The URL can be used to link to this page

2011-2797-Minutes for Meeting March 31,2011 Recorded 5/13/2011COUNTY NANCYUBLANKENSHIP,FCOUNTY CLERKDS Q 20114797 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 051i3/Z011 09;17;33 AM 111111111111111111111111111111111111 2011-2787 Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS THURSDAY, MARCH 31, 2011 LA PINE SENIOR CENTER, LA PINE, OREGON Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Alan Unger and Anthony DeBone. Also present were Tom Anderson, Nick Lelack, George Read and Terri Hansen Payne, Community Development; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; and approximately thirty citizens, including media representative Devin Williams of The Bulletin. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m., at which time introductions were made. Before the Board was a Public Hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Update. Terri Payne gave a brief PowerPoint presentation explaining the history and function of the Comprehensive Plan, and the work done to develop the Comprehensive Plan update in recent years. Commissioner DeBone said that it would be helpful to have an organized list of concerns and issues from the public. Terri Payne replied that she has been compiling this information and it will be set up so that it will be relatively simple to determine what those issues are. Laurie Craghead said that at the end of the series of hearings, the last one being the upcoming one in Sisters, the Board should set a date certain for a decision. In the meantime, work can be compiled for review. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Thursday, March 31, 2011 Page 1 of 10 Pages Chair Baney stated the maps are being referenced only so they can change as needed. Another concern is action items, which were taken out but not gone. They are molded into the work plan for the planning department. The work plan is a public document, subject to a public hearing as well. This allows for more flexibility over the next five, ten and twenty years. Chair Baney asked for the citizens present to keep their testimony to about five minutes each due to the number of people signed up to speak. Lee Wilkins of La Pine, stated that citizens want to deal with public health concerns through the DEQ. She asked that the Commissioners remove the regulations for ATT systems. She feels this is difficult financially for many families and pollution reduction credits should not come through south Deschutes County. They want the DEQ to have control over the onsite system. They want assistance in writing in the south County community plan, and giving the onsite system back to the DEQ. Bill Robie of the Central Oregon Association of Realtors, indicated he will leave a hard copy of his testimony, and has already sent an e-mail. Their main concerns are the protection of private property rights and reducing barriers to property ownership. They have suggestions that will firm up the property rights section. Private, developable land is only about 6% of the County's land. Protection of private property rights needs to remain. The regulatory burden should be as low as possible to make property ownership affordable. In the past the Association has discussed with staff the possibility of including accessory residences in rural properties. There is presently an exclusion for medical reasons, but there is a trend that could justify accessory residences. These could be of limited size and limited purposes. These could include an attached dwelling to accommodate a relative, or perhaps a ranch hand or manager. Some are already in existence and are not legal, but he would like to see people be able to do this properly and legally. Roberta Giesea said that there are unique land use issues in the County, such as subdivisions and neighborhoods that could be classified as obsolete, wetlands, and wildlife areas. Groundwater protection issues and the onsite program should not be used to control these unique land use situations. The repeal of the local rule and Ordinances occurred, but she wants to see the onsite program turned over to the DEQ. This would allow citizens to apply for a variance through the DEQ. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Thursday, March 31, 2011 Page 2 of 10 Pages Also, the State application of the OAR's will insure the same level of safety during this interim time. The USGS study has already identified pharmaceuticals that could affect the quality of groundwater, and the ATT system is not enough to cover that. She encouraged the Board to take that final step and give the onsite program back to the DEQ. Martha Bauman stated that some feel the south County community plan should be written following the recommendations of the DEQ steering committee. She disagrees, and feels it should not be held hostage to the committee. They can work at the same time. One is groundwater protection, one covers land use. Folks are losing land value, and she would like to see fairness and consistency now. She wants the County to be a player, with citizens and the DEQ. The plan needs to be done in a timely fashion. As long as they have to work within State land use laws, they ask that the Board support them through the process. They may need help with funding to pay for outside professionals to help craft a south County community plan. She would like to see this on staff's work plan for this year. Wendell Evers of Newberry estates has concerns about providing volunteers for the community plan. A lot of intelligent people in south County who have addressed specific land issues are willing to help the County with this. This can move faster than it has been. The Board can select the people from the volunteers and get things moving. The community plan has information in it that was never provided by the community. It would be better if members were working on this. The County website needs to have the date of the latest version. The website is not compatible with access to this information. Chair Baney said that the County will work with him to get the information he needs. She added that the community plan is on the work plan for this year already. Ann Gregerson provided written testimony. She referred to Section 2.5, page 37 paragraph 7, and that the DEQ is leading the effort to address nitrates with the full cooperation of the County. One solution is creating a sewer system or expanding the Sunriver sewer system to include nearby areas. She asked if those are existing developments or new ones not yet built. Sewer systems are tightly restricted based on statewide planning goals and OAR's. The LCDC is also involved because of this. While sewer systems have certain restrictions on rural land, it might be the only viable option for some locations. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Thursday, March 31, 2011 Page 3 of 10 Pages Andy High of the Central Oregon Builders' Association submitted written testimony on Tuesday. They want the "no net loss developable acreage" language included. Most land is owned publicly and he wants to protect private property rights for what remains. John Worst said he is retired from the Assessor's office. He sees the need for south County community plan within the comprehensive plan. He feels the public process has been less than what it should or could be. It should allow south County citizens to get answers to the questions they ask. He wants the County to be a player during the process, and understands that the Board will be working on these projects during the year. The south County community plan is substantial, and he would like to see a spirit of cooperation. Continuation of conversations with the citizens is a good idea, but with citizens in the driver's seat, not staff. There are professionals who can help. The citizens are all about moving into the future of Deschutes County, and he wants to see the vision of citizens in south County supported by the Board. He added that it was not unusual at all for him to go to a property and find an additional residence, and it was not always an elderly person. Often it was a young family. Kids and parents are coming home, and it would be nice to use that additional space on acreage for that purpose. Richard Klyce spoke as a member of the Planning Commission. He said that the comprehensive plan was tasked by the Planning Commission at a vote of 6 to 1. He was the lone negative vote. Of the seven members, he was the second longest serving member. Most of the recent arrivals were not around when they started looking at property rights, so they missed public testimony on this. Throughout the matrix, the concept of private property rights was raised 21 times, under land, water, economic impacts and more. There were nearly thirty statements mentioning these things. Some Commissioners started removing some of this language in favor of a reduced version later on. The actual wording was left to the end of the process, but the concept of the preamble was there from the beginning. He provided a handout, with two preambles rejected by some of the Planning Commissioners. The recognized the fundamental right of government to regulate land use. He never suggested that people should have totally unrestricted use of their land. This language was rejected in favor of what is in the plan now. The current preamble is too vague to support. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Thursday, March 31, 2011 Page 4 of 10 Pages The second page should recognize an individual's right to use their land. With this, he could almost support the comprehensive plan. The 2009 interagency report on wildlife is another concern. A man in La Pine wanted to build a garage on his property. He was told that he would have to move the garage 100 feet from his house because it was located in a migration zone. This is the type of government interference that is resented by many people. Those restrictions would only increase if the IA wildlife report is included. Most land is owned by the government already. On page 3 of the handout, he pointed out that it says BMX tracks are injurious to wildlife. These cycles do not have engines; they have pedals. This activity will not keep wildlife from procreating. The same report goes to wedding events on private properties. Model airplanes are the same thing. They should ban those on government property also, if they are going to ban the uses on private property. There is no science to support these ideas. This is the type of thing that requires a stronger preamble of private property rights. Page 4 of the handout, policy 2.6.3, is in brackets because staff wants it, and the Planning Commission does not. This would set the stage for incorporating the entire IA wildlife report in the comprehensive plan. He feels that the Board should support private property rights, and delete references to the IA report from the policy section. Karen Duncan said she got involved in 2006, and thinks the Commissioners are getting better and better. She thinks this has a lot to do with the citizens' action group, which will stay right with the Board Her concern has to do with Chapter 1, goal 3, section 1.3. This refers to local wetlands inventory being reviewed by the state. A the local wetlands inventory meeting in Sunriver, the audience was told it would not change the migration from the Division of State Lands, and that it is a prerequisite to the county wetlands plan and inventory. The LWI may not be able to change the migration rules, but the question is whether the County's subsequent wetlands plan will be able to trump the State rules. It has been said the spotted frog can be found in wetlands along the rivers. Will the IA wetlands report recommend the spotted frog be added to the wildlife combining zone and seal the fate of some property owners? Can it be used to condemn property? Is this the County's way to have local control and another regulation to try to get people off their land in south County? