Loading...
2015-561-Minutes for Meeting December 02,2015 Recorded 12/31/2015 DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS 4d 1015■561 51'Es NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK 01" c.�o COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 12/31/2015 08;13;26 AM titiwo 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 WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2015 This hearing began in place of the regular Board work session on this date. These minutes also include the continued hearing conducted beginning at 6:00 p.m. on the same day. The purpose of the hearing was to take testimony in order to consider House Bill 3400 opt out options (marijuana businesses, etc. as they relate to land use and/or ways to regulate marijuana-related industries in the unincorporated areas of the County (outside of the cities) through various Ordinances, amending various sections of County Code. For the afternoon part of hearing,present were Commissioners Anthony DeBone, Tammy Baney and Alan Unger. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Nick Lelack and Matt Martin, Community Development; David Doyle, County Counsel; and approximately 100 other citizens, including representatives of the media. Chair DeBone opened the hearing at 1:30 p.m. Matt Martin of the Community Development Department read the opening statement and outlined the hearing procedures for the benefit of all attendees. He explained that this relates to only the areas outside of the cities. The Board wishes to provide clarity to citizens as well as other agencies. He asked if any Commissioner has a conflict of interest. Chair DeBone declared none, as did Commissioners Baney and Unger. No challenges were offered from the audience. Minutes of a Public Hearing to Take Testimony in Order to Regulate Marijuana Type Businesses and/or Consider Opt Out Options Wednesday, December 2, 2015 Page 1 of 23 This is not a hearing to address Measure 91, which is already in the law, or personal grows, use or possession of marijuana as now allowed under the new law. It is only to address business aspects in the County areas outside of the city limits. It is noteworthy to state that the medical marijuana aspect is regulated by the State Health Authority, and recreational use is regulated by the Oregon Liquor Control Commission. Mr. Martin said that growing crops is an outright permitted use in the Exclusive Farm Use zone. Under the new law, production is entitled to protection under Oregon right to farm laws, and to farm use deferral like any other farm crop. (He referred to a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is attached for reference.) The County can impose reasonable regulations or choose to opt out. There are six categories under which the County could opt out. The Planning Commissioners strongly agreed with a vote of five to two that the County should not just opt out, but instead work on establishing guidelines. There are four marijuana related uses: production, processing, wholesaling (office only) and retailing. The Planning Commission recommended that they permit production outright in EFU for twenty acres or greater. (Mr. Martin provided maps to the Board and the audience showing the parcels.) A conditional use could be in rural industrial zones. The Planning Commission recommended specific use standards for growing as well, including setbacks, odor control, legal water usage and several others. Separation would be required from schools, day care centers and parks, and other locations where youth gather. Regarding processing, this could be on EFU, or as a permitted or conditional use in certain zones: Terrebonne and Tumalo rural industrial zones and the Sunriver Business Park. The standards are similar, but fire protection standards are higher if there is to be processing of extracts. Retailing was advised by the Planning Commission to be all conditional uses in rural service centers, commercial and rural industrial districts. Standards apply, including separation distances, certain hours, no window service, no co-location with marijuana clubs and periodic inspections. Minutes of a Public Hearing to Take Testimony in Order to Regulate Marijuana Type Businesses and/or Consider Opt Out Options Wednesday,December 2, 2015 Page 2 of 23 It was recommended that wholesaling would be for office sales only and would not allow for on-site storage of products in the same basic areas. The standards would be as any others for general office use. Amendments including marijuana related definitions, no home occupation businesses, and prohibited in urban reserve areas of the cities since the cities could have a role eventually in this decision. The Planning Commission recommended formation of a task force to oversee the implementation. After hearing testimony, the Board can close the oral record, and leave the written record open for a period of time. Deliberations are scheduled for December 21. Nick Lelack said they could keep the record open until December 17 if desired, to maximize input. Commissioner Baney asked that staff explain what the Planning Commission is, for benefit of the audience. Mr. Lelack said they are citizen volunteers and represent Sisters, Bend, Redmond, south County and two are at large. They vary in gender and background. They are volunteers who study the issues, hear testimony and make recommendations to the Board on various land use issues. Chair DeBone explained that the Board is not considering the personal use of marijuana or if it is a good or bad thing. He said that given the large number of people wishing to testify today, that they please keep their comments to three minutes, and to testify just once. Comments can also be submitted in writing or by e-mail. The Board will not deliberate until December 21, but public testimony will not be allowed at that time. Written information can be submitted after today until December 17. This will allow some time for the Board to review everything submitted up to that point. The Board recognizes this is important to everyone, and that people are all members of the community and should listen to each other, and be respectful. Everyone should have an opportunity to participate and voice their opinion in a safe environment. The Board cannot interact directly with those testifying, although may ask questions. It is a legislative matter for input of information to consider. The Planning Commission and staff are to be thanked for their hard work, and he appreciates people being involved. Minutes of a Public Hearing to Take Testimony in Order to Regulate Marijuana Type Businesses and/or Consider Opt Out Options Wednesday,December 2, 2015 Page 3 of 23 Commissioner Baney said that although the Board may not be able to respond personally to everyone who contacts them, she wants people to know that everything they received is read and considered. It is valuable in helping the Board. reach a decision. Robert Pederson of Pinehurst Road said he is not anti-marijuana but is pro- ' agriculture. The majority here did not want marijuana legalized. Many counties have opted out. It is a high-water use crop with personal wells being used. A dropping aquifer will. mean digging deeper wells. By opting out, future planning can be improved. Having this occur in industrial sites may be the best plan of all. Having more time may not be important to the special interest groups, but it is important to others. One planner said he did not want to affect the medical marijuana growers, as he has not heard complaints about them. There were 17 people who testified previously who did. Planning Commissioner Kirby said it is an agricultural crop, but it did not say that in Measure 91. Fortunately, the video of the final discussion is available to view, over 4 hours. Planning Commissioner Tunno hoped for an academic discussion, and two other Commissioners said that residents should have to vote again. It is not the same issue. Gretchen Pederson said she voted yes on 91, but was unprepared for what it does to the farmlands. It was misleading, and the voters were duped. Representatives have a chance to make things right. Fifty-nine counties have opted out, and Deschutes County has everything to gain by doing the same. The County has held hearings in six different locations for other things that were more outreaching. Agricultural lands contribute to the County in many ways. The result of the County Plan showed the advantages of EFU areas, such as open space, scenic views, wildlife values and more, which are of high value for all. This study is being ignored. Growing marijuana on agricultural lands is incompatible. The Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife has spoken about the cumulative impact on wildlife. Minutes of a Public Hearing to Take Testimony in Order to Regulate Marijuana Type Businesses and/or Consider Opt Out Options Wednesday, December 2,2015 Page 4 of 23 Aviv Hadar read a statement, which is attached for reference. He indicated he supports the Commission adoption common sense regulation of legal, adult-use cannabis. He explained that his owns ten acres that is adjacent to an 84-acre property now owned by OreGrown. They work together to oversee the land and be good neighbors. They are doing all they can to avoid light leaks, odors or other issues that might disturb their neighbors. They feel they are less invasive than the goat farm that previously was at the property. At this point the neighbors are supportive of their low-impact practices. His handout has suggestions on how some regulations might be refined. Dusty Hutchins read his statement, a copy of which is attached. He supports adopting reasonable regulations and asked the Board to support the economic opportunities associated with this new industry. He owns a glass art company that started out small but now has six full-time staff and has nearly half a million in yearly sales. He suggested that the Board adopt the original proposed draft rules regarding zoning and land use, allowing farming on all EFU land and on MUA-10 and RR-10 on a case by case basis, with a conditional use permit. Jeremy Kwit of Bloom Well, a dispensary, says he employs about a dozen people. They rely on small farmers. Small businesses and entrepreneurs are the lifeblood of the economy. To limit growing to twenty acres is detrimental to the American dream. Small farmers should be able to follow reasonable and prudent regulations. This has a regulated supply system. This could prevent family farms from participating economically. Letting them operate is good for public safety and fair labor practices. Originally small farms of less than twenty acers were being considered. Mike Hayes stated he has farmed since 1972. Allowing twenty acres or more does not solve the concerns of light, noise and air disturbances. The size of the farm would not prevent someone from placing a grow where it does not work well for the neighbors. Minutes of a Public Hearing to Take Testimony in Order to Regulate Marijuana Type Businesses and/or Consider Opt Out Options Wednesday,December 2, 2015 Page 5 of 23 He feels they should review each case separately, and define the grow methods, internal or external. There are no regulations on internal grows if they meet current OLCC requirements. External could be allowed with setbacks. Currently limiting the size of the farm creates a disadvantage for the small farmer. Mr. Hayes stated that he has six acres but is surrounded by a dairy farm, an alfalfa farm and BLM land, so his property affects no one. He would like the Board to strike verbiage relating to minimum lot size. External should be defined by mindful regulations. To add a different look to the cannabis world, he is a Marine Corps officer. He feels that with reasonable regulations, this crop can be successful even for small farms. He noted that he had e-mailed his comments previously (a copy is attached for reference). Lindsay Pate provided a handout. She thanked the Board for the process. She has 16 acres of EFU land and intends to use less than one-quarter of it for cannabis production. Lori Sullivan provided a handout. She represents two companies, Greenhouse Solutions and First Harvest Financial. She spoke about environmental impacts, energy efficiency and preserving resources. Natural light cultivation does not require extra lighting. She supports the original land use regulations that comply with the spirit of HB 3400, and feels this should be allowed on all EFU land like any other crop, and on MUA and RR-10 on a case by case basis. She said that high quality product is very labor intensive, and opens up opportunities for a variety of workers. This would be well-regulated and. responsible, and will increase public safety, with a positive impact on the community. Jackson Kelleher decided not to testify. Hunter Neubauer of OreGrown industries said he has 84 acres in Tumalo, with a store in town. He urged the Board to adopt sensible regulations. His local business employs 30, and his business plan will more than double this in 2016. Minutes of a Public Hearing to Take Testimony in Order to Regulate Marijuana Type Businesses and/or Consider Opt Out Options Wednesday, December 2, 2015 Page 6 of 23 This provides much needed job growth in Deschutes County. People love living here but need jobs. He asked the Board to support policies to fuel the momentum of a well-regulated cannibals sector. They work with professionals, and requested the Board to help meet public safety and economic needs here. He appreciates the public process. He hopes to see responsible business rules, which are key to job creation and public safety. He likes the original draft, all EFU is approved, and MUA and RR case by case. He would like them to allow opportunities for smaller farmers to apply, and to benefit from a legal market and get rid of a gray market. He thinks that State based water regulations are already adequate. He feels that denying smaller farmers will drive illegal businesses. Reasonable rules would provide oversight. Other business owners appreciate the thoughtful approach, and asked that the original draft rules as proposed be adopted. Jeremy Sackett of Cascadia Labs in Portland stated that he owns rural residential land here. He is in a unique positon, working on pharmaceutical sciences and with public safety for the State. He does not support opting out of reasonable regulations. Approving all EFU lands allows points of economic development to continue. Public health and safety, quality control and suitable regulations will all impact the elimination of the black market issue. People want a consistent and clean product. He would like to see Oregon Health Authority regulations regarding packaging and other controls used here. He would like to see the product processed locally. He thanked the Board for the hearings process and for listening to the stakeholders" positons. Dan Burkhalter said he sent his message by e-mail this morning. (A copy is attached for reference.) He lives in Oregon Water Wonderland 11 with his wife, south of Sunriver. He agrees that this should be restricted to farm land and banned from residential areas. They purchased their home to retire, and there are mostly one-half acre lots. After they purchased, a neighbor built a large greenhouse with fans, blowers and heating apparatus. Minutes of a Public Hearing to Take Testimony in Order to Regulate Marijuana Type Businesses and/or Consider Opt Out Options Wednesday, December 2, 2015 Page 7 of 23 They had based their purchase on the residential aspects of the area. Contrary to recent comments, the did not want to have to worry about heightened criminal activity, noise and odors. Large scale greenhouses are not compatible with residential areas. He is 64 years old and is familiar with pot, but regulations need to be established to allow for the peaceful enjoyment of one's home. He believes this should be limited to agricultural lands only. Bob Blake, a dispensary owner, stated that he has a grow operation on MUA land, and has a processing operation. (He provided a handout.) He wanted to share some facts. Complaints have been about outdoor greenhouses, but indoor is different. Mr. Hayes earlier tried to explain