2010-71-Minutes for Meeting January 06,2010 Recorded 2/16/2010DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS YJ ~010~~1
NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK 1n1 +
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 02/1612010 11;42;50 AM
I I)!INIIIIII1III I1III
73
Do not remove this page from original document.
Deschutes County Clerk
Certificate Page
If this instrument is being re-recorded, please complete the following
statement, in accordance with ORS 205.244:
Re-recorded at the request of
[give reason]
previously recorded in Book _
or as Fee Number
and Page
to correct
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
MINUTES OF WORK SESSION
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 6, 2010
Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Alan Unger and Tammy Baney.
Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy
County Administrator; and, for a portion of the meeting, George Kolb, Road
Department; Susan Ross and Teresa Rozic, Property & Facilities; Laurie
Craghead, Legal Counsel; Tom Anderson, Nick Lelack and Peter Gutowsky,
Community Development; Planning Commissioners Keith Cyrus, Brenda Pace and
Richard Kylce; and two other citizens.
Chair Luke opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m.
1. Discussion of DEQ Requirements regarding Underground Injection
Control Regulations.
George Kolb provided a brief overview of the item, which requires the
compliance of counties, cities and private industry. Since 2001, all are
supposed to be registered and in a database, and approved per Oregon
Administrative Rule. There has to be some level of treatment, and private
entities are also required to comply at this point. (See attached documents for
reference)
Susan Ross said that the city of Portland has about 9,000 sites, where the
County has less than a hundred.
Rob von Rohr of Hickman Williams said that permits are issued for a period of
ten years. He explained the process of collecting and testing runoff.
The group then discussed the various County facilities and what it might cost to
make these improvements at each site.
The Board will be kept informed as the process continues.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Page 1 of 6 Pages
2. Update on Destination Resort Remapping Procedures.
Peter Gutowsky said there would be a public hearing on January 20. He gave a
PowerPoint presentation and an overview of what is required by law, where
existing or planned resorts are located, and what land might be eligible or
ineligible based on local and State criteria. (A copy of the presentation is
attached for reference)
Nick Lelack said that a lot of properties shown on the map might not truly be
eligible.
Mr. Gutowsky explained the public process up to this time, which included
numerous meetings with organizations and groups, public hearings and other
activities. He then gave Planning Commission recommendations.
A small irrigated farm tract would be less than forty acres. Hypothetically,
there will be fewer acreages, especially where resort zoning would not apply
Mr. Gutowsky then detailed how the properties that might be removed could be
handled.
Commissioner Luke asked how to notify people without doing a huge mass
mailing. Commissioner Baney said this was previously included in the
countywide tax mailing. Mr. Gutowsky said that members of the Planning
Commission feel there should be another mailing of this type. A lengthy
discussion occurred regarding the notification process.
Nick Lelack said that some consideration has been given for small destination
resorts consisting of 20 acres or so. The legislature is considering similar
information, as 160 acres might not be the number later. Mr. Lelack passed out
a sheet with the current proposed changes to the law. There is a work group
meeting throughout this year to consider this.
At this time, small destination resorts are only allowed on exception lands, per
State law.
Brenda Pace asked about whether small destination resorts will be looked at
during 2011. Mr. Lelack said that they will spend 2010 working on what they
have begun first.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Page 2 of 6 Pages
Mr. Lelack said that citizen Mary Ann Moore has asked that the hearing be held
in the evening. The ordinances, findings and so on have already been as a
convenience to the public. There could be a meeting at 6:00 p.m. the same day
as the morning hearing, if the Board wishes.
Commissioner Baney asked if there are things not shown in the current
documents that have come up recently. Mr. Gutowsky said that given the state
of the economy, there is concern about changes.
Nick Lelack wants everyone to be aware of the public costs of studies - indirect
economic costs. Commissioner Luke asked if the information includes
Sunriver. Mr. Gutowsky said that it includes Sunriver as well as the other
established resorts. The cost for the study would be about $15,000 total.
The pertinent material will be provided soon, but not prior to the next available
work session.
Commissioner Baney would like to see comprehensive plan updates and
destination resort hearings held in the evening. There was talk about starting
the hearing at 10 AM and continuing it in the evening at 6. It should be noticed
as a joint meeting with the Planning Commission.
Ms. Pace said that some decisions of the Planning Commission were split, two-
to-two, but she was absent. She asked if she should testify as a private citizen.
She will provide something in writing.
Mr. Cyrus said that there were two amendments discussed. He did not vote on
the motion that was a two-to-two tie. Commissioner Irvine supported it but
only voted against it due to a lack of complete information. Mr. Cyrus feels
that support is there.
He said that the irrigation district has land mapped for resorts, but a lot of their
land is a reservoir. He is also concerned about the impacts of Measure 37 and
49. Disqualifying what is already mapped puts the County at risk.
Mr. Gutowsky said that the map does not accurately reflect what may or may
not meet State or County requirements. The grandfather clause is a way for
people to keep their property mapped if they want, whether or not the property
would be eligible.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Page 3 of 6 Pages
Mr. Cyrus feels that an existing subdivision could decide to remain mapped,
and conceivably its owners could get together and put in amenities and become
a resort.
Mr. Klyce said that properties could be removed and those that fit to go back
on, but he is concerned about Measures 37 and 49 impacts. That was the reason
for the grandfather clause. Ms. Craghead said that these impact only residential
properties. Under statute, destination resorts are not purely residential but are
meant to provide economic stimulus.
Mr. Klyce said that he would like to wait until the next tax bills come out and
renotice everyone. Commissioner Baney asked how much it would cost to
notify everyone within the appropriate property range. Mr. Gutowsky said that
there are about 39,000 properties. There was significant savings by including
notice in the tax bill, but it still cost about $5,000.
Mr. Lelack stated that it will take people who want to be added a lot more time
to go through the process due to new requirements.
Discussion took place regarding extending the process. There are about 39,000
properties that are mapped today. It may be possible to glean those out and
notify them separately. Mr. Cyrus feels that this is a good way to proceed.
Mr. Lelack said that by August or September it would be known if the State is
able to come up with a plan. Some people question whether there should even
be a map, and instead feel these should be handled on a case by case basis.
3. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules.
The Commissioners are attending a variety of meetings next week, some out of
the office, so there will be no regular Board meetings or work sessions held.
Commissioner Baney said that the health integration project meeting would
address how to combine services. She is concerned that the County will end up
with no oversight capability but a lot of the liability. Chair Luke said that in the
past the hospital was not interested in pursuing this because they did not want
much public scrutiny. The goal is service integration but the private entities do
not seem to understand what is required.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Page 4 of 6 Pages
Commissioner Baney stated that the FQHC, the hospital, representatives of the
three counties and others meet each month, but there is a big difference in their
approaches. She is concerned about the County being left out of the loop; a
Commissioner and the Health Director need to be intimately involved during
the formation of this program. The governing body is yet to be determined.
The regular meeting with the Sisters City Council is scheduled for January 7.
The regular meeting with the Redmond City Council is scheduled for January 21.
Mr. Kanner said that Richard Whitman, the head of DLCD, wants to present a
report to the City and County on January 22.
Erik Kropp is attending a meeting next week to discuss what future events
might be allowed under the event venues regulations.
4. Other Items.
The previously noticed Executive Session, under ORS 192.660(2)(e), real
property negotiations, was canceled.
Susan Ross and Teresa Rozic gave an overview of County-owned properties
that may be eligible for sale at some point to help provide funding for the jail
expansion project (fund #140). (A copy of this information is attached.)
• 67 Greenwood Avenue - to be available at the May auction, with a
minimum bid amount.
Tumalo Road/Gerking Market - has been subject to appeals.
• Smith Rock Way - 2 tax lots, zoned EFU. Access would have to be
perfected, and a decision would have to be made as to whether to subdivide
it, potentially adding value, up to $1 million.
• Redmond, eight acres near the cemetery. The City of Redmond was
interested in it at one point, to expand the cemetery.
• O'Neill Junction, Redmond, 80 acres. Access needs to be perfected. There
are nice homesites on rimrock areas, but it would need to be partitioned to
maximize the value.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Page 5 of 6 Pages
Rickard Road - the main problem is it is a cluster of tax lots, and some of
the lots are foreclosure properties. This could make it more difficult to sell
because the proceeds may have to go back to the taxing districts. This can
be bypassed if it is donated to a benevolent cause or used for a public
purpose. Selling it outright is another matter. Counsel has said that a
delayed exchange might work if the proceeds eventually will fund a public
purpose, but this is something on which previous and current counsels do not
agree. There are no court cases to support this one way or another.
The next four parcels require a lot of work to be marketable (Redmond 215
acres, Redmond 1600 acres, Simpson Avenue, and McGrath Road). Mr.
Kanner reminded the Board that Solid Waste fronted the funds for various
studies on the demolition landfill property (Simpson Avenue), and needs to
be repaid at some point.
Chair Luke suggested that some of these properties be a start for the fund.
Commissioner Baney wants to keep the Redmond 1600 acres and the Simpson
Avenue property off the fund for now. At some point, properties on Long Butte
and Fryrear Road may be traded with the State for land near the Fairgrounds,
which would eventually be more valuable.
Commissioner Unger would like to have further discussion about some of the
properties that might have more potential with a different type of use.
Being no further items addressed, the meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m.
DATED this 6th Day of January 2010 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
Dennis R. Luke, hair
6&vt, UAJA,--
Alan Unger, Vice Chan
ATTEST:
7
Recording Secretary
Tammy Baney, Cot~fhissioner
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session
Page 6 of 6 Pages
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
WORK SESSION AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 6, 2010
1. Discussion of DEQ Requirements regarding Underground Injection Control
Regulations - Susan Ross
2. Update on Destination Resort Remapping - Peter Gutowsky
3. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules
4. Other Items
Executive Session, under ORS 192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations.
PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real
property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), pending or threatened litigation; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues
Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated.
If you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.
Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible.
Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.
For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY.
Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information.
o
,1
C
L
~
6
1
C
-v
co
E
o
s
a
v
~
~
UA
M
N~
V~
Vl
I
r
n~
4
C
O
,S
co
N a
E
_
DESCHUTES COUNTY UIC INFORMATION
January 6, 2010
• A UIC (Underground Injection Control) is any system, structure, or activity that is created
with the intent to manage surface water runoff (from rain or snow) directly into the
subsurface. These may be more commonly referred to as dry wells, drill holes, injection
wells, etc.
• The DEQ regulates UICs under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act in order to protect
existing groundwater quality. DEQ requires that all UICs be inventoried, registered, and
permitted.
• In 2008, DEQ notified owners of UICs that we had to come into compliance with the
regulations or face possibility of fines and enforcement. If owners "confessed" to DEQ the
existence of UICs and submitted a letter of intent to comply with the regulations, then DEQ
agreed to hold off on any penalties.
• Deschutes County retained the services of Hickman Williams Associates (HWA), a local
civil engineering firm that has specialization in UICs, to conduct an inventory of our UICs,
make recommendations regarding the best way to achieve compliance, and to submit the
initial DEQ permit application.
• Hickman Williams conducted an inventory of all UICs located on county-owned property
and roadways. The study showed that the County had 61 UICs located at 9 different
facilities, and 22 UICs in public right-of-ways in the La Pine and Terrebonne areas. The
DEQ requires a fairly detailed description of each individual UIC and the surrounding site.
• HWA's assessment included a preliminary estimate of capital improvements necessary to
achieve compliance. I have included the table below:
Facility Name Estimated Cost of Improvements
Warehouse/IT Building
$ 23,700
CDD/Maier
120,500
DSB/Admin Building
140,600
Historical Building
39,700
Health Services Building
72,000
Public Safety Complex (jail/juvenile/work ctr)
260,000
Public ROW
210,000
Fairgrounds
45,000
Becky Johnson Center
19,600
Total Projected Capital Cost: $ 931,500
NEXT STEPS
• Deschutes County recently submitted our application to DEQ for a Water Pollution Control
Facility (WPCF) permit for our UICs. We will now be working closely with DEQ to begin
the permitting process and developing a plan for achieving compliance with our UICs.
County needs to prioritize the required capital improvements and develop a funding source
to pay for such.
-TES
2~ Property & Facilities Department
Q A { Susan C. Ross, Director
14 NW Kearney Street, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6594 • Fax: (541) 317-3168
www. co. deschutes. or. us
December 21, 2009
TO: Board of Commissioners
FROM: Susan Ross, Property & Facilities Director
RE: 1/6/10 WORK SESSION REGARDING UIC PROCESS
More than a year ago, the Department of Environmental Quality issued a warning letter
to all public entities requiring compliance with the new UIC (Underground Injection
Control) regulations. We were required to notify DEQ whether or not we had UICs and,
if so, to develop a plan to inventory, permit/register, and improve/repair the UICs.