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Thursday, March 31, 2011 Page 5 of 10 Pages Tina Lyons asked that the Board give onsite program to the DEQ. She noted that there are clerical issues with map designations, and that there are distinct differences that should be noted. The are multiple duplications in Chapter 2, resource management, as well. Judy Forsythe stated she has Issues with Chapter 2, Section 2.5. She feels both property rights and natural resources can be acknowledged together. In regard to the Interagency Wildlife Report, the agencies would not normally be regulating private property. She had difficulty with this plan all along, but believes it gives too much power to those four agencies. There is little private land already, so this is not needed. Nick Lelack had said that he did not feel it was going to be adopted in its entirety. However, the same language is still in the draft. She thinks that the report should not be incorporated in the comprehensive plan. Chair Baney asked if she is recommending option 2 or 3, or has different language. Ms. Forsythe said she is working on some language, and asked what the timeframe for a vote is. She will submit something in writing. Chair Baney replied that at this point the last hearing will be on May 5 in Sisters. The Board can leave it open for a period of time, or have more hearings. They have not had this discussion yet. They are trying to get to a final plan, but want as much input as possible. Commissioner Unger added that when a draft document is finished, the Board can have more hearings on the finished product. Chair Baney stated that defining private property rights is difficult. In the Deschutes Junction area, people have land they want to use for certain things. One painted a building bright pink and decided to put in a gentlemen's club. Others in the area did not want this to happen. It is zoned rural commercial for services. When property rights come up, it is tough. There are all kinds of property rights. John Huddle said he strongly agrees with the Planning Commissioner who talked about property rights. This often gets pushed off in favor of environmental issues. They don't have to be incompatible. There is a process, but people tend to do the easy things first. It is easy to punish or enforce, or tax, when they could be promoting instead. One thing that struck him is one of the best thing for the plan is a goal to promote citizens' use of land, but still retain property rights. People can be encouraged to do things that are best for all, but respect private property rights. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Thursday, March 31, 2011 Page 7 of 10 Pages He stated that given the way things went with the wastewater issue, inspections need to be turned over to the DEQ. Let them take care of the fees and inspections. They are ultimately responsible anyway, so let them deal with it. This would eliminate a lot of tension. La Pine economically, when compared to Bend or Redmond, is affected by fear. People ask, do I want to bother with this, because I might have to upgrade the septic system. There are some areas in Section 3 that he questions. The part about creating a new neighborhood needs to be reworked, as it is now within the boundaries of the City. It almost sounds like the County is forcing this on the City, rather than being collaborative. When they talk about developing housing, it needs to be affordable. Not just with ten acre parcels, as he does not want to see La Pine an area where only the wealthy can live. They need all economic strata. Chicago zoned everybody and they ended up in the same economic strata. Western people do don't this kind of thing. Ron Sharbaugh addressed an inflammatory statement regarding the DEQ. He was able, through staff, to get a sentence taken care of. (He referred to a handout.) It struck him that the one change was the only the DEQ's input to the comprehensive plan. Staff sent him the original statement. He has heard Commissioner Unger talk many times about the 10 mg when in the rivers it is only .12. It is nitrates and not nitrogen. The original document shows it is really nitrogen. The document is only a guideline and not a specification. (He spoke at length about nitrogen levels in specific areas) He is an engineer and this left him confused. The DEQ and all interested parties agree there is a problem with the rivers. If the DEQ is responsible, how do they get on the same page. He would like to see the DEQ take over the on-site inspection program because they are in charge anyway. He liked Mr. Kylce's statement, and noted that a lot of work went into the preamble. Adele McAfee of the La Pine City Council said she agrees with Mr. Sharbaugh that the DEQ should take over the onsite program. She pointed out that the City of La Pine is a member of the Central Oregon Cities group and the Deschutes Water Alliance. Liz Harmon stated that she is concerned about policies in the draft comprehensive plan under Chapter 1, 1.3.12, a staff-imitated change, incorporating as appropriate the Bend 2030 Plan. She does not see a reference to this in Section 1 on page 20. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Thursday, March 31, 2011 Page 8 of 10 Pages Chapter 1.3.13(d) was staff initiated regarding County-owned lands. This talks about policies that identify riverfront property under Goal 5 that is appropriate for public acquisition, but this sounds like the wildlife plan. She asked whether the IA plan will be incorporated into the comprehensive plan. She does not know how this can be used without implementing imminent domain. She understands that it would only be used for collecting property taxes, but questions the motive. Commissioner Unger said that to him, it is more about the public process. Vicky Jackson said he agrees regarding private property rights. She is a real estate broker and has seen people scrape and save to be able to buy their first house. This includes property rights, and is basically the American dream. She read testimony regarding water resources, under Policy 2.5.7(b) surface waters under the Federal Clean Water Act. This needs to acknowledge property rights. Page 41, 2.5.8, supports studies of the Deschutes River ecosystem and a wetland inventory. Not all studies are sound science; this needs to be verifiable. Section 2.5.10, prior strategy of groups, did not find the report in primary references. This needs to be coordinated with stakeholders. Chapter 2.7, pg. 53-56, regarding open spaces, etc., the Trust for Public Lands created the study and identified the land. He is curious if the Greenprint will be adopted since it is not referenced. She also agrees that the DEQ should control the onsite program. Being no further testimony offered, Chair Baney continued the hearing to April 5, 6 PM at Sisters City Hall. The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Thursday, March 31, 2011 Page 9 of 10 Pages DATED this Day of 2011 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Cw/~Y~ Tammy Baney, Chair Ant ony DeBone, Vice Chair ATTEST: OJ4.-- Alan Unger, Commissioner Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Thursday, March 31, 2011 Page 10 of 10 Pages ~ ~,--cz. ~ e CR~1 Yv\ V t • c ! \ Gk_ \C Vl - - - - e - -IT _TT - Y\ C), - r --o S - _ - A NV--- l \ --1 Z - t-~ C, v -vv\ 0X11- ~Q - - - - - 3 OoA eir U o BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Comprehensive Plan Update Date: Name q;) Address 2 ~A _k _Q Phone #s 0 2 06 E-mail address 1~ 1 C~ r-' (6)1!n ❑ In Favor Neutral/Undecided ❑ Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes ❑ No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary f he record. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING av REOUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Comprehensive Plan Update Date: :~_3c) -2-0 Name S Address f d e ox, I ~-3 Phone #s ~ W - 5 ~ - Ll- 2 5 / E-mail address JiP 11 Z (@ --yK 3 A, 0_w'' ❑ In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided ❑ Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ❑ Yes ❑ No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. U~J-res c~L BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING o ~ REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Comprehensive Plan Update Date: r a Name Address " ~Y -!~'L{ t (D- Q- Phone #s Jj v t - 5 3 (c, - Ll E-mail address In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ❑ Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Gov-ces c~L BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING o < REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Comprehensive Plan Update Date: _3131111_ Name Phone #s ~ S73d ` ;7i O E-mail address q_ In Favor F-] Neutral/Undecided F1 Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? I'll Yes F-] No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. U~J-res c0` BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING o < REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Comprehensive Plan Update Date: Name /l v P ~S Address 7 ~'s r Cd lC''~' Phone #s E-mail address' v w,e~ `'1 s y1° C d ❑ In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided ❑ Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ❑ Yes ❑ No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. U~v-rss co` o Z{ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Comprehensive Plan Update Date: 0 3 Name h 0 ~ C ~ ~ Address s a l cr_SS q(31 Phone #s G ( _ 7~ z E-mail address t'ly Gd,~h a-e I( ❑ In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided ❑ Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ❑ Yes ❑ No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. m~v~J ~ co`Z-A o BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Comprehensive Plan Update Date: Name W,, Address J~, or Phone #s 3"Yl A{/o ` Yd yl E-mail address In Favor F~ Neutral/Undecided F-1 Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ff Yes F~ No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Comprehensive Plan Update Date: - Name Address W 12 t? 7V Phone #s E-mail address S In Favor Neutral/Undecided ❑ Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes ❑ No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for t e record. v~v-ces co` ~ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING o < REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item f Interest: Comprehensive Plan Update Date: Name Address C .ti n 0~ Phone #s 5y t -'53 6 - ) L Cf 9 E-mail address In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided F] Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes F~ No If so, please give a copy to the Recording S r for th record. 