this. You really don't know who all the small indoor growers are. They are not here today. There is a vast underground economy that does not have light or smell pollution or sight disturbance. He said that there has to be a way to do this. Greenhouses produce less of a carbon footprint but might not be suitable for all areas. They need to look at the internal grows differently. (He referred to an e-mail sent previously, attached for reference.) This provision allows growers to get into the regulated market with the OLCC process. But they have to do it with the County's approval. This should be looked at case by case and not a conditional use. Otherwise those who are growing medical marijuana will continue the same and it does not solve anything. The OLCC will not provide a license without the County's approval. EFU land means there is a right to farm any crop. Susan Tunno explained that she is a real estate broker and has a background in water law and rights. She has been following Thornburgh Resort's struggle for water rights. (She presented a lengthy statement and attached documentation for the record.) She stressed the problem of water issues and the endangered bull trout. She feels that the County should opt out and allow for further rural decision- making. Minutes of a Public Hearing to Take Testimony in Order to Regulate Marijuana Type Businesses and/or Consider Opt Out Options Wednesday,December 2, 2015 Page 8 of 23 Jim Petsche stated that he lives next to a medical marijuana facility, and it is not a great experience. He has testified before regarding the issues of sight, sound and smell. He would applaud reasonable regulations and feels that the Planning Commission did not get it quite right. They are pushing EFU of twenty acres plus, resulting in more facilities on fewer parcels. It is important to protect existing EFU property owner rights. He would like the setback increased to 400 feet. These are not farming operations, but commercial/industrial. He would like the Board to bring back screening requirements after the Planning Commission took those out. He has installed a berm, fencing and a building to help protect his view. He said that growers need to show where they will get their water. Without a groundwater right, their land does not include this. It is illegal to use a well for this kind of production. He would like to see the Board strengthen requirements for odor control. He added that Denver requires the use of a nasal ranger. He will send information on what this is. Jeff Glasberg of Tumalo said his is not a referendum against or for marijuana use. He is concerned strictly about property rights, and wants the Board to consider this carefully. He had asked the Planning Commission how many licenses there would be allowed per lot, and it sounds like there can be one indoor and one outdoor for every twenty acres. Someone might have twenty acres but this will let them utilize ten-acre parcels in this manner. This substantially increases the impact on adjacent owners. He lives on MUA-10 next to EFU land. If these guidelines are followed, he could end up with 55,000 or more plants on land next to his. This is not okay. He has a friend in Boulder who is selling his property, and his neighbor had just one plant that caused a problem. This situation could be devastating. The County should license just one indoor grow per parcel and prohibit outdoor grows. Nancy Skinner lives in Tumalo with her husband, and they retired here because they like the community. They considered other states but liked the rural living offered here. She is concerned that this is being rushed through without enough deliberation about the long-term circumstances. They are on the right track, but more time is needed. Minutes of a Public Hearing to Take Testimony in Order to Regulate Marijuana Type Businesses and/or Consider Opt Out Options Wednesday,December 2, 2015 Page 9 of 23 They need to opt out and allow the residents to vote. This will allow for consideration of the long-term impacts, like was done with 59 other Oregon entities. She feels they can lose their quality of life. She asked that the Board represent all constituents and opt out. Yoni Olsen said that there are some EFU property owners who want to use their property rights over farm use, but EFU requires you to farm. MUA is similar. He is on RR land where most greenhouses are not permitted. People who are not truly farming are enjoying deferments, a tax shelter. They should not allow trophy properties determine what farmers can do. EFU property was meant to be farmed. This should be looked at from a commercial aspect, where the residential value is zero. Farm value sets the market trend. Some people do not use their EFU properties for farming. Tax deferments are given for capital improvements for farming purposes, and should not be for tax shelters. Matthew Leeder of Terrebonne is a homeowner on EFU land. He feels it is outrageous that they have to go by IRS standards use the farm property to farm on, at least most of the time, to get the farm deferral. He has less than twenty acres but anyone with EFU zoning should be allowed to farm. They have a right to do this; and in fact it is what the land is meant to do. They can't have businesses on their property and can't do much more, but can grow crops. The County should look at the zoning and take a step back from the twenty acre minimum. Many EFU properties are not twenty acres. This takes out the small farmers who are trying to farm and get by. It should instead be based on zoning. Carol Fulkerson stated that the problems with the industry were caused by the industry. Grow sites can emit odor, noise and light., and affect others, so controls were self-imposed by the industry. As a result, no one is aware of the issues. (She provided a handout.) When this was being crafted, it did not address mitigating the impacts. Those should have been imposed on all growers. Many don't feel they have to control the negative impacts. Deschutes County should have reasonable regulations. Members of the Planning Commission said they had not visited a grow site, showing a lack of due diligence. This is why the proposed odor regulations won't adequately address the problem and would be impossible for the County to manage. Minutes of a Public Hearing to Take Testimony in Order to Regulate Marijuana Type Businesses and/or Consider Opt Out Options Wednesday, December 2,2015 Page 10 of 23 She suggested that the County require no odor be emitted. Illegal growers have been able to do this. If this is complaint driven, they can check with law enforcement to see if it is a legal site. Most have not tried to get rid of the negative impacts. They need strong, robust controls, and to err on the side of caution. Federal laws say it is still illegal, and it has not yet been tested at the federal level. Larry Fulkerson thanked the Board for addressing complex issues in the past, professionally. State law will allow robust regulations to protect quality of life and property rights. It has been established that the odor has a significant negative impact. The Planning Commission recommended twenty acres or larger, but if the grow is near a dwelling, there is still a negative impact. They should not allow any odor. To grandfather any medical marijuana site would not reduce or mitigate existing problems, and would give them an advantage, with more going into the black market. Other entities in Colorado and Washington have robust odor control rules. She suggested the County learn from others. The City of Bend does not allow grow sites in the city, and they expect this to happen in the county while the city reaps the financial benefits. She would like to see the voters decide. There was slim passage the last time, and the Board needs to give people a chance when they have full information. He is asking others if they want to sign a petition in this regard, to get it on the ballot. Edie Delay said she has been in Tumalo for twenty years. She believes in the democratic process, but this is having a large impact on her life and others. It is a real issue. She requested that the County opt out or at least put in the strongest possible restrictions. They cannot change the lifestyle of thousands for the benefit of the few. Property owners and rights are at odds, but this can't be taken on lightly. There are buffer zones for schools and children; but these are going into neighborhoods and this can't be a good thing for children, either. A home with three children is as important as a school or park. She has not heard anyone say this. Also, it is not just like any other crop, it is regulated by the OLCC when no others are. Minutes of a Public Hearing to Take Testimony in Order to Regulate Marijuana Type Businesses and/or Consider Opt Out Options Wednesday,December 2, 2015 Page 11 of 23 Tony Aceti stated he wants people to be able to make a living. He is learning things and hears from both sides. Having a rural residential and open space is a luxury, but some complain about having an EFU use next door. However, things are starting to change. There can be economic benefits but should come with strict regulations. Designating a size of twenty acres or more was an effort to not affect others, but there are some parcels that are smaller, and it is not one size fits all. Maybe it should be decided case by case. It is a challenge issue, but people should be able to create a livelihood. It should be farmland with irrigation rights rather than a well or municipal water. He is on both sides of the fence and looks forward to a solution. There can be economic opportunities, but they also have to protect peoples' rights. Jerry Druliner chose not to speak. Ed Onimos asked for reasonable regulations. The Board has the option to opt out, but this will make a few people happy and the black market very happy. Prohibition does not eliminate demand. He has friends who benefit from medical marijuana, as well as his son, who is subject to seizures, and regular medications don't help. He is on cannabis oil now and his seizure activity has declined. The Board won't accomplish anything by opting out. Reasonable regulations could benefit all. Ed. Galarro explained he is not a grower or user, but has been a small farmer his whole life and works in the vegetable seed industry. His interpretation of Proposition 91 was for casual users and to get drug dealers out of the business, and to collect taxes. He is in favor of reasonable production. A lot of people have talked about property values, and some are worried about this because they use farm land for their residence. Most of them are not making a living at farming or even trying. If it was feasible to grow marijuana, values could skyrocket. A lot of people are irrigating rocks and weeds, and few grow valuable crops. A lot of water is wasted by people who are not producing true agricultural crops, but take advantage of the tax deferral. Others want to make a living doing something agricultural, but it is tough. Minutes of a Public Hearing to Take Testimony in Order to Regulate Marijuana Type Businesses and/or Consider Opt Out Options Wednesday, December 2, 2015 Page 12 of 23 He noticed on the State's direction that the size of grows may be limited to less than an acre, unless there is multiple production on larger parcels. He is in favor of letting people farm and actually making a living at it. Steve Wheeler said that it is interesting hearing the different testimony, but it all comes down to being a good neighbor. Portland does not let the light escape from greenhouses. Regulation is needed for all operations with no grandfathering. In construction, the cities have tough restrictions, but this is not so much in the country. He does not want to see neighborhoods destroyed. He knows someone who got permits for a hay barn that ended up a greenhouse with night lighting. Regulations are important and need to be enforced, as this will help the conscientious growers and the neighbors. He would encourage the opt out option, but at least require good regulations and tight enforcement. Steve Hultberg has twenty acres in Alfalfa. (He provided a handout.) He wanted to focus on regulations on EFU land, as this is very different from other zones. HB 3400 allows reasonable regulations to be adopted. To be reasonable, it has to have a rational basis. A number of the prohibitions are rational. It is a crop under all EFU statutes and a recognized farm use. The County has to treat this on par with other identified farm uses, and cannot favor one crop over another. The other context is the State's right to farm law. There is a similar law in the County. This must be protected and those who move into those areas must accept this. Some farming offends or annoys others, but the County feels that resource uses and management practices for farming are to be protected. He asked that the Board please keep this in mind. He understands about neighbor relations, but the laws need to be considered. Pat Horton of Redmond is a consultant (a handout was provided). If the Board decides on a twenty acre minimum, this is in violation of State law. A setback affects the minimum size. They need to remember the purpose of a setback regardless of the parcel size. Most will be inside grow operations, and no one can see what the crop is. There should be a more reasonable approach regarding buildings or greenhouses. A 100 foot setback on twenty acres consumes 6.5 acres, and this is unreasonable. Odor, lights and noise can be regulated and do not necessitate such a setback. Minutes of a Public Hearing to Take Testimony in Order to Regulate Marijuana Type Businesses and/or Consider Opt Out Options Wednesday,December 2,2015 Page 13 of 23 Shelly Callaghan did not testify Glenn Kotara of Bend commended the Board and staff on this difficult issue. There will be impacts either way. HB 3400 set the basis for the OLCC but also allows the County to pass reasonable regulations that should be sound, sensible and equitable, as well as moderate, fair and inexpensive. The recommendations from the Planning Commission are unreasonable. They should look at these on a case by case basis and not use a shotgun approach. It is not a one size fits all county. There should be reasonable exceptions available. Maybe there are no neighbors, or maybe they don't care. Twenty acre minimum would only allow for large grows and cuts out other farmers. The OHA and OLCC also have rules. There is an enforcement body to rein in those who don't comply with the rules. The Board should regulate indoor and outdoor grows separately. Andy Satterfield said he is part owner of Sacred Grounds Medicinal. Regarding acreage, he owns twelve acres bought per OLCC requirements. He talked to the neighbors and they know he will be unobtrusive. He spent extra funds to deal with potential odor and fumes. He is sorry for those who had a bad experience. He did not come into contact with marijuana until he ended up with a brain tumor. This medicine has changed his world. He has raised two children here over the past twenty-two years. This land and business is his life, and they investment a lot of money in it. He wants to have an opportunity to be successful at business and to be a good neighbor. Commissioner Baney noted that some people are concerned about testifying since this is an emotional issue, but their testimony is appreciated and welcome. Michael Hughes provided a handout, and said that during the Planning Commission's meeting there were a lot of questions about the OLCC and HB 3400. There was also information from the County about rural living. Minutes of a Public Hearing to Take Testimony in Order to Regulate Marijuana Type Businesses and/or Consider Opt Out Options Wednesday,December 2, 2015 Page 14 of 23 He is a farmer. In the 1990's, the right to farm was a big issue and a very hot topic. He grew up on a farm next to a hog farm. This is how people made their living and put food on the table for their families, working sometimes twenty hours a day. The neighbors helped each other and did not try to shut down the others' ability to make a living. This is expressed well in the County's handbook. Rural living scares some city people when