Deschutes County retained Hickman Williams Associates (HWA), a local civil
engineering firm that has personnel who specializes in UICs, to develop the inventory
and assessment. An executive summary of Deschutes County's plan is attached. The
report found that Deschutes County has 61 UICs located throughout our various facilities,
and 22 UICs located in right-of-ways.
This is a fairly technical report and process, and I have invited the engineer to attend the
January 6 work session in order to answer questions. If anyone would like additional
sections of the report, please let me know. The table of contents is included with your
packet for reference.
Quality Services Performed with Pride
DESCHUTES COUNTY UIC INVENTORY AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
II. UIC Inventory and Registration 2
III. UIC Compliance
4
A.
Rule Authorization
4
B.
UIC WPCF Permit
6
C.
RA vs. UIC WPCF Permit
7
D.
UIC Closure
g
E.
UIC Sediment Sampling and UIC Systems Cleaning
8
IV. UIC Assessment 10
A. Facility UIC Categories 10
B. UIC Type Based on Assessment 10
C. Recommendations for Structural and Non-Structural BMPs 13
D. Need for Additional Information 14
E. Capital Cost Estimates 15
V. Next Steps 16
A. WPCF Permit 16
B. Interim Operation and Maintenance of County Stormwater Systems 16
C. Prioritize Capital Improvement Needs
D. Long Term Operational Cost Based on Permit
Exhibits
1. Letter of Intent
2. Deschutes County Zoning Map
3. DEQ UIC Registration Form
4. DEQ UIC No-Exposure Form
5. Deschutes County 2-yr TOT Map
6. Cost Comparison of Rule Authorization vs. WPCF Permit
7. DEQ UIC Pre-Closure Notification Form
8. Guidance for Sediment Sampling, UIC Cleaning and UIC Closure
Appendix 1 - UIC Database & Supplemental UIC Registration Information
A. UIC Registration Database Spreadsheet
B. Contaminated Site Search Summary and Information
C. Water Well Search Summaries and Information
Appendix 2 - Site/Facility Assessments
u 7
DESCHUTES COUNTY UIC INVENTORY AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT
1. Introduction
HWA has been retained by Deschutes County to inventory county-owned stormwater
underground injection control (UIC) systems, provide registration information for UICs previously
not registered with the DEQ, make recommendations for the most appropriate DEQ approval
mechanism (authorization by OARs or individual groundwater pollution permit), make the initial
WPCF permit application. (if that is the recommended approval mechanism), and make
recommendations to comply state and federal stormwater UIC requirements. On December 29,
2009 HWA notified'the Oregon Department of Environmental'Quality (DEQ) of the counties
intent to comply with the UIC Program requirements. A copy of the letter is included as Exhibit
1.
Deschutes County is located in the geographic center of the state of Oregon on the eastern side
of the Cascade Range. The county covers approximately 3,055 square miles, has a semi-arid
climate and mostly well draining soils. The county is made up of four incorporated cities and a
number of unincorporated communities. The cities include Bend; Redmond, La Pine and
Sisters. A map of the county is included as Exhibit 2.
The purpose of this report is to inventory UICs located on county owned property and roadways;
register UICs that are not currently registered with the DEQ; and provide an initial needs
assessment with recommendations for approval of UIC systems by the DEQ. The assessment
includes preliminary estimates of anticipated capital improvement needs to meet water quality
goals over the next several years. This report is intended to be provided to the DEQ with the
registration information and permit application. This is a living document and as more
information becomes available it can be revised.
UICs typically found in central Oregon include, but are not limited to, drywells, drill holes,
seepage pits and drainage galleries. The county owns and operates 22 buildings at nine
distinct sites (or facilities) on 38 tax lots and is responsible for maintaining approximately 830
miles of roadway. An inventory of UIC systems conducted by HWA between November 2008
and July 2009 concluded that the county has 61 UICs located at nine different facilities' and 22
UICs in public rights-of-way in La Pine and Terrabone. One of the UICs in the La Pine right-of-
way could not be confirmed as a UIC.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines a UIC as subsurface emplacement of
fluids through a bored, drilled, or dug hole whose depth is greater than the largest surface
dimension; or an improved sink hole; or, a subsurface fluid distribution system. Oregon also
includes sewage drain holes and septic fields larger than 2,500 gpd. A UIC is basically any
system, structure or activity that is created with the intent to discharge liquids directly into the
subsurface. The UICs of interest in the inventory and assessment are Class V stormwater
injection systems.
Central Oregon is unique in that it has very few natural drainage courses owing to the highly
permeable soil and mostly fractured basalt. Storm sewer systems are typically constructed as
urbanized areas are developed to carry runoff to nearby streams, rivers or open bodies of water.
In Central Oregon constructing storm sewers in the shallow bedrock is very expensive. Here
UICs have been a relatively simple and inexpensive way to dispose of stormwater on site and in
public right-of-ways. In addition to being inexpensive to install, if UICs are properly designed
[PT' A number of the contiguous facilities are lumped together in this report and considered as one facility.
T1
Et tl a ,
DESCHUTES COUNTY UIC INVENTORY AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT
and maintained, they have the added benefit of preventing damage caused by larger rain events
associated with collecting an concentrating runoff; recharging local groundwater; maintaining
better stream base flow; and, cool, and sometimes treat, stream base-flow. However, if they are
not designed, installed and operated properly they have the; potential to degrade groundwater
resources, contribute to localized flooding and fail prematurely.
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) regulate groundwater injection wells, stormwater drywells and drill holes under
the auspices of the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program. The Oregon UIC Program
was developed in response to Part C of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act in order to limit and
control the injection of waste fluids in a manner that protects existing groundwater quality. The
DEQ implements the UIC program through OAR 340-044. Since 2000 the DEQ has required
that all new and existing groundwater injection wells be inventoried (registered) and since 2001
that all new and existing injection wells either be authorized by Oregon Administrative Rule,
commonly known as rule authorization (RA), or approved by individual Water Pollution Facilities
Control (WPCF) to operate such systems.
RA is a prescriptive set of requirements for operating and maintaining UICs in Oregon. If the
RA requirements cannot be met then the UIC systems must be operated under a WPCF permit
or permanently abandon. In general, to attain RA best management practices of stormwater
injection systems must be instituted to protect existing ground water quality. This includes good
housekeeping practices, operating systems in a manner that prevents groundwater
contamination and the implementation of stormwater pretreatment prior to groundwater
injection.
II. UIC Inventory and Registration
During the period of November 2008 to July 2009 HWA inspected nine different county-owned
facilities in Bend and Redmond and public rights-of-way in the unincorporated community of
Terrabone and the City of La Pine. George Kolb, Deschutes County Road Department
Engineering Services Manager, identified the rights-of-wad/ UIC locations. The facilities were
inspected with the help of county staff including Teresa Rozic, Property Specialist, and Tad
Walker, Building Services Manager, under the direction of Susan Ross, Director of the Property
and Facilities Department.
The DEQ requires that all UICs are registered with the DE,Q and entered into a DEQ UIC
database. Registration of each UIC requires the completion of a UIC registration form, a copy
of which is included as Exhibit 3. An alternate method of registration is the completion of a
single electronic database for all of the UICs. This is a pnaferred method of registration for a
large site (many UICs) or for a large number of UICs at multiple sites under single ownership.
Registration by database would likely be required under and area-wide UIC WPCF permit.
Registration requires that each of the UICs and the site be characterized, including, but not
limited to the following information:
• UIC location (latitude and longitude), depth, diameter, approximate drainage area, type
of drainage received, pretreatment (if any) and type.
• Depth to seasonal high groundwater and distance to nearest wetland, surface water and
water well; and.
HVIS
DESCHUTES COUNTY UIC INVENTORY AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT
• Type of facility where the UIC is located by NAICS code and the types of materials,
products and wastes handled at the facility.
• Existence of known soil or groundwater contamination that might be impacted through
the use stormwater injection, including the nearest cleanup site within'/ mile of the
UIC(s).
An. estimate of.the number of vehicle trips generated each day at the facility or over the
roadway. The number. of trips. is used to classify the level of risk for groundwater
contamination from polluted runoff. Residential streets and small, commercial parking
lots with less than 1000 trips per day (500 in and 500 out) are considered to pose less
risk. The DEQ requires that the number of traffic trips be estimated using the Institute of
Traffic Engineer's Trip Generation Manual, Ph edition or newer.
Land use zone, source of drinking water, characterization of the subsurface geology if
available, reason why UICs are being used as apposed to a public storm sewer
connection.
• Identify if the UIC is located in a drinking water protection area as defined by the Oregon
Department of Human Services.
• Completion of a No-Exposure Certificate. This certificate has a list of criteria that if not
met the UICs cannot be approved under Rule Authorization. A copy of the certificate is
included as Exhibit 4.
Registration requires a certain level of due diligence by the applicant. During the process of
registration there are a number of site characteristics that may be identified that can preclude
approval by RA. This will be discussed in further detail below.
HWA has prepared a spreadsheet database and included the necessary registration information
to the best of our ability given the scope of work. HWA has also included in this database the
information for approximately 51 UICs that were previously registered by the county or their
consultants. The registration information provided by HWA is based on initial site inspections
and readily available information provided by the county or found in public databases. The site
inspections provided only information about the systems that could be obtained by visual
assessment from the ground surface did not include any subsurface investigation. Those
systems that could be readily accessed were opened and cursory measurements made.
Certain assumptions may have been made about select UIC systems that could not be verified
visually. A copy of the UIC database is included as Appendix 1.
Private well identification was carried out by standard well log query at the Oregon Water
Resources Department website (http://apps2.wrd.state.or.us/apps/gw/well_log/Default.aspx).
This information is typically used as an initial estimate for depth to groundwater in addition to
identifying if a well is closer than 500 feet to a UIC. If there is a suspected water well in the area
that may be within 500 feet of the UIC it may be necessary to perform a visual survey or
additional due diligence to ensure that a well is not within 500 feet of the UIC. For this inventory
and initial assessment HWA did not perform more that the standard well log query. Where
applicable, a well log query was carried out for the UICs previously registered that did not have
HWA
DESCHUTES, COUNTY UIC INVENTORY AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT
sufficient well search information. Any recommendations for more extensive well log search can
be found in the discussion of the individual site assessments in Appendix 2.
The presence of contaminated soil or water and the location of the nearest environmental
cleanup site was carried out by use of the Oregon DEQ Regulated Facility Profiler
(http:/rdeg12.deq.state.or.us/fp201). This is an interactive database by which contaminated sites
can be searched. This information is used to rule out any possibility of stormwater injection
impacting (mobilizing) existing soil or groundwater contamination that is hydraulically down
gradient from the UIC in question. Additional information may be required by the DEQ to ensure
that any known contamination is not impacted by the UIC if a contaminated site is identified
down gradient. A discussion of any suspected contamination that may be mobilized by the use
of groundwater injection can be found in the individual site assessments found in Appendix 2.
Ill. UIC Compliance
In general stormwater UICs are allowed to operate as long as they are operated in a way that
protects the highest beneficial use of groundwater. The highest beneficial use is usually
drinking water (OAR 340-040-0020(3)). In addition to registration, UICs are to be approved by
the DEQ under Oregon Administrative Rule, commonly referred to as rule authorization (RA), or
approved by individual Water Pollution Facilities Control (WPCF) to operate such systems. If
the UICs cannot be authorized by rule or approved by permit, then they must be permanently
closed. Any UIC closures must be performed according to OAR 340-044-0040 and must be
carried out by an Oregon registered, geologist, geotechnical engineer or professional engineer.
A. Rule Authorization
Rule authorization is a prescriptive set of requirements that must be met in order to continue
operation (OAR 340-044). There are a number or basic requirements for RA or UIC
systems, including but not limited to the following:
1. There must be no exposure of runoff to hazardous materials. None of the situations
listed on the No-Exposure Certification survey may take place (Exhibit 4).
2. Groundwater injection from the UIC cannot have the potential to impact (mobilize)
existing soil or groundwater contamination.
3. The UIC must have adequate separation from seasonal high groundwater. In general,
the bottom of a drywell must have 10 feet of separation from seasonal high groundwater
for discharge from pollutant generating surfaces (PGS) and five feet of separation for
roof drain or landscape only UICs. It may be allowable for 5 feet of separation from PGS
UICs if the UIC is less than 5 feet in depth. In highly fractured geology with little or no
soil or natural sediments to "filter" stormwater the separation depth must be evaluated on
a case by case basis and is dependent on the subsurface characteristics in the
unsaturated zone below the UIC and the type of pretreatment employed.
4. There must not be other wastes, including agricultural drainage, industrial waste or
sanitary wastes mixing with stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces entering the
UIC.