0 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item Interest: Comprehensive Plan Update Date: Name C Address Phone #s E-mail address In Favor F-] Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? F-] Yes F-] No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. 1d; - BOAR D OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING a { REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Comprehensive Plan Update Date: Name CV"' 5,-Y. Address 70 1__t~ Phone #s E-mail address IFavor ❑ Neutral/Undecided GL ; "a C,- 87735 ❑ Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ❑ Yes [~o If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. G~~TES CAL o Z< BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest:-Co m rehensive Plan Update Date: ~l l Name r4 Address M i s 6xx, ~~ss (Z) q . Cop,-, l p Phone #s r J~6 E-mail address ❑ In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ❑ Yes ❑ No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. U~JYES CAL o Z{ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Comprehensive Plan Update Date: 1)], Name h l _ ty Address _ I 6 Phone #s J I I E-mail address 6g 00q7- a 1 (0) 4 q,_~ ,-I . In Favor Neutral/Undecided F-1 Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary fort a record. v~vYes fit, o Z{ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Comprehensive Plan Update Date: 3 Name Address 72~02 Phone #s ; S,97_ E-mail address 4 J.- , 0--- 0 In Favor F] Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? N Yes F] No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary fort the record. Gov-res cod o Z{ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Comprehensive Plan Update Date: Name *'U o h1i 4e Address ox- I-e / 0 Phone #s _2--2g -X ,2 b / E-mail address F1 In Favor Neutral/Undecided a Opposed IAJ Submitting written documents as part of testimony? F]Yes ONo If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. U~J-res co` 4VOA ZA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING a { 1W REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Inter Com rehensive Plan date Date: Name Address 2~2 Phone #s 76 E-mail address 7 k, V_j~nf Neutral/Undecided 1:1 Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? F]Yes ❑ No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. ~J-sES eo o Mj- BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING 1W REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Comprehensive Plan Update Date: Name I oC A Address _ 5) 2~b cl ~ J' 1'/7 s k( d Phone #s ~ E-mail address C4dM D; ~y In Favor F] Neutral/Undecided F-1 Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? F]Yes F]No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: comprehensive Plan Update Date: f Lzel_ Name L k, r ,o .u Address S `L Z- ! y ~w c r`~ Phone #s S ~ 4 2 E-mail address ✓ 3 c>---- In Favor F] Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? E~Fyes F-] No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. ~G~J-ces co` o BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING MUM TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Comprehensive Plan U dap to Date: c - Name AM'tIL-vi'~ )"i 0~6 C~ / 7"', _ Address'" Phone #s E-mail address ❑ In Favor ❑ 7'eutr /Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ❑ Yes o If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. f REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Comprehensive Plan Update Date: - 3 b I I Name t r- l_ k / Address S"~ a t- 6 A . Phone #s E-mail address 4. ❑ In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided ❑ Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes ❑ No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. v~v-res co` BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING p { REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Comprehensive Plan Update Date:J Name Address Phone #s E-mail address In Favor Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes ❑ No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary f t e record. Neutral/Undecided F] Opposed 03.30.11 "On-Site" Give back to DEQ.2 Good evening Commissioners, and welcome. My name is: Lee Wilkins, I live at: 52817 Rainbow Drive. La Pine. We, in South Deschutes County, are dealing with public health concerns through the DEQ Steering Committee process, and land use planning issues in our South County Community Plan. We respectfully submit that it is time for our Commissioners to take the conclusive/final step and give the "On-Site" Program back to the DEQ. CDD's stance that, "'We can only mandate what we can regulate" is unacceptable and financially irresponsible toward the citizens required to install ATT systems. To have impoverished even one family with this kind of thinking is inexcusable. The county's interest in applying ATTs 'across the board' was a very expensive Band-Aid approach. South Deschutes County has long been a target of developers and they are creative in how they think they can move in. It seems apparent that any prof its or possible benef it to our community is pretty short-sighted, and cheap gestures to throw their DIMES at a multimillion problem. DIMES, COMMISSIONERS, DIMES. As a community we are saying, "enough is enough'! If the County needs Pollution Reduction Credits so commercial land developers can purchase and develop land they are going to 1 have to get them f rom somewhere else, not South Deschutes County through the sale and installation of the ATT systems. We the citizens are obtaining broad public support for our request that the County give back the 'On-Site' Program to DEQ. Without effective public involvement in the processes of both making decisions on groundwater protection AND the setting up of effective management strategies, no program is likely to be a sustainable, long term solution. We ask our Commissioners to help us tonight. We need two things from you: 1. Assistance in the writing of our South County Community Plan, and 2. The 'On-Site' Program given back to the DEQ so the health issues will be dealt with collectively. Thank you for the opportunity to testify this evening. 381.05.11 3 min. 2 03.30.11 "On-Site" Give back to DEQ.2 Good evening Commissioners, and welcome. My name is: Lee Wilkins, I live at: 52817 Rainbow Drive. La Pine. We, in South Deschutes County, are dealing with public health concerns through the DEQ Steering Committee process, and land use planning issues in our South County Community Plan. We respectfully submit that it is time for our Commissioners to take the conclusive/f final step and give the "On-Site' Program back to the DEQ. COD's stance that, "We can only mandate what we can regulate" is unacceptable and financially irresponsible toward the citizens required to install ATT systems. To have impoverished even one family with this kind of thinking is inexcusable. The county's interest in applying ATTs 'across the board' was a very expensive Band-Aid approach. South Deschutes County has long been a target of developers and they are creative in how they think they can move in. It seems apparent that any prof its or possible benef it to our community is pretty short-sighted, and cheap gestures to throw their DIMES at a multimillion problem. DIMES, COMMISSIONERS, DIMES. As a community we are saying, "enough is enough"? If the County needs Pollution Reduction Credits so commercial land developers can purchase and develop land they are going to 1 ,q- have to get them f rom somewhere else, not South Deschutes County through the sale and installation of the ATT systems. We the citizens are obtaining broad public support for our request that the County give back the 'On-Site' Program to DEQ. Without effective public involvement in the processes of both making decisions on groundwater protection AND the setting up of effective management strategies, no program is likely to be a sustainable, long term solution. We ask our Commissioners to help us tonight. We need two things f rom you: 1. Assistance in the writing of our South County Community Plan, and 2. The 'On-Site' Program given back to the DEQ so the health issues will be dealt with collectively. Thank you for the opportunity to testify this evening. 381.05.11 3 min. 2 r~ 03.30.11 "On-Site" Give back to DEQ.2 Good evening Commissioners, and welcome. My name is: Lee Wilkins, I live at: 52817 Rainbow Drive. La Pine. We, in South Deschutes County, are dealing with public health concerns through the DEQ Steering Committee process, and land use planning issues in our South County Community Plan. We respectfully submit that it is time for our Commissioners to take the conclusive/final step and give the "On-Site" Program back to the DEQ. COD's stance that, "We can only mandate what we can regulate"... is unacceptable and financially irresponsible toward the citizens required to install ATT systems. To have impoverished even one family with this kind of thinking is inexcusable. The county's interest in applying ATT"s 'across the board' was a very expensive Band-Aid approach. South Deschutes County has long been a target of developers and they are creative in how they think they can move in. It seems apparent that any prof its or possible benef it to our community is pretty short-sighted, and cheap gestures to throw their DIMES at a multimillion problem. DIMES, COMMISSIONERS, DIMES. As a community we are saying, 'enough is enough"I If the County needs Pollution Reduction Credits so commercial land developers can purchase and develop land they are going to 1 have to get them from somewhere else, not South Deschutes County through the sale and installation of the ATT systems. We the citizens are obtaining broad public support for our request that the County give back the 'On-Site' Program to DEQ. Without effective public involvement in the processes of both making decisions on groundwater protection AND the setting up of effective management strategies, no program is likely to be a sustainable, long term solution. We ask our Commissioners to help us tonight. We need two things from you: 1. Assistance in the writing of our South County Community Plan, and 2. The 'On-Site' Program given back to the DEQ so the health issues will be dealt with collectively. Thank you for the opportunity to testify this evening. 381.05.11 3 min. 2 Written Statement of the Central Oregon Association of REALTORS@ before the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners RE: Comprehensive Plan March 30, 2011 The Central Oregon Association of REALTORS@ thanks the Board of Commissioners for the opportunity to provide testimony on the county's draft comprehensive plan. COAR's views on the draft comp plan are based on several core principles, which form the basis for our evaluation of all public policies. 1. Protection of private property rights: Our economic and political system rests on this important idea and those systems are eroded when government places excessive restrictions on the ability of property owners to use and enjoy their land. 2. Reducing barriers to home ownership: Regulations that restrict land use and supply drive up the cost of land and reduce housing affordability. 