they actually read it, because it talks about farm noises, dust and odors, and some of this can be outside regular hours. It comes down to being a good neighbor in the country. Commissioner Baney thanked those who acknowledge this is a difficult decision, and appreciates their comments. Commissioner Unger said it is challenging to find a path to recognize everyone's values and concerns. Chair DeBone said the written record will be open until 5 p.m. on December 17. This portion of the hearing recessed at 3:45 p.m., to continue at 6:00 p.m. Chair DeBone reconvened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. Present were Commissioners Anthony DeBone, Tammy Baney and Alan Unger; County Administrator Tom Anderson; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Nick Lelack and Matt Martin, Community Development; and approximately fifty other citizens Matt Martin gave the opening statement and a PowerPoint presentation with an overview of the issues. Commissioner Unger said he previously toured a grow operation in Alfalfa, to learn more about the issue, and can remain unbiased. Commissioner Baney said she toured two properties to get a feel for the issues, but can be unbiased in a decision. Chair DeBone indicated that he had no conflicts to disclose. Peter Mayer, from the audience, asked if Board has colleagues or friends that have an interest in the outcome of this issue. Chair DeBone said he has no business dealings in this regard. Commissioner Baney indicated there is no personal gain for her either way, nor is there for her family. None are in the marijuana businesses. The Commissioners indicated they have no conflicts of interest. Minutes of a Public Hearing to Take Testimony in Order to Regulate Marijuana Type Businesses and/or Consider Opt Out Options Wednesday,December 2, 2015 Page 15 of 23 Mr. Martin indicated that maps of twenty-acre parcels are displayed for the public to view. A citizen asked about specifics regarding water. Mr. Martin said the presentation is just an overview but there is more in the record. Chair DeBone said that the Board is taking testimony and will not deliberate or come to a decision today. He indicated testimony would be limited to three minutes to allow time for all to speak. The Board will conduct deliberations on December 21, but public testimony will close on December 17 at 5:00 p.m. for any e-mails or written testimony. Everyone should have the opportunity to participate safely, and their testimony is valued. This is not an adversarial process, but to share information. He thanked everyone for their work, including the Planning Commission, staff and all participants. Steve Munson provided copies of documents, including hydronic reports on the Deschutes Basin. He urged the Board to opt out so substantial research can be done, to do a cost benefit analysis and to allow a public vote. He is an advocate of areas where they should be able to grow pot. He has been involved in protecting Oregon for decades. He and. Governor McCall killed a nuclear plant at the time. Since then he has sponsored a hydrology study and another group focusing on how to restore ranchlands. He is a believer in green power, and is an expert witness. The assessed value of property in the County is about $20 billion at this time. He asked that they fill out a report form that he will submit. If property values drop 10% or more, he wondered what the effect would be. He feels it would cost $2 - $10 billion in value and a lot of lost tax dollars. Marianne Thomas urged the Board to opt out. Measure 91 was not a land use issue. She thought she was voting on personal use of marijuana, not on having it grown in the rural county. She was distressed that a Planning Commissioner said that horse hay takes as much water to grow as growing marijuana. Hay is a historic crop and a way of life. Minutes of a Public Hearing to Take Testimony in Order to Regulate Marijuana Type Businesses and/or Consider Opt Out Options Wednesday, December 2, 2015 Page 16 of 23 Regarding Planning Commissioner Criss' comments relating to hay, it is grown when the sun shines. Marijuana takes 6 to 15 gallons of water per day. Regular crops do not require additional security. Law enforcement is not equipped to handle this extra work, and she wonders who will handle enforcement. She urged. an opt out and does not want the County to be a Guinea pig for the State and country. Tom Maddux is not a fan of marijuana, but the voters approved it. He is concerned about what the County will do. There is a right to farm ordinance, so there will be a lot of conflict. The State determined it is a legal crop but is applying a different set of rules. The County is being set up for a lawsuit, because there cannot be a conflict with these rules. He has a nonconforming twenty acre parcel where he can't do this. People need to be able to do business, He might even be able to make money farming, instead of losing it. It was a hard-fought law between farmers and others twenty years ago. Some of these rules are in place now but not being enforced. Otherwise, he thinks the County should leave the growers alone, like the State does. Ron Davis is a ranch real estate broker. A major responsibility of the County is to protect the way of life here. There have been tremendous changes, and they need to save what they can. This legalization affects the quiet, rural life. He settled on twenty acres in Tumalo decades ago. There is a grow operation going in across the street, and he is concerned that his horses will be affected by people wandering around. He has a teenager in his family who got derailed due to an addiction to pot. This is very personal to him. He does not want to have to put in locks on gates or carry a rY p p g �Y weapon. He also said the lights are terrible. People pay a premium to live on this kind of land. There can be increases in traffic and unsavory people hanging around, Some were in the business before it was legalized. Other people are leaving the area or plan to because of the operations going in. It is obvious that the County is not ready for this. They need to do what other counties have and not go so fast. Minutes of a Public Hearing to Take Testimony in Order to Regulate Marijuana Type Businesses and/or Consider Opt Out Options Wednesday,December 2, 2015 Page 17 of 23 Dan Cardot of Premier Real Estate urged an opt out, primarily because he thinks land values are at risk. He is seeing a strong influx into Boise, Idaho from central Oregon because of Oregon going to pot. Someone builds their dream home and suddenly is surrounded on three sides by greenhouses guard dogs, guys with guns and bright lights. The dream home is then gone. Sunset Magazine says to `visit Bend'. You want to draw people and families here, and this is not the proper way to do it. There would be an exit of families and a drop in values if this is allowed. He spent a day in Silverton, Colorado and the restaurant he visited was filled with marijuana smoke. There will be fires and other issues to deal with here. He wants the Board to think about the families. Dante delVecchio of Bend said that he works for OreGrown Industries. There has been a great positive economic impact from the business. He wants to see a regulated industry and market that will bring in much needed jobs, and sensible regulations will insure that the jobs stay here. All local businesses must be licensed and regulated. This will help eliminate the unwanted aspects. Good regulations make good neighbors. The businesses are here to stay. They also love the area and want to see jobs and prosperity. He urged the Board to stay the course with the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Jocelyn Anderson co-owns cannabis businesses and supports adopting sensible Y pp P g rules. A ban will not solve the problems, but regulations will help. She comes from a fifth generation farming family, and feels that at a minimum it belongs on EFU land. It can work and regulations can help to make good neighbors, Andrew Anderson owns 45 acres of EFU where cannabis is grown. Water concerns have been raised, but they also raise alfalfa that uses a huge amount of water per day, a lot less than marijuana plants. He can show his records. Rules and regulations will help and an opt out won't help with the medical marijuana sites already in place. Regarding property values, they bought in May and the property has gone up in value since then. There are a lot of people looking to buy EFU for a variety of reasons. Minutes of a Public Hearing to Take Testimony in Order to Regulate Marijuana Type Businesses and/or Consider Opt Out Options Wednesday,December 2, 2015 Page 18 of 23 Krista Knoernschild said she lives in Tumalo and noted that the Bend area has changed. It has been desirable for a long time, but won't be to someone who lives near a grow operation. Large homes are built for gentleman farmers, which generate a lot of tax revenue. Put a grow next to the property and the people will have to sell it for less. People have expectations of the usual farm operations, and there are rules to deal with those. People know what to expect, but did not anticipate a grow. This causes a different set of unwelcome noises, smells and activities. Even if there are restrictions at night, there are still obnoxious effects and. Code is hard to enforce. The negatives outweigh the positives. Even if a property is historically zoned EFU, this does not mean people want this next to them. The County should opt out. There is a legal right to grow their own, but she does not think this applies to grows. This will ruin property values and is not sensible. They should offer the question to the voters. It is not reasonable to do otherwise. Darrell Barnes has lived on EFU land here for 32 years. He has worked in planning and as an architect. He is concerned about the twenty acre minimum. He is being slighted again by land use ordinances, after measure 37 and 49. This resulted in a loss of property value for him personally. In the big picture, he would encourage the Board not to opt out. It would be a foolish missed opportunity for economic development that will take place elsewhere, and is an opportunity to control and tax a previously illegal industry. In light of the last testimony, he feels that it would reduce his property value to not be able to use it for this purpose. Small EFU parcels are limited by ordinances and it is hard to be financially feasible with any other crop. These small EFU parcels were an afterthought, and needs to be sorted out and perhaps rezoned, or allowed the same opportunities as other EFU land. As far as operations being offensive or dangerous, he does not think this is as offensive as a hog farm or dairy. He urged no opt out and to reconsider the twenty acre minimum. Chris Boyce of Terrebonne grows medical marijuana. He spoke to Commissioner Unger once on the phone. His wife has cancer and needs this medicine. He uses scrubbers so there is no odor. He also uses solar power. He recycles most of the water. Minutes of a Public Hearing to Take Testimony in Order to Regulate Marijuana Type Businesses and/or Consider Opt Out Options Wednesday,December 2,2015 Page 19 of 23 His neighbors do not complain about any of this; they would let him know and he would correct it. All of the things he hears people complaining about can be handled through regulations. Right down the road from him there is a dairy farm, but you adjust. People voted this in and the legislature passed laws. This was to bring the growers out of the shadows into the light of lawful behavior. He is against opt out and does not like to limit it to EFU twenty acres or bigger. The purpose is to bring people into the law. Those who do not have that kind of money will stay in the shadows. People need to respect the law. If they don't, they disrespect all laws. The good growers want to be lawful. Lance Olivieri has lived off Sisemore Road for eleven years. He is an architect and planner, and understands how complex it is. He sees this moving way too fast. This is a new social and economic but untested issue. There are valid concerns on both sides. They are rushing into this, and if the County does not opt out and come back to it later, they won't have a true reading of what is happening. There are neighbor issues and it is serious. There is a risk of being inundated by people who want to do this, and it could go quickly out of control. It needs to slow down before it is too late. Irene Olivieri said they live off the grid with solar power. She voted to decriminalize, but it turned out to be a Pandora's box. She loves to walk at night but it is shocking to see what has happened in the area. She urges an opt out to give time for more research. The drought is now a part of life and this industry should not be pursued. Also, the wild animals cannot speak for themselves, and it is surprising how the mule deer and elk have been reduced in population. The intense rapid growth in the area has hurt the wildlife. Fences and lights affect the wildlife corridors. There is a sense that the winter deer range will be impacted by traffic and fires, and water use. Life in this beautiful area will be jeopardized. It needs to be protected. Tim Elliott was born in Bend and is a code enforcement officer, quasi-judicial, for Jefferson County, and was a City of Bend hearings officer for years. He spoke specifically about what HB 3400 allows the Board to do. Some people ask if this gives such broad latitude. It is a crop but specifically, unlike the laws regulating other crops, gives home rule authority. Minutes of a Public Hearing to Take Testimony in Order to Regulate Marijuana Type Businesses and/or Consider Opt Out Options Wednesday,December 2, 2015 Page 20 of 23 The Board has great authority to regulate it reasonably on the manner in which it is produced, processed, wholesaled, and retailed; and the public's access to information regarding where it might be located. It is not just a another crop. It allows for some private, civil action protection but the Board has authority to take a variety of actions. There has been some contention about how to apply the rules. There are about 1,800 grow sites and those should be regulated. On July 1, all sites will be allowed. to be more intense. Even the medical marijuana grow can sell recreational marijuana at that point. The recommendation about existing sites may not apply, but there should not be a free pass for the 1,800. All rules should apply to all sites. He said he will provide further information. William Kuhn suggested an opt out. He is concerned about the measurements being bandied about, and thinks they need to increase. And he has heard unsubstantiated comments about one county dealing with measuring distances from the closest plant to inside a school, rather than from property line to property line. Daniel Liautaud feels that opting out would be a major blow to sustainability. As there becomes less space to farm, it forces the plants to be inside. This uses more resources and the plant will be less sustainable. He encourages rural growing. Edward Salzman is an owner of OreGrown. He stated that opting out would be a bad decision and would promote an illegal market, who are really the guys with guns. The amount of tax money generated from legal operations could be substantial, and can be reinvested into the economy. Eleanor Sauerbam supports this business. Her grandmother lived near a paper mill that created odors, but it was the smell of an entire economy. To some people, this is the smell of jobs, security and a thriving business for a lot of workers. The economy could be devastated if this was not allowed. Minutes of a Public Hearing to Take Testimony in Order to Regulate Marijuana Type Businesses and/or Consider Opt Out Options Wednesday,December 2, 2015 Page 21 of 23 Allowing this on only twenty acres or more is not affordable to many. Others will come in from elsewhere and buy these properties, but might not even live here. These growers want to work with the neighbors and don't want to offend. It was determined that the written record will be left open until 5:00 p.m. on December 17. People can mail, or e-mail board[a),deschutes.org and they will put it all on the record. There has been substantial input. Commissioner Baney appreciates the respect people have shown at today's hearings and noted that it all helps her to work through this challenging issue. She is glad people are engaged. Commissioner Unger knows it is a difficult issue and he also is frustrated with the State, since they give very little direction. The Board will do their best to navigate through this. He wishes there was a clear path. He would like information to help him sort through this. There is opt out available if it comes to that, but they would like to investigate in particular the time, place and manner. Commissioner Baney said that they do receive and read all letters and messages, but do not always have the ability to respond back. It is all valuable input and they do read what they receive. Chair DeBone added there is a lot of information coming in, and it will take some time for them to go through all of it. Nick Lelack advised the public that all information will be posted on the County's website. If there are questions, people can contact him at Community Development. Chair DeBone said that deliberations are scheduled for the December 21 Board business meeting, but no testimony will be accepted at that time. Being no further testimony at the evening hearing, the record was closed to oral testimony and the hearing adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Minutes of a Public Hearing to Take Testimony in Order to Regulate Marijuana Type Businesses and/or Consider Opt Out Options Wednesday, December 2, 2015 Page 22 of 23 DATED this e/84-2- Da y of 2015 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Anthony DeBone, Chair Alan Unger, Vice Chair ATTEST: 17)144.tAL TA-L— Tammy Baney, Co missioner Recording Secretary Minutes of a Public Hearing to Take Testimony in Order to Regulate Marijuana Type Businesses and/or Consider Opt Out Options Wednesday,December 2, 2015 Page 23 of 23 OG !1111■ )11,440100t. 