5. The UIC must not be deeper than 100 feet.
6. UIC cannot be located in defined drinking water protection area. The Oregon
Department of Human Services (ODHS)has delineated drinking water protection areas
W. Erb 4
DESCHUTES COUNTY UIC INVENTORY AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT
for certain municipal wells. The area of concern is the 2-year time of travel (2-yr TOT)
groundwater flow path to the municipal well .2
7. The UIC cannot be located within 500 feet of a water well (irrigation, domestic or public
water well without a designated 2-yr TOT).
8. Design'and operation of the UIC prevents accidental or illicit spills and temporary drain
blocking is provided- (Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure plans).
9. There is an adequate containment barrier, infiltration media or adequate BMPs (best
management practices) are in place to protect groundwater quality from runoff from
pollutant generating surfaces. This may or may not apply to-UlCs accepting roof or
landscape runoff with no other wastes.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) means institutional, structural and non-structural
controls designed to prevent or reduce the concentration of pollutants in storm water before
discharge to the subsurface: BMPs include, but are not limited to:
i) Schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, education
or other management practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of waters of the
state;
ii) Operational and structural source controls that minimize or prevent contaminants
from entering stormwater; and
iii) Pre-treatment controls that remove contaminants contained in stormwater runoff
before infiltration into natural subsurface soils.
Additional requirements apply to municipalities with 50 or more UICs, per OAR 340-044-
0018(3)(b) or have UICs in areas that have 1,000 or more vehicle trips per day (OAR 340-
044-0018(3)(f). Note: Right-of-way (ROW) is considered a municipal facility. The DEQ
assumes that large municipal stormwater systems with 50 or more injection sites pose an
increased risk to groundwater quality and public health. Therefore the DEQ may require
more information to evaluate the potential impacts to groundwater quality than would be
required for non-municipal systems. The additional requirements include, but are not limited
to the following:
10. An evaluation of potential impacts of storm water injection on groundwater quality based
on the storm water volume and quality, local geology, density of injection systems,
injection system design, and drainage area land use.
11. Prepare and implement a written storm water management plan (SWMP), based on
current conditions and updated routinely, that includes the following:
a. Storm water system-wide assessment that includes the location and construction
details of all injection systems and other storm water management controls, an
evaluation of the land use and activities in all areas draining into the storm water
injection systems, and an identification based on available information of areas within
2 HWA uses the state 2-yr TOT GIS shape files prepared by ODHS. The most recent information we received was
on 7/24/09. A map showing the 2-yr TOT shape files superimposed on the Deschutes County GIS map is included
as Exhibit 5.
HWA
DESCHUTES COUNTY UIC INVENTORY AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT
the drainage catchment where hazardous substances and toxic materials are used,
handled or stored.
b. System controls that include best management practices for source control and
treatment, and shall include measures to prevent storm water drainage from areas
where hazardous and toxic materials are used, handled or stored; a spill prevention
and response plan; a maintenance plan and schedule;. an employee and public
education plan; and the identification of personnel.or contractors responsible for
implementing these plans. The maintenance plan shall specify the frequency of
maintenance activities, including visual inspections and physical maintenance.
c. Monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of the best management practices in
eliminating contamination prior to storm water injection into the subsurface. The
monitoring plan shall use information developed in the system-wide assessment to
identify representative locations and types of best. management practices that will be
routinely monitored and sampled: At a minimum, sampling shall be conducted twice
within the first 12 months of implementation of the storm water management plan,
followed by annual sampling during a representative storm event at the onset of wet
weather conditions. Criteria for selection of representative storm events shall follow
available guidance protocols, such as the Central Oregon Stormwater Manual. DEQ
UIC program does not have a fixed "design" storm or "representative" storm event.
Grab samples shall be collected at the last available sampling point prior to storm
water injection into the subsurface. Sampling protocols shall follow standard quality
assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures for environmental sampling and
shall use analytical methods that achieve detection limits that are below drinking
water standards or risk-based levels. Samples shall be analyzed for contaminants of
concern identified in the system-wide assessment, and shall at a minimum include
benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, xylenes, benzo(a)pyrene, lead (unfiltered), total
chromium (unfiltered), cadmium (unfiltered), total nitrogen and fecal coliform
bacteria. These are minimum requirements and depending on the suspected risk to
groundwater DEQ may require additional pollutant parameters as part of rule-
authorization.
d. A plan for record keeping and reporting. Monitoring and sampling results shall be
available for review on request.
e. Annual reporting on the on the municipal storm water management plan
implementation, monitoring and sampling with supporting records and laboratory
documentation. The report shall also include an assessment of the effectiveness of
best management practices.
12. A plan and schedule to decommission existing storm water injection systems that do not
meet the basic requirements in OAR 340-044-0018(3)(a), or a permit application for
those injection systems.
Based on discussions with DEQ UIC Program staff and past experience with other UIC
projects, all of the county UIC systems would have to be sampled per A.11.c. above on a
three year cycle. That is, approximately 30 UICs would have to be sampled every year.
B. UIC WPCF Permit
HWA
DESCHUTES COUNTY UIC INVENTORY AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT
When UICs cannot meet the requirements of rule authorization, they may be approved by
permit. It may also be desirable to operate UICs under permit because of the operational
flexibility a permit may provide and it may be less cost than RA. In any event, whether the
UIC systems are approved by rule or by permit, the burden of proof is on the owner/operator
of the system to prove that an injection activity does not have the potential to cause a
violation of the EPA'S.primary. drinking water standards, adversely impact groundwater
quality, human health or the -environment. The..state requirement is to meet Oregon's anti-
degradation law. For groundwater, the discharge cannot adversely impact the naturally
existing groundwater quality (ORS 468B.020, ORS 4686.025 and OAR 340-040-0020(3)).
It is possible to operate most, if not all of the county's existing UIC facilities under an area-
wide stormwater UIC WPCF permit. However it will require meeting most of the
requirements of rule authorization. It is anticipated that under permit the following RA
elements will still apply: Al through A5 above would not be allowed; A6 and A7 may. be
allowed but additional restrictions may be imposed .by, the DEQ, such as additional
characterization of potential impacts to groundwater quality and/or additional BMPs than
might otherwise be required to protect groundwater; A8 through Al 1 would be required; and
A12 would be required for those UIC systems that cannot meet the requirements of the
permit.
Based on discussions with DEQ Program staff there is reason to believe that some of the
flexibility a permit would provide is less sampling of systems that have adequate' BMPs in
place. For example, low risk sites meeting all of the requirements of rule authorization,
including servicing of pretreatment systems and vacuuming of parking lots, may not require
verification via end of pipe stormwater sampling. Sampling and monitoring requirements will
be based on risk to impact groundwater.
The DEQ is presently working on a UIC WPCF permit template for private and municipal
UIC systems. At present only the City of Portland has an approved UIC WPCF permit. The
permit is to operate over 9,000 UICs.
This report, including the registration and initial assessment is the first step towards meeting
requirements for an area-wide UIC WPCF Permit.
C. RA vs. UIC WPCF Permit
As discussed above, with a permit the state has the flexibility to look at each site or
individual UIC independently of the prescriptive UIC rule authorization requirements. The
most significant impact rule authorization imposes on municipalities with over 50 UICs is the
requirement to test runoff to all UICs. Sites that are classified as 'moderate risk to
groundwater' are not required to do annual testing under rule authorization, unless the
owner of the site has 50 or more UICs. Additionally, any UICs in right-of-way with traffic
volume of over 1,000 trips per day must sample regardless of the number of UICs. HWA
would request that under permit the individual sites might be looked at independently and for
each one to be managed based on level of risk for groundwater contamination.
If, as HWA believes, the sampling requirement could be reduced there could be substantial
savings to the county. Sampling of runoff and reporting to the DEQ the results of the
analysis can run over $1,000 per UIC sampled. HWA has prepared an analysis of cost for
RA vs. UIC WPCF permit fees and included it as Exhibit 6. The analysis assumes that the
HWA
7
DESCHUTES COUNTY UIC INVENTORY AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT
annual DEQ fees will increase at a rate of 8% per year. The analysis shows that the cost
savings in DEQ fees alone is substantial, not including the annual testing and reporting
which would be more than $30,000 in the first year under RA.
In a recent telephone conversation with the DEQ UIC Program director Rodney Weick
(6/30/09), he stated that the county has to either apply for RA or make a permit application
soon. He said that given the number of UICs it would be in the county's best interest to
apply for permit. The draft permit template is expected-for- public review in approximately
three months. If the county applies for a.permit then at'a later date it has the option to be
refunded permit fees and apply for RA of individual UICs if the withdrawal is prior to an
individual permit being drafted for the county.
Based on the initial cost estimates, discussions with DEQ UIC Program staff, and the'
expected flexibility it is recommended that the county apply for a WPCF Permit. In
December 2009 HWA notified the DEQ in writing that HWA was conducting an inventory of
county UICs, providing additional registration information and would likely be applying for a
WPCF Permit following the completion of the inventory and assessment and the release of
the draft UIC WPCF Permit for review. At that time it was expected that a permit template
would be released for public review and comment in March of 2009.
D. UIC Closure
When a UIC system cannot be approved by RA or by Permit is must be permanently closed
and an alternate, non-UIC stormwater system must be installed (or'the UIC must be
relocated to an area where it could be approved if possible). UIC closure must be done in
accordance with OAR 340-044-0040. The DEQ must be notified via a Pre-Closure
Notification form, along with a $100 fee. DEQ policy requires a UIC sediment, sampling,
cleaning and closure plan for review and approval.
A copy of the DEQ Pre-Closure Notification form and Guidance for Sediment Sampling,
Cleaning and Closure is included as Exhibit 7 and Exhibit 8, respectively. The guidance
document is for the closure of drill holes and drywells in a parking lot or right-of-way where
there is little concern for presence of hazardous materials or high levels of diesel, gas or oil
contamination (no more than would be expected in typical stormwater runoff). Where there
is documented soil or groundwater contamination, a history of hazardous materials use,
heavy equipment use or maintenance, fuel or oil handling, etc., then the DEQ may require
additional screening for potential contamination prior to closure.
In accordance with OAR 340-044-0040(3)(b) an Oregon registered geologist, engineering
geologist, or professional engineer must submit a signed closure report documenting that
the UIC was properly closed, typically in accordance with the DEQ approved closure plan.
E. UIC Sediment Sampling and UIC Systems Cleaning
The DEQ typically requires that UIC sediments be sampled for contamination and that the
UIC be cleaned prior to closure or installing pretreatment BMPs. A qualified environmental
services provider should carry out sampling, testing and cleaning of UICs. Guidance for
stormwater system sediment sampling is included in Exhibit 8.
V
DESCHUTES COUNTY UIC INVENTORY AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT
Cleaning of UICs and any catch basins or pretreatment BMPs should be done on an as
needed basis. Catch basins used prior to UIC injection should be inspected bi-annually and
sediments should be removed when the depth exceeds more than 6 inches to protect UICs.
Typically catch basins need to be cleaned every one to two years. Many of the catch basins
and UIC systems are not cleaned regularly or may never have been cleaned and some may
not be functioning. When observed during inspection, systems in severe need of cleaning
have been identified in the individual site assessments in Appendix 2. Inspecting and
cleaning of UIC systems, catch basins and other pretreatment BMPs is beyond, the scope of
this report.
Any sediments and liquids removed from stormwater collection and disposal systems,
including catch basins and pretreatment systems must be disposed properly at a landfill or
other DEQ approved method. A DEQ licensed contractor should remove the sediments with
a vac-truck. The.. liquids should be disposed at licensed liquid receiving, facility or
evaporated at a licensed facility and the sediments mixed with sawdust and allowed to
further dry. Sediments need to be analyzed for the 8 RCRA metals and for petroleum
hydrocarbons (TPH-Dx) prior to acceptance at landfill. Knott and Crook County landfills will
not accept the sediments without certification as non-hazardous waste. The sediments, if
non-hazardous and free of organic materials may be used appropriately as construction
material.
The risk of soil contamination and need for site remediation associated with UIC use is low
for most commercial and industrial sites. Should the sediments be deemed hazardous
based on exceeding the EPA RCRA TCLP MCLs3 for leaching of metals or the
hydrocarbons exceed risk based health standards it is likely that the contamination is
isolated to sediments contained in the UIC. In that case simply removing the sediments and
pressure washing the UIC would suffice. However, when sediments are found to be
hazardous and the there is a cleanup action occurring, there are or have been floor drains
connected to the UICs, there is history or evidence of indiscriminate handling of hazardous
materials, or there is warranted concern for illicit dumping then the DEQ UIC Program may
refer the UIC to the DEQ Cleanup Program for further investigation.