3. Promoting a diverse and robust economy that provides opportunities for individual wealth creation: A market system based on free enterprise and the ownership of private property provides the best opportunity for citizens to prosper and governments to fund essential services. 4. Protection of the natural environment: Central Oregon's physical beauty is one of its chief assets and contributes significantly to our quality of life and the value of property ownership. Our initial impressions of the proposed comp plan policies are that they favor a regulatory-based approach to achieving the county's long term land use objectives rather than a system based on education and incentives. If private property owners are going to be required to provide public goods, e.g. wildlife habitat, open space and scenic views, they should be compensated for that expense. Adding further restrictions to property owners will have a long term detrimental effect on our economy and reduce the willingness and ability of people to invest in rural property. An education and incentive- based voluntary system will be much more effective in achieving our shared goals of healthy ecosystems and a scenic natural environment and protecting the rights of property owners who have the most invested in a rural lifestyle. Real estate development and construction largely replaced Central Oregon's timber-based economy and fueled the tremendous amount of wealth creation that occurred in this region following the timber industry's decline in the `80s. The current recession, locally, is a testament to the impact of the development industry. As the housing market goes, so goes Central Oregon. While COAR would like to see a stronger and more diverse regional economy we urge policy makers to recognize that development and construction remains the tent pole of our lifestyle-oriented economy and will be for some time. This is particularly true in the rural county as the tax receipts from destination resorts demonstrate. COAR urges the county to ensure that land use policies enshrined in the comp plan don't increase the already burdensome restrictions placed on private land owners by the existing regulatory system. While agriculture is the single largest land use in the county, it can more accurately be described as a lifestyle choice than an economically viable enterprise. Real estate development and construction is and will continue to be the most profitable use of land in Deschutes County. The draft comp plan includes a plethora of goals and policies intended to breathe life into commercial agriculture. However, most of these policies only serve to remind us that farmland conservation has become a proxy for open space preservation. Oregon's land use system offers few options for economic prosperity in rural counties like Deschutes. Our vast amount of public land and private land set aside for unprofitable farm and forest use means that the county's economic and tax base, i.e. developable private property, is slim. The expanses of public land add much to our region's aesthetic appeal and recreational opportunities, and contribute to our quality of life and home values. However, the limits imposed on the use of private land also impede our economic growth and prosperity. The draft comp plan does an excellent job of recognizing these competing values. We believe, however, that a common thread running throughout the document is a philosophy that views development negatively. While it's true that much of the text is philosophically and legally consistent with the Oregon land use system's focus on compact urban development and the preservation of resource land, within the context of a local vision and long term planning we'd like to see a more balanced view that not only recognizes but promotes private property rights and some semblance of economic realism. If Deschutes County is going to lay out its long term vision for land use we hope that it recognizes and promotes those few opportunities for economic renewal and a modest restoration of the rights of private land owners. In a county with so little economically productive private land we're concerned with policies in the draft comp plan that could lead to an expansion of publicly-owned land at the expense of our private land base and new regulations that will further burden private landowners. This would have long term negative impacts for future economic growth and be a disincentive for rural private sector investment. To restore some balance to the land use system and recognize the value of rural private property ownership we recommend explicit protections for private property in Chapter 1 of the comp plan and compensatory action when private land is converted to public use. In Section 1.3, Goal 1, we recommend the following changes and additions: Policy 1.3.1: Ensure the protection of private property rights and mitigate any negative economic impacts to property owners and the community when creating and revising land use policies and regulations. 2 a. To ensure that there is no net loss of developable land, when the county imposes new regulations on private property that reduce its development potential or acquires private property for public purposes, the county shall identify and provide an equivalent amount of land within 10 miles of the affected property with the same development potential that existed prior to the new regulatory action on the affected property. We also would like to commend the county for its recognition of the challenge facing rural property owners with respect to temporary dwellings. We support some type of limited relief to property owners who wish to provide housing to either family members or farm and ranch workers through accessory dwellings. The draft comp plan includes policies in Chapters 3 and 4 that would allow the county to explore this further with the state. COAR looks forward to the opportunity to improve upon the current medical exception for temporary residences (D.C.C. 18.116) with standards allowing some accessory dwellings for limited uses. COAR appreciates the Board of Commissioners' consideration of our testimony and the tremendous contributions made by you and the county staff in producing this important document. Thank you. 3 J* 03.30.11 "On-Site" Give back to DEQ.1 Good evening Commissioners, and welcome. My name iso~e I live at: Q. LQ~ tot_ We in South Deschutes County truly have significant and unique land use issues. These include ...but are not limited to: 1. Obsolete Neighborhoods/Subdivisions, 2. identified local wetlands, and 3. areas that are going to be more directly affected by the recommendations of the Interagency Wildlife Report than anywhere else in the County. The Groundwater Protection issues of South County and the way the "On-Site" Program has been administered, to date, should not be used to control these unique land use issues any longer. With the defeat of the Local Rule by referendum and the repeal of the Back Door Local Rule last week, we encourage you, our commissioners to take the f final step and give the "On-Site" Program back to the DEQ. To date, the Groundwater Protection Program has been turned over to DEQ , in name only, and the County's representative has been over-zealous in grossly over-applying OAR 340-071, sub-section (1). We want to insure the resident's safety and the health of the river, and we encourage the County to be a partner in actively searching for a groundwater protection solution with the citizens and the DEQ. 1 l/ 03.30.11 South County Community Plan.3 Good evening Commissioners and welcome to LaPine. My name is: Z" //M A L , I live at: Some at the County level have mentioned they feel our South County Community Plan should be written following the negotiations and recommendations from the DEQ Steering Committee. I disagree!! The South County Community Plan should not be held hostage to the DEQ Steering Committee process. They can effectively be worked on at the same time. One is basically dealing with land use issues and the other is dealing with groundwater protection of the area. We do not want to wait any longer; folks are loosing land value, as we speak. We want to f ind fairness and consistency, NOW. We recognize, need and want the County to be a player in the game, to be sitting at the table with the citizens and the DEQ, and we encourage the South County Community Plan to be done in a timely fashion. As long as we are within the boundaries set forth by the State Land Use laws, we sincerely ask that our Board of County Commissioners support us in our efforts and our decisions. We need to know you will listen to us through this process. ti We may need some financial assistance for outside, independent professionals to help us craft a compatible, sustainable South County Community Plan. In closing, I would encourage you, our commissioners, to prioritize the South County Community Plan on the Staff's Work Plan for this year. Again, we need your help. Please help us as much as you can. 262.20.09 1 min. 45 sec. 2 03.30.11 South County Plan.1 Good evening Commissioners: My name is: ►ti`~ti , I live at: This evening I want to bring before you a request from South Deschutes County residents to have their own Community Plan which will establish local approaches to address our specific local issues. We are requesting that all current materials in the Draft Comprehensive Plan regarding South Deschutes County be pulled out... we do not want to be under those influences as we write our South County Community Plan. We do not want the Regional Problem Solving portion of the Comp Plan to be seen as the South County Community Plan. It will be only a "part" of the Plan, but it needs more work. And, in the spirit of cooperation and transparency, we encourage a timely completion of the South County's Community Plan. Thank you for the opportunity to testify this evening. 141.14.10 1 min.20 sec. EE~ 03.30.11 Chapter 2 - Sewers.1 Good evening Commissioners, and welcome. My name is: live at: GQ(e '('-i~' XA, Chp. 2, Section2.5, Water Resources Page 37, paragraph 4: starts out, As of 2010, the DEQ is leading the effort to address nitrates in South County, with the full cooperation of the County. One solution being considered is creating a sewer system or extending the Sunriver sewer system to serve some of the nearby areas. Can anyone tell me if these are 'nearby areas' are where current development already exists, or, if the 'nearby areas' are those of future, potential developments? It is very unclear the way this sentence is written and I would appreciate clarification. And, the second part of the paragraph goes on to say: Sewer systems are tightly restricted on rural lands by Statewide Planning Goal 11 and Oregon Administrative Rule 660-11 so the Land Conservation and Development Department is also involved I would like to see this sentence rewritten to say: "While sewer systems have certain restrictions on rural lands, sewers may be the only viable option for some densely populated, rural areas of Deschutes County." 