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 AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board Business Meeting of December 2, 2015 DATE: 11/23/15 FROM: Matthew Martin Community Development Department 541-330-4620 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Public Hearin g -File No. 247-15-000-542-TA, Proposed Land Use Regulations of Marijuana Related Businesses PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? No BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Recreational marijuana became legal for personal use in Oregon on July 1, 2015. The Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) adopted temporary administrative rules on Oct. 22, 2015, effective January 1, 2016, to administer and implement the law to regulate recreational marijuana purchase, sale, production,processing, transportation and delivery. The OLCC will begin receiving license applications by January 4, 2016, to produce,process, wholesale and retail recreational marijuana. Medical marijuana production,processing and retailing are regulated by the Oregon Health Authority (OHA)with changes to the existing state law in these areas set to take effect on March 1, 2016. State law provides for four categories of OLCC-licensed, marijuana-related uses—recreational marijuana production, recreational marijuana processing, recreational marijuana wholesaling and recreational marijuana retailing—and three categories of OHA-registered, marijuana-related uses— medical marijuana production, medical marijuana processing and medical marijuana dispensaries. Deschutes County may not completely prohibit any of the defined types of marijuana-related land uses without a vote of the people. However, state law gives the county the authority to adopt"reasonable regulations"regarding these uses. Alternatively, the County may decide to opt out of one or more marijuana-related businesses by December 27, 2015 (the last Board meeting prior to this deadline is December 21, 2015). In September 2015, the Board held a series of work sessions to identify policy decisions and draft proposed standards for marijuana-related businesses in unincorporated Deschutes County for the Deschutes County Planning Commission to review and provide a recommendation. On November 5 and 12, 2015, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings to receive public testimony on the proposed regulations. Subsequently, on November 16 and 23, the Planning Commission deliberated on the proposed regulations. The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to forward a package of recommendations to regulate marijuana businesses in unincorporated Deschutes County. The Commission also voted 5-2 to recommend the County not prohibit or"opt out"of any marijuana business type regulated by the State. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: No action is requested at the work session. ATTENDANCE: Matthew Martin, Associate Planner, Nick Lelack, Community Development Director DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS: Matthew Martin, CDD PRELIMINARY STATEMENT FOR A LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS • The applicants have the burden of proving that they are entitled to the approval requested. • Testimony and evidence at this hearing must be directed toward the approval criteria, as well as toward any other criteria in the comprehensive land use plan of the County or land use regulations which any person believes apply to this decision. • Failure on the part of any person to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to afford the Board of County Commissioners and parties to this proceeding an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals on that issue. Additionally, failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to the approval with sufficient specificity to allow the Board to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. • The Board's decision on this application will be based upon the record and the Staff Report and the testimony and evidence presented at this hearing. • The hearing will be conducted in the following order. 1. The staff will give a report. 2. The applicant presents testimony and evidence. 3. Proponents and opponents testify and present evidence. 4. The applicant presents rebuttal testimony. 5. At the Board's discretion, if the applicants presented new evidence on rebuttal, opponents may be recognized for a rebuttal presentation. 6. Staff will be afforded an opportunity to make any closing comments. • The Board may limit the time period for presentations. • If anyone wishes to ask a question of a witness, the person may direct the question to the Chair. The Chair is free to decide whether or not to ask such questions of the witness. • The grant of a continuance or record extension shall be at the discretion of the Board. • If the Board grants a continuance, it shall continue the public hearing to a date certain. • If, at the conclusion of the hearing, the Board leaves the record open for additional written evidence or testimony, the record shall be left open to a date certain for submittal of new written evidence or testimony. • If the hearing is continued or the record left open, the applicant shall also be allowed a period to a date certain after the record is closed to all other parties to submit final written arguments but no new evidence in support of the application. • Commissioners must disclose any conflicts of interest. Does any commissioner have anything to disclose and, if so, please state the nature and extent? • Does any party wish to challenge any Commissioner based on conflicts of interest? LEGISLATIVE HEARING OPENING PROCESS: 1. CHAIR: "This is the time and place set for hearing County file number is 24745-000542-TA." 2. CHAIR to CDD staff: "Staff will outline the hearing procedures that will be followed." 3. CDD STAFF informs the audience as follows: • The hearings body—the Board of County Commissioners, in this case -will take testimony and receive written evidence concerning proposed amendments to Deschutes County Code Titles 18, 19120, and 21 to define, permit, and establish standards for marijuana-related uses in unincorporated Deschutes County • All testimony shall be directed to the hearings body • At the conclusion of this hearing the hearings body will deliberate towards a decision or continue the hearing or deliberations to a date and time certain • The hearing will proceed as follows: o staff will provide a brief report o opponents and proponent will present testimony and evidence o any other interested persons will then present testimony or evidence o the staff will then be afforded an opportunity to present rebuttal testimony 4. CDD STAFF: "A full written version of the hearing procedures is available at the table at the side of the room." 5. CDD STAFF: "Commissioners must disclose any conflicts of interest. Does any Commissioner have anything to disclose and, if so, please state the nature of same and whether you can proceed?" 6. CHAIR: "Does any Commissioner have anything to disclose and, if so, please state the nature of same and whether you can proceed?" 7. BOARD: The hearings body discloses conflicts and states whether they are withdrawing from the hearing or whether they intend to continue with the hearing. 8. BOARD: The hearings body discloses conflicts and states whether they are withdrawing from the hearing or whether they intend to continue with the hearing. 9. CDD STAFF: "Does any party wish to challenge any Commissioner (member of the hearings body) based on conflicts?" 10. CHAIR: open the hearing and direct staff to proceed with brief staff report. e I'LANNINC3 IUIVIIV11JJiUIV Ittl-LIIVIIVItNUAIIU1VJ SUMMARY OF ZONES PERMITTING MARIJUANA RELATED BUSINESSES _ (This table identifies the zones where marijuana related businesses are recommended to be allowed.) Zone 1 Processing Production 1 Retail Wholesale I Comments Permitted:P Conditional Use:CU Not Allowed:- Excluding Including Extracts Extracts TITLE 18—Deschutes County Recommendation is to require 18.16 Exclusive Farm Use—EFU P p p - 20-acre minimum parcel size 18.65 RURAL SERVICE CENTER—UC.... A _ 18.65.020 Commercial Mixed Use District(Brothers, Hampton, Millican, - - CU p Whistlestop,Wildhunt) 18.65.021 Commercial Mixed Use _ CU P (Alfalfa) 18.66 TERREBONNE RURAL COMMUNITY Recommendation is wholesaling to be office only 18.66.040 Commercial—TeC CU CU CU P with no storage of marijuana products allowed. Recommendation is wholesaling to be office only 18.66.050 Commercial Rural—TeCR CU CU CU P with no storage of marijuana products allowed. 18.67 TUMALO RURAL COMMUNITY 18.67.030 Residential 5-acre TuRS Recommendation is 18.67.040 Commercial—Tu.0 CU CU CU P wholesaling to be office only with no storage of marijuana products allowed. 18.67.060 Industrial—Tul P CU - CU 18.74 RURAL COMMERCIAL 18.74.020 Deschutes Junction and - - - CU Deschutes River Woods Store 18.74.025 Spring River - - CU 18.74.027 Pine Forest and Rosland - - cu P 18.100 Rural Industrial P/CU CU - CU CU - 18.108 SUNRIVER UUC 18.108.050 Commercial-SUC - - - CU P 18.108.055 Town Center TC - - - CU - 18.108.110 Business Park-SUBP P CU - CU P TITLE 19 - BEND No Marijuana Related Businesses Allowed TITLE 20- REDMOND No Marijuana Related Businesses Allowed TITLE 21 -SISTERS .__....-....___.,.........M.. __-T No Marijuana Related Businesses Allowed .. _. _ __.... _______._._.,. ...,._._.__..__..__—N____ ._ 0 - f" x m x a 3 w 1,9 o 3 — "dam o C i _ P r. zy U O C t v. W ry �' ,',' P . u m E u v ,� _ - _ g 22 c 8 • i o ° _ _ =' a r„ 8 t c c - = c, ' , v , y ° v E n' c ,� £ c i' m E 4 v 3 v .r n e .H n E o o u a' m W �, '� '42. 6 cG a ..:: - p c v u Y -g d: [ N a-.28 -+ o c c C v p ai L_� '='-.`-; °-2c3 E m o v , v a' mN m N@ V K v O �" 'W y a v 40 N ', ' 7 u m e r re t p i.' c`m_ c K " �_ 8 u a Y .T u °c 3 , c '� E q, . gil r o' y r c 2, m o 2- e ° "� of m 8 I'-- v ti o 7' M ¢ c -2 e 2i'F,, ?),2 ; c v m r.-?, S g % C •« IF. = c o, " v N r t? a l n y ( ° uo N F 1 A r w Z G M m Z p w 5 oc w w co 2a •2 �: - % m 0 C e. * 9 : ' H : : : :, .':: =le :I :gill: .1 , , irFAIi M {.� y UT! C N !v a7pp T O k .,t:..0 ..c. 4,u E..v., a ' v v4 E, g'..I n. g V ,.', ?yg! °a g re b. o c ?: g IIHq p .. M S aCq 9 u 3 w .n�j .y '.S� 8 p g iA 0 c C q E C.,.,, q ' �a • ' npy L 4 1- G' 5 F g FL- m C g.ro gr 2. a $ Gu . t 81 . . • . 5y E c .y w c m v Y n p m ' � ' r p c c a t a > ;„ a E s v 4 " a �m e_ ' -. ; ' p 0. c D u w o,r c . , O 'i O j w N pp N t' 3 } � a' >. i ' ° 3 n c o N F' a 4 O N i6 t1.1 a O to w . _ g'' r p O p O M is z : F-. •;' 3 im '^'"2 - r o - " -o = . ., c c y m E ,c ', . m N .o v r . y a E ^ ' , 8' . ry ? ° N p m°y o `° v . ` 2 E _ k m i K , a ' m o w i y v - u 6 U sI Fo au , r7 0v ` vc N c 2a o p $ .° •„ ', ,, v y 3 v E `¢r e 1, "`- � a v v .__ w :, - L, V m E N y ': ' e. :'=' '5 h " _ A m _- U m ' n Q ',n `3 : C n t 3 :`Q h i. O .f'3 Cr y � . W p m - t „ y ° ' d E '4 d Yv m ` ' . ;'3 ---, 15w%-1:o -2 -=" -u 5 ` - c = 0 o v v v aN v m . E v a v ? 3 ` c T m a p m ° s H « « si L,M c . w } v c ., a n o u G p C 3 „ E U v c' 1 o n — 9l- I- = _ a s o. c° v v E E F r n a•u fs F u a s s , i ' M o n 4' _ '� E .' o O 0 0 OO N m N M m 14 .i5 '1 ~ w 2 °D, ` co ,A E c C C c 2 v d o t2 P A. • i«, 'Li '' TO ■■•' • ,i, E; tO f., to ., c c •7. `,„: - 3 , „'' ? E _,. rn .4 . ,9 -0 - E ..,-, ,2, .--, u 1 8 ,,, 2 , r.-1: 5 '> t,,,; „ .. z t s.. u.- J... S4 X 2 . m 1 f = 15 n , iiiVa17,-, -17, , E 0 r, ,.., 7-.• . ..., -0:E ; 5 f fg„ ,.., 6 "F> 1 .0 5.u C m - 0 - . Z -0 ;, g,illog :i y o 2 ,T, z 'L- i? y .• . i I _ 2 0 :- .g -, '-0 "2 - 04 Z6 55 ti%-= § tft _Pgf, a - X ,,,,,,• ?, -;;,: .,,,,, ., . .■,.;,,,.._0 v•j2 ,I. v to—,1 , C z .c. „ „ -.'• Jg-tag:Lt3 .6 ,` , s 5 2 22. . 1.; c at, .2- t73-..Q. r‘° F1 V, - t t 7—, 14 - e .,, .--2 .., - 5 '' o_ — . — s .-. . ..-• _ . . ,-, 2B ; ._ B a a-F...,-., g g .., c .„ ,.i . ,o, 15,,2 :'E-, 5 gcl, Hi • • . :,-; '; a - -, - ,- --- - ,,- --,N''',,-,7",f".ii."- -' ',;'•-."' 4 ' i-- _ e-13 1 „- i,., ris, ;.fi. ....2, rt t ,,, , - s , E.▪"1,,y, f.,,, ,,..:,,-,,,z, r,.4...,,, z,.0-2 r,13* = 4 .... 5 '6 Z 7:1 12 1 gg 151tt illiiti ,"Ille ','t''''a 2"." V:''''' ,,,,,..i , „,t I. 1 ^,..t ,g I -.. a.°,-.- ''' ..*'0 2."' “1 .2" 1 -' ,_* . e 1 = !Y ° Es2 41i S'51 Igii'§ -E-2 vil t:igo ;-i ' -3 . P 5° ,c, ---!-RzIgad Et -gig,. 11 tr411 g FIJ 2.'"21111 '....i'' / ',', .6 I c.s tiA rs :-,. ,$1 A 1;1'. ' , .: 178* 8,-Cg. :6° 1 ,z-'• r V 11.2 r! g: 2 5141101 tli '.;41„t* 1 2 1.... E.. 1 F. f: L.jt24 -i!il". 61 411 tiltS758' ::411441.11111 tit2rIlilIP ; ?,43 ?'-' c •-•. -- ti' 211„7', az.,14-s ;IE ;iiittif lig'g'z'g— t1.N14' 1 s g'13-2 -12 .18 S i 1 .• 8 '. --g - -'.6 a ' '1 Q. ... ■ nirill ,:±, -n", « - E -g . •E m „ 3 LI E--Jg , 2 qsa, - -c, - . 3 -5 ; it•g. F,-g:I E 0 ; p !_., ; „E 2 5 . , . ,.,. .d, g 1. • • 0, - a. -4' •0 2-t 74 V; -1 ,._.- 'i 12 2 17,.. 2.2 - .. .. '— - --,,,, v. ,_ . ,,, 4' 4, •• 4- . C 2 X .2- ; . .0- .. •. "„ ,4 -, ,T, E q, E m . fo -E . .-. .4 ,- ..; . _ '6% ' -E 1E 21. no .n I', Z' ■i :,i e.3 ell E; ,„ ,,:: , 5 ;,: °._, . "4 na .8. 20 ,T.3 -g .sl, E . t5;-'4 t 45'c .',.i g_-'12 -!.i 5 11:, 57 72r o uv 46' ,'% ; 1 '12, i' l *- - - '' '3 ; '1'- 5 i. 3' 1 : 'S 'I- E '7' ''' 2T 2 8 5 '',?: ? ::: k 2 1-, -1. 73 2 .2t,1 ,, gr,,,,c_' .`„.; 7; „,,, ,7: .-k-'' ■Y,' F k” c:. `c?,- `,3 F,,, t -• g „2 En: --1_4,5; t.Y.T::, -',.. 't 1 e7, 0-,”, O Vii "ti-..i,•7 ',.-.?,„ ,c1 F., EL ti, 11 ,7,, ;1 '1.' ., '?',LJ ›: E:3: ;:'-,-:<, `,-4 ;t ,;' Jii ..q .„. „,.. ..t. E3 . , ,,, -. . „ %.' 0 . . ... ›._20 . - 1,1 . - 7.., t . 5. 8 7..' . E f2 ',7, E' g f. E ..-`.` '6 4- ,`..'.-- i ,','-'; ,3- 7.-, t:iii; ,,. -, 2 I'',-II,`b 1 ' 'gSe, '" -2t-g 1 t '.''b 7 ' ''' OLg- v . w■E 2 '"E ., g.„.. - . ''.,. ek, ‘ {...• . E -0, •••• .— (11 ,_ b_ di , N ,.., ',.. 0 IL) <— 4-, 0.u a E.I., .., 0 ..-, S 0, ft e % -,, ', E 0 g■ i':!. , .:- ,,, ,.., „ — t *A : mr. o0 c ,i, u F- 2 5 , 05.; .. • 4 . ..,,. ........,_ ..... ...'".• C 0 e c a i 7. 'P., g. E ! ! '43 . , . u .1 , ,-,-. m . ,, 3 6 , c, N I — 1 I' •E 3 3 c nJ ° a621' 1,2 v ,9 n a ¢ r c r E u N r a °o c o L 4' a a - > N.To E c w u v U `° p r ar u - u a en m E a E. m o P ,� ro r .i `^ o E:. _ y C w° E -i H ; v .e . y :V2.... 