8 mapping process. Consistent with Policy No. 19 and the
corresponding text of the WA Zone, Deschutes County Code ("DCC") Section 18.88.040(F), the
County now finds that conflicts between the deer migration corridor and destination resorts
should be balanced under OAR 660-023-0040(5)(b) by limiting destination resort development
to Goal 8 eligible lands outside the 1999 ODFW Deer Migration Priority Area. In compliance
with Goal 5 and its implementing regulations, the Deer Migration Corridor section of the Fish
and Wildlife Inventories Conflict ESEE Analysis is amended accordingly. ODFW's findings in
support of the amendments allowing limited destination resort development outside of the Deer
Migration Priority Area are set forth in a letter from ODFW Deschutes District Wildlife
Biologist Steven George dated March 21, 2001 and are adopted by the County in support of this
Amended ESEE and incorporated by reference herein.
II. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
A. Goal 8 Mapping
On February 7, 1992, in compliance with Goal 8, the County began a mapping process to
designate lands eligible for destination resorts. The objective of the Goal 8 mapping process was
to identify those areas most appropriate for destination resorts. The County conducted the
mapping process in phases. Initially, pursuant to Goal 8 regulations, the County excluded all
areas ineligible for destination resorts. Pursuant to OAR 660-015-0000(8) destination resorts are
not eligible in areas: (1) within 24 air miles of a UGB with an existing population of 100,000 or
more, (2) on prime or unique farm land, (3) on predominately class 1 or 2 forest lands, and (4) in
especially sensitive big game habitat as mapped by the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife
("ODFW").
I J:\DOCUME—I\tracyt\LOCALS—I\Temp\Sunriverv. 7 -AMENDED ESEE -DEER MU
In compliance with the final category, the County excluded four areas of big game habitat,
including Tumalo Deer Winter Range, the Metolius Deer Winter Range, and two areas of the
Antelope range. The County also excluded additional habitat areas not mandated as ineligible
areas under Goal 8, including the Horse Ridge Antelope Range and Millican Antelope Range
areas beyond ODFW's mapped boundaries. The County did not exclude the Bend/La Pine Deer
Migration Corrider from the lands mapped as eligible for destination resorts because migration
corridors are not recognized as "especially sensitive big game habitat" under Goal 8. Therefore,
lands within the migration corridor remained eligible for destination resort mapping.
As a part of Phase I of the mapping process, the County mapped various farm lands and rural
areas. The County adopted more restrictive and selective criteria than mandated by Goal 8 and
initially excluded most large agricultural areas and public lands. The County adopted Ordinance
Nos. 92-001 through 92-003, completing Phase 1. As shown on the South Deschutes County,
Destination Resort Eligible Properties in Low Migration Priority Area Map ("Eligible Properties
Map") adopted in support of this ESEE Amendment, certain RR -10 lands within the Bend/La
Pine Deer Migration Corridor were included as areas eligible for destination resorts.
As a part of Phase II, the County mapped eligible forest lands in compliance with the Goal 8
limitations. The County excluded F-1 zoned lands from consideration and mapped several F-2
zoned lands. As shown on the Eligible Properties Map, the County designated some F-2 zoned
lands within the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor as eligible for destination resorts. Due to
the mandatory statewide exclusions and the more restrictive County criteria, the County's Goal 8
mapping program resulted in a carefully circumscribed Destination Resort Overlay. A few F-2
and RR -10 zoned lands within the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor were included in this
limited supply of Goal 8 mapped properties.
B. Goals
In August of 1992, under a process completely distinct from the Goal 8 mapping program, the
County updated the Fish and Wildlife Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan in compliance with
Goal 5. Through periodic review, the County updated its Goal 5 inventory, analyzed the
economic, social, environmental, and energy ("ESEE") consequences of allowing, limiting, or
prohibiting conflicting uses, and developed programs to protect the significant Goal 5 wildlife
resources. The County addressed a variety of specific resources, including the Bend/La Pine
Deer Migration Corridor. The County incorporated policies regarding the migration corridor
into the Comprehensive Plan and added the migration corridor to the WA Zone through
Ordinance No. 92-040. In addition, the County added the related ESEE findings to the
Comprehensive Plan through Ordinance No. 92-041 and amended the zoning map to include the
migration corridor in the WA Zone Overlay through Ordinance No. 92-046. As part of this Goal
5 process, the County decided to defer the question of whether to allow destination resorts within
the WA Zone until Goal 8 mapping was completed.
III. ESEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Inventory Information:
2J:\D000ME-1\tracyt\LOCALS-1\Temp\Sunriver v. 7 - AMENDED ESEE - DEER M11
The County originally mapped the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor as part of the 1992
Goal 5 process and included it in the WA Zone Map. Based on the compilation of ODFW field
studies involving mule deer track counts in the Bend/La Pine area from 1978 through 1999,
summarized in the ODFW Central Region Reports 86-2 and 92-1, the 1999 ODFW Deer
Migration Priority Area Map, and ODFW's March 21, 2001 letter in support of allowing limited
destination resort development outside of the Deer Migration Priority Area, the County is now
able to adopt a more accurate map of the migration corridor to allow limited destination resort
development in low priority migration areas.
As part of the South County Regional Problem Solving Project, ODFW modified the South
Deschutes County Forest Zone and Deer Migration Habitat Map and designated the ODFW Deer
Migration Priority Area. The Priority Area includes those sections of the migration corridor
most frequented by the deer and officially recognizes the high and moderate frequency use areas
identified in Reports 86-2 and 92-1. The priority area excludes those areas with a historically
low frequency of migration. To depict the levels of priority within the migration corridor, the
1999 ODFW Wildlife Migration Priority Area Map for Regional Problem Solving and the
Eligible Properties Map are adopted as part of the Fish and Wildlife Chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan and incorporated herein by reference. The Eligible Properties Map shows
the areas within the Destination Resort Overlay and outside of the Deer Migration Priority Area
where destination resort development may occur.
Location, Quantity and Quality:
The Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor, which is approximately 56 miles long and 3-4 miles
wide, starts at Lava Butte, extends approximately 40 miles within Deschutes County and 10
miles into Northern Klamath County. The corridor parallels the Deschutes and Little Deschutes
rivers. Mule deer use the corridor to migrate from their summer range in the forest along the east
slope of the Cascades to the North Paulina deer winter range northeast of the Paulina Mountains
and to the Hole -in -the -Ground and Devil's Winter Garden winter ranges near Fort Rock. The La
Pine Area Wildlife/Subdivision Study, 1977, describes the geology, soil hydrology, vegetation,
migration roots and other characteristics and conflicts in the migration corridor area.
For over twenty years, ODFW has surveyed mule deer tracks to determine the level of use in the
corridor during the migration period. The results of the studies are published in the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife Central Region Administrative Reports Nos. 86-2 and 92-1,
incorporated herein by reference. The Reports conclude, based upon the historical deer track
counts that the levels of use by the migrating deer vary greatly throughout the corridor.
Consequently, the Reports identify the areas of high, moderate, and low frequency of use. In
1999, ODFW officially recognized a variation of incidences of deer use throughout the migration
corridor by mapping the ODFW Deer Migration Priority Area. The 1999 ODFW map produced
as part of the South County Regional Problem Solving Project refined the 1992 Bend/La Pine
Deer Migration Corridor by specifically identifying areas most heavily utilized by migrating
deer. The Deer Migration Priority Areas are depicted on the 1999 ODFW Wildlife Migration
Priority Area Map and the Eligible Properties Map and described in Report Nos. 86-2 and 92-1.
3J:\DOCUME—I\tracyt\LOCALS--I\Temp\Sunriver v. 7 - AMENDED ESEE - DEER MU
The portion of the migration corridor shown on the Eligible Properties Map is the only segment
of the corridor that contains lands that are outside the Deer Migration Priority Area and inside
the Destination Resort Overlay. This unique segment of the corridor is found at mile section 10
and a portion of section 11, just south of the Sunriver area (Mile sections 10 and 11 lie within
Township 20 South, Range 10 East and Range 11 East). The number of tracks counted in mile
section 10 during the 1978, 1980, 1982, 1983, and 1986 collection periods combined is a total of
32.4, which amounts to 1.3 percent of all the tracts collected. Only 2.45 tracks were counted in
mile section 10 in the spring of 1991. A similar low frequency is documented for mile section
11. Only 39.2 tracks were reported during the first five collection years, which amounts to 1.6
percent of all tracks collected. Only 2.74 tracks were found in mile section 11 in the spring of
1991. In contrast, 166.7 tracks were counted over the duration of the collection years for mile
section 1, north of the low priority area, and 178.26 tracks were found along mile section 37,
south of the low priority area.