1 And, I think the DLCD is actually the Department for Land Conservation and Development., not the other way around as the last sentence reads. It will be really helpful for us to refer to Departments by their correct name and/or abbreviation so everyone understands. Thank you. 234.18.11 2 N ph: 541-389-1058 61396 South Highway 97, Suite 203 fax: 541-389-1545 Bend, OR 97702 awleuy www.coba.org March 29, 2011 Deschutes County Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St Bend, OR 97701 Dear Commissioners, On behalf of the 600 plus members of the Central Oregon Builders Association (COBA), we would like to thank you for following the public process. We would like the commissioners to consider adopting a policy of no net loss of developable land" I would propose the language to read as follows: Policy 1.3.1: Ensure the protection of private property rights and mitigate the economic impacts to property owners and the community when creating and revising land use policies and regulations. a. To ensure that there is no net loss of developable land, when the county imposes new regulations on private property that reduce its development potential or otherwise designates a specific area for public protection, the county shall identify and provide an equivalent amount of land within 10 miles of the affected property with the same development potential that existed prior to the new regulatory action on the affected property. We believe a policy like this is necessary because a majority of Deschutes County is owned by a public entity and is protected by Oregon State Land Use laws such as farm and forest land. A policy like this will ensure that the limited lands that are left in the county will be protected for future needs for growth in the county. If you have any questions please feel free to give me a call at 541-389-1058. Regards, Andy A. igh Central regon Builders Association SVP of Government Affairs G ph: 541-389-1058 61396 South Highway 97, Suite 203 ..pp - fax: 541-389-1545 Bend, OR 97702 9v//AL[I~ C...... ORE60N' www.coba.org March 29, 2011 Deschutes County Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St Bend, OR 97701 Dear Commissioners, On behalf of the 600 plus members of the Central Oregon Builders Association (COBA), we would like to thank you for following the public process. We would like the commissioners to consider adopting a policy of no net loss of developable land" I would propose the language to read as follows: Policy 1.3.1: Ensure the protection of private property rights and mitigate the economic impacts to property owners and the community when creating and revising land use policies and regulations. a. To ensure that there is no net loss of developable land, when the county imposes new regulations on private property that reduce its development potential or otherwise designates a specific area for public protection, the county shall identify and provide an equivalent amount of land within 10 miles of the affected property with the same development potential that existed prior to the new regulatory action on the affected property. We believe a policy like this is necessary because a majority of Deschutes County is owned by a public entity and is protected by Oregon State Land Use laws such as farm and forest land. A policy like this will ensure that the limited lands that are left in the county will be protected for future needs for growth in the county. If you have any questions please feel free to give me a call at 541-389-1058. Andy A. High Central Oregon Builders Association SVP of Government Affairs ph: 541-389-1058 61396 South Highway 97, Suite 203 fax: 541-389-1545 Bend, OR 97702 %Jal~d/rt~~........... er www.coba.org March 29, 2011 Deschutes County Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St Bend, OR 97701 Dear Commissioners, On behalf of the 600 plus members of the Central Oregon Builders Association (COBA), we would like to thank you for following the public process. We would like the commissioners to consider adopting a policy of no net loss of developable land" I would propose the language to read as follows: Policy 1.3.1: Ensure the protection of private property rights and mitigate the economic impacts to property owners and the community when creating and revising land use policies and regulations. a. To ensure that there is no net loss of developable land, when the county imposes new regulations on private property that reduce its development potential or otherwise designates a specific area for public protection, the county shall identify and provide an equivalent amount of land within 10 miles of the affected property with the same development potential that existed prior to the new regulatory action on the affected property. We believe a policy like this is necessary because a majority of Deschutes County is owned by a public entity and is protected by Oregon State Land Use laws such as farm and forest land. A policy like this will ensure that the limited lands that are left in the county will be protected for future needs for growth in the county. If you have any questions please feel free to give me a call at 541-389-1058. iAndy A'. High Central Oregon uilders Association SVP of Govern ent Affairs - ph: 541-389-1058 61396 South Highway 97, Suite 203 b fax: 541E389-1545 Bend, OR 97702 CENTRAL OREGON- www.coba.org March 29, 2011 Deschutes County Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St Bend, OR 97701 Dear Commissioners, On behalf of the 600 plus members of the Central Oregon Builders Association (COBA), we would like to thank you for following the public process. We would like the commissioners to consider adopting a policy of no net loss of developable land" would propose the language to read as follows: Policy 1.3.1: Ensure the protection of private property rights and mitigate the economic impacts to property owners and the community when creating and revising land use policies and regulations. a. To ensure that there is no net loss of developable land, when the county imposes new regulations on private property that reduce its development potential or otherwise designates a specific area for public protection, the county shall identify and provide an equivalent amount of land within 10 miles of the affected property with the same development potential that existed prior to the new regulatory action on the affected property. We believe a policy like this is necessary because a majority of Deschutes County is owned by a public entity and is protected by Oregon State Land Use laws such as farm and forest land. A policy like this will ensure that the limited lands that are left in the county will be protected for future needs for growth in the county. If you have any questions please feel free to give me a call at 541-389-1058. Regards Andy Q. High Central Oregon Builders Association SVP of Government Affairs 03.30.11 South County Plan.2 Good evening Commissioners: My name is: John Wurst, I live at: 53568 Day Road, La Pine. I wish to testify this evening regarding the need of a South County Community PIcu1 within the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. I believe, to date, the public process in South County has been less than what it could or should be. We, as a community, want to work through a true public process, a process allows South County Citizens to ask the questions and helps with the 'answers to questions' of the people. We recognize the need and want the County to be a player in the process; to be sitting at the table with us as we go through this process. We understand it will be the Board of County Commissioners who will be directing the Administration Staff to work on particular projects of concern this year. We feel that the South county Community Plan is a substantial one and we encourage our Commissioners to foster a spirit of cooperation among staff to work with the citizens. We feel that a continuation of the concept of Community Conversations with the citizens is a good idea, with the citizens in the driver's seat. i We have professional and lay persons ready to help carry this process forward. I don't think we are going to loose momentum because we are truly talking about the "seriousness of the future" . We are having the "potential public health" discussion, NOW and moving forward into the future of Deschutes County! I sincerely ask that the Board of Commissioners support South Deschutes County in our efforts and our direction. Please, help us. Thank you for the opportunity to testify this evening. 261.0.9 1 min; 50 sec. 2 Preamble #1 The Deschutes County Comprehensive plan is a collection of Issues, Goals, and Policies meant to guide the creation of specific land use ordinances. These ordinances should be tempered by a recognition of, and respect for, the rights of the private land owners in the county. The U.S. Constitution, Oregon Constitution, and Senate Bill 100 all recognize the right of the individual to receive compensation when their property is taken for the public good. Deschutes County is made up of roughly 80% public land and as such, public good protections for such things as view sheds, open space, and wildlife habitat should be limited to public lands and not burden private lands without just compensation. When crafting ordinances to implement this plan, emphasis should be placed on incentive programs and care taken to avoid additional restrictions on private property. The passage of Measures 7, 37, and 49 are evidence of the public's recognition of property rights and desire to protect those rights and compensate landowners when those rights are infringed upon. We strongly urge that all individuals who seek guidance from the following pages, whether they be government officials or private citizens, recognize the sanctity of property rights in their deliberations as to the use of land in Deschutes County. Preamble #2 While Oregonians in general are protective of their state it has become increasingly evident that such protections often infringe on the rights of property owners. The justification often used is that such protections are for the "public good" to preserve a "view shed", an area of "unique natural beauty" or to protect a wildlife management area. While the power of eminent domain is never used, enough regulations are put in place as to constitute a taking in the eyes of the property owner. On a statewide basis this has led to the passage of measures 7, 37, and 49 which in turn have led to a closer look at Oregon's land use laws through a process known as'The Big Look". This Commission recognizes the fundamental right of government to regulate land use but at the same time we recognize an individual's right to the "quiet enjoyment" of their land. The proliferation of regulation under Oregon's' unique system of land use laws frequently leads to defacto takings for the public good. We strongly urge that all individuals who seek guidance from the following pages, whether they are government officials or private citizens, recognize the sanctity of property rights in their deliberations as to the use of land in Deschutes County. 