Stormwater systems must be maintained if they are to function properly. The lack of proper
operation and maintenance is the leading cause of failure for stormwater collection,
treatment and disposal systems. HWA recommends that a plan be developed for assessing
the operation and maintenance needs of county stormwater collection, treatment and
disposal systems, including non-UIC stormwater systems, as soon as possible.
s EPA Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for
leaching of metals based on the toxicity characteristic leaching potential (TCLP). Toxic Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP) is an EPA SW-846 analytical method (Method 1311) that simulates sanitary
landfill contaminant leaching in waste samples. Based upon concentrations of the TCLP constituents and
guidelines set forth in 40 CFR 261.4, the solid waste samples can be deemed hazardous or non-
hazardous for sanitary landfill disposal purposes. The recommended alternative to the TCLP test is a
Total Metals test method, which less expensive and inferences can be made as to exceeding the TCLP
MCLs. Should the Total Metals test infer the possibility of exceeding the TCLP the TCLP test could be
conducted on the metal(s) of concern. Additionally, the SPLP method (EPA's synthetic rain test) can be
used to determine if there was a potential for UIC contaminants leaching to groundwater. Rain water is
less acidic than the TCLP method. Therefore there is a lower leachability risk.
HWA
DESCHUTES COUNTY UIC INVENTORY AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT
IV. UIIC Assessment
In addition to the inventory of UICs, HWA has made an initial assessment of existing UIC
systems. The assessment of individual UIC systems prepared by HWA is based initial site
inspections and readily available information provided by the county or found in public
databases. The site inspections did not include any subsurface investigation and only included
information about the systems that could be obtained by visual assessment from the ground
surface. Those systems that could be readily accessed were opened, visually inspected and
qualitative and quantitative data was gathered. Certain assumptions may have been made
about select UIC systems that could not be verified visually. The individual site UIC
assessments are included in Appendix 2.
A. Facility UIC Categories
The DEQ has three UIC types used for determining fees for registration under rule
authorization. For the purposes of this report HWA his chosen to Use these types as
categories for classifying the level of risk the accessed site/facilities poses to groundwater
contamination. Table 1 below includes the three categories and the types of UICs in those
categories. For the purposes of the UIC system assessments the site/facility will be
included in one of these three categories, where applicable, with the exception of 3b and 3c.
B. UIC Type Based on Assessment
For the purposes of assessing the county UIC systems we have ranked the UICs as Type A,
B, C, D or E. Table 2 below includes the UIC Type and general definition of each type. In
H1NAs estimation, Type A and B UICs are considered compliant and Type C and D UICs are
non-compliant, with regard to adequate pretreatment BMPs. Type E UICs will have to be
closed and replaced with non-UIC stormwater systems.
A 10
DESCHUTES COUNTY UIC INVENTORY AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT
TABLE 1: DEQ UIC Categories for Rule Authorized UIC Svstems
CATEGORY 1. LEAST ENVIRONMENTAL RISK TO GROUNDWATER
a.
Common roof drains (Residential, Commercial, Industrial); Roof drainage injection system
not mixed with any other type of discharge
Note: Roof drainage injection system mixed with any other type become that type risk (box
.2, below).
CATEGORY 2. MODERATE ENVIRONMENTAL RISK TO GROUNDWATER
a.
Mixed roof/parking lot injection systems
Example: Roof drained mixed with driveway, parking lot, alley, or road runoff.
b.
Small jurisdictions owning a total of fewer than 50 injection systems
c.
Owners with fewer than 50 injection systems (at one site or multiple locations)
d.
Owners who do not store, .handle, or use hazardous materials, toxics, or petroleum products
e.
Sites that generate fewer than 1,000 trips per day (for contiguous lots or acreage under one
owner)
f.
Small/medium parking lots, residential roads
CATEGORY 3. SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RISK
a.
Complex sites with significant potential for environmental risk
b.
Owners of sites generating 1000 or more trips per day (ITE manual calculation) on all
contiguous lots
c.
Owners of sites with hazardous materials (storage, handling, generation or use), toxics, or
petroleum products
d.
Loading docks
e.
Roof drain mixed with large parking lot drainage
f.
Any site where monitoring is required
HWA 11
DESCHUTES COUNTY UIC INVENTORY AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT
TA121 9: 9- Aaagaaa arl 1110 Tvnp
TYPE A (compliant, will meet RA)
UIC system will meet UIC rule authorization requirement: for the specified DEQ UIC Category
(see Table 1 above) without significant physical improvements to the UIC system.
• All of the basic requirements for RA have been met, including structural BMPs.
• Will require use of non-structural BMPs through the implementation of a DEQ approved
(SWMP). Note, site may have an approved SWIJIP but may not be actively
implementing it.
TYPE B (compliant, will require WPCF Permit)
UIC system will not meet RA requirements but is likely to meet groundwater protection
requirements under permit without significant physical improvements to the UIC system.
• Will require use of non-structural BMPs through the implementation of a DEQ approved
(SWMP). Note, site may have an approved SWAP but may not be actively
implementing it.
• Under permit, additional structural and non-structural BMPs may be required for
Category 2 and Category 3 UICs located in a DWPA, 2-yr TOT or within 500 feet of
water well.
TYPE C (non-compliant, will meet RA with improvements)
UIC system will meet UIC rule authorization requirements for the specified DEQ UIC Category
(see Table 1 above) with physical improvements to the UIC system (pretreatment BMPs) or
isolation of loading dock(s).
• All of the basic requirements for RA have been met, not including structural BMPs.
• Will require the implementation of structural BMPs for pretreatment of stormwater.
• Will require use of non-structural BMPs through the implementation of a DEQ approved
(SWMP). Note, site may have an approved SWMP but may not be actively
implementing it.
TYPE D (non-compliant, will require WPCF Permit with improvements)
UIC system will likely to meet groundwater protection requirements under permit with physical
improvements to the UIC system (pretreatment BMPs) or isolation of loading dock(s).
• Will require the implementation of structural BMIPs for pretreatment of stormwater.
• Will require use of non-structural BMPs through the implementation of a DEQ approved
(SWMP). Note, site may have an approved SWMP but may not be actively
implementing it.
• Under permit, additional structural and non-structural BMPs may be required for
Category 2 and Category 3 UICs located in a D\►VPA, 2-yr TOT or within 500 feet of a
water well.
TYPE E (non-compliant, must be closed/replaced)
UIC systems cannot be approved and will have to be decommissioned and replaced with non-
UIC stormwater systems.
HWA 12
DESCHUTES COUNTY UIC INVENTORY AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT
C. Recommendations for Structural and Non-Structural BMPs
The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act is a numeric compliance based act and the EPA has
established numeric based criteria for compliance with underground injection. The criteria
include meeting federal drinking water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and human
health based standards. Therefore, under permit it may be possible to-operate UIC systems
without any form of pretreatment and still protect groundwater quality, however, the DEQ will
require verification-through runoff monitoring. Runoff monitoring is expensive and in our
semi-arid climate and it is our opinion that a reasonable, statistically valid sampling program
could not be carried out.
Unlike most of the Portland, Oregon area, many of the drill holes and drywells constructed in
Central Oregon were installed without any form of pretreatment. Not even a catch basin. In
the Portland area many of the UIC systems were constructed with catch basins and
sediment manholes preceding them. This may be because of the perceived need to remove
gross sediments to prevent UIC failure in their less porous soils. In central Oregon many of
the drill holes and drywells receive runoff directly through grate tops. By not having a
minimum of sediment removal UICs, especially drill holes, are prone to failure.
Rehabilitating a drill hole may be possible through drilling the hole deeper, but rehabilitating
a plugged drywell, seepage pit or drainage gallery is next to impossible.
The City of Portland has shown through statistically valid sampling and additional modeling
that groundwater is being protected through the use of catch basins and sediment manholes
prior to UIC injection.
Because of the complications presented by verification, the need to protect UIC systems
and the need to protect groundwater quality this report recommends that that Type C and
Type D UICs identified in this assessment be upgraded to include a minimum level of
structural BMPs (pretreatment) that will protect groundwater quality while preserving the
integrity of the UIC system. Recommendations for improvements to Type C and D UICs are
provided in the individual assessments in Appendix 2.
Most contaminants of concern, specifically metals and hydrocarbons, are hydrophobic and
will attach to fine sediments contained in stormwater runoff. In general the primary goal of
pretreatment BMPs is the removal of sediments from the stormwater runoff before injection.
Additional natural filtering of sediments can occur in sand, soil and sediment in the
unsaturated zone beneath the UIC. If the unsaturated zone below the UICs is less than 10-
feet then biological degradation of organic compounds may occur in addition to filtering. If
the UICs are located in highly fractured rock then the additional filtering and degradation
may not occur.
HWA 13
DESCHUTES COUNTY UIC INVENTORY AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT
It is anticipated that UICs located within delineated 2-yr TOT well protection areas will be
subject to additional pollutant monitoring at injection sites, including fecal coliform. Typical
sediment removal BMPs do not effectively remove fecal coliform. HWA recommends that
UICs in parking lots or right-of-way located in a 2-yr TOT employ basic sediment removal
BMPs as a first step. If permit discharge limits cannot be met then catch basins and
sediment manholes can be upgraded with filter media containing non-leaching biocides.
Such media will require frequent maintenance and regular replacement, but it can be
effective in reducing bacterial loading. Final recommendations for pre-treatment BMPs
should.be made once the permit maximum discharge limits (MDLs) are issued for each
facility or UIC. The best option for UICs located in the 2-yr TOT is to utilize non-UIC
infiltration systems with appropriate structural and non-structural BMPs.
In addition to pre-treatment, structural and non-structural BMPs should be implemented
through site-specific or area-specific stormwater management plans for all county UIC
systems. These plans would implement site-specific or area-specific system controls that
include the following where applicable:
• Best management practices for pollution source control (both structural and non-
structural).
• Measures to prevent storm water drainage from areas where hazardous and toxic
materials are used, handled or stored to the maximum extent possible (both
structural and non-structural).
• Spill prevention and countermeasure plan tailored for each site or area.
• Maintenance plan and schedule, with frequency of maintenance activities, including
visual inspections and physical maintenance.
• Employee and public education plan.
• Identification of personnel or contractors responsible for implementing individual
plans.
D. Need for Additional Information
This phase of work was limited to inventory and preliminary assessments of UIC systems.
H\NA staff conducted facility site walks and visual inspections of observable drainage
features were made. In some instances the county provided site construction plans to assist
in the assessment. For registration purposes additional information was obtained from
public databases. The site inspections did not include) subsurface investigation and only
included information about the systems that could be obtained by visual assessment from
the ground surface. Those systems that could be readily accessed were opened, visually
inspected and qualitative and quantitative data was gathered. Certain assumptions may
have been made about select UIC systems that could not be verified visually.
Additional site-specific information may be required to make recommendations to meet
groundwater protection goals. Recommendations for additional information are discussed in
the individual site UIC assessments in Appendix 2.
fA 14
DESCHUTES COUNTY UIC INVENTORY AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT
Assumptions regarding implementation of structural and non-structural BMPs are based on
the on discussions with the DEQ. HWA believes that under permit each site can be
approached in a similar manner as would be required for rule authorization, however, with
more flexibility than would be allowed under rule authorization.
E. Capital Cost Estimates
As part of this report HWA has made preliminary estimates of capital costs for implementing
the structural and non-structural BMPs outlined above. The costs are very rough and are to
be used for budgeting purposes only and may be revised as more detailed information is
made available. At this time the approach in assessing the level of improvements
necessary to permit county UIC systems is sufficient for capital planning, or master planning,
purposes. The estimates provided may include engineering, construction and permitting
and may be site-specific or system-wide. Site-specific estimates for each of the facilities can
be found in the individual site assessments and are tabularized below.
The basic elements for capital cost estimating include the following:
Site Specific
1. Capital improvements for each site, including surveying, engineering and
construction
2. Permitting, including preparation of a stormwater management plans and/or
closure plans where applicable
3. One time sampling and cleaning of existing UICs as needed for closure or
installation of pretreatment BMPs
Facility Name
Warehouse/IT Building
$23,700
Justice Build in /Courthouse
DesCo Admin/Comm Dev
$120,500
DesCo Services Bldg
$140,600
Historical Society
$39,700
Health & Human Serv. Bend
$72,000
Public Safe Complex
$260,400
Terrebonne & La Pine ROW
$210,000
Fairgrounds
$45,000
Beck Johnson Center
$19,600
Total:
$931,500
System Wide
1. Permit Application (see Exhibit 6)
2. UIC WPCP Permit negotiation, including template review and comments and
final permit development
Estimates for permit negotiation; facilities operation and maintenance; and, compliance
verification and reporting are beyond the scope of this report.
HWA 15
DESCHUTES COUNTY UIC INVENTORY AND INITIAL. ASSESSMENT
V. Next Steps
A. WPCF Permit
DE:Q is expected to publish a UIC WPCF template for public comment and review in the fall
of 2009. Once the template is finalized the county will have to negotiate a permit with the
DE:Q. We recommend that county retain HWA to represent them at each of the phases of
the permitting process to maintain continuity and to represent the county's best=. interests.