The underlying zoning in most of the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor is Rural Residential
10 ("RR -10 "). Although the zone has a 10 -acre minimum lot size, much of the development in
the La Pine area occurred prior to zoning in the County. There are extensive areas of pre-
existing subdivisions with lots ranging in size from less than one acre to five acres. Most of the
RR -10 zone is made up of lots less than the 10 -acre minimum lot size. A portion of the RR -10
zoned land within the migration corridor is also within the destination resort overlay.
The migration corridor also includes some Exclusive Farm Use ("EFU"), Forest Use 1 ("F-1
Forest Use 2 ("F-2"), and Flood Plain ("FP") zoned Land. The La Pine State Park is zoned Open
Space Conservation. These resource zones provide for large lot sizes and limit uses that are not
compatible with the farm, forest or open space uses. Because of the low density of development
in these zones and the limitation on uses, the resource zones themselves limit conflicting uses
and provide considerable protection to the migration corridor.
A limited number of RR -10 and F-2 parcels within the migration corridor are also mapped as
eligible for destination resort siting. However, as of the date of this ESEE Amendment, there are
no 160 -acre undeveloped RR -10 zoned parcels and only two 160 -acre undeveloped F-2 zoned
parcels within the Destination Resort Overlay but outside of the Deer Migration Priority Area.
The number of properties within the migration corridor that will be eligible for resorts under the
new program to achieve Goal 5 will continue to be limited by the following factors: (1) the
parcels must be both outside of the Deer Migration Priority Area and inside of the Destination
Resort Overlay, and (2) pursuant to DCC § 18.113.060, the parcels must be a minimum of 160
contiguous acres and must have direct access onto a state or county arterial or collector roadway.
Conflicting Uses:
ODFW has identified dwellings, roads, and dogs as major conflicts with migrating deer. Fences
that do not allow safe passage of deer are also a conflicting use. Conflicting uses are documented
in the ODFW Central Region Administrative Reports and No. 86-2 and 92-1 and in the La Pine
Area Wildlife/Subdivision Study, 1977. These documents are incorporated herein by reference.
4J:\DOCUME-1\tracyt\LOCALS-1\Temp\Sunriver v. 7 - AMENDED ESEE - DEER MD
Additionally, the ESEEs for surface mines in the deer migration corridor identify the migration
corridor as a conflicting use with the surface mining activity. There are four surface mines in the
migration corridor (Sites 342, 426, 427, and 432).
Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy Consequences of Protecting Significant Deer
Migration Corridor by Limiting Conflicting Uses:
1. Economic Consequences: A positive economic consequence of limiting conflicts in the
deer migration corridor is a reduction in conflicts between rural residents and wildlife and a
related reduction in ODFW staff time spent resolving such conflicts. Limiting destination resort
development to parcels that are within the Destination Resort Overlay but outside of the Deer
Migration Priority Area will direct future development to areas in which conflicts between rural
residents and wildlife are least likely to occur. The undeveloped parcels within the low priority
area of the migration corridor that are now eligible for destination resort development are
adjacent to existing development. The limited number of deer tracks documented by ODFW in
the low priority areas over the last twenty years demonstrates that confining future resort
development to these limited areas will minimize conflicts between deer and rural residents.
In addition, limiting destination resort development to low priority areas will also ensure that
recreational opportunities dependent upon the deer population remain viable within the migration
corridor. One such recreational opportunity is deer hunting. Deer hunters depend upon the
survival of healthy deer populations. As stated in the 1992 ESEE for the Bend/LaPine Deer
Migration Corridor, deer hunters spend an average of $46.69 per hunter per day in the County; in
Deschutes County there are 75,885 deer hunter days per year in the County for a value of
$3,542,100. This recreational activity generally occurs on public lands that are adequately
separated from development. Allowing resorts on private lands outside of the Deer Migration
Priority Area will not significantly impact hunting opportunities in the area.