2 DOS! ~ • Maintain protection for one heron site that is still in use (Appendix EI). • Remove protection for heron site that is no longer in use (Appendix E2). • Maintain protection for Great gray owl nest site (AppendixF). • Maintain protection for two- known bat sites in Deschutes County (Appendix G). Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife identified a list of bind and mammal species that occur on private land in Deschutes county that are especially sensitive to human activity: bald and golden eagles, sage grouse, prairie falcon, great blue heron, great gray owl and Townsend's big-eared bat. The purpose of providing special protection for sensitive birds and mammals is to assure that their habitat areas are protected from the effects. of conflicting uses or activities. Protection of bird sites can be achieved through the development of site specific management plans. Management plans assure that the proposed use and activities will not destroy or result in abandonment.of the sensitive species from a nest site. The county previously adopted protection criteria for sitb specific sensitive bird and mammal sites. Residential development, mining, and activities with high human- disturbance and other actions that result in habitat loss and/or-degradation are threats to these critical bird and mammal sites that could be considered conflicting uses relative to conservation of critical bird and mammal sites. Game Species Game Species Conservation- Recommendations to Limit Conflicting Use: Many new land uses have occurred that were not envisioned during the last periodic review. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife recommends that Deschutes County add the following uses with high human use and disturbance to the,do not permit list: 1. Guest ranch, 2. Outdoor commercial events ft.e. "Wedding Venues, Farmers Market.') 3. OHYcourse 4. Paintball course I Shooting range 6 Model airplane park 7. BMX course Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is not asking the county to change any of the existing big game wintering range and migration corridor maps currently in use by the county. 20 This Commission recognizes the fundamental right of government to regulate land use but at the same time we recognize an individual's right to the use of their land. We strongly urge that all individuals who seek guidance from the following pages, whether they are government officials or private citizens, recognize property rights in their deliberations as to the use of land in Deschutes County. ~s eot%o vll 2.6 Wao(Uf e Po"Les Goals and Policies ( 1-13-11) Policies in [brackets] are staff recommendations Goal 1 Maintain and enhance a diversity of wildlife and habitats. Policy 2.6.1 Promote stewardship of wildlife habitats and corridors, particularly those with significant biological, ecological, aesthetic and recreational value. Policy 2.6.2 Initiate a public process to update Goal 5 wildlife inventories based on data from the 2009 Interagency Report Policy 2.6.3 [Initiate a public process to review and revise County Code to incorporate appropriate wildlife habitat recommendations from the 2009 Interagency Report or other expert sources.] Policy 2.6.4 Support incentives for restoring and/or preserving significant wildlife habitat by traditional or innovative means, including land swaps, conservation easements, transfer of development rights and purchase by public or non-profit agencies. Policy 2.6.5 Assist in providing information and education on wildlife and habitat protection. Policy 2.6.6 Review the Oregon Conservation Strategy when amending the Wildlife section of this Plan. Policy 2.6.7 Use a combination of incentives and regulations to promote stewardship of wildlife habitat and address the impacts of development. Policy 2.6.8 Balance protection of wildlife with wildland fire mitigation on private lands in the designated Wildland Urban Interface. Goal 2 Promote the economic and recreational benefits of wildlife and habitat. Policy 2.6.9 Encourage wildlife related tourism. Policy 2-6. 10 Coordinate with stakeholders to ensure access to significant wildlife and riparian habitat through public or non-profit ownership. Goal 3 Support retaining populations of Federal and State protected endangered species. Policy 2.6.11 Develop local approaches for protecting Federally Threatened or Endangered Species. 52 DRAFT DEscHuTEs CouNw COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2010 PC REv 1-13-11 CHAPTER 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SECTION 2.6 WIIDUFE 03.30.11 Chapter 1 - Local Wetland Inventory/Master Plan.1 Good evening Commissioners, and welcome. My name is: C_Y~~ I live Thank you for taking testimony this evening. My concern tonight has to do with Chapter 1 - Goal 3 , Sec. 1.3 Is Policy 1.3.12 © on page 18 referring to the Local Wetland Inventory, (LWI), being reviewed by the State and the subsequent Wetlands Plan the County will be implementing? At the Local Wetland Inventory meeting in Sunriver last winter the audience was told repeatedly the LWI will NOT change the mitigation rules set forth by the Division of State Lands. If I understand this correctly, the LWI is a pre-requisite to a county- wide Wetlands Plan. Although the LWI, Local Wetland Inventory may NOT be able to change the mitigation rules, because it is just that, an inventory, the real question is: ???Will the county's subsequent 'wetlands PLAN' have the ability to circumvent or 'trump' the State's mitigation policies/rules regarding wetlands??? Because its been said the Spotted Frog can be found in the f loodplains and wetlands along the Deschutes River and the Little Deschutes River south of Bend ...will the Interagency Wildlife Report's recommendation thatV spotteom habitat area be added to the wildlife area combining zone 'seal the fate' of some property owners?? What are the County's intentions regarding the Wetlands Plan? Can this PLAN be used to condemn properties?? Is this the county's way of imposing its local control and directing agencies NOT to issue a f ill permit that is contrary to the County's??? Will the new Wetlands Plan be another regulation to try to get people off their land in South Deschutes County, particularly?? With over 8,000+ acres of 'public lands' in Deschutes County, has the County ever considered the idea of 'land-swaps' instead of condemning lands through more regulationsM 303.23.12 3 min. 03.30.11 Chapter 1 - Park Lands.2 Good evening Commissioners, and welcome. ! L My name is: I live at: I have a few questions/concerns about the "county owned properties" that could be resold. As of 2009 f the county currently owns 700 + parcels, equal to 8,000+ acres. Of the 70 properties designated today as 'park lands", are any a result of the TDC or PRC programs? TDC means Transferable Development Credit and PRC means Pollution Reduction Credit. Park lands really are not parks at all, but properties that have valuable resources and are being preserved according to Chp. 1, Section 1.3, page 17. And, how many of these PARK LANDS are in South Deschutes County? The PARK LAND designation means that the lands would be retained in public ownership UNLESS there was a public meeting and the Board of County Commissioners determined that SELLING WAS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC. I would submit that these PARK LANDS need to be looked at more closely, especially if they had anything, whatsoever to do i with the TDC or PRC programs, and, the possible building restrictions'applying to these lands because of the TDC/PRC programs. Also two policies which refer to the PARK LANDS, Policy 1.3.13 and 1.3.13 (d) are disturbing. While they both say to 'encourage properties located along rivers, streams or creeks or containing significant wildlife, scenic or open space values to be designates as park lands... the Board of County Commissioners could determine that selling was in the best interest of the public. Once sold-and, if these were acquired by TDC or PRC programs... COULD these park lands then be developed????? These same questions were asked back in December of 2010 when the Planning Commissioners were here taking testimony. I want to thank our Commissioners for coming down this evening and hearing the voice of the people. We appreciate how valuable your time is and we hope you each will have a safe trip home. 328.18.11 2 y M 03.30.11 South County Chapter.4 Good evening Commissioners, and welcome. My name is: 2kIa,(L P , I live at:55ffg-'~- swo h /U I" er. d 47707 We in South Deschutes County have remained accessible and cooperative. I f eel we have demonstrated that we are on the 'side of reason' in our attempts to understand the County's intentions for South Deschutes County. We have come to the conclusion that we need our own Community Plan addressing our local concerns. The collective intelligence of the folks in South Deschutes County knows no bounds... and 'our intention', while protecting private property rights, is to bring respectful and sustainable harmony between individual property owners and Deschutes County, . While the current DRAFT of the Comprehensive Plan in Chp.1, Sec. 1.3.1 reads: 'consider private property rights and economic impacts to property owners and the community when creating and revising land use policies and regulations',... I feel it should also include: "And due compensation is needed in all cases of "take away" of private lands in the name of public good: We will be addressing this in our South County Community Plan, hopefully with the County's support. Thank you, and have a good evening. 187.0.11 1 min.30 sec. c 03.30.11 Corrections to DRAFT Comp Plan.2 Good evening Commissioners, and welcome. My name is: rte. des , I live at: 2~ - t~~' I have what I think should be a corrections and/or clarif ications in the Draft Comprehensive Plan. In Chapter 1, Section 1.3. LAND USE, page 14. The Comprehensive Plan Map Designations are very confusing and possibly misleading when three different designations have the same two letter code (RC). Resort Community, Rural Community and Rural Commercial all have the same two letter code (RC) Can these be changed? Resort Community could be (REC) Rural Community could be (RUC), and Rural Commercial could be (RC), for example. 1 M r. In Chapter 2 - Resource Management References, there are multiple duplications. I will be submitting a list to your secretary. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 60 61 same as # 26 27 28 31 32 33 34 71 72 66 67 68 69 70 73 74 (52,53 & 54 appear to be identical) (55 & 56 appear to be identical, also.) Thank you for allowing me to submit these corrections this evening. 