B. Interim Operation and Maintenance of Countv Stormwater Systems
Assess interim stormwater system operational and maintenance needs to maintain the
integrity of existing stormwater systems, prevent localized flooding and protect water quality.
This is prudent and any work done towards this end can be incorporated into the SWMP that
will be required under permit.
C. Prioritize Capital Improvement Needs
WIPCF permits are for ten years. The permits are structured in such a way that milestones
must be met during the life of the permit. It can be expected that. non-com plaint systems will
need to be upgraded within four CIP'cycles. That is, capital improvements needed to meet
water quality goals under permit will need to be completed in four CIP cycles, or
approximately 5 years.
D. Lona Term Operational Cost Based on Permit
Assess the annual costs for operating and maintaining the county's stormwater collection,
treatment and disposal systems.
00000
N 16
~ O N T
'T NC3
one
n
X
4
~N
A
0
m
Rl
m
0
8
z
n
F
~O
z
m?
0cl?
O
ND
N
A
W
N
t!
O
0
fT
A
N
O
co
co
V
(T
A
N
HWA UIC No
V
O
1
O
Cq
V
0
0
0
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
~
O
O
O
O N
N
N=
CJ
c
@
O
~
c
/
o
z
-
-
-
~
~
tmn
-
-
q
zz
:t
f^df/
O
0
V
(D
V
0)
V
0)
V
5)
V
0)
V
8;
V
8
V
0
V
8
m
W
C'~
N
N
N
N
N
N
N N
N N
N
N
N A
N O
(p
tp
a
A
00
co
OO
o
A
0
0
N
0
01
0
N
0
(T
V
G1
V
0
V
N
O
c
W
W
W
W W
W
W 7
.p
V
J
V
V
0
0
0
co
f
On ok
N
~
,
~
'
t0
0
V
0
N
A
W
N
+
W
N
~
W
N
C
Q 4
S
G
_
O
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
-
J
L l
/b
J
a
ti
3,
N
N
N
N
N
N
o
0
W
0
W
0
W
0
W
0
W
y
n
w
N
0
N
0
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N m
O o
-
t0
O-{
N
O
N N
O
m
D~
p~
m
O
N
O
N
o
N
o
-
N
p
N
O
a
df/
O
m•
a
ri
n
n
ri
ri
m
a
&
E
;
H
g
B
n
dQ
~
tp
a
a
2.
ri
'er
CL
CL
.
d
CO
@
`@^
A
AD
A
A
A
pp
A
A
,,pp
?
pp
A
A
?
yy,,
A
A
A
A
A
pp
A
A
A
pp
AA
pp
A
'P,
A
p
A
p
A
A
pp
A
P.
AA
O+/
0
0
0
O
O
O
C
O
O
O
A
O
G
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
a
0
0
cn
01
0
0,
0
tn
0
N
rn
N
0
N
0
N
0
W
0
W
0
W
tn
rn
0
0
0
N
rn
O
0
O
T
TT
T
T
T
0
0
0
0
rn
0
0
0
,8
df@
j
N
N
N
A
A
V
0
N
A
W
0
N
0,
N
0
0
_I
_I
W
_IV
_1
_1
0
W
W
W
0
N
~
O
A
t2
t!
~
!
t
~2
N
N
tj
t!
t!
N
t!
t
!
N
A
N
N
N
N
N
w
i
i
i
i
w
_
.
i
i
i
i
w
w
i
i
i
i
~a
;
w
a
0
)
0
a
0
a
0
0
co
0
*D
0
ia
0
ia
0
ia
0
~
ia
0
CS
ia
0
O
iv
O
i)
O
+
O
a
a O
O
c
1-0)
~
7
O
~
~
O
a
0
V
)
0
V
a
0
V
a
0
V
@C/h
V
N
0
0
V
O
V
V
V
A.
CO
10
0
01
V
CD
OD
O
OD
W
0
A
V
O
A
OD
C
O
A
t0
Cx
Co
V
f0
O
0
o
t0 W
00
0
0
O
00
A
0
CA
0
Cn
0
t0
OD
V
0
V
0
O, d/
F
1
%
a@
N
N
Vt
CT
Vt
Vt
pl
V1
CT
fT
(T
pl
CT
0
V
T
IT
UV
(P
O
T
p
0
p
V
0
Q/
/
co
OI
w
O
01
N
0
O
0
O
0
V
0D
V
0
0
0
0
V
N
V
0
0)
N
W
O
N
0
N
0
O
w
O
W to
N 0
0
0
Oo
N
W
0
W
0
N
"
0
O
0
N
01
O
O fd
O
O____
01
0
0
Cx
tT
O
O
CT
o
01
0
N
m
0
0
00
0
CA
O
0
CA
0
0
0
OA ~0.
@
f
N
N
N
w
o
W
i
W
O
w
w
W
<A
G
W
W
W
W
W
A
1
A
W
A
W W
I
W
W
A
A
A
0
C)1
A
0
A
[T
A
Sf~,
0
01,
N
N
W
0
O
c
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
V
0
0
O
0
0
A
0
0
W
V
Ot
A
O
0
W
U i
0
V
0
V
0
0
0
0
0
N
N
O
0
o
0
V N
0 0
I
N
0
S
O
O
V
V
N
V
V
0
V
0
V
2
N
9i
N
0
.
d~.
_ _
.
d of
7
-I
OD
0
0
V
0
V
N
0
V
V
0
0
V
CDI
CT
0
0
0
00
0
V
10
0
0
A1
V
W
W
N
a df
C"
CA
O
f
T
N
C
II
O
N
O
O
0
O
0
0
O
O
O
0 O
CA
CCn
O
CA
O
71
t
O
II
C
S
~
'O
'O
O
•O
'O
V
O
•O
'O
'O
D
'O
'O
C
'O
V
4
V
=3
`
0
e
~
7C
7C
)C
>C
7C'
7<
7C
JC
7<
7C
7C
7C
)C
' 7C
7C
7C
7C
,
,
l
w
n
J
~
S
/J
df
O
@^
to
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
0
w
M
w
w
w
w
m
w
w w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
l
p
t~
.
p
p-~
gg
N
C
p
(
'
T
C
C
C
C
C
C
nn
d xO
~@
-
.
.
G
<
<
2'
m
<
<
•1
G
<
G
<<
<
<
G
G
G
G
<
C
<
~
d
. 2
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
,
S
@
s
s
d
/
f
~
df4
A@
0
+
'
0
0
0
8
8
W
W
N
y,
O)
0
0
W
m
G
O
O
N
V
~
0
O)
-
+
W
0
I
-
O
J
A
-
~
A
-
A
J
0
A
,
W
W
0
0
~
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
W
N
A
A
A
A
O
A
O
A
W
t
W
V
W
i
O
A
O
A
W
W
W
W
W
x
t
n
0
0
0
0
0
V,
0
Q/ !fr df/O
d~ S
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
W
0
W
0
V
0D
V
t0
O
0
N
@f
Q @~.
~
@S/
f
8
8
0
aD
A
0
'~~j
/0
cc
w
O
01
CD
O~•
O
O
O
-
0
-
0)
90
w
tr
.c
c
c
c
w
w
v
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
m
p
p
w
M0
w
@ d
a r@
O
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
dd/j~
oi @0'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
~D
0,
@9
IRH
0e,
T
Z
q
01
v
v
y
^N
O
m
N
c
v
i
u,
y
w
0 d@
O
C
=
O
O
0
Q.
0
W
df
f/
@
C0f
tp
»
N
p
N
N
O~
a
(D
o
o'
°
N
O
N
CDD
N
<
m
<
`o
a
8
m
0
0
0
0
p
O
c
o
)
o
03
w
n
m
N
cx
?
2
0
2
m
CL
to
N
~
C
(p
C'
a
N
N
0
N
W
N
~
N
n
7P
o
n
n
y
o
w
m
m
to
.
m
3
i
o
m
m
to' v
N O
S
n
m S
O
!D
u n
N
II
C
o_ ~
v
c.
N
d
F
w
d
o me
y 0 n
0 1 .Z1
zom
N Z f0
c v~
0 C
z-4
M o
N A z
0 T
N ;
Z
O 0
zg
qD
O y
00
O
I Z
0m
rm
Z-<
T O
A m
Dm
0
z
p c w
d~iom
=(o
CT
w
N N
~ p
O 3 3 <
N
@
tp m
O
CD
~ N
O
f~/1 1010
m
O
G
w
v
WON m
!crosm
A ~ ~ Z
O n
~ A C
H n
y
A
O
Z
3
m
m
m
z
0
~Z
m
z;
~D
. p
ao
.o
ma
om
N
N
Vt
0
0
0
0
N
01
0
O
A
W
A
W
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
W
W
W
w
W
(~7
w
W
W
N
W
O
N
(O
N
0
HWA UIC No
O
00
0
0)
A
W
V
0
01
A
W
N
O
M
V
0
01
'-1
2
m
m
'm+
7
O
>
O
>
O
7
O
m
O
m
O
7
O
7
O
7
O
J
O
7
O
O
O
7
O
7
O
>
O
>
O
7
O
>
O
>
O
7
O
O
O
7
O
m
O
m
O
0
O
>
O
>
O
Q
O
O
7
O
7
O
y
y
y
Q
0
S
RP
7
m
w
m
CL
dG
N
C)
N
X
0
=
p
,
(0
O
y
40,
sf
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
J
(0
0
V
0
0
A
W
N
a
i
W
N
O
A
Y S
~1
0)
(A
A
W
fl)
0
CO
W
V
0)
(T
A
W
N
-
+
0
m
ti
K
Z
C7
O
N
/
~
s
-9
-3,
(O
0]
O
N
y
y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
di
y
N
w
w
p
0~
0~
0~
0~
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
df/
N
W
W
N
N
(xp
CL
O'
N
n
N
n
N
n
O'
(D
n
N
a
N
n
B.
N
n
N
CL
O'
n
N
n
N
n
O'
N
CL
N
CL
N
CL
N
n
I
n
O.
2i
O,
C /
@
0
IP
1-@1
A
q^
A
A
,,pp
A
yy~~
A
A
A
A
A
A
p
p
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
pp
Ja
pp
A
pp
A
pp
A
pp
A
A
A
A
A
yy
A
A
A
A
A
A
AA
A
AA
A
pp
A
pp
A
AA
A
A
A
?
..pp
A
p+
W
W
j
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
C
O
O
O
O
(D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
0
V
0
~
0
V
0
~
/
~j
df
P
W
W
_
O
N
(O
N
(D
N
(O
A
f0
O
(0
V
.O
0
.(0
07
OD
V
0
U)
(O
W
(O
~
co
V
co
V
00
N
00
O
00
O
(O
OJ
(0
OJ
0
~
0
A
0
tO
O
0
A
0
W
p
A
O
A
V O
N
N
OJ
N
O
(O
~
W
W
f
/a
V
OD
W
0
W
0
4J
0
W
0
W
0
W
0
W
0
W
0
W
0
W
0
W
0
W
0
W
0
W
0
W
0
iJ
0
W
0
W
0
W
0
W
0
W
0
W
0
W
0
W
0
W
0
W
0
0
0
J
0)
N
0
N
0
N
0
P
C/
(0
0
01
A
0
A
00
01
V
(n
Ut
(n
V
O
A
0
O
CO
01
V
A
X1
(4
00
A
0
W
0
A
V
OD
V
0
W
0
O
0
O
01
~
01
W
0
w
0
O
0
cn
V
+
V
OD
0
O
CD
Vt
O
ao
0
A
V
O
V
W1
V
0
0' ~d
/
0
0
°
°
°
C:)
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
~i
a
x
=
x
x
x
~
*
f4a
Pg/
1
1
1
M
M
P
J
J
@
'
rn
rn
rn
O/
8/
O
0
(n
-4
W
01
W
-4
W
N
~
N
O
O
01
-4
0D
V
07
N
V
O
V
V
aD
-1
(O
-4
V
N
V
01
4
A
V
W
CD
N
CA
IJ
0
_
V
OJ
01
(O
O
V
N
0
E
01
m
W
01
0
N
N
s
O
m
O
Ut
01
0
0
01
N
N
O
m
0
"
0
N
01
01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0-___
O
O
N.--
O~
t
P
V
C
O]
W
W
W
W
0
W
8
W
N
N
(
N
N
N
N
A
N
A
N
W
N
A
N
W
N
W
W
S
W
w
w
W
W
W
N
N
I
N
N
0
0
A
0
W
0
N
0
df/
S/~P
0
N
O
N
0•
O
N
N
N
N
0
O
O
O
O
0
V
N
W
N
O
O
N
O
M
N
N
V
N
0
V
O
0
O
0
O
0
N
N
O)
O
0
O
0
O
O1
O
W
N
Vt
0
N
N
O
2
W
V t
S
N
O
2
(O
N
1
-
01
2
01
O
0
O
N
O
O
O
01
O
(
4 4G
@
_
.