As described above, if resort siting is limited to protect the Goal 5 resource, the number of
properties within the migration corridor that will be eligible for resorts will be limited by the
small overlap of the Destination Resort Overlay and the low priority areas and by the siting
standards of DCC § 18.113, the destination resort ordinance. In addition, the properties that are
presently eligible for destination resort use are privately owned and located within currently
developed areas. Private parcels adjacent to existing residential uses are not suitable for hunting
and consequently, their future development will not decrease the hunting opportunities in
Deschutes County. In addition, twenty years of ODFW data demonstrate that the health of the
deer population will not be negatively impacted by the development of a documented low
frequency migration area. As of the date of this ESEE Amendment, there are only two 160 -acre
undeveloped F-2 zoned parcels that are within the destination resort overlay and outside of the
high priority migration area. These properties are immediately adjacent to existing development,
specifically the Sunriver and Crosswater developments. These properties are also privately
owned and consequently off limits to hunting.
Negative economic consequences of applying regulations to limit conflicts throughout the deer
migration corridors are generally borne by individuals prevented from doing an activity such as
building a home or road, dividing land, or developing a use which would cause increased traffic
5J:\DOCUME-1\tracyt\LOCALS-1\Temp\Sunriver v. 7 - AMENDED ESEE - DEER M11
or a change in the vegetation which would decrease the quality of the forage or cover. In
addition, limiting surface mining activity could increase the cost of operation of surface mines.
Prohibiting destination resort siting within the entire deer migration corridor would also have
negative economic consequences because destination resorts are an important facet of the local
and state tourism industry. Both statewide and locally, tourism plays a vital role in creating new
job opportunities and strengthening and diversifying the economy. According to the Oregon
Tourism Commission, in 2000, visitor expenditures generated $5.9 billion. This represents a 69
percent increase since 1991. Deschutes County's emphasis on diversifying its economy to
include tourism has contributed to this figure. According to a recent economic report submitted
to the County by Hobson Ferrarini Associates, Inc. ("Hobson Report"), most of the economic
growth in the Central Oregon region during the last decade has been a direct result of the growth
in the tourism/recreation sector and an expanding retirement community. (Economic Viability
and Economic Impacts of Huntington Ranch, A Proposed Destination Resort in Deschutes
County, Oregon, September, 2000). Destination resorts serve an especially important function in
this economic growth because they cater to both of those groups.
The economic benefits from the expansion of tourism in general and destination resorts in
particular are tangible. According to the Hobson Report, destination resorts have an enormous
positive impact on local and regional economies. The regional and national attraction of
destination resorts generates a large amount of outside investment, resulting in a net increase in
wealth for the local economy. New resort development initially creates employment in the
construction sector. Pursuant to the Hobson Report, in 1999, the average construction sector
wages in Deschutes County were roughly 23 percent higher than the overall county average.
Long-term economic benefits come from both direct and indirect payroll contributions. The
resorts create high level managerial and professional positions, as well as entry-level positions
that reduce local unemployment rates. Additionally, visitor and new resident expenditures
contribute to regional business activity and provide multiple, indirect employment opportunities
for the local labor force.
The net fiscal impact of destination resorts on local jurisdictions is almost always positive,
according to the Hobson Report. Destination resorts contribute large amounts of revenue to the
County through taxes and fees, yet they place a minimal burden on public services because
resorts provide facilities and utility services within their boundaries. Due to a high-level of part-
time residents and a large number of retirees purchasing resort homes, destination resorts have a
positive net fiscal impact on school districts because these owners contribute to the tax base
without adding growth to the numbers of school children. Additionally, County expenditures on
resort communities are usually less than traditional residential developments because the resorts
often provide services traditionally provided by the county, such as security. In sum, the
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan identifies destination resorts as a highly desirable type of
development for County -wide economic growth because they attract wealth, generate
employment within the region, and provide a positive net fiscal impact.
Deschutes County is currently one of Oregon's premiere tourist destinations, and the County
Comprehensive Plan contemplates expansion of the area's resort and recreation opportunities to
enhance that reputation and capture visitor expenditures. As explained above, continued
6J:\DOCUM&-1\tracyt\LOCALS-1\Temp\Sunriver v. 7 - AMENDED ESEE - DEER M11
destination resort development is an essential part of achieving that goal. In a 1999 presentation
entitled "Deschutes County Growth and Buildout," the County anticipated that destination
resorts should generate approximately 8,015 new dwellings within the County over the next
twenty years. It is expected that continued development in current resorts will satisfy a portion
of that growth, but the remainder must come from new resort development. According to the
Hobson Report, the future demand for resort housing is expected to exceed historical resort
permitting activity by a factor of approximately 14 percent and there will be a total under -supply
of approximately 1,687 detached and attached resort dwellings by 2020.