3 .0 Z' °n c E m m c n c m a , Y c ' s c ' E m =� c :° o 'eS m v - 3 e a t m y a m " w c: o ,, 0- ,. o ... L° a s 'c v o.c ry , „ ro C % oc` ti e f':x ti , i 2 E n s.) v 2 v « c E .0 2 U y m v ;; ro v m 4 " M o { ° c ro o - ,C`c :i o u u m m_r '^ r n ' „. m P ,. ", y N Q w v ' w o E •4--, `'t Y O •= i .. ::G) ': °- ' ' 2) C ± ,5 O u�0 ;. u .., a F . N a .0 U .Z t. g . i. ,n y e, E - c 3 a i ° e m w eo a'a b 3 n u d . o m i ,_ ,5,, ,,.7 ,,,c $ ti '"- ; �°•G °' . a i` m 3 a „ C -5-'," L P a i o c . � m° t n- S. e. ) `m , ci t p. u .°c - a s , o E •u - c E c w y m E oo p ° c c c a. `- a c ^ `- a ., m c y {7 ,12 °-- !." ra uo Pay u a ~ a c ur v y p o n ,e - r E v k a o z •:'- '6 .T. ,2'1 . V d c v u 0 P. u `oo F s .,. n E w ry c m r o b E'c a z: ,c ® n u J m m .� o :: a .L E r _ 7 w ,L o m s g m c F,472 N m? w« U :7;1 m mac n ' D ' o L a H N 'u a . ' „13 c 6 P 3 V c v 2 ' m, Fo ' -1. W n�ru E v v- « - c v w, N E P. - n E °� F P :1 m a w a E :.. , 3 E .. t E c c c c - - c m:� 2� u J c V. P `.' 'ti e' N-. e o v E 8 - 10 •C a r c .W g ..ter., c r E E o N = a w c u } 5' ri 3 « c c Y, '= o P u w ,9 a w v « 3 .e rc m 9 ',1''g' }u E° c a •° m r _ t .< e ± � .v° :Y d v E ` E ? ... j m 2 o u E c E v o 6 P o -3 E 2 F.. o '^ v - o .X v n a 4 p), E r. e a4. ro - . ' v ~ v`-� c v F.n' n. _ _ u i_9 w.-4 n E „ v m a . Q ; �a x ., ,._ w t: P s m n E O v.^ ri ry m z ° m .n N 1 r m « E `m 2' o,- 4 ni • 1 . • u ao v v y 0 v pp P o y-6-0 V'" y d .9 •Y « E u o p ry e w C m- d P c p � E a H g a § W N N C m n r m E v m p Ev -E N w a v c ri . . o nY E v 8C _o t v g a 7 $cr. p o • ` S .3 E E g .V 2 a c 4 .., -vg .• Eo . o'P >. c o7, cl• m. maaEv ,_° N T m G« 'E , 3 Y N a, n.cb .n n n o n.£ 6 i w E V a ° ro D -' i..4 0 $te CC r.I % u D po�f- .ai. • �' _ A C -61.11c • &- y T L U V. T c • E `IIO Gam' ry m 3 E Lr s s n '„v a J ,L-,- g w 805 2 Ti p a v s o E CJ i Si N 2 ""g '.2 N N ' p N V E ma ', �N u r. T_ C• V■ C u N C 9 C M c •D O c g p .1/ O ,- Ogg v c r p 4 2 CO V c j s - P a _c c .2 C 'n C ` W y C'+ to M• ry ,i P (tl W r P I< u C - J . a a_ v V .Y a H C `m .,2— N p W a n a a d c C p N fa _ p W Cp 0.0. - rvy 7 -tv� gg q� G e p e, +� 4 ��.. E x 5 u J -• ¢ T W F , ,49.-s•_t.L,,,,,•16oP3/4,11,,A.•!'-i:'''''''14.i,'Ii•-'''''''ti. 4-4::;- ''' r "'' ''',4T-11''''t-ii.lit:')-C;',,r■••. '1..:":-••■'''': l' ,-.V :,,,,,I..'.....;. - ',,__\_ 1 I ',,,, -,;0,''ITM116:.1411.1. '- L7 I 71. :7:.•;..i ' -7 :-.;':'7'1,.'. -iiiiii!:" )1 !■7-' 'C"').i'.-..;:iit....4:.■;:.4, ,• L ;' '..'I .'''''' :''.7,' '.:'''-.?-1P. e41041, , - •i,1 ,, 1,. i I i ,, ?, ,r64 7::rattliti,1 1D- ,,z';:..,711.,,'-,iii„.:...',,,..c L- ,'::4:.',','.' ',''''-1's.::',1::::,.''''I.Ii',iii.x:''',11311ifat.'„,1;..,Tii,17.t.;1::_.!,;:i!igilL71.4t,‘„,.°‘i:,,,,•:":;';.:!:::1°711jil'itt'' --- ":1',1116,_ 6 , - ,,,- l - - - ' in LL 1 rAdp10•! :4'!41,1,12! ,7:;•7'..A"7. ' ', ' 7 1' ''''.;EJ;,',.?144_.r4.:::'"1,1( 1.11/1111n '4741$'1i'kiriiii ',W.:1'1,1711V " ' , I IF ' • vli'"'" glq:171 1114r.1f.:P■.•,!4-'7-]''.1 L '."1. 7 '1.-'''' Irli.= ..4,"•1:•■•p•I.:iiii: i gta'IM1-'719'..7jAkrrli"j• . '• • i*,=74.•:,: ' L E - L -i '' ' tgleil.11V114 .11 ---4"-,....1:11,,,,i -,- ' , ._ _,,,,, ,,.• Ji,',_,',1*,:ft,1„;i2F(1-....r';,,,41: - ,'' --, Ji . , 14/1i4'‘2,!e.''''4,),'11-'- ..._ - ' ' ' 1'••■•:a1P21"''..,•aer• I; :t'''rI• 11::;c:''I- ItIlippi.:A,li ' _ri_ .„1-.1,,,)'Fill fs' L , - -„ "It '.•,, .94,12, 1,-_,„:,ir"' `; A-- A,.... Kb 4,,,..„ ,, -..., ..„ -I ' ''''.$155i3:-.4.1bA,I lir•14 111. '''. , ,-, 1_, in.,iiad,,,,iztil,i-ii:.',..:,-.4„-.: ,. 4!_;;Itil",. 111411 / - '- __' 111::::,,l'gri.' ,0.7 - .41'4..ltr-stli1191 -421;,..' J_, ;:.;,-,i 1 -4: offv,r0 1 ,alkti.-7:! usii is,,, ,,hi ,., ,6,tiL , ,,,„ . .::..,,, ?,,,I:.,,,i ;:;.,,,,,Ii.,.,r4.4, _ - ,.// , = -- - , 1 1 ..;...2 -,0;1 f:1 0.;,„1 , ___ ! ,..;'Erm 1 t-i4i _.Arii tlihr,,,,,:r4i.,,,i4yroillwlivi.4,,,,,, -1 '111 -I -....t4FICN.,"Ir'El7115'-:J111'5;- L - .- ,;1.111.2 ‘,,,J,! A, ET ‘- 4 -A1-0.#(._r-,ji r ". .' 1 _- 1 L— — Iiii,'FIrifzitig..-4!_: -4 - lOrt14 ' -.E`i .,"'.' / ' • ■Ot". '''' 1 Iil` t. -',111;!•ili-i'lliil'•'.f.'' _ , ii':‘,, s-f:c: 1■ ,ii -- ,.., __ ___-._ _-- 1 1 L ,c-,p1- - ,--, _,..i:,,,,,',..(:,,:; .- .. 1 1 . .-4 . -1,:torifil,,o,,14,11, ;_',!,.,...,;;;',..-11. 4{,... ''' .4h D chutes'-'13unEFU Ne•-..- Production- ,} Y .. ;i:,1::!..,.:. F •• Marijuana !salon Deliberation , ' •'II ‘-, ,. ', S, •61, :1-,, 1.41it IIE',wlitrai7t ., -44 Planning:0°Z7e Analyses i Th±7_4"_.-- .ii,,4t1;;,.ift; ..., b r--„iiiva !iii .:ari,„fflr"i'i.,4, I. 'F-r_ZV" +'. ,4;f.'''''',1 '•' ...t ntilq•IF1Silif::-'li ••;',..,•'.4 Child Care Center -^' _ r Ll ilk:'r,. I 500°1 ter Buffer-1.000' -, I"- L 10 `'I Phil. . , __ iid■ „i,.„-,21,•,,,.,: IL.i., , ..E..,-, Ili „/.. Hg-- un ry Stehto.ol:ChhIld Care dien I-- ,„4,4, .,,,, t c,, tV1.041 .4 01"7;-allirtiiilk ‘--`• Urban Growth Bo Ar.. ;,,,, I' IP'- '''' '70 1 \ i -717 , 71 - ,rr-:-;. . ..5' 4.---- ____ /, ' BM ' ,,'r H-- 1._,..ari /_ , \`'..;r.4. —I- t IT, ..' ._ \., , 0.REE x:o:.1 out a:nl vde.F tanrat h Us e,e 2 0 A c r e ..,) (ft,) ., .- ,. _ - :--- ---,-, ,,,,:, 1 ...,,...„..„,,,...:,..,___,.., ........„... , , I South Deschutes County p `-' f -1 Marijuana Production-EFU Planning Commission Deliberation 20 Acre Analysis 'i Child Care Center �°� �'e 4� W r, 4 + q J�Y h School 4 p A'M p°� School/Child Care Center Buffer-1,000' I �}" p�1 m , d /�/State Highway M Lg �."NE1't VII Y� ;yq Urban Growth 0oundary 1,.. ; I .'t 4■ .,, M'yI�A`unincorporated Com � .�. munity P �I Exclusive Farm USe r 2'AC''''' ■ I •v .;Exclusive I-arm Use� 20 acres RIM Rural Industnal / ..^.._,... ..., }AYA-, III.,ii Y I A� , ) %•t � 4 �1 pp _.,.,... I { I i F rl� 1 I I /� ,0,1=., - -., --L -- r ,-s,,.�$ V. i Bid.. u ; 1 e- AA'nil 0v . fi 1 f — ., i I a aI,�IWIIA II9� 4 v+ „:"...:.:‘:::t.,:,-',,l_ A `-�' r IyJ pry •���AlllA0�5�.,. X'" II��nP�'I'�yi tii "� id :_.. % ^" � yd��GJ(Ai II tlW InYrihe 1111 s h e 4 - 1:4 f);\ al! tt 9 b �' I n $t 1 _ ( ,,- ■ x1 4 aa� a ui ,u l t l. i• / r'. t .>' 2 riteill frt^.uu l a ,' 'I-9711— AA P w'M. $� y I Al Q d. ' r ° s3d ( 1 I J J -1 '�A� e �� 6 � Y 1= tlNe�IeJ/ 4 f 1 y oil • I am + Li,r ■9 1. u I 4,,,p'14R,wr • yo•-•'-ki,"---t-i: I ill 1 �A loin■ `... -I' � ... e •'A 'VIII lll W� Jl f rl... •- -.-.uL ! t T udl9ii .—__ _ f 1: r N► l r. f i I III ■ i Ni I ■ __ lj D o e w Q � o V �4s 8 I. E > ; �' � e_ g > 1;1;1 w a E a m aq € € U U .dlpf1 U R m t Z Z I i7 1jif IQ M o o y u, v I' r 1!;H i W c K o E, ; N y1 Yr ......: .., .—......—...... L. { i 1M .� I 4 - ;,. f �__T h -: ." : M , III P.ty Is. ., — L J iii 7wik, r /j tM 11 L I ■ 1Na gym ' I u .. ✓ ma w ' 1 r '.'l , ri i,,,, . , i- , 1 as;;, I • J J I YY r. 1 '.: 4 L I u ....i i l t„ : ,C L L J J ti I 1 t I I o f ga ' `°ti V::.:J L r'1r 1 I ��J --j Testimony Relating to House Bill 3400, Providing Opt Out Options for the Establishment of Marijuana Businesses, etc. in Regard to Land Use Outside of the Cities. Hearing Date: Wednesday, December 2, 2015 You did did not 7L1 offer testimony in person. Your Name: °sk ,S741/7-4 Mailing Address: 45-/ .�d Si/0r4//ce.,- E-mail address (optional): ?(<5.- /1/F g/ce, cl& Phone #s (optional): 577/ "1'771- 7090 Your Comments: Pni l4 W / Se f �+[ r �)eft Get a401 of- acre yo-- _ On ly tf o-.11./ does ho 7` �1 4kt 3004 5e-1 c(7-zL, /// ht._ p4s 4 ocii dam/ /1 U 5 Aei 4 ,` 604.4-[l�/ C?otr/)e.Alt C �J' 4-F674.-6( �q f,4470.e'-A'c 5, 1 4 c_/0 c3 u/` £% fy a ius-y5 e hc.o�rac ca_ Nua� /.rSSes C� .,Zr.4 L Mes ko 7-7 (Use back of page if desired.) Signature: 51 Do615;1114,. ,ge-nd,DY'C, 9 1 70 No v.. 10,,-01.c 73_' Des 1'11A/it-NS Co. CO, mmi5561 ev-s [� -- [ / _..._ _... Inc Rev RJ 1 t c i Il P t&,Lt, /r cx u a h.q. 60J_ilw-+1.4_'4. Qe.r- C le6 Yv.■ 1'55/C►rry c.r=s L _ w +ki&f 0.�1 1 v`r� (7 S CO 01 me re.t ct Q -Pet- in LU L4 OA dA& i vc, Jfk L L' �a(04,-"y 4 o LCl To �1 GGt? c� r2e.r1 h0U &Q a� Pc F r k+ Vh p rey (2- 0o 1J j eL (f3� � 110 ;�j' ` t-- criet 0.14 3 CuAr- Y1 e-1,1 a c et f Sur r-o c+► IASa n e w ; it t-1 1 w In a haL fl42 ( n bc,.hcL. O & e& £&` 511n ak enctzik 404, iSc^ a e '�Cx s cleLscutf< � 1hJac-try, eveivi. Loaf k, u.-'ew-s, tilbu_ Wa•�" 44,4 1) -• q for Ccuwt Fnec►rn.e. cup tocc yti+ 'KR". ©uf eff 5!y;11.4'coke+ &agr~i2 ;- Gene and Linda Hickman 61851 Dobbin Road Bend,Oregon 97702 Q) De 5 C �vLA-E,.5 Co a Re 1.- F o, 8 k ons - -- ()1 a r i r c+ o op Desck u.�'es Cock4A-1 C� he—, PmAtsitce jp ct �r-cr��v1 q 7 70 :3 amain 5 Bonnie Baker From: Gail Hayes <gailhayesdavis @gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 4:39 PM To: Alan Unger; Board Subject: Farm Use Acreage Limitation for Recreational Cannabis Commissioner Unger, I know this is a very busy time for you and the Board so I will make this email concerning the proposed regulations regarding grow sites for recreational cannabis short and hopefully to the point. I am the owner of a 7 acre parcel of land on farm use land only. We were excited about the opportunity to finally be able to "farm" our land using a building constructed to grow recreational cannabis, as we have been unable to do so as our property sits on sheer rock. However when we heard that the county was considering the 20 acre limitation for growers, we were disappointed. Our situation is unique as even though we have a small parcel of land in Tumalo,we are surrounded by two 100+acre farms and BLM land on another side.There is no one within 3/4 of a mile from us. Even the mailman won't deliver to us as we are so far off the main road! It is actually a perfect location for such a farming enterprise. I would like to see the county consider a process that looks at each situation individually.The fact that someone has 20 acres does not necessarily solve the concerns of the County re: recreational cannabis manufacturing. (i.e. smell, lighting and noise)Only the persistent regulation of the grow site itself will accomplish that. I would hope that a situation such as our farm land would be looked at in regards to it's location and proximity to others. Thank you for your time. Dr. Gail Hayes Davis 503-803-7192 1 A,. rvYE c7G o s z� BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Marijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 T P6.0645 oA Name ����i �8 Address /g, PIA-1414 2- 7 ED 9-7-20 Phone #s 67-Et 398 -o-?4 Z E-mail address C-0 ' fiid. j g/./ I �' t. 1 [KIn Favor of Opt Out Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ',Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. 00 ez BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING — REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Marijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 Name Gc4clnen ? e rs o el Address k g-'1 2 5 r i 101A BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING -- REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Ma "uana B sinesses Out i ural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 Name Address " r 7 C1`4) Phone #s s2q-- I /G 6 _.5") E-mail address SI., r: r. , Yin. c ` - \ -14\G° , CA1- I l In Favor of Opt Out Neutral/Undecided M Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes rir No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Marijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 Name \V--Aa Address (o`-k 35 o ` Phone #s 1- 3°► E-mail address Pr^ g CNC c-) ''��`'"` In Favor of Opt Out Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? [Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. o i•e 0,41:.k< BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Marijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 Name IVAL\cok‘D Address 5)1 or39o's Phone #s LISS— r • - L • «. E-mail address 'Ace_ . __ \ 10• .4144 In Favor of Opt Out Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes n No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. JTES .,.r o r r v BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Marijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 Name Kwtk Address ex- D Phone #s 911-qtr a51 E-mail address ``e r e,17 J v� Lowc�� �e , colt i Out In Favor of Opt Out Neutral/Undecided � Opposed to Opt Ou Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. o/A ,1" BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING �. REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Marijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 Name 2T S Address 2-0585 5E/ sdk) &vO d gtivb Die 977,e/ Phone #s 541 325 /S E-mail address /OWE /775 CAT}/L - C'D/i In Favor of Opt Out Neutral/Undecided X Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? — Yes 7 No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. - 10-A BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Marijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 Name LW r\&t3A4 1 �L' Address t 6 5 c7 ( 1� ecxYN0YA OR Phone #s 5 - 21- O6 E-mail address 11f1C . 21 SS r1.4C � 5 ro W T - ( OYV In Favor of Opt Out Neutral/Undecided /$Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 1 ji es No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. >nu Jr.s � ©r, z{ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Marijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Area Date: December 2, 2015 Name 1 .'s S tA1,,.lri v Address (,Q 0 c't-7 P-. 6 r V ackea v PO loo- NC3 Ok 0(1'702. Phone #s i cLi i it" -- 0(-Xo D E-mail address I pr ; e. f' S4 , In Favor of Opt Out _ Neutral/Undecided U Opposed to Opt Out — Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 1 Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. tyres % 0 YV6t Sr416- o 47 e,A 4tii BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING d:C) REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Marijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 Name Ag,k . ViAP..r-~ Address 65-9?0 --1(c) C ‘ be,,,c1 n� 01-7-7U`3 Phone #s 511( -3q0 -2 • -c3 a--- E-mail address V2- 0er>c - ,--■ . F7 In Favor of Opt Out 1 1 Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 1 Yes T/1„.. No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. 0-C6 Q (9/Or 'V r& BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: M: ijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 Name 0. Address 6 /v ,,) 5o ,JA_ fr Phone #s C ce-72-0 5 6 6' E-mail address L ,CC) . In Favor of Opt Out { Neutral/Undecided FrOpposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as art of testimony? Y Yes P Y U No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. tvr�se. mc 8r BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Marijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 Name 3-0.0.,,y. L cAue r Address 2.o 4 0 PI kr /WE SrE a 15m1) De 9770 3 Phone #s 911. e' ?5 E-mail address Jezb-r t.j e L/'► . Gow-I In Favor of Opt Out Neutral/Undecided -Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes .k No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Nsr ES Q/ ,,' 1,`z� BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Marijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 Name D WI 6 ticitie if d(. i2 Address ii q 1 1 1.(I i (d i t (, fl. tg D t (flk qq 701 Phone #s ( -zji ) 1( 3 - 4 4 6 E-mail address dt,4 u o of &6L Q A,141 L L. C"( In Favor of Opt Out Neutral/Undecided ____ Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes , 1 No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. v. O ,„0 U ` �k BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING 0 _ ___ REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Mari'uana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2,205 : ir Name r a. �� b.- Address (o 'C.5 2 , “ Ct" 7--- 24.A-eQ 4 0 '''- `. °C.?-- c Phone #s C3. 2 ----C i 0 — TS ' E-mail address 1p s 2e 0 V1 , C,,,,1h),- In Favor of Opt Out ___W Neutral/Undecided R Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the rec Ord. •(''' -MS e r ( o, ►, Z BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Marijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 Name ,S s'a,.., � , Address 15-1-/14 2, IA) , 0 1 0 / A /' ti vu, s'n-40\ \A—A\4 , (2)&1 '11 / S'-‘ Phone #s s T ( -7 / Q m E-mail address _ k.S a ■ ?-- "Xt-In Favor of Opt Out Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? IV Yes I No „,,: If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. 