160.08.08 n ~ CS a G~,~-lac. ~ J 'v` W Lc'''`'~ ✓1~C,2"P~"`f ~ ~j' l U-~ D hf S I T E r o j Cl p C. y 2 F 03.30.11 Chapter 2 - Water Resources.2 Good evening Commissioners, and welcome. My name i~' , I live at: Chapter 2, Section 2.5, Key Issues indicates that: "there is strong public support for protecting the natural resources that def ine Deschutes County including its water and wildlif e." This section goes on to say, "there is an inherent tension between natural resources and private property rights. Many of us still have our notes from the Community Conversation days and there was just as much strong public support for the protection of property rights - as there was for natural resources. So , why can't both be acknowledged in the same sentence??? To me, it is the apparent "disregard" for individual property rights throughout this entire process which has led to, and continues to feed any "inherent" tension. I would like to see the last sentence on page 2, Key Issues reworded to read: 'In light of strong public support for both the protection of individual property rights and natural resources, the policies in this chapter acknowledge that sometimes the appropriate 1 r{ government action is to create incentives, remove obstacles or just step out of the way". Thank you, Commissioners, for coming to LaPine this evening and taking testimony on the Draft Comprehensive Plan. 202.11.11 2 03.30.11 Interagency Wildlife Report.1 Good evening Commissioners, and welcome. l~ My name is:.1. , I live at: The Interagency Wildlife Report, written by 4 agencies : the Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, as part of the Goal 5 review, would be 'recommending' regulations on Private Lands, most of which are in South Deschutes County, lands these four agencies would not normally be regulating. Chapter 2, Section 2.4 on page 18 says 'the updated inventories will ...eventually be recommended for adoption Pages 48-50 of Chapter 2, Section 2.6 rightly acknowledged that the Interagency Report generated debate over how best to protect wildlife while also protecting the rights of property owners. The 2nd paragraph on page 50 says: some of the Interagency Report recommendations are already included as policies in this plan. This report is listed as # 47 on page 76 of Chapter 2 Resource Management References... Updated wildlife information and recommendations for the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan.. When Nick Lelack was contacted last December following our testifying before the Planning Commissioners, and asked the i . status of the joint inter-agency report being accepted as part of the Comprehensive Plan his response was: "Please know that the draft Comprehensive P/an will NOT adopt directly or by reference any recommendations from the Interagency Report. " Nick went on to say,' There are significant concerns about some recommendations in the report from East County residents and some expressed by Northwest County residents as well.' And, yet, here we have all of the same language still in the Draft, three months later, after the Planning Commission and the public recommended not adopting the Interagency Wildlife report. I think this entire Section 2.4 needs to be reworked. It will be up to you, the Board of County Commissioners, to decide whether to (1) accept this "staff recommended policy", (2) support the Planning Commissions' recommendation to not include Policy 2.6.3 , or (3) revise the policy as you see f it. As was pointed out, we in South County are not the only ones in the County who has issues with this report and its recommendations. You have your work cutout for you on this one. Thank you for listening to our request that the Interagency Wildlife Report not be incorporated into this DRAFT Comprehensive Plan. Thank you for coming this evening. 395.29.12 2 April 11, 2007 Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97701-1925 Dear County Commissioners: The Upper Deschutes Watershed Council (UDWC) is writing to express its support for County action to minimize nitrate inputs into the groundwater and the Little and Upper Deschutes Rivers. Although the UDWC does not have the expertise to comment on the specific Local Rule proposed by the County or the specific design of septic systems, we are very involved in monitoring surface water quality in the Little and Upper Deschutes Rivers. Based on this monitoring, past experience and our collective expertise, we are concerned about the negative ecological effects of nitrate inputs from groundwater into the Little and Upper Deschutes Rivers. - Our concern is based on the fad that the Little and Upper Deschutes Rivers are nitrogen-limited systems. This means that additional inputs of nitrogen, even in extremely low quantities, can cause algal blooms, excessive plant growth, oxygen depletion, changes in pK and other important changes that are detrimental to aquatic ecosystems. It is important to note that the guideline for nitrates in drinking water is 10 mg/L whereas the guideline for total nit in freshwater (i.e., rivers) is 0.12 mg/L. The fact that the guideline for freshwater is 80 times lower than drinking water illustrates the extreme sensitivity of freshwater ecosystems to nitrogen inputs. In the Little and Upper Deschutes Rivers, even small inputs of nitrogen from septic systems or surface runoff could result in significant impacts to the fisheries and aquatic ecosystems (please see attached summary). Additionally, the UDWC has a high degree of confidence in the USGS modeling work done for South Deschutes County that predicts the movement of nitrates in the groundwater. 'This model has been developed by leaders in the field and carefully peer reviewed throughout the course of the County's work in South Deschutes County. Please feel free to contact Ryan HoustDn, Executive Director of the UDWC, if you have any questions or would like more information. Sincerely, Joanne E. Richter ` President . Upper Deschutes Watershed Council Q;~.y ass _ pp~ 19 2007 Enclosure: Summary on role of nitrogen in fireshwater streams P.O. Box 1812 Bend, OR 97709 . 700 NW Hill St. Bend, OR 97701 (541) 382-6103 Phone . (541) 382-4078 Fax 0 Upper Deschutes Watershed Council Water Quality Monitoring Program Technical Summary Nitrates in La Pine Aquifer and potential ecological response of the Upper Deschutes and Little Deschutes Rivers Upper Deschutes and Little Deschutes Subbasins Prepared by: Lesley Jones Water Quality Specialist Upper Deschutes Watershed Council Bend, Oregon Upper Deschutes Watershed Council March 29, 2007 Purpose of Technical Review Based off of findings from the USGS nitrate study, Deschutes County proposed a local rule that amends county cede to be compliant with the existing state rules. State rules specify that the county may not authorize installation or use of wastewater treatment systems that will "pollute public waters or create a public health hazard" (OAR 34-071-0130(l)). The proposed local rule requires upgrades to wastewater treatment systems that drain into the La Pine Aquifer. This issue is important to the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council (UDWC) due to the potential ecological response of the Upper Deschutes and Little Deschutes Rivers to nitrates in the La Pine Aquifer. Eutrophication Eutrophication is the natural process of gradual river aging and normally takes thousands of years to progress. Eutrophication is characterized by increases in the extent and abundance of primary producers (aquatic plants). Aging progresses more rapidly under anthropogenic (human caused) eutrophication. The eutrophic state of a river is persistent and slow to reverse. Eutrophication accounts for -60% of the impaired river reaches in the United States (EPA 1996) The primary drivers of river eutrophication are inputs of non-point source nutrients. Non-point source inputs are the major source of water pollution in the United States (EPA 1990, 1996). In rivers, nutrients support primary producers .(aquatic plants and algae) and therefore the rest of the food chain. Primary producers within rivers are naturally growth limited by the lack of a nutrient, i.e. phosphorous or nitrogen. Inputs of the growth limiting nutrient result in greater abundance and increased extent of primary producers. With continued input, eutrophication advances. Eutrophication caused by excessive inputs of phosphorous and nitrogen is the most common impairment of surface waters in the United States (EPA 1990). Nonpoint pollution is a major source of nitrogen to surface waters of the United States (Carpenter 1998). Eutrophication is a factor in the loss of aquatic biodiversity (Seehausen 1997). Aquatic biodiversity is affected by increases in primary producers due to associated changes in the chemical composition of the river. Increases in the extent and abundance of primary producers initially increase the dissolved oxygen in the river. Ultimately, mass seasonal dieoff of the primary producers leads to dissolved oxygen depletion as they are decomposed by microorganisms. Nutrient TMDLs developed for other regions have illustrated that extremely low concentrations of nutrients impact dissolved oxygen due to plant material degradation (Zou 2006). The effect of nitrogen loading in a river is expressed as increases in plant biomass, greater daily and seasonal fluctuations in dissolved oxygen, and increases in biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) (Camargo 2006). Nitrogen All forms of nitrogen are biochemically interchangeable. The most common forms of nitrogen in rivers are inorganic nitrate (NO3 nitrite (NOy and ammonia (NH4+), and organic nitrogen. Total nitrogen measures all biochemcially Interchangeable forms of nitrogen in the river. State water quality standards are based on nitrates in groundwater as this is important to drinking water safety. State guidelines are based on total nitrogen in surface waters as this is important to protect the rivers from anthropogenic eutrophication. State- and Federal Standards - State of Oregon standard for nitrates in drinking water is 10 mg/L (ODEQ 2004). ODEQ also has an 'action level' of 7 mg/L for nitrate. - EPA guidance for total nitrogen in freshwaters is based off of reference conditions in each ecoregion and amounts to 0.12 mg/L (EPA 2000). This approximates the lowest level that is detectable by scientific methods. It is known that small quantities of nitrates (un-measurable quantities) cause negative ecological impacts in freshwater ecosystems, and therefore the guidance is set at the detection limit. Ecological Implications of Nitrates In the La Pine Aquifer The Upper Deschutes and Little Deschutes Subbasins have abundant, natural sources of phosphorus from volcanic soils and rocks so the rivers are naturally nitrogen limited (UDWC 2003). In nitrogen limited rivers, small and often immeasurable quantities of nitrogen are known to result in ecological impacts. Aquatic plant abundance, although locally influenced by current velocity, is determined by nutrient availability (Chambers 1999). The ecological impacts include increases in the extent and abundance of primary producers that characterize advancing eutrophication of the river. The increase in the abundance of primary producers in the river has been anecdotally noted by water resource professionals who work along the river. In addition, recent flooding in the upper Deschutes River reach has been associated with increases in primary producers in the river and their abundance is considered when calculating peak water releases from Wickiup Reservoir (OWRD 2007). Flooding in the upper Deschutes River reach occurred during 2006 despite the fact that in 2006 peak flows were 1560 cubic feet per second (cis), which is approximately 700 cis less than the 1962 historic peak flows of 2280. There are several ecologically significant findings at the local scale in regards to the issues of nitrates in the La Pine Aquifer: - The LDR and UDR are nitrogen limited systems (UDWC 2003). - Groundwater from the La Pine Aquifer discharges to the upper Deschutes River and Little Deschutes River (USGS 2001). USGS surveys report gains on the LDR below River Mile 43 that account for 10-20 percent of total flow during low flow periods and smaller gains (relative to total flow) on the UDR above Harper Bridge (USGS 2007). - Nitrates approximating reaching 1.57 mg N/L have been identified in the groundwater/sediments that interface and exchange with surface water (USGS 2007). - The amount of nitrogen entering the rivers has not been investigated (USGS 2007). . r It is the WO Monitoring Program understanding that: 1. Conservation of the upper Deschutes River and Little Deschutes River requires reduction in non- point source inputs of nitrates from the La Pine aquifer. 