As discussed earlier, however, there are a limited number of properties within the County that
are mapped as eligible for destination resorts. Furthermore, it is not feasible to site resorts on
many of the mapped properties due to geographic, aesthetic, or other prohibitive factors.
Therefore, the County must prioritize those areas where resorts have proven to be successful and
vital to the local economy. As demonstrated by the Eligible Properties Map, those areas within
the Destination Resort Overlay and outside of the Deer Migration Priority area are adjacent to
existing resort developments, specifically the Sunriver and Crosswater developments. Past resort
development has demonstrated that this area is ideal for destination resort development and
therefore, an important area for meeting the County goal of resort development. The County has
a unique opportunity to encourage the growth of the tourism industry while concurrently
protecting the deer migration corridor by limiting, rather than prohibiting, destination resorts
within this portion of the migration corridor.
2. Social Consequences: The positive social consequence of limiting development to
protect deer migration corridors is the retention of the stable deer population for hunting and
wildlife viewing. As detailed above in the discussion of economic consequences, limiting resort
development to low priority parcels within the destination resort overlay will continue to protect
wildlife viewing and hunting opportunities.
Negative social consequences of limiting development to protect the resource stem from the
restriction of residential uses and limits on partitions which would otherwise be allowed by the
underlying zoning provisions. Siting standards limit the ability of people to site their dwellings
in their preferred location, and limitations on destination resort siting reduce the quality and
quantity of valuable recreational facilities and opportunities. Further negative social
consequences result from limiting destination resorts. Area resorts provide both locals and
visitors with vast recreational facilities including golf courses, sport courts and nature trails.
Additionally, Deschutes County is renowned for its recreational opportunities including winter
sports, fishing, hunting, camping, and similar outdoor activities. Destination resorts provide
visitor accommodations for tourists drawn to the area for these opportunities. One of the goals of
the Recreation Element of the Comprehensive Plan is to satisfy the recreational needs of the
residents and visitors of Deschutes County. The potential negative social consequences of
protecting the Goal 5 resource by prohibiting resort development within the migration corridor
can be reduced by limiting resort siting to areas outside of the Deer Migration Priority Area.
3. Environmental Consequences: A positive environmental consequence of protecting the
deer migration corridor is the provision of opportunities for big game to travel freely without
7J:\DOCUME—I\tracyt\LOCALS-1\Temp\Sunriver v. 7 - AMENDED ESEE - DEER MD
undue disturbance, obstacles, or harassment. In addition, other species of wildlife also benefit
from the low density of development within high priority areas of migration corridors.
Development standards, which will apply to any destination resort expansion, mandating cluster
developments and open space requirements throughout the migration corridor benefit migrating
deer and other wildlife in the migration corridor by increasing undeveloped open space. In
addition, minimum setback requirements from street lot lines also limit disturbance of vegetation
and provide more open space corridors. Furthermore, limiting the area available for extraction of
aggregate resources decreases hazards to deer migration.
Prohibiting destination resorts within the Deer Migration Priority Area will prevent resort
development in those sections of the corridor most heavily utilized for migration purposes.
Twenty years of the ODFW data shows that allowing destination resorts on lands that are within
the Destination Resort Overlay and outside of the Deer Migration Priority Area will have
minimal negative environmental consequences on the Goal 5 resource, as detailed herein. As
specified by ODFW's Deschutes District Wildlife Biologist in the March 21, 2001 letter
incorporated herein by reference, ODFW has concluded that allowing destination resorts as a
conditional use in the WA zone outside of the Deer Migration Priority Area will not significantly
affect the deer migration pattern in the WA zone. The following information supports ODFW's
conclusion.