_
.
.
.
-
~
/
St
/
&
W
A
W
W
W
W
W
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
N
N
N
-
N
O
O
O
^
U l
W
0
W
N
N
N
O
O
O
O
1
tD
N
tO
N
N
N
V
N
V
0
A
0
A
0
W
N
A
O (
~
O
W
O
01
W
N
01
0)
N
O
1
W
0
"
O
W
N
V
( n
4
m ~
M
01
A
01
W
O
N
0)
a
df
0
0
01
N
O
O
f n
O
N
0
01
O
O
O
01
O
O
O
O
01
O
.
0
O
O
0)
0
0
0
O
O
O
s
7
~
a
v
~
'D
-0
X
f
f
w
w
W
?rl
0
j
~
a.
=L
a,
a,
s
~
?
w
dt
I
P^
O
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
/
c:
c
c
c
c
c:
0
c~.
d8
G
P ,
2
m
<
m
C
m
<
m
<
m
G
m
G
m
G
m
G
m
<
m
<
m
m
01
m
<
m
G
m
G
m
m
G
9
<
m
2
m
<
m
<
m
<
m
<
m
<
m
-0
<
m
<
m
<
m
C< D
<
d
AS
~P
~S
S
d
~l
4,G
'p@
N
O
N
8
8
y,
~
~
(D
/0
N
W
A
~
W
~
W
0
fx
0
M
0
in
0
N
0
v
0
i0
~
t0
00
O
V
V 1
N
~
iJ
0
A
0
tD
~
~
f0
0
6
0
v
0
W
W
00
I
6
OD
C/f
.
O
O
-
d
~
rn
rn
o
W
0
fn
0
i)1
0
iT
o
iT
w
i7)
w
N
w
iT
w
ii1
w
Cx
w
w
In
w
N
w
W
w
to
w
in
w
m
w
01
w
in
w
in
w
it
w
V)
w
fT
w
N
w
CA
A
w
in
I
A
A
@ ~pf@
_
_
_
O
°
/
s
d~
r
@
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
'
@s/
F
V
01
(~I~
CD
O
O
w
m
w
w
w
w
w
w
a -
M
Q
w
w
w
w
w
Q
w
w
c
c
w
w
c
w
w
m
w
w
c
c
c
d
N
N
A 9q
O
dI
@
Pa
pf
O
@
~
d
O
p4 t
~
~
P
o
e
m
P~ a/4
,f
,
~
a
p
0
m
dQo d
c
a
q`
6
`
c
n
pf
~P
CD
a
C,
@
d
1 /110
o
=
d
~
~
o
N
3
~@d
m
~
m
H
O)
y
N
<
a'
3
x
m
ND
m O co
n
•c m
f
Am z
< J ti m
pN_C3
one
m 0
H
A
O
~i
0
z
z
~D
pO OA
D ~
Z Z
Do
mg
3.
O .
N D
W
O
au
W
W oD
CU V
m
m V
O t0
V
W
.I .I
V 0)
V
W
V
A
V
W
V
N
V
~
V
O
rn
W
rn
W
(A f
V
A
0
rn(
Ut
D
A
0)
W
0)
N
(A
~
to
O
HWA UIC No
m
o
r
7
o
n
7
m
7
o
p
w m
m
m
m
m
m
0
w
=
N
0
0
0
I
@
~
A
y
jS
U)
O
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
j
O
3
7
0
W
0 0
W W
0
W
0 0
W W
0
W
0
W
0
W
0
W
(D
W
0
W
0
W
0
W
0
W
0
W
0
W
0
W
0
W
0
W
0
W
0
W
Sf
fd
~
,
^
f`i
S
_
1D
w
N
D.
NN
W N
~
N-+
O W
~
W
V
Cn
A
W
N
O
W
CW
V
0
Cn
A
W
/C
y
o
O
/
~
~
Sfr
N
7
7 W a
m
N
7 7
7
7 7
7
7
7
7
7
7
fp
N
7
N
N f
A
N
N
7
7
d/
/
p
w
w
a
w w
w
w w
w
w
w
w
w
w
p
O
w
0
0
0
0
0
w
w
af
/
m
O.
n
n
a
a
o:
a
O,
CL
0.
co
@
y@"
a~~d
o
A
A
A
A A
A
A
A A
A A
A
A
A
W
A A
W W
A
W
A A
W W
A
W
A
W
A
W
A
W
A
W
A
W
A
W
A
W
A
W
A
W
A
W
A
W
A
W
A
W
A
W
A
W
~p+
N
V
N
N
NN
N
0
0)
rn(
n 0
) rn
0
00
-
n
0
-
0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
rn
rn
01
/
W
V
W
W
A
ww
W A
w
0)
0)
W
VV
A A
4 -
W
4 -4
W W
v
N
-4
N -
4
+
4
-1
O
V
O
V
V
A
V
Cn C
V
-4
)
4
N
A
A
O)
A
%
@
O
CID O
D V
V
W
NO
Otl
D W
O
CA
A
A
W (
D
d)
O
N
V
l
(D (
n
CO
V
N
O
_
I
~
(d
•
'
'
,
X1
1
m
aw
m
in
A A
A
A A
A
A
A
A
A
A
in
in
in i
n
6 i
n
CA i
n
En
CA
a
@O
0
0
NCA
A
O
N C
W W
A O C
W
n
W W
- O
W
A
W
NC
W
n
W
N
W
O)
W
0
0
01
0
V
0
A
0
8
0
0
0
O
100,
p
A
j
~
~
N
40
)N
0
m
01W
W
W
0
w
A
W
OtC
0
W
m
W
W
O
V
O)
O'
d,
W
'
'
U
J V
J
J J
N
N
N
J
N •
J
V
J
J
J
J
V
J
J
U
J
~~/O a@~
V
/
A
O
V
N co
N
O
al'
O
Cn
O C
i1
V
w
w cn
@S
r
f0
A
A -
• Cn
~
p
A
N
N C
n A
@/ "o
d a
x
aa
a
aa
a
a
aa
a
a
a
a
a
aa
a
a
a
a
a
a
;
a,
a
, a,
ff
f
ff
f
f
ff
f
f
f
f
f
ff
f
~
~
F
f
f
o ?
w
w w
w
w w
w w
w
w w
w w
w
w w
O
x
w
w w
w w
w w
w
w
d,
4 ~'F
X
<
<
<
< <
< <
Z
<
<
99
< <
EL
<
a
<
q
<
7
<
G <
7
7
ID
mm
m
wm
wm
m
mm
mm
m
mw
O
~
m
C
nm
C
mm
mm
a
n
A
df
@
4S
O
~
~
t
~
~
~
Cn
.vV
JJ
?
o
N0
.
X1
N
0 i
N
J A1-
+fJ -
~
W
~
V ~
V
W
I 0
rnC
V
nrnD
V ib
)
v i
(
C
_
O
d^a
W
N
, V,
J•
V O
JCn
0
4i
0
n o1i
0 0
n i
0
n tno
0 0 0
l(ni
0
n in
0
cni
0
n I
A
I A
AA
A
A I
I
@
Cf@
fh y
@
f
@
_
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
-
-
i•
W
O
(
D(bA
~ A
A
li
W W
NN
W
)
V
V O
AN
~IJ
W
C
N O
n O C
DW
n C
V W
n NN
"C
W O
n CD
- -
AO
CO
N
N N
Nt
n
O„
0
0 0
0
01 C
n 0 0
D0
0
Cn V
0 0
A
O
N
O
NO
O O
O c
O O
o
d
w
w w
w
w w
w w
w
w w
w w
w
w w
w
w w
w w
w w
@
~
dO
afc
sA eq
@
a
0-
@q
oel
W
X ;
a
N
^
m
O
is.
x
0 0
00
~
v
U
~
f
df@„ d
C-
rr 0
0
,
o
d
O
O
j
p
m
(D
Of@
@
d
N
- -
y
a
y
`
a
r
efo
f@v
M iD
~c
S
'
u
O
a C
-o V
L
ID
y
r
n
d
rn
> m
C, C
L
>
n
F
m
0
x
f f
S
w
0
A
O
m
°--O
CD
A
0
n (D
3
z
o
_
o o
7
w
@
m
p
'
a
m
~
y
M
7
T-
i.
0
Q
7
"U
S.D
Documen! Reproduces Poorly N
(Archived)
'
a
e'
0
L"
k
M
]
w ,~T+tN
at ,
II va
d
w `
u
_ c m
- - - 1 d o0
.a ~
_ W ~r1
1
~
c
pl p
w16 a
C € ~t
C N
Q
s
r. .
Z y
a
~tcfnf'-..
Dccu erl Reproduces Pooriy
(Archived)
V
:4yg, a
~t
fX ~
~fl
M
3a mant Reproduces P W~;
(ATchdv )
Fil
n
H
10
w
m
" m ~ E .g Q
e v"
o ¢ N
QQ
o
" a 3$ a F E
or
_
N ~ ~ C ~ c p
2 naF
~
~U
•p ,O~
°
Q O Q
=
~u
C
Sc
O
N
G r
gp
b
C W d
D
•D
a
° %
~ 3 a~ v 31 ~
~ ~
1 aS 3 ~3
m
8
pQ~
: M w• Y 8 M M
7~
l r
r
{IN~I1
~
I
H E
~ -
r
Cd1 Cj re
C m
to G
W C.
nr. '
o
~
a ~
gg
Chi'
o
lqt
December 15, 2009
Page 1 of 3
1 ORS 197.455 [What Lands May be Mapped as Eligible for a Destination Resort]
f gislative counsel
2 (1) A destination resort [must] may b~; i ted only ton lands mapped -eli Comment [rwrl]:
gible for preferred style.
3 destination resort siting by the affected county. The county may not allow destination
4 resorts approved pursuant to ORS 197.435 to 197.467 to be sited in any of the following
5 areas:
6 (a) Within 24 air miles of an urban growth boundary with an existing population
7 of 100,000 or more unless residential uses are limited to those necessary for the staff and
8 management of the resort.
9 (b)(A) On a site with 50 or more contiguous acres of unique or prime farmland
10 identified and mapped by the United States Natural, Resources Conservation Service, or
11 its predecessor agency.
12 (B) On a site within three miles of a high~value crop area unless theresort
13 complies with the requirements of ORS 197.445 (6) in which case the resort may not be
14 closer to a high value crop area thanbrie-half mile for each 25 units of overnight lodging
15 or fraction thereof.
16 (c) On predominantly Cubic Foot Site,Class, l,or 2-f6restlands as determined by
17 the State Forestry Department, which are not subject to an approved goal exception.
18 (d) In the ;Columbia River Gorge National_.Scenic Area as defined by the
19 Columbia River Gorge National. Scenic Act, P.L. 99-663.
20 (e) In an especially sensitive big game habitat area as determined by the Oregon
21 Department of Fish and Wildlife in July 1984, unless the county and the Oregon
22 Department of Fish and Wildlife agree on a different determination, and that
Comment [tw2]: Intent is to allow
23 determination is (or as] designated ]n an acknowledged comprehensive plan.. update of 1984 Wildlife map, ufiere
ODFW and county ag. on new map.
24 (f) On a site in which the lands are predominantly classified as being in fire
25 regime condition class 3, unless the county approves a community wildfire
26 protection plan or an amendment to a plan that demonstrates the site can be
J Comment [rw3]:From area 12-11
27 developed without being at a huh overall risk - - allows siting is high=risk area nnly it
county plan includes measures to allow
28 (2) In carrying out subsection (1) of this section, a county shall adopt, as part of development with mitigation that reduces
risk.
29 its comprehensive plan, a map consisting of eligible lands within the county. The map
30 must be based on reasonably available information and may be amended pursuant to ORS
31 197.610 to 197.625, but not more frequently than once every 30 months. The county shall
December 15, 2009
Page 2 of 3
1 develop a process for collecting and processing concurrently all map amendments made
2 within a 30-month planning period. A map adopted pursuant to this section shall be the
3 sole basis for determining whether tracts of land are eligible for destination resort siting
4 pursuant to ORS 197.435 to 197.467.
6 ORS 197.460 [Siting Criteria for Compatibility - At the Stage a Particular Resort is
7 Proposed on Eligible Lands]
8 A county shall [insure] ensure that a destination resort is compatible with the site and
9 adjacent land uses through the following measures:
10 (1) Important natural features, including habitat of threatened or endangered
11 species, streams, rivers and significant wetlands shall be retained. Riparian vegetation
12 within 100 feet of streams, rivers and significant wed ands "Shall be retained. Alteration of
13 important natural features, including placement of structures [which] that maintain the
14 overall values of the feature may be allowed.