0._Y°j kz-I BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING '' ,/ REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Marijuana Businesses Qpt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 Name ti n-, Pe-5 eh e. ( ci ; Pei--the J Address 66145 Bede ' Rd Bevtd, OR 977o? Phone #s 971- 344-0004 E-mail address _ hat wtrerav►che 3 ill aT1 .cow X — In Favor of Opt Out I I Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes 7 No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING 1 REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Marijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 Name IA<& sa , Address Ey Pmt, , Phone #s Y O3 E-mail address f iv . [In Favor of Opt Out l I Neutral/Undecided I I Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes ✓No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Mari•uana BusinesSktAA .es Opt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 Name I Address I?`71 . Q It y R g_e„,--,4 R -7-72o3 Phone #s "z 6 0 q - 'iQ 9" E-mail address 'i Ir! lz4- ■R c 1 b e 4 r In Favor of Opt Out — Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. yr sc w BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: YCV-1 Maijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 Name Address 00 q c (,1 S-1 CE-9`1( d � Phone #s E-mail address Viz --a-7G-O CCj0-A I L__. cc-LA, In Favor of Opt Out Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. r�TEB c> •r , BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: MarFuana B sinesses Opt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 Name 44, p' � ' / i ,,�, Address eW 21,,k Phone #s E-mail address n. In Favor of Opt Out Neutral/Undecided �� Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes To If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the recojcd. Ufa"ms Octi n 20( /A " BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Marijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 Name Cx CD ( U 1`��. \ Cs Address -S \ Ac2& D_ 311i4 CrK ca .-27O Phone #s l C3 � 1 1 1 E-mail address - -cU \\Ke_rsuy\ c] € ,co-yy._ n Favor of Opt Out I Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary f r the record. .frv-sEs o c/ '{ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING Arli � REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Marijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 Name Z lec( FCLk,. 5 Address 2iZ0.2 3,2/ t /MPG fz kW /j rt e/ 7 2 7," Phone #s 9 ') 7 —cf 701 E-mail address 49CFG(C/251y ® 0 J`rfrit rav-v Erin Favor of Opt Out n Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? F/Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Q r, � { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Marijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 r Name I v±-7 t A Address 7 Phone#s . e(/— ��/1T O 35—g E-mail address b, Gc-c. ,, C In Favor of Opt Out Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. •e%�0 � � a/,c f , BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Marijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 Name Imo-Z_ Address (,'/V 9 5- K4 Sea), c k ( 9 773 Phone #s 1/ - `/ • 2-1 SJ E-mail address d a tax h a S5 --, • C=.a-ye-I IN In Favor of Opt Out Neutral/Undecided [ Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Li Yes /k No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. 3 r, + !►," BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Marijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 Name egki D l lNa Address !. � 7� S �l o w L�N v • o3 Phone #s (0 1..1/- 2 S �'� I /A) 59/- 31 E-mail address coit t,0�-'64"41 d b 1/,CCrw In Favor of Opt Out Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. QC �i'E - #G e' ' BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Marijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 Name 6-/0'7 of Address 04657Z ca) 44-i�1'47 /'l(D )1®,moo P4 S' 7 j Phone #s J'y/ frl-D7 t' E-mail address AO 6P ev✓./.47, '444;47,*LLe. n In Favor of Opt Out Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Opt Out — Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. 0/PIK BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Marijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 Name K ,yJ aotiovze) Address "c ':42,-?e 49 /le( Phone #s E-mail address Od fi o,tCot .. e c 0 In Favor of Opt Out Neutral/Undecided 71 Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? [ ( Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. GaT s Qo� 1/-0<, z BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Marijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 Name 5'- tve... 1 \, &".(r Address P- 0, Bo 21 y•2 C. Lb eu.e O r (4 7 LJ Q2 Phone#s c L - 9 5 3- 39 S. E-mail address S movie * ( .. tteet r aC) co c t,54- • A e.d- In Favor of Opt Out Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? [v'i'es No If so,please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. U"� °G cst? Q , 1/4{ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: M *juana Businesse Qpt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 Name l*A1 Oe 1?)-- Address ' 2o&i ?evc I OK. q-n®9 Phone #s :`< 1. 4/o. lU Z'f E-mail address SL getd-a.._ c rAdiar'c t•C0c [-- I In Favor of Opt Out Neutral/Undecided 71 Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Eq Yes j No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. ft, J-r w� �1 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Marijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015• Name W-t7o Address ,,/5 5 • GC' 7 t c-4 w • GPv Phone #s �if I — I-/f© — 0 9 z T E-mail address l 1 - .. r lk In Favor of Opt Out Neutral/Undecided ROpposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ELYes , No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the re i d: gioec BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING r-414/ REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Marijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 Name S1/4\af G `,j kr Address q OrM cera, Phone #s, St! S3'(aei E-mail address CaAka. e t , C.dy\ In Favor of Opt Out Neutral/Undecided (Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? n Yes tofw,„„ If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Ee l►ei ►` BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Marijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 Name 62Z-C-714/GL/ Address d 7 7 [ y- 1/14c-fl Phone #s g . `--vei E-mail address In Favor of Opt Out Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. O` '3 3 Leec BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Marijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 Name Peg \e\M PJ'�-R' Address Phone #s E-mail address In Favor of Opt Out _ Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? I J Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. JTEIS % a y 1.:t< BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Marijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 Name /17/64a,-f / Address G14/75— avr�,4 Phone #s 9,7% E-mail address /IT.-4, Zee In Favor of Opt Out Neutral/Undecided F' Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary •r the record. • a01A, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' ME ►T ► et REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Marijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Areas Date : -c mb: 115 Name Sreike,. PUlApi Address erriely 1,14 TAD 6(5 723 Fes, NiagribeZ & VP/ Phone #s11) Z e 8 5 E-mail address i1� & r2e)-(64;t4 01. r 641-i [1iavor of Opt Out Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. U OS a ,.' z BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEET G r REQUEST TO SPEAK 4 Subject: Marijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Areas D. e: = ember 2 21 Name CO VI 1 Address 6.57 1-- b-tv 77 I Phone #s E-mail address n Favor of Opt Out Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes n No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. pez BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Marijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 Name :70/9"/ / C/ ' ( Address 7p 7p lee( 1,02- 411• i y77D � Phone #s 5 (71 / — E-mail address In Favor of Opt Out Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. JTs$ � _ S- BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Marijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 Name v/ c Address /8 f " (mot C,�,� 1r� ,ri1� 2 57 77 03 Phone#s -5<a)a-3 '‘ E-mail address Zn Favor of Opt Out Neutral/Undecided I I Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. c % ik* BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Marijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 Name 4 C 77.,0 or • Address A4-4) - Phone #s (- 8 `SLT 1 E-mail address I 4-•/1.G a Jo' e 0.4 `1 [IIn Favor of Opt Out Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes Vi No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. 0-vas D e Pl, / '4ti BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Marijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Area Date: December 2, 2015 Name DO-1(0-e c e V e cc k o Address 1 2 3 0 Lv F Vl/ 0,4 So n Dr,v e, Phone#s 21 ) 9 9 'I ^ Ce, 9 6 i E-mail address � 1 Orel( o'fr''^ n In Favor of Opt Out Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes 1f No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. - 73 0-V ES .2* • BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING 0 0-elv , REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Marijuana Businesses 0 t-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 Name \) 0E-e.\ I\ defs o y-\ icn Address Phone #s E-mail address i ' In Favor of Opt Out Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Opt Out - , Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No m$, If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. ' , .....,..,_ *,.. r 77'," ' -— 2 1 ,j-re.... Nerec , BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Marijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 Name A nct r ek_) Address Phone #s ' E-mail address ri In Favor of Opt Out 7 Neutral/Undecided '17(-Dpposed to Opt Out , Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. rte= c 0Z BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Marijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015. Name Kg vs`F %E t.-15 N Address _ '7 C> S v J (1E4.1-N J . Sod/TE )66.-4457 o 1 b t.- 776 a I c F) 1 `>'55C) C'_ ��-� t Y1►41— 7 ILA_ 8 ei J t) `l 77c, Phone #s `1,/ Cs E-mail address 2-`fe?-C` t . C 1,14 i In Favor of Opt Out Neutral/Undecided - Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Or /a a s ' BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Marijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 Name 0,�r,e,(( 127A,r Kszg Address _ 2// q,i , , goy, 2P q 7 7a/ Phone #s 0/ 1. #-,61 E-mail address '10. cit I Y cit4. h C, L p "•• In Favor of Opt Out Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. I 7/ I A 40.,i BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: M 'juana Businesses pt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 Name hr \ S c t7 . C'C Address • r • -, r, ok '® c�, T ore • a r, r\e 9. -7 7 C Phone #s 6 4 l O 5 E-mail address CA c S- 1 k h r) i0 67 �C, ,) C ► b C o / In Favor of Opt Out Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? — Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. ..,.n _ lei f gec •`v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Marijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 Name LA-N(5 0 au LEA( Address (a 55--go 95e-ne-e-k-a-_ a t ---/-4 7x-93 Phone #s ---/-/t/ Ko 75-0 S' E-mail address /Qnce y4v c .a e Pr In Favor of Opt Out Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? J Yes l l No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. ____----_„ Q�,, { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING ec REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Marijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 Name Mipt4. _ 4,4(Jr 6 f► vie,-/.7 Address-6'5-y VO gob. 7Zs Phone #s 9-1L O 2 9 E-mail address d1 _ �- c ��P. r{ , . n In Favor of Opt Out Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ' I Yes [ No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. I.Vti: fr, " BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Marijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 Name Address �/D/ /v< ." 9 77 2- Phone#s 5-1(4 — 3 37.E f E-mail address - x l 4 t°G -cr__- 7' ,i(l`eic S • � In Favor of Opt Out — Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Marijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 Name 1 ((cti-.,_. Address Phone #s E-mail address -re ` . i In Favor of Opt Out Neutral/Undecided Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? WI-Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. /�a cz w a BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Marijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural s Date: December 2, 2015-1-7 Name I e + G. 0- -6 C tea. t 4ext:') Address 4;41 •�rl:'l; 0 L ox 7L( -3 21( 17 -7 00\ Phone #s E-mail address Opt In Favor of Opt Out Neutral/Undecided �,�; Opposed to O t Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes CSI No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. of gj { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Mari-uana B sinesses Opt-Out in Rural Area Date: December 2, 2015 Name _ ��1/�ir- -►•� Address /0 0 AV U eitz4 Phone #S E-mail address IT In Favor of Opt Out Neutral/Undecided n Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 21Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. � - --- /8' Or ∎, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Marijuana Businesses Opt-Out in Rural Areas Date: December 2, 2015 Name 1-k,h,o Address Phone #s E-mail address In Favor of Opt Out Neutral/Undecided j, Opposed to Opt Out Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. PUBLIC HEARING DECEMBER 2, 2015 DESCHUTES BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: Tammy Baney, Tony DeBone, Alan Unger Robert Pederson, 18925 Pinehurst Rd, Bend 97703 I am not anti-marijuana but I am pro agricultural communities. Implementing the current regulations and opting-out is the best decision for the residents of the county. There are several undeniable facts that support this view. 1. The majority of unincorporated voters, 53%, did not want marijuana legalized at the initial vote on . ' - opted so far. Measure�. Fifty-nine counties and cities in the state have op out 2. The Planning Commission has received over 100 letters in the last few weeks expressing concerns about the negative impacts of growing and processing recreational marijuana on our rural lands. There would have been far more if property owners would have been notified earlier. 3. Property values are dependent on the livability of the site you are about to buy. Would you buy next to a marijuana farm with multiple permit holders? Real estate values will drop except to pot growing buyers. 