First, the incidence of deer crossings within the low priority areas is so low that a relatively few
number of migrating deer will be impacted by resorts in those areas. As documented in ODFW
Reports No. 86-2 and 92-1, the tracks within the areas outside the Deer Migration Priority Area
yet within the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor (mile sections 6-11 and 21-27 in the
ODFW studies), amount to only 15.9 percent of the total tracks counted in the studies conducted
between 1978 and 1991. Currently, the only properties within the low priority area of the
migration corridor that are eligible for destination resort development are within mile sections 6-
11 of the ODFW study. This section accounts for only 7.1 percent of the total tracks counted by
ODFW from 1978 to 1991.
Secondly, as emphasized in the March 21, 2001 ODFW letter, this impact is further reduced by
the limited number of parcels that are (1) outside the Deer Migration Priority Area, (2) inside the
destination resort overlay, and (3) at least 160 contiguous acres. In addition, the parcels must
have direct access to a state or county arterial or collector roadway. Currently, only two parcels
meet these qualifications. Both parcels are located just south of the existing Sunriver Resort and
highlighted on the Eligible Properties Map. According to the ODFW Reports, the percentage of
deer tracks counted during the total collection period in the vicinity of these parcels (mile
sections 10 and 11 in the ODFW studies) amounts to only 2.5 percent of the total tracks
throughout the entire migration corridor.
Finally, ODFW concluded in the March 21, 2001 letter that the destination resort siting standards
in DCC § 18.113 significantly reduce the range of potential adverse impacts on the migration
corridor. ODFW's conclusion was based upon recent tracking data that confirmed the results of
the historical tracking data collected from 1978 through 1992. The 1999 data is not yet
published in a report but is incorporated into the 1999 ODFW Deer Migration Priority Area Map,
8J:\DOCUME-1\tracyt\LOCALS--1\Temp\Sunriver v. 7 - AMENDED ESEE - DEER Mb
which is incorporated herein by reference. ODFW's findings illustrate that allowing destination
resorts in the low priority areas of the migration corridor pursuant to DCC § 18.113 would not
significantly interfere with historical migration patterns. DCC § 18.113.070(D) requires
destination resort applicants to demonstrate that "any negative impact on fish and wildlife
resources will be completely mitigated so that there is no net loss or degradation of the
resource." Consequently, any applicant for a resort within the low priority area of the migration
corridor will provide either on-site or off-site mitigation measures to ensure the protection of the
Goal 5 resource. Negative environmental consequences are further reduced by resort -type
development as opposed to traditional residential development. DCC § 18.113 requires a
minimum of 50 percent of the total acreage of a destination resort to be dedicated to permanent
open space. This percentage excludes yards, streets, and parking areas. This requirement
provides open space for wildlife and reduces vegetative disturbance. Similar to the existing WA
Zone standards in DCC § 18.88.050, the destination resort regulations also ensure that residences
and other buildings will be clustered in order to minimize impact.
4. Energy Consequences: Negative consequences resulting from limiting rather than
prohibiting resort development within the Bend/LaPine Deer Migration Corridor are likely to be
increased energy and resource demands from new resort development. However, the negative
consequences are mitigated by the positive energy consequences of directing future development
to developed areas with existing services. These positive energy consequences will accompany
the limited development within the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor, because the WA
Zone requires most conditional uses within the migration corridor to be located within one-
quarter mile of a rural service center and adjacent to a rural collector or arterial, thereby reducing
the number of vehicle trips.
Similarly, destination resort uses permitted pursuant to the new program to achieve Goal 5 also
limit daily vehicle trips by providing commercial, retail, residential, and recreational uses within
the resort boundaries to serve the residential segment of the resort. Furthermore, the lands within
the migration corridor that are currently eligible for resort development are adjacent to existing
development and services. Positive energy consequences result from allowing additional
destination resort development in areas adjacent to existing resorts and commercial
developments. The commercial and recreational amenities provided by such resorts will reduce
the likelihood that resort residents and visitors will travel outside of the resort area for
commercial and recreational needs.
For additional information on ESEE consequences, see the following documents incorporated
herein by reference:
a. The Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study Chapter VI, pages 1-6-
16; Chapter VII, pages 7-1-7-30.
b. Bend River Study Staff Report, May 1986, pages 21-26.
C. ODFW Central Region Administrative Reports No. 86-2 and 92-1.
d. La Pine Area Wildlife/Subdivision Study, 1977.
9J:\DOCUME-I\tracyt\LOCALS-1\Temp\Sunriver v. 7 - AMENDED ESEE - DEER M11
March 21, 2001 Letter from ODFW Deschutes County Wildlife Biologist
Steven George, submitted in File No. PA -00-10 and TA -00-13.