15 (2) Improvements and activities shallbe located and designed to avoid or
16 minimize adverse effects of the resort on uses on surrounding lands, particularly effects
17 on intensive farming operations in the area." At a minimum, measures to accomplish this
18 shall include:
19 (a) Establishment and na ptenance of buffers between the resort and adjacent
20 land uses., including natural vegetation and where appropriate, fences, berms, landscaped
21 areas and other similarltypes of buffet's.
22 (b) Setbacks of structures and other improvements from adjacent land uses.
23 (3) If the resort will be located west of the summit of the Coast Range and
24 within 10 miles of an urban growth boundary, or east of the summit of the Coast
25 Range and within 25 miles of an urban growth, the county shall also require the
26 applicant to submit an economic impact analysis of the proposed development
27 prepared by a qualified professional economist(s) or financial analyst(s) which
28 includes an analysis of the projected fiscal, economic and housing impacts within the
29 county'and cities within the applicable distance specified above if the proposed
30 development is completed, and if the proposed development is not carried out.
Comment [RW4]: This provision is-
modeled on Deschutes County's resort
ordinance. It requires an economic
impact analysis, but does not require
mitigation to county. could, but is not
required to, do anvthing with this
inforutation_ The purpose is to help
monitor impacts over time_
December 15, 2009
Page 3 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
(4) If the resort will be located west of the summit of the Coast Range and
within 10 miles of an urban growth boundary, or east of the summit of the Coast
Range and within 25 miles of an urban growth boundary, the county shall also
[require the applicant] include measures to avoid or mitigate adverse transportation
effects on state highways and other transportation facilities affected by the proposed
resort, including facilities located in the cities within the applicable_distance
Comment [rw5]: Concept is that if a
specified abov.L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - " resort is u nhin a certain distance of an
- - - - - - - urban area. require the county to work
(5) If the water supply for the resort will utilize a, ground water source that with the city on transportation impacts.
has been classified or reclassified as a ground water limited area pursuant to ORS
536.340, is subject to an order of withdrawal under ORS 536.410, or is located in an
area that has been designated as a critical ground water area pursuant to ORS
537.730, then the acreage of land irrigated within,the resort shall not exceed
Richard Klyce
DCPC
12/14/09
Deschutes County Commissioners
As Planning Commissioners we have been encouraged to express our views to you regarding the
Destination Resort Remapping ordinances.
In my view the two ordinances which were presented to the Planning Commission did not embody the
concepts which were agreed to at the joint BOCC/DCPC meeting. Specifically the ordinances unmapped
everyone, imposed new, more restrictive criteria, and then allowed back on the map only those
properties which met the new criteria and only if the property owners specifically asked to be mapped.
This is why we felt it necessary to add an amendment which would "grandfather" those properties
currently mapped. Under the amendment all the landowners need to do is notify the County of their
wishes. While they do not need to meet the new restrictions we felt requiring the active step of
notification would cut down the number of mapped properties. The "grandfather amendment" fulfills
the wishes of the BOCC as expressed at the Joint Session and at the 12/9/09 Working Session. This
assumes the County does a more than adequate job of notifying property owners of the potential
changes. Because of the high stakes involved I feel the County should go farther than the legally
required minimums for notification. Personally, I do not feel efforts to date are adequate, however a
revised flier inserted in next years tax bill would go a long way toward satisfying adequate notice.
Thank you for your time.
Richard Klyce
Q
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
HEARING:
Community Development Department
{ Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
MEMORANDUM
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner
January 8, 2010
January 20, 2010
SUBJECT: Destination Resort Remapping / Summarizing Planning Commission Testimony
The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners asked staff, at their January 6 work session, to
summarize destination resort remapping testimony submitted into the record during the
Planning Commission's November 19 and December 2 public hearings. The purpose of the
summary is to prepare them for their hearing on January 20.
Summary of Destination Resort Remapping Testimony
Prohibit destination resorts within 5 air miles of Bend's UGB.
The following issues warrant attention:
• Costs of destination resorts
• Percentage of economic activity at resorts that are a diversion from
other existing visitor-serving amenities
• Value of wildlife
• Costs of public services
• Are taxes levied on resorts collected in full
• True costs and benefits of destination resorts
• Penalties preventing construction of less than the required amount of
overnight units before permanent lots are sold
November 19
. Stronger enforcement
Public Hearing
• Mitigation fund which could be forfeited to the County if not used
• High wildfire risk should be exempt from eligibility
Questions the haste of the current destination resort remapping process.
Safety of the natural environment is an important criteria for siting a resort.
Develop a full soils map and overlay it on the existing resort map, showing
that it complies with high value soils (Soil 65A)
Safety concerns in Tumalo resulting from resort development that have not
been addressed; transportation an ongoing issue.
Encourage smaller resorts which would have a minimal impact on services.
Postpone final mapping process until the Comprehensive Plan policies have
been finalized regarding resort size and location.
Quality Services Performed with Pride
Requests properties of less than 160 acres be included so that parcels can
be combined.
Clarify "lots," "parcels," "sites," etc., in the generic sense versus legal
terminology.
Allow at least 90 days for people to file applications after the Board's
decision.
Developers of large-scale destination resorts have to spend a lot of money to
build.
Tourists visit cities, contributing to the local economy.
Oppose a five-mile resort prohibition from Bend's UGB.
F-1 land should be eligible for resorts.
Areas within the Deschutes Basin may not be acceptable for resorts (ex.
aquifer under Thornburgh site).
Require a map amendment applicant to pay for transportation, water, safety,
height, environmental, and wildlife studies.
Develop a list of independent firms to perform the studies before remapping
amendments are adopted.
Preserve open space and consider the lifestyle and great places to live in
Deschutes County before considering remapping areas for new resorts.
Pronghorn is nothing but a subdivision.
The remapping amendments should be continued beyond February 2010.
November 19
Public Hearing
Remove all the eligible land from the destination resort map.
Consider a moratorium on new resorts.
Destination resorts are an attack on state land use laws and have nothing to
do with providing a service.
Mapping depends in large part on whether the resorts cater to rural
subdivisions or whether they cater to tourism and include overnight housing.
Identify the amount of room and property taxes collected from each resort.
No more destination resorts.
Protect public resources like water, fish and wildlife.
Exclude resorts within 10 miles of a UGB or 10 miles from an existing
destination resort.
Require economic assessment which affirmatively demonstrates clear and
positive economic development for the region before approving new resorts.
Repeal existing destination resort map.
Need a scientific water survey.
A new map must take into consideration threatened or endangered species
as well as analyses where development would diminish wildlife or their
habitat.
Strengthen siting requirements for resorts
No further destination resorts in the south county groundwater study area.
Allow small destination resorts
Current siting criteria too restrictive. Rely solely on state statute.
Allow contiguous properties less than 160 acres to be eligible.
Opposed to any effort aimed at facilitating additional resort development in
the county that does not first take serious steps to address the numerous
issues pertaining to traffic, affordable housing, wildlife, groundwater, and
impacts to neighbors and neighboring communities.
Opposed to development models so heavily focused on the sale of real
estate for residential purposes as opposed to the generation of true tourism.
Troubled by the fact that Deschutes County continues to invest substantial
time and effort into remapping at a time when the issue remains so clearly in
play at the state level.
Put this portion of the comprehensive plan update on the back burner until
there is clarity at the state level.
Destination resort development leads to loss of critical deer and elk habitat.
Developed areas become at risk for wildfire
Limit destination resorts to those areas that relate to and showcase rural
November 19
agricultural and natural resources, leaving more urban recreation activities to
Public Hearing
urban areas.
Encourage a variety of resort sizes that focus on the diversity of natural
resources.
Development regulations must apply equally to both large and small resorts.
Restrict residences and non-natural resource related recreational uses so
more property owners, investors, and developers might be attracted to the
resort field.
Oppose destination resorts because it allows suburbia to interfere with the
rural lifestyle.
Resorts and tourism provide few high paying jobs once the initial construction
is completed.
Revenue from a potential increase in taxes should be weighed against loses
in quality of life (open space, natural habitat, farm, and forest).
Don't need more traffic
Rural areas should be protected from resort development
Clarify acknowledged Goal 5 planning program
Destination resorts provide an important tax based to local fire districts.
Destination resorts do not reduce but actually add to the safety of areas by
installing fire hydrants and implementing defensible space
Destination resorts are good for the economy. There is more wildlife in
developed areas.
December 2
Golf courses use less water per acre than agricultural crops.
Public Hearing
Destination resorts are sited on land that is beautiful and generally less
productive for farming.
It would lessen the impact on irrigated agriculture if resorts were encouraged
to be sited on irrigated land.
Resorts use far less public services than they provide.
Simplify the destination resort rema in process.
Fish and wildlife are important for the livability of Deschutes County.
No resorts in the Count have met state criteria.
Collect more data from independent studies before embarking on a
remapping program:
Evaluate the Central O%gon Land Watch report, documenting the socio-
economic impacts of destination resorts.
Deschutes County needs updated wildlife inventories because it is important
to protect recreational resources.
Standards set forth in the amendments should be upheld and strengthened
where resorts have failed to provide the economic development as promised.
A moratorium on new resort applications should be put in place until existing
resorts are fully built out and we know they are economically viable land use
decisions and not new county liabilities.
Special consideration should be given to: wildland urban interface,
groundwater flows, especially to Whychus Creek, open space and non-
motorized recreation, and rural livability.
December 2
Protect wildlife connectivity.
Public Hearing
Prevent land use decisions from creating ecological islands
Allow adjacent properties to combine with each other, but only if at least one
of the properties is already greater than 160 acres.
Current siting language is too restrictive and does not meet intent of Goal 8.
Destination resort language should be streamlined to be more in line with
state statute.
Oppose 5-mile prohibition of destination resorts from Bend's UGB.
Allow contiguous property owners, less than 160 acres, to qualify for
eligibility.
Permit properties smaller than 160 acres to be combined with contiguous
properties to satisfy the 160-acre requirement for resort eligibility.
Develop a vision.
Acknowledge public regulations and lands that restrict resort development.
Identify appropriate County locational criteria.
Cl.
0
U
~
~ O
U
0
° 0O
O0
z
y
O
'
4- O
O
'
4i
N
r.
4
4-
N o
N
O
O
rA
40
O
L:
O
s,
~
pQ" Q
~J
'C
4
O
O
O N
cd --i
o
v~
Ll, y
10
0A
=
0
a)
0 ;-4 cd
~ ;
vCd
°
0
to
a~>
CZ
s~
on
a
cd 8
m w
4Q.'
O
b
cd
d
a Ci,
C13
Q
o°
po
po
op
oo
po
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
~0
0
0
r-
0000
00
OLr)
N
O
N
M
kn
N
O
O
O
O
N
N
O
~
^o
U
cd
o
00
cn
00 o
c;j
I
N
00
to
I
d
I
o
b
+
p
U
cd
o
p
c
~
°
.
N
l\
td
O
I
,
O
°
Q)
c7
O u
N
4J,
U
(Y
"
y
N
°
i
C
O
O
°
t
rn
scd,
~o
H ~
V
O
7
~
~
M
a
tx
r/]
w
Q
Z
GG
~
ti
O
-
N
.
N
t
(chavl
e
y~
r s..
. ' y 1 ~ 777
i
F.
1#y~ 7
i
J
~
4
i
.1,M ~
r4. IY
f4
t
1
1 d 0
4:1
41,
art ~I ~ i`'t`y►'~~~, v.7i~'~~s ~ d`
,ca r f, i DESCHU S CO TY :..fie w a'tr" * *+t 4 wt v ~,3 .x~`t iF*
ti 'r v 3
i0EHuRTRQ. _ti Y
LA INE
t IM
} -
"W
r
4.6
f. rr.: S Y. {.~5+. i~ '-l4ap Y - t`~'' S' Ic '.,+~•^!~2' ; ~
~kY"•, S~- -
-
Alft
74
y"R. "T 1l Al's L$ i.,M• ~Cri 4• T b~
t w~ Y~ aF~'k~+~~1~ ♦ ~r • i VP~' r(eCie~y~~j~. ' ~
v r
~
• ~.+a . ►r .`sue. V . ~rr .y~'~I! Ea oF' ~"r>I .11N r y ~ ~k rrt + u
' ;M'~i~-`~~{a ~'K•t' i' +~a'PIN
~k" V .st. ~ y~7e .~,~~r~gy~~-i~! ~fir1~ ~ • v:..w ~f ~~~~~vC'i ~~'y~ ~,~r s~ t ~s #'+C ~ilr~ qq¢
Y ~ ~ SY_r't"Wl~r~~~rf,~-~ +~t ~~ei~I~'+'4~l'..,j•• 4 ~ •a, ~ ,rn ,S. "r'+ IMY.,4*~r ~ ~
VIl 4L,
"'c`•++.; 4.~-' zy *''►,"s;n 7i' K"W
~ ar
3 1611250001200'
.