4. Although marijuana does not use as much water as alfalfa it is still a high water user. Several of the present grow sites are using wells permitted for domestic use. These are not monitored for amount pumped. There is a good chance that when this practice is investigated that an environmental impact assessment will curtail the idea of limitless water. A dropping aquafer will result in a lot of us drilling deeper wells. We are not going to have enough time to accomplish a hydrological study if you don't opt-out. 5. You can't dispute the fact that by opting-out and having more time any future planning can be improved. Placing industrial scale marijuana production in Industrial zoned sites may be the best plan of all, a solution that seeks the middle ground. That still hasn't even been fully discussed by the public or the planning commission. Having more time may not be to the advantage of this special interest grouptbut why should their interests be more important than ours. Let's fine tune by opting-out. Although the Planning Commission has worked hard on new regulations, some of the commissioners have been a bit misleading. As an example one of the planners said "I don't want to affect the medicinal marijuana growers because I haven't heard any complaints about those in particular that I know of. Have You? (27:18:00 on video of meeting on 11/23/15). During the two preceding meetings there were 17 different submittals from residents that had problems. There were several other misleading comments such as only one license per parcel rather than multiple licenses and another paraphrased from commissioner Kirby, If you read the measure you'd know marijuana is an agricultural crop. There is nothing about marijuana as an agricultural crop in all the pages of Measure 91. It was on HB 3400 months after everyone voted. Segments of the planning commissions meetings have been most enlightening especially their discussion on opting out. Fortunately for all us the video of the final decision is available to the public. The opt-in vote discussion starts at 04:08:40 on the video for the meeting of November 23, 2015 available on the Deschutes County Planning Commission website. Planning commissioner Tunnis hoped for an academic discussion on the broad reaching problems associated with marijuana as an agricultural crop. How unfair it would be to not let the people who are affected the most by a change in land use rules to not be able to have the extra time by opting out. The subject of water use on residential wells for irrigation and its impact on the aquifers needs more attention.The disturbance on many levels to the surrounding neighbors near grow sights needs more attention. There is the unfairness to a farmer that has a thousand acres and is not being able to get a permit for a mobile home on the property for a worker while marijuana growers can have structures, homes, and guard houses all over the same type of land. Measure,lie had nothing in it about agriculture. When the state came in with HB 3400 they came in with a whole set of rules that few were aware of that allowed marijuana growers to do things other farmers can't do. It just isn't fair and better guidelines should correct that. This is not what Oregon land use laws look like, ours is original, it's not like anything that's come before, it's like it's come from another state. We need to more time by opting-out to get this all right. Tom McCall said, "Protect our Oregon and beware of demands for quick profits from our natural resources at the expense of the preservation of our state." Commissioner Tunno6 had far more to say about water and land use but my time here is limited. The argument against this view by two of the other commissioners is based on the idea that opting out would mean that Deschutes County residents would have to vote again on the same issue that they had already cast their vote on Measure , but it is not the same issue? Many months after the Measure 91 was voted in new legislation was introduced by the state in the form of HB 3400. This is a totally different, never seen before in any form declaring marijuana to be an agricultural crop like hay or as some of the pot growers like to say, tomatoes. It is clearly a land use modification with far reaching implications. To call this making the same vote again is ludicrous at best even though one of the commissioners blamed voters that want to vote again for not reading Measure 36 carefully enough. That was the discussion. The vote then proceeded to a 2 to opt-out and 5 to opt-in. We can't vote on something we already voted on. That is how you got an opt-in recommendation. This can't be much clearer. A vote for opting in is a vote for a well-funded special interest group to move into the county. A vote for opting out is a vote for what is best for Oregon and Deschutes County, a way to fine tune our marijuana laws and provide a vote for this new issue. It's what most of the County voters want. Planning Commission: PlanningCommission(a deschutes.or Planning Department: Community Development Director: Nick Lelack Associate Planner: Matt Martin Nick.l,elackla?,,deschutes.org Matt.Martin(gideschutes.org Phone: (541) 385-1708 Phone: (541) 330-4620 71ed . oftoo Assounnoro TO: Chair De Bone, Commissioners Haney & Unger FR: Aviv Hadar, Oregrown Industries Inc. DA: December 2, 2015 RE: Deschutes County marijuana business regulations Chair DeBone, Member of the Deschutes County Commission, my name is Aviv Hadar and I am the co-founder of Oregrown Industries, Inc. I am also an active member of the Oregon Cannabis Association, which is comprised of local cannabis farmers, processors and edible makers, licensed dispensary owners and other allies of Deschutes County's legal cannabis business community. I am here to testify in support of the Commission adopting common sense regulation of legal, adult-use cannabis for Deschutes County. I want to thank you for providing us with such a transparent process over the last few months. We value our local neighborhoods and we care about making sure our business community is well regulated and respectful of one of the most beautiful and unique spots on earth and our home, Central Oregon. My wife and I are uniquely positioned as a small landowner next to a larger production tract. We live on ten acres in Tumalo, directly adjacent to an 84- acre piece of property that Oregrown recently purchased for our OLCC production facilities (the old Tumalo Goat Farm). Together, we live and oversee 94 acres of land in beautiful Tumalo. We strive to be good neighbors and have worked hard to develop great relationships those around us. We share some of the concerns expressed at earlier hearing because we know firsthand what it is like to live near a farm with a greenhouses that lights up at night. Like others who have come to the area, we moved here because we love living in the country and the beauty of a night sky lit up by stars that comes with country living. Since we will be living on the same EFU zoning where our company production headquarters will be located, we are taking every step to make sure there won't be light leaks, odor leaks or other issues that could potentially disturb neighbors around us. Our goal will be to have our facility blend into the landscape, and be even less invasive than the goat farm that was here before us. Our commitment to low impact practices has won the full support our neighbors. We respectfully request that the Board of County Commissioners continue to support licensed and well-regulated cannabis farming and other businesses in our county. We advocate you move to: ✓ Support the licensed and regulated businesses, which are the key to public safety and job creation in rural Deschutes County. Please adopt responsible business regulations for adult use and medical cannabis businesses. ✓ Recognize HB 3400 was passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor, with the intention of cannabis cultivation be considered a farm use and it should be allowed on land zoned for exclusive farm use. ✓ Adopt the original draft of the County's proposed rules regarding zoning and land use, allowing farming on all EFU land, and on MUA and RR-10 land on a case-by-case basis for parcels over 5 acres that meet conditional use permit (CUP) and setback requirements. ✓ Water regulation should be addressed on at the state level to avoid a patchwork quilt of regulations at the local level. Please take no further action on water regulation. Sensible regulation and oversight supports public safety in our rural communities and brings jobs and economic opportunity to our county. - Creating viable and lasting economic growth for the county - Ending the illegal market by building a strong legal one - Creating new living wage jobs for the residents of Deschutes county - Consistent land-use regulations that are easy to enforce - Allowing the already operating business who are invested in the success of the county, as well as new ones, to thrive The Oregon Cannabis Association and other cannabis industry members thank you for the time and energy that has gone into this process. We urge you to stay the course on adopting a sensible regulatory framework. We look forward to being good neighbors, strong economic drivers and active participants in the civic process. Thank you for allowing me to testify. ### ( . fir . pµEGbN CANNA81$ TO: Chair De Bone, :criirirrrssione Battey and Commissioner ger FR: Deschutes County Business Owners and Allies DA: DeCerilber 2, 2015 Sensible lei rr gulat.ions for cannabis businesses in Deschutes schutr s rr t; Dear Chair De Bone, Commissioner Baney and Commissioner Unger: We are local cannabis farmers, processors and edible makers, licensed dispensary owners and other allies of Deschutes County's legal cannabis business community.We respectfully request that the Board of County Commissioners continue to support licensed and well- regulated cannabis farming and other businesses in our county. We appreciate the public process the County has undertaken to develop thoughtful regulations for cannabis businesses. We urge the County to: • Adopt responsible business regulations for adult use and medical cannabis businesses. Licensed and regulated businesses are the key to public safety and job creation in rural Deschutes County. • Adopt the original draft of the County's proposed rules regarding zoning and land use,allowing farming all EFU land,and on MUA and RR-10 land on a case- by-case basis for parcels over 5 acres that meet conditional use permit(CUP) and setback requirements.When HB 3400 was passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor,the intention was for cannabis cultivation to be considered a farm use. Because of that very specific and intentional change in Oregon law,we urge Deschutes County to allow cannabis cultivation on land zoned for exclusive farm use.This is extremely important in order to balance the needs of our community while protecting small farmers. • Please take no further action on water regulation at this time.Water regulation is a matter best addressed in a consistent manner on a statewide basis. We are concerned that a prohibition of cannabis businesses in Deschutes County would have the unintended consequence of propping up the illegal market, driving criminal activity and making it harder for licensed and compliant businesses to succeed. Sensible regulation and oversight supports public safety in our rural communities and brings jobs and economic opportunity to our county. The Oregon Cannabis Association and other members of our local cannabis business community thank you for the time and energy that has gone into this process.We look forward to being good neighbors, strong economic drivers and active participants in the civic process. Sincerely, More than 160 members and allies of Deschutes County's cannabis business community And the Oregon Cannabis Association December 2, 2015 Deschutes County Cannabis&Allied Business Petition Signers Business owners/operators Business Name 1. Hunter Neubauer and Aviv Hadar Oregrown Industries 2. Cameron and Ashlie Yee Lunchbox Alchemy 3. Lindsey and Chris Pate Glass House Grown 4. Jeremy Kwit Bloomwell Apothecary 5. Rustin Kluge Cannatea 6. Jeremy Sackett and Ashley Preece-Sackett Cascadia Labs 7. Noah Stokes CannaGuard Security 8. Todd Foster Oregon Cannabis Insurance 9. Sam Stapleton DiamondTREE Club 10. Joceylyn Anderson Plantae Health &Alfalfa Valley Farma 11. Benjamin Hebert Dr. Jolly's 12. Michael Campion Farmer, processor 13. Cash Smith Top Shelf Medicine 14. Joe Hovorka Strong Silicone 15. Gary Hall and Tony Grissen Bent Beverage 16. Kieran Connoly-Ng Moonfire and Sun Garden Center 17. Joseph Aliotta Joeganics Bend LLC 18. James Hart JR Hart Co. 19. Donald Huff Green Knottz 20. Tyler Wolk Juniper Analytical 21. Georg Olden Saturn Farms 22. Brent Thurman CannaCopia 23. Todd Horrex K&T's LLC 24. Taylor Rembrowski Oregon Euphorics 25. Darrin Blankenship Nectar Trees 26. Laura Kilmer Zuni Organics 27. Tyler Wolk Juniper Analytics 28. Ralf Dilzer Ruby Farms 29. James Tellegen Davis Farms 30. Brian Boucher Farmer, Processor 31. Aaron Hohman Sacred Herb Medicinals 32. Eleanor Sauerborn Farmer, Processor 33. Casey Howland Farmer 34. Jason Kelleher Farmer 35. Breona Fagen Farmer 36. Jeffrey Thompson Farmer 37. James Radnich Dank of the Cascades 38. Peter Butsch Massive Organic 39. Zachary Meyer Farmer 40. Andy Satterfield Sacred Ground Medicinals 41. Taylor Du Monday Delta 9 Confections 42. Jamie Payne Processor, Edible Maker 43. Gary Hill Bent Beverage 44. Alex Berger Magic Number 45. Lori Sullivan First Harvest Financial 46. Lillian Hallock and Michael Martin Farmer John's Produce 47. Frank Roberson Sales Consultant 48. Joel Timmerman 4T Consulting Individual signers 49. Julie Austin, Bend 50. Barbara Crafts, La Pine 51. Melanie Rainwater, Sisters 52. Yuvia Storm,Alfalfa 53. Ryan Miller, Bend 54. Beth Griggs, Bend 55. Monte, Sutton Bend 56. William Bogoger,Tumalo 57. Morgan Kurz, Bend 58. Casey Howland, Bend 59. Kevin Hogan, Deschutes 60. Julyn Andrews, Bend 61. Craig Olsen, Eagle Crest 62. Leydon Thornton, Bend 63. Dustin Newman,Alfalfa 64. Dante Delvecchio, Bend 65. Christina Adams,Tumalo 66. Tony Santopolo, Bend 67. Jesse Long,Tumalo 68. Edward Salzman, Deschutes 69. William Taylor, Bend 70. Erynn Magidow, Bend 71. Joey Breitels, Bend 72. Laura Schmidt, Bend 73. Ambda Moore, Bend 74. Sanya Christie, Bend 75. Kelly Faulkner, Bend 76. Keith Gilchrist, Bend 77. Josh Jordan, Bend 78. Michael Faulkner, Bend 79. Tyler Paquette, Bend 80. Angeline Palmer, Bend 81. Kaitlyn Hoffman, Bend 82. Dallas Falley, Bend 83. Todd Cover, Bend 84. Stacey Wimberley, Bend 85. Korri Ormsby, Deschutes River Woods 86. Mark Chapman, La Pine 87. David Lynch, Bend 88. Summer Latchford, Bend 89. Justin Work, Bend 90. Kelly Prows, Bend 91. James Chavez, Deschutes 92. Fallon Sweeney, La Pine 93. Samantha Miller, Bend 94. Travis Derryberry, Redmond 95. Tsiona Bitton, Deschutes 96. Melissa Johnson, Bend 97. Jennifer Demoran, Bend 98. Skylar Kayser, Bend 99. Amber Whitmet, Bend 100. Kaitlyn Hoffman, Bend 101. Dallas Falley, Bend 102. Gregory Graham, Bend 103. Scott Byers, Bend 104. Adam Farrington, Bend 105. Mitchell Druery, Bend 106. Laura Lamberton, Deschutes 107. Michael Hodecker, Bend 108. Breonnw Fagen, Bend 109. Leila Carter, Deschutes 110. Ryan Daugherty, Bend 111. Dallas Dudley, Bend 112. Peter Wiegand, Bend 113. Mike Shibel, Bend 114. Katie Cutler, Bend 115. Henry Drake, La Pine 116. Devinne Fagen, Bend 117. Vonni Hofferber, Bend 118. Nate Wyeth, Bend 119. Lauretta Butler, Redmond 120. Alexander Sarames, Bend 121. Matthew Dubois, Bend 122. Trista Runions, Bend 123. Noa East, Bend 124. Jenna Egusa Walden,Alfalfa 125. Samantha Burch, Bend 126. Linda Burch, Bend 127. Chris Litton, Bend 128. David Horton, Bend 129. Angeline Palmer, Bend 130. Craig Randleman, Deschutes 131. Jeremy Oprish, Deschutes 132. Brooke Stuart, Bend 133. Amanda Benkert, Redmond 134. Kristin Kerner, Bend 135. David Burns,Terrebonne 136. Corbin Breazeale, Bend 137. Andrew Accardo, Bend 138. Elizabeth Munroe, Bend 139. Megan Barnett, Deschutes River Woods 140. Dean Cambron, Bend 141. Maggie DeWitt, Bend 142. Jason Siebert, Bend 143. Scott Swanson, Bend 144. Kate Swanson, Bend 145. Kelly Crowther, Sisters 146. Katrina Warner, Deschutes 147. Chris Casad, Bend 148. Melinda White, Prineville Junction 149. Robert Bandemer, La Pine 150. Traci Wilkinson, La Pine 151. Benjamin Van Patten, Bend 152. Mason Hardie, Bend 153. Edwin Price, Bend 154. Quintin Robinson, Prineville Junction TO: Chair DeBone, Commissioner Baney and Commissioner Unger FR: Dusty Hutchins, Piece of Mind Glass DA: December 2, 2015 RE: Deschutes County responsible and fair regulation of adult-use cannabis Chair DeBone, Members of the Commission, thank you for the opportunity to speak today, my name is Dusty Hutchins, and I am a managing partner of Piece of Mind glass gallery and smoke shop located in downtown Bend. I ask you to adopt a reasonable and fair approach to cannabis regulation in Deschutes County and to support the economic opportunities associated with the cannabis business community. Piece of Mind is a retailer of functional glass art, smoking accessories, and related goods. Our success is closely tied to the success of a thriving recreational marijuana market in Deschutes County. My wife and I started our small business over two and a half years ago, and have grown to nearly half million in yearly sales. Our business pays substantial local and state taxes and employs six full time staff. We place an emphasis and priority on sourcing the vast majority of our products from local artisans and manufacturers to help ensure that we contribute to our local central Oregon economy. Last year alone we sourced products from nearly 50 Deschutes county glassblowers and artisans. I want you as our elected leaders to understand and know about our business philosophy in order to highlight the great number of local small businesses that benefit from Deschutes County standing strong in adopting a responsible and fair regulatory framework for adult-use cannabis. In support of ensuring a lasting and flourishing small business cannabis community in Central Oregon, we ask the Commission to enact: • Responsible business regulations for adult use and medical cannabis businesses. Licensed and regulated businesses are the key to public safety and job creation in rural Deschutes County. „lop”, • Adopt the original draft of proposed rules regarding zoning and land use, allowing farming all EFU land, and on MUA and RR-10 land on a case-by-case basis for parcels over 5 acres that meet conditional use permit(CUP) and setback requirements. • Take no action on water regulation at this time. Water regulation is best addressed in a consistent manner on a statewide basis. Those alive to witness the end of liquor prohibition in 1933 may not have imagined the present day micro brewing and artisanal distilling in Deschutes County and across the state of Oregon. Let us now choose to be ambassadors of a common sense approach, be the innovators and entrepreneurs of a growing industry, and promote the responsible use of legal cannabis through adoption of reasonable regulations for recreational marijuana in Deschutes County. ### Testimony Relating to House Bill 3400, Providing Opt Out Options for the Establishment of Marijuana Businesses, etc. in Regard to Land Use Outside of the Cities. Hearing Date: Wednesday, December 2, 2015 You did. did not offer testimony in person. Your Name: I 4011 Mailing Address: 70 5W Con.st kc, P, 54 No ' e er E-mail address (optional): je '_ .:6,z°°^i ' e--- Phone #s (optional): ` /`� 3051 Your Comments: o Le. 120‘"1-1 Lidt, r1 Caw441-4aG dL5 Sq. .1 Nl�in r P � r F crk- (Ato,A. 4tre at co to 9. (i3. a Ls m n WeAll 4v11 r/klAerc I'-a f ° L l at Lc n tit 5 11961-46 fs gj r C/(1Gn'�S r f+1.0 511- a ,�(,,av�l cis re 5 de, ( Co u 4. 