Conclusion:
The balance of positive and negative consequences identified above demonstrates that the
identified deer migration corridor and the identified conflicting uses within the corridor,
including destination resorts, are important compared to each other because the benefits to the
County resulting from each use are significant enough to warrant a program that protects each
use in a limited fashion. In addition, the conflicting uses are not so detrimental to the Goal 5
resource that they should be prohibited entirely under OAR 660-023-0040(5)(a). Consequently,
conflicts should be balanced by limiting conflicting uses pursuant to OAR 660-023-0040(5)(b)
(this level of protection has traditionally been referred to as a "3C" designation). Specifically,
destination resorts can be limited rather than prohibited and still have only a minimal effect on
the deer migration in the area. Both the Goal 5 resource and the conflicting destination resort use
will be sufficiently protected under OAR 660-023-0040(5)(b) if destination resorts are limited to
areas within the Destination Resort Overlay that are outside of the Deer Migration Priority Area.
IV. PROGRAM TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL
Initially, the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor was added to the WA Zone by Ordinance
92-040, which adopted comprehensive plan policies regarding the corridor, by Ordinance No.
92-041 which adopted the original ESEE findings as part of the Resource Element of the
Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, and by Ordinance 92-046 which amended
the zoning map to include the migration corridor as part of the WA Zone. The WA Zone was
amended by Ordinance No. 92-042 to require cluster development for all land divisions in the
RR -10 zone in the Bend/La Pine Migration Corridor. A 20 -acre parcel is the minimum size
required for a cluster development. Although much of the land is already divided into lots less
than 5 acres, the 20 acre minimum lot size and the requirement for cluster developments will
retain much of the limited open space important for the passage of deer even if destination
resorts are allowed within the non-priority areas. The siting standards and fencing standards in
the WA zone apply to all properties, including destination resorts, throughout the entire deer
migration corridor. The fencing standards are those recommended by ODFW to allow safe
passage of the deer. The provision prohibiting destination resort siting until the completion of
the Goal 8 mapping process is amended to allow limited siting outside of the Deer Migration
Priority Area, as detailed below.
Additional elements of the program to achieve the goal include surface mining limitations,
ODFW consultation requirements, and policies encouraging the protection of high priority
migration areas though conservation easements and federal land acquisitions. Conflicting
surface mining activities will continue to be limited by DCC § 18.52.110(K), which limits the
extraction area to five acres, excluding access roads, equipment storage areas, processing
equipment sites, and stockpiles. ODFW will continue to be notified of any land use action in the
migration corridor and will have the opportunity to comment on development proposals,
including destination resort proposals. Furthermore, the 1992 county map of the migration
corridor that shows the parcelization pattern in five size categories will remain an element of this
Amended ESEE. As stated in the 1992 ESEE, the County and ODFW will work together to
I OJ:\DOCUME-1\tracyt\LOCALS-1\Temp\Sunriver v. 7 -AMENDED ESEE -DEER M
identify priority areas for land acquisition and work with Federal agencies to assure that land
important for migration is retained in federal ownership or protected with conservation
easements to retain the limited amount of open space in the corridor.
In summary, all of the Comprehensive Plan policies and land use regulations adopted in 1992 to
protect the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor by limiting conflicting uses remain effective,
with the exception of the temporary prohibition on destination resort siting. Since the Goal 8
mapping project has been completed and ODFW has created a new map of the deer migration
priority areas based on twenty years of tracking data, it is appropriate to address the issue of
whether destination resorts should be sited within the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor.
Destination resorts are a vital part of the County's economy and they provide social benefits to
the entire region. Furthermore, clustering resort development creates positive energy
consequences, as detailed above. However, in order to protect the principal deer migration
routes within the corridor, destination resort siting should be limited. Specifically, amending the
WA Zone and the Comprehensive Plan to limit destination resorts to those areas inside of the
Destination Resort Overlay but outside of the area mapped by ODFW as the Deer Migration
Priority Area achieves the appropriate balance between the Goal 5 wildlife resource and Goal 8
destination resort priorities.
I I J:\DOCUME—I\tracyt\LOCALS-1\Temp\Sunriver v. 7 - AMENDED ESEE - DEER M