4w'f!~'1~~~
-~'t
Tr AX-1
~ _ ~ ~ "r ~ . ~ sr. i7 ~ i '~4.. ' ~ fir;
.y ~`~ii~-~ .r "5..~ 'v~+MF,I~.. 1-it ~i ,`jt X ,.~'+n ~ :t• a ~'1t ^,~rtr: - .t ,v-'.y~.` ~ y.-
~,~~}s.• c ~a y,-,-..- "~@ '~r `t y`"! «'Ifey,:".aer Yfiy~' i "g~ a•4 I 'ate
' .t Y' ' ~ " . ~ ! ` ~ ~ s X~ +c a6 A i 4 +i ~ yl ~1t . .`+.t~ r t~
Se.
"Or
a+~~*-A_-.~'+~'.+~z+'21'`d7:!',t.l,a
yt tlr ti. • 'ISZVjR• e. we r cif yY' °t .
•sfy;+*{'g''~ ~ ~ .y~,~`,,c,, ~t~~ * .'i, ~ vl +IC 4t" .L~;~s+c '~"~2~ r4'... `~Mf • v
+1k , ~ +'„IF. SS ~ 'a•!~'t'i~' '<t't a +6 y,ir =~fY wr "'►~.Y'.. .y~, rt~ :'Sot. .t
a ~ - ii 'II s+-" ♦ i.'4 'k +iC..< ~r vtF.x,.. ~r 7s a
.'•ri . r S •+t v'tw.. ,.y+ Z Z K ,Ir,'v,tV'~ .~r y+1.'•,~, Lr + ~,~'YV s_' + '`F I;ZtC
,i"~~• •M" Z '~F y r
.07
i" Y I r a' T'k **t!'L. i i -a
?t` „1-;~[k.;: J' s ~w 'M~ F'jIF 1 .t yEi.: ~.~=i it ,t~. sM. i~.~1a»71i,~{Z.~t ~
TUMAL®, HWY 20/GERKING MARKET R®
Documam Reproduces P®®fr~y
Lived)
ifs .y ~r - t~T Wf I r ~:d
; t
'Al
t'E S~H ROCK N v- ' Y ?F rt. r r n q
'.v . L.~K x+~► s ^►.v l 3`-~"5 ,i,•" 6•r' T}t')' t_+[ .rR.'
MEn,
iL -S T; J.4` tjf4 S ~7
* ly - , ,j.~'t, Y s t~5 T , ✓~..w?' ,r1 wJ1Y" „f,T.
P S> r :r r r. t • -rR°kh~" 5e.. y k } # Fig r t~-.-
~ " ! • r h f_ .i gr E - S `i•' al''~-'y itl a/i r r~ 4
it r. i , r r, :•y ''lam - trr; ate' r1!` t.. a-fl.
i~/ B- i~ •"rtr r iT rye- Ah` e ~~..~4 ~y.~af ~i_.y,y j:',
K
J - ✓ ,.,~4'(-s <.'7'i- ,I` i`,c i~ 'li.. 7 '~..t.,~ si,y .x
DESCHU S CO hjt -'11i;,
r . y, Ls i'•1 .,f 4:x 1~ Z Pt y igJ -r ~ x4 :y..r^~
r*I` LA INE j If~t a s r' , h
1 c; . r r i r j 9{ J
r73 - {SGT 5 - ` - kv ash t ~'e+ o ~ s y W J ~ VY '
Xs yi ~h { `.s' r 'f - ~x2 ,t~.n:.'.45~.'?'
'
h Ilr e s a Y . k s # Jcy 4 rb, v~~ ti7
1_~ s ~ -S zc r v r r '~s --.>,}~s'►,~t. r~-.~r i e r
~ . } ~ ~ ♦ _ Ohs .IFS~e" ~,'t l~ r i g~`-F23 a g i. r - s - .J n i
J f i ~~Vr - r ~,K J Rlti S e• + r~'x 'v.- ~`r ".t ~.1••y.!+` cc^ a 4~. _
' 3'T•.% . w~ '"',~~"ir•'1.~'1 ;}r f .r' %t C v' ,r`?~ - k " _ i. 1
'+q J t z.4 I a,A '~'1i,+., ~''C ~r~x i+f r ~ ,r~.. .-t. -
5 Y ft r x rw s >r iy 'r f >1G^ yr c
~C < i j `7=y8$1~ ~ »Yr-~{ e 7 ~'^...r tirZ r'J L r sy tie 7~..
S:~t r T^'~ ~ r-i`~` +~R~j i .i .b T:' ~e.is..l,i.. a4- ~C+k.,it•s y 3'. e } ✓ ~ a T n+
~Y z ~ ~~r:tiY~ c t -L
r ~ ,.~..-r.a ! ♦ i r x' Ct~S.:4 r~'wr .~'.•y a f=,lrt'3~r~#
x ' IP ~ f'+.r t ' a} ~a ryy ~ N 11 •rr~9 r ~
1 w :1"Y
T.'- 4Ir';~y, i, •r,,, > '~i~_y ,.ire ~ ~ ;q~kez /fT ~+''I'~ i~~~ j
~^3 try: t'r r s• r.i + .Y Rs ~ v i'~
14132300DQ 0~ 2 rar r- RYAAVE
Nv I'ii' iy1?/E 'P, s '°ctir3:: e NEMONT OMEYrAVE h 3 of
atK3w J`s Sk i+~~3 Y r 4 St Y
L i1J~P~4
.~rlCc$4f, -
3 s a
r
y,, ti 'ty / ~ - - `"L' t°ji r rhrjC~P~Kr a,»ff« L
L tiV[
i6itl
1413260000200
Jy
r
nx f",
c : i~srr33 a~,~ .3r-S':La t '~''°t'•^F~rc;y ~„,e7~y~ ,T~s- '7 a'
f3• t t ` y ~ .r.t+~ ~'{f a r.f,~r ~ ter"` ~ per' y 'f ~r
sJr'`'..
W. 1
_ tY-~~Y ~ rr ~'ic~ ~T~-rr~-'. ,c.-A 4'` qty ~~j I: • ~ ~'q ~ ` r~
~ , ~.^+~3 «1~ R` s ~ F 3 ,c _ ~ ~•rs~t` 1fi f r'.t n ~ ~ / r ~ 7 " ~'4am~ k- f,S
dwPl
SMITH ROCK
51,
t .gSf,R
u ^ I t ~`a ,~{to ~ i,.. ~2•W
RES`
DESCHU S CO TY '4 1
LA INE
i
i• ~ }t~~ ~ a+~k,'"' way v ~ fltlE
i ilro. °C^91~ w w /
Ito
~151329BB0030(3'
1 war,
a ,
AAVE It y tti
SW XERO
~ -q+ i , r 9 h'3' ~~IL.. r. 1+:. 1N N k 4• e'-' +a ~is
" {y , i'" i "°L . " "A~'1:1 •~~y.~ i"f fir t.
~ } iL a Y ~i
i ~ 6fk ±Pr"
• y'SW~Y,EVJ
5
e
n.l
rR " ' iw S
31st ST, REDMOND
r 4 F.z+
- > t°` c °9a~t ~ ~ @` NE ONNMElL1WA; ,tt` ~>a ~ ,r +4 + ~~a~. ~ r'-! k
j - f 1 4',~ it R^:,FrygI
t k y.
-°E-9BUTLER1A E r f
d
~~-',~yyrF`vE.)y
L7 r
01
ytj DESCHU SCO TY ` ,,IVEI~CCAAVE ~a v z'y?
LA INE
NE7WALNUT A E->
i"N< r~ °fl<, s tJErUPASAVE' 6 Ti~y~ r.s'S13s t~
'o
i
L~r II .
KING'IWAY z` r '
I= t4 i 1 1 F r+XEDV17{
I ~
z . I ff,lE°QUINCE4AVE
11-l"
NE~NEG I A NE I~AP EivE 15130000001.03 J
v .r
IVE LARCAVE
, . E r`
r $
w T
r rv
i 1 I t f ..~R~
F~ FANTL•ER,AV,E, Jas r
/}('jF y+ ,t =1. VJ; I Er'~~4• ,l`' I f 'aa( ~3 rc ?
w_ Lr 3 t,, .
1513000000103 `
- - - - - +s
I per' i~S t '~7,i1 •r~ I ~4 F ~
Wt A
` S_< ri FisF d -
? tn4 t J d- 3F'; .
QI-
- 4 ~,Sa, Y;L. per, - -r'~'«-Y t S SAC, t _ I 11l _ IF
'7'~ ~ E~HWY412fi~
,.-~G'tij~~
T~, a) y r
' SW SALIMON AVEF io r
I T,
a v Legend ,
y
f , County-Owned Pr
FEDERAL LAND
' F r
r 4 STATE LAND + }
ee,~
2400 NE MAPLE AVE, REDMOND
_ Br
DESCHU
t
+ LA INE
7
2
M
tl3t:- it >.3a
Al
r
..a
t .'1 1
M J rr
y ~ lam) i = #
a ~ nth! r ~1
WFOR}E~S~c. INGEAVE N~t
1812060000100 1812060000100
F, _
iTaG., +df 4 Ft
} SSW°1(NO,LL AV.E~ ~ a
rFh ~ t~ ~ 3•r.~ .
rn .
1i1 1812060000100 r
;tl 1$;12060000110 ,
may' 1812060000111
' SW';f Y LO:R
n
a, a `r! ~ • • - --v 5 k x;Y..
~lJ'
A
7el
19755 SIMPSON AVE, BEND
,
p1 yND
DESCHU S CO TYr
sc0
_l
i EA INE Q,
-
-
~r.
.
1713170000100 r - r r..°•n+ L-ATIGA,,CT - rteY
-
-Ae
r VIN,
~N xi
`!713170000100
till
1713170000100^.r
'F r - y ABIGENE cp-
r -
-
V'
1713170000100
RDGT: _ e
+t~{(}Ty', 2 1. -.t. ~c-
r_'l~ Ra!'$?. K+A)t ' ,rr-y,'~ryyy,x,
' ~i F ~Y t s yr • rr=_,#y-~~ ""~~S'c _
y) ` E~,p - - a qM ~+•i ~v''~'•ya,`,rs ,d-p~ a' of D; L5
-xt
! of
_ - _ fie.. - j,J ~ ~'9C ~i►'R.~ ..~►:.Z w~'
w
Y R'i lW- A 7e end
.
€ R t .~a MC GRATH RD, BEND
MW - '19 VIFW
r.
y y~_
DESCHU S CO TY
',~y'_x+R" ~ ~ ~C~ ~ • Q~ NE-i ~1CKERBOCKER`A~E t r~ ,
X 4 ~i rs~ : r ~A'r .i,
LA INE P,
4 >~i. < ast _a
-
d t - ,..`w
o rR ` i✓. ~r ,.+-Y` $ r t. `.}i , 'S- #.7•y '1~1P 17 k k'1 'a ~R
` uai. ~ ~t~ > r r y,,t•~e. y_ : ~ ,F I.iIMAN~EN`. {
'ut
jr;
r►t', VJ .r,' ,ate +7' -1r~-."~r°'~'tt ~ ~
c _ ~.V-
,
r r a } = a1C r
W~ Viz{u a
y '4 ' ~ r ~ I ~ r p 'i':' ~ tea/. ~
.1-4132600 1200 ~~~~.a a~ •.~a-"~ t ~c3~~~~~ >u;:'
~ -N
14
r-
~>r rq~~ . w a py.~.•L rte' ~ .r , 7, - amt
71
8•'t .S`~i f~w~....y.+~t 1M N~+ f'~R C Tra
. V
k/4i y ~ t~Adi.. l~°S df! '1rY• f ~i..`rx ~4 ~t.
y., :yam y { n f yle y. ''t '-!G. f ~ l.. ~
' a y 4 r
4.,. r{ . r C~ n - ~ ' a~r't'~~Y.ks'Y~ i 4~ W
- ~ .yp. A x :.~L ip ~ ~ s~.'h¢.'~ta , Q rT 'Y~;}',~ SA. +F.r ,.y. .t~ ~r+. •
ra ~i'l~•.~ ~ ,
;4 .s ~,t~ ;t.d r ` as~=°~- s _a~,Fi~~ i , z. ~,~.a~.7►~ t - ,,._~.:;~:~n..»a~.,~..
^z.~`~S. ~ i 7.3~.r^+ 1-L y 4 ~r+~t * y,,-i z1~f z `I, r~+ itszf.' ~11~$ ~ ~ a`.
51,
' r~
tr wt