5M4l 1 `')tnLSs •c, r.artrnr� nLrE pre"e_tl,f SM.6 (`7 t { I C{L`pn -( -e 0 G G v"t0 /�ttG 'ma y I �1 ll Q� 09,457 4 L-11 ro5 ter.; -Th tits tJlS A491- C'k14t4() 5l A-14545 ot l !�. � (i ; - a ,-t c•44 4-ra l r4+<c4 204-R(re_- c - !w1 !S 4.1 Eli -(c r"L crp{ t.''+fmitt Oar �1 °� D�dhMG 060e/lfe c Q I roc 1l f r44,Les di re r�rydc 5 Arr S tite-ir Or'_ (Use back of page if desired.) Signature: 1 / n� ( h�0r-5 Gt 7.r/ etv C r�t" l 4 n SMa/1 j8j �� e -g � W re 5 rt, v r `1e/ �MaS 4 o n .. I 4. ,4 L., 46,_ - 4, 110,) 0,1110 /D ),(71.-t-= 6, 71c-60115 rt'°- ,i. ti- 1 M 4_9 o �. ;h < s, 6 04 ..A.,,e-r-% 1 sy 4-i r ei 41, kwv►s14 r" t (I' s, S0 1:Br 1,-, cgi 41 n7A,t, 4 to •11,t, rert le s,,, 5plievvi J 9-,), 1.1\&1 S Lvoliel L ,LIE, 4-4 .7.01 ‘,1 ix e.-' s ci. OD a+ (r tit Q_ _ 0 � Q-a. l -.., --4\e, 4 4.4 r (4-t-/P 5o 11917 6/ 4,-,9,--/I -' C.v n aryl . `i l a., s2,-.51 f tC 1414-rN5 (a)l P 4--eA/e-1t 1 ti t n 6',114 eroA9,4C(41 f5 v-1 '/ Gl L 11, Gi\ ( r4 (� G�S'a '�"1 X61 rl- � 3 Cy n5(e_.nS L o 4S Q''� V` o r s r1'6 l�i'C;A n Cf f �7 .,9 fr,rit� roP Ci- ,,,,,08 Lit ci �7, VT ` C� �``. I eca rt.o.4 lG V1-10 w�.fn I.' , coo ( v°r` . ' 4, 1e Ab 4 t-1,- i Ort p,m( f ors4 ( / (11,1,(15, rim-Ah 51414/( t 5 I 60,SS /islet -?/Q qc '[) 5 t., site, `c0 r Bonnie Baker From: Alan Unger Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2015 11:17 AM To: Bonnie Baker Subject: FW: Farm Use Acreage Limitation for Recreational Cannabis Alan Unger, Commissioner Deschutes County 1300 NW Wall St.Suite 200 Bend, OR. 97701 alanu @co.deschutes.or.us Office: 541-388-6569 Cell: 541-419-0556 Original Message From: Mike Hayes [mailto:mikehayes1775 @gmail.com] Sent:Tuesday, December 01, 2015 3:28 PM To: Alan Unger Subject: Farm Use Acreage Limitation for Recreational Cannabis Commissioner Unger, Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I know your time is valuable, so I will keep this short. In regards to regulating recreational cannabis grow operations on farm use land for land owners with 20 acres or more does not solve the concerns of the county. I agree with the committee's decision in that lighting, noise, and air disturbance should be regulated. What I do not understand or agree with is the size of farm land one should own to have a recreational grow. Size of farm land ownership does not prevent an irresponsible land owner to place an outside grow on the set back limitation bordering his neighbor's property. Noise, lighting, and air disturbance will still be an issue.A one size fits all requirement of land ownership does not solve this problem. Here is my recommendation: 1. Review each case separately. 2. Land designated for farm use a. Allow a recreational grow site that is internal and follows a set back of 100 feet from neighboring property lines. Internal defined as; no light, smell,or noise emittance and external walls non transparent. b.Allow an external (outside) recreational grow site following the committee's minimum 20 acre land ownership. I know if you keep grows to internal facilities with control measures for lighting,smell, and noise you will not need a minimum on farm use acreage. Currently,the size of the farm will create an unfair disadvantage for small farmers who own small parcels. I am one of those farmers who has just over 6 acres of land. In my case, I am surrounded by 100 acres of BLM, a very large dairy farm, and a very large alfalfa grow operation. I don't fit the committee's recommendation but fit the concerns of the community. Light, noise,and smell are not emitted with a closed internal grow operation. Placement of the facility will be a mile from any major roadway.Again,the one size fits all does not work. 1 As a small business owner of three businesses in the City of Bend, I ask you take the verbiage of minimum land ownership out and implement the type of grow operation which one can grow recreational cannabis. Internal recreational grow operation only, if less than 20 acres of farm use land, not to exceed the OLCC Tier I& II guidelines. External and internal recreational grow operations for greater than 20 acres of farm use land, not to exceed the OLCC Tier I & II guidelines. Thank you for your time. Mike Hayes 2 Bonnie Baker From: Alan Unger Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2015 11:17 AM To: Bonnie Baker Subject: FW: Farm Use Acreage Limitation for Recreational Cannabis Alan Unger,Commissioner Deschutes County 1300 NW Wall St. Suite 200 Bend,OR. 97701 alanu a)co.deschutes.or.us Office: 541-388-6569 Cell: 541-419-0556 From: Mike Hayes [mailto:mikehayes1775 @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 7:08 AM To: Alan Unger Subject: Re: Farm Use Acreage Limitation for Recreational Cannabis Commissioner Unger, Thank you again for listening to my testimony yesterday afternoon. I was asked to submit my recommendations: 1. Review each case separately. 2. Farm use land allowed to grow cannabis. No restrictions to acreage. 3. Define Internal versus External grow operations. • Internnal grow operation o No light, noise, or odor is emitted from the enclosed structure. o Meets all current planning and OLCC Tier 1 & 2 requirements. o Walls are non transparent. • External grow operation o Crop is exposed to external view. o Light is emitted when lights are present. o If confined in a structure (greenhouse), walls are transparent. 3. Internal operations allowed to be constructed with no set back outside the current guidelines set forth by the county. 4. External operations allowed with a set back of 100' from neighboring property. A slow start to help grasp and educate the public would be my final input. Change is hard. Internal grow operations will provide a non intrusive operation and help ease tension with those opposed to grow facilities. I am happy to speak with you offline with any questions you may have regarding my input. 1 Thank you, Mike Hayes Personal clarification. Resident for 11 years. Family farm in Deschutes County since 1972. Education: MBA Work experience: 1. Current Owner, Maverick's Country Bar 2. Current Owner, Groove Yoga 3. Current Owner, Miracle Greens, Inc. 4. Captain, United States Marine Corps On Dec 1, 2015, at 3:37 PM, Alan Unger<Alan.Unger cr,deschutes.org> wrote: Mike, you should come and testify with your ideas. I agree with a lot of what you say. Medical grows have created a problems that people are upset with. Currently I am thinking that we should be conservative to start then relax some as we and the state have a better handle on the issue. I would like to see a variance process like you suggest. I am not sure how we get there. Alan Unger, Commissioner Deschutes County 1300 NW Wall St. Suite 200 Bend, OR. 97701 alanu@co.deschutes.or.us Office: 541-388-6569 Cell: 541-419-0556 Original Message From: Mike Hayes [mailto:mikehayes1775(u,gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 3:28 PM To: Alan Unger Subject: Farm Use Acreage Limitation for Recreational Cannabis Commissioner Unger, Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I know your time is valuable, so I will keep this short. In regards to regulating recreational cannabis grow operations on farm use land for land owners with 20 acres or more does not solve the concerns of the county. I agree with the committee's decision in that lighting, noise, and air disturbance should be regulated. What I do not understand or agree with is the size of farm land one should own to have a recreational grow. Size of farm land ownership does not prevent an irresponsible land owner to place an outside grow on the set back limitation bordering his neighbor's property. Noise, lighting, and air disturbance will still be an issue. A one size fits all requirement of land ownership does not solve 2 this problem. Here is my recommendation: 1. Review each case separately. 2. Land designated for farm use a. Allow a recreational grow site that is internal and follows a set back of 100 feet from neighboring property lines. Internal defined as; no light, smell, or noise emittance and external walls non transparent. b. Allow an external (outside)recreational grow site following the committee's minimum 20 acre land ownership. I know if you keep grows to internal facilities with control measures for lighting, smell, and noise you will not need a minimum on farm use acreage. Currently, the size of the farm will create an unfair disadvantage for small farmers who own small parcels. I am one of those farmers who has just over 6 acres of land. In my case, I am surrounded by 100 acres of BLM, a very large dairy farm, and a very large alfalfa grow operation. I don't fit the committee's recommendation but fit the concerns of the community. Light, noise, and smell are not emitted with a closed internal grow operation. Placement of the facility will be a mile from any major roadway. Again, the one size fits all does not work. As a small business owner of three businesses in the City of Bend, I ask you take the verbiage of minimum land ownership out and implement the type of grow operation which one can grow recreational cannabis. Internal recreational grow operation only, if less than 20 acres of farm use land, not to exceed the OLCC Tier I & II guidelines. External and internal recreational grow operations for greater than 20 acres of farm use land, not to exceed the OLCC Tier I & II guidelines. Thank you for your time. Mike Hayes 3 TO: Chair De Bone, Commissioner Baney, Commissioner Unger FR: Name, Business DA: December 2, 2015 RE: Deschutes Board of County Commissioners public hearing on marijuana business regulations Chair De Bone, Commissioners, My Name is Lindsey Pate and I am a co-owner of Glass House Grown, a company currently functioning as a medical cannabis farm, located at 4859 N Hwy 97, Redmond OR, 97756. My husband and I recently purchased 16 acres of EFU land to relocate our cannabis farm with the intent of using less then a quarter of an acre to grow cannabis as a family run farm. Our property's unique topography is a natural setback that provides screening, and we also have zoning that protects a farmer's right to farm, with neighbors who are supportive of our business. The first 2 months of our property ownership was spent hauling trash and cleaning up farmland that had been used to store hoards of collected items. My family is honored to turn this property back into a farm and make it a thriving part of our local economy. As I said at the first public hearing, I would like to think that we are the kind of cannabis growers that you want in your county. I respectfully request that the Board of County Commissioners continue to support licensed and well-regulated cannabis farming and other businesses in our county by the following ways: Adopt responsible business regulations for adult use and medical cannabis businesses. Licensed and regulated businesses are the key to public safety and job creation in rural Deschutes County. Adopt the original draft of the County's proposed rules regarding zoning and land use, allowing farming on all EFU land, and on MUA and RR-10 land on a case-by-case basis for parcels over 5 acres that meet conditional use permit (CUP) and setback requirements. When HB 3400 was passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor, the intention was for cannabis cultivation to be considered a farm use. Because of that very specific and intentional change in Oregon law, we urge Deschutes County to allow cannabis cultivation on land zoned for exclusive farm use. Please take no further action on water regulation at this time. Water regulation is a matter best addressed in a consistent manner on a statewide basis. Like microbreweries and micro distilleries, smaller cannabis farmers will play an important role in the recreational market in Deschutes County. My small, family operated farm has already won a few cannabis awards because our attention to detail Glass House Crown is registered by the State of Oregon, in compliance with ORS 475.346, to grow medical cannabis. Our core values of Integrity, Service, Excellence, and Transparency come from our Co-Founder's experience in the U.S./1.F. Please visit www.glasshousegrown.com to learn more about our family's farm. and quality is our most valuable asset. By adopting the original regulations, you will be adopting policy that is inclusive to both large and small businesses. Again, please ensure responsible and fair regulation of adult-use cannabis in Deschutes County. Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. Lindsey Pate Glass House Grown cell 541-213-9306 office 541-923-0420 lindsey,_@u glasshousegrown.com. www,glasshousegrown.com CIa.cs House Crown is registered by the State of Oregon, in compliance with ORS 47.5..346, to grow medical cannabis. Our core values of Integrity,Service, Excellence, and Transparency come from our Co-Founder's experience in the U.S.A.F. Please visit www.glasshousegrown.com to learn more about our family's farm. • Deschutes County Testimony About Envirotech Greenhouse Solutions Envirotech Greenhouse Solutions designs and builds advanced cultivation facilities with a focus on sustainability and efficiency. EGS builds both indoor and greenhouse cultivation,as well as production facilities for both cannabis businesses and farmers of traditional agricultural products. Envirotech utilizes Dutch,European,and American technology to improve-energy and resource efficiency in all of it's projects.This allows EGS clients to create more sustainable business models for their own businesses,the environment,and the community at large. Public Safety Both prohibition and responsible regulation have the same goal: public safety. By instituting I responsible regulations on the medical and adult-use cannabis industry, Deschutes County can decrease the demand for a black market,thereby reducing the access of marijuana to underage users as well as decreasing the risks associated with the unregulated market by ensuring that access and the cannabis itself is safe. Deschutes County Commissioners should ensure that its citizens have safe access to cannabis through a regulated marketplace.By restricting cannabis businesses within the County,the incentives for citizens to participate in the regulated market decrease,