2. Restoration is more expensive than conservation. Preventing pollution is among the most cost effective means of increasing water supplies and protecting water quality. 3. There is a sound scientific understanding of the causes of nitrogen input into the La Pine aquifer and the destination of nitrogen into drinking water and river systems (USGS 2006). 4. Methodologies that decrease nitrate loading are available. 5. The most significant barrier to decrease the amount of nitrogen loading into the upper Deschutes River and Little Deschutes River are social and financial. In regards to finding solutions for nonpoint source pollution due to nitrogen, Carpenter 1998 speaks to the social context that conservation must work within and states, "The most critical need in reducing nonpoint pollution and mitigating eutrophication may be creative institutional mechanisms that match scientific understanding with social realities." 6. The longer amount of time that passes before action is taken to reduce nitrate loads the: higher peak nitrate levels will be greater the ecological cost to the LDR and UDR will be Greater reductions will be required from current systems in order to obtain load reduction levels. This means stricter regulations and more cost for the residents of Deschutes County. References 1. Camargo, J.A., et. al. 2006. Ecological and toxicological effects of inorganic nitrogen pollution in aquatic ecosystems: A global assessment, Environment International, 32 (2006) 831-849. 2. Carpenter, S.R., at. al. 1998. Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen, Ecological Applications, Vol. 8, No. 3. (Aug., 1998), pp. 559-568. 3. Chambers, P.A., et al. 1999. Current velocity and its effect on aquatic macrophytes in flowing waters, Ecological Applications, Vol. 1, No. 3 (Aug 1991), pp. 246 - 257. 4.. EPA, 1990. National water quality inventory, 1988 Report to Congress, Office of Water, Washington D.C. 5. EPA, 1996. Environmental indicators of water quality in the United States, EPA 841-R-96-002, Office of Water, Washington D.C. 6. EPA, 2000. Ambient water quality criteria recommendations; information supporting the development of state and tribal nutrient criteria, Environmental Protection Agency 822-B-00-015, Office of Water, Washington D.C. 7. ODEQ, 2004. State of Oregon administrative rules, chapter 340, division 041, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon. 8.. OWRD, 2007. Personal communications with Griffin, J.; District 11 Water Master, Oregon Water Resources Department, Bend, Oregon. 9. Seehausen, O., et. al. 1997. Cichiid fish diversity threatened by eutrophication that curbs sexual selection, Science 195:260 - 262. 10. UDWC, 2003. Characterization of Select Water Quality Parameters within the Upper Deschutes and Little Deschutes Subbasin, Prepared by: Jones, L., Upper Deschutes Watershed Council, Bend, Oregon. 11. USGS, 2001. Ground-water hydrology of the Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, Prepared by Gannett, M.W., at. al., U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 004162. 12. USGS, 2006. Aquifer-scale controls on the distribution of nitrate and ammonium in ground water near La Pine, Oregon, USA, Prepared by: Hinkle, S.R. et. al., U.S. Geological Survey, Journal of Hydrology (2007) 333,486-503. 13. USGS, 2007. Personal communication with Hinkle, S. and Morgan, D., U.S. Geological Survey, Portland, Oregon. 14: Zou, R. at. al., 2006. Integrated hydrodynamic and water quality modeling system to support nutrient total maximum daily bad development for Wissahickon Creek, Pennsylvania, Journal of Environmental Engineering, 132:4(555). Characterization of Select Water Quality Parameters within the Upper Deschutes and Little Deschutes Subbasins 2003 azo3 Figure 7.1 Mean TN and TP concentrations along the longitudinal extent of the Deschutes River -0-- Upper Deschutes TN -®-Middle Deschutes TN --W- Upper Deschutes TP --0 Middle Deschutes TP -Linear 575.0 525.0 500.0 4 75.0 450.0 425.0 400.0 375.0 350.0 5 32 .0 300.0 275 .0 250.0 5 22 .0 200.0 175.0 150.0 125.0 100.0 75.0 5 0.0 25 0 . 0.0 230 225 220 215 210 205 200 195 190 185 180 175 170 165 160 155 150 145 140 135 130 125 120 Deschutes River Mile Figure 7.2 Mean TN and TP concentrations along the longitudinal extent of the Little Deschutes River -0-Little Deschutes TN --*-Little Deschutes TP -Linear 600.0 575 LOR Longitudinal Grand Mean TN, (n=8) .0 5 5 0.0 5 5 0 2 . 500.0 475.0 450.0 425 0 . 4 00.0 375 0 . 350.0 325.0 s 300.0 F °d 275.0 z 250.0 225.0 200.0 LOR Longitudinal Grand Mean TP, (n=81 175.0 150.0 125 0 . 100 0 . 75.0 50.0 25.0 0.0 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Little Deschutes River Mile DR Longitudinal Grand Moan TN m2 DR Longitudinal Grand Mean Tp, (n=3) 550.0 Upper Deschutes Watershed Council 81 Page 1 of 1 Ron Sharbaugh From: "NIGG Eric" <NIGG.Eric@deq.state.or.us> To: "Ron Sharbaugh" <rsharbaugh@coinet.com> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 3:54 PM Subject: Nitrogen Ron: I've let this go too long. We're really slammed here. I've decided I'd rather make a comment on the issue rather than try and solve the language. I haven't sent this to Peter, but intend to on Monday. If you have any questions/comments, let me know. Thanks. DEQ has not yet determined causes of dissolved oxygen and pH exceedances on the Upper Deschutes and Little Deschutes Rivers. Although we see the likelihood that these rivers are nitrogen limited for reasons described by the US Geological Survey and others analyzing local water quality data, we are continuing with our own surface water analysis in development of Total Maximum Daily Loads for these rivers. Still, we suggest that the sentence referenced below confuses the issue. Nitrogen limited waters are sensitive to low concentrations of available nitrogen, but not immeasurable concentrations. As nitrogen is taken up by photosynthetic and other organisms it may impact water quality and the remaining dissolved component may be immeasurable. This uptake masks the total amount of nitrogen in the system when measured as dissolved N. We agree that nitrogen limited waters are sensitive to low concentrations of available nitrogen until some other component becomes limiting and that this may lead to ecological effects. "In nitrogen-limited rivers, small and often immeasurable quantities of nitrogen are known to cause ecological impacts." Eric Nigg Eastern Region Water Quality Manager Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 475 NE Bellevue Drive, Suite 110, Bend, Oregon, 97701 541-633-2035 3/31/2011 03.30.11 Questions re: POLICIES.1 v :i, h A P1 N~ i Good evening Commissioners, and welcome. My name is: , I live at: ~ ~D /4 Tonight I am concerned about policies in the DRAFT Comprehensive Plan. Chp 1, Po/icy 3.1 on page 18 needs an addition. Please add: Due compensation is needed in all cases of take-away of private lands in the name of public good. Chp. 1, Po/icX1.3.12which appears to be a staff initiated change/addition reads: (incorporate as appropriate Bend 2030 Plan element into this (comprehensive) plant. But, I do not see reference to the Bend 2030 plan in Section One Primary References on page 20. Chp. 1, Policy 1.3.13(d), also a staff initiated addition in regards to managing County owned lands, reads [Support projects that identify river front properties or properties with significant Goal 5 resources that could be appropriate for public acquisition')] This sure sounds like and looks like the staff is asking for support of the Interagency Wildlife Report. I would appreciate confirmation of whether or not this is true and if the Interagency Wildlife Report will be incorporated into this DRAFT Comprehensive Plan. r 1 Thank you for taking testimony this evening. ~~190.18.12 1 min.30 sec. 03.30.11 Chapter 2 - Water Resources Policies.1 Good evening Commissioners, and welcome. My name is: 2L~_, 0I, ive at: 1-7 3 "IL h4^ ~ 0/ P_ Let's begin in Chp. 2, Section 2.5 Policies on page 40: Policy 2.5.7(b) reads: "Cooperate to improve surface waters, especially those designated water-quality-impaired under the federal Clean Water act" I could agree with if you would add: "while recognizing and acknowledging property righ ts On page 41: Policy 2.5.8 reads: 'support studies on the Deschutes River ecosystem and incorporate watershed studies that provide new scientific information on the Deschutes River ecosystem, such as the 2010 Local Wetland Inventory. Not all studies are based on sound science. I would like to see the word "new"scientif is information replaced with "sound and ' verifiable "scientific information. i Is Policy 2.5.10 which says: 'support the priority strategies from the Deschutes River Mitigation and Enhancement committee's 2008 Upper Deschutes River Restoration Strategy'. Is this report being referenced anywhere? I do not find it in Chapter 2 Primary References. Please either list each of the 19 strategies as separate individual sub-sections under this policy if they are deemed appropriate or delete this policy altogether. I (2~ Policy 2.5.11 reads: 'Coordinate with stakeholders to protect and enhance f ish and wildlife habitat in river and riparian habitats and wetlands.' I would like to see this expanded to include: "through voluntary incentives and education while acknowledging private property rights." Thank you for taking testimony this evening on the DRAFT Comprehensive Plan. 238.17.12 2 03.30.11 Open Spaces.l Good evening Commissioners, and welcome. My name is: 0WI live at: 173 V-6 Chapter 2, Section 2.7, pages 53 - 56 talks about Open Spaces, Scenic Views and Sites and Deschutes County Greenprint Report. The non-prof it organization, Trust for Public Lands (TPL) has undertaken a work in 2009 to create a Greenprint that identifies open spaces, scenic views and wildlife, parks and trails. The TPL will also identify tools that can be used to protect lands identif ied. Page 55, last sentence says: 'working with the Trust for Public Lands will provide the County with important information that can be incorporated into this (Comprehensive) Plan. I am curious if the Deschutes County GreenPrint Report will be adopted/ incorporated in its entirety into the DRAFT Comprehensive Plan as I do not find mention of this report in the Chapter 2 Primary Reference pages 74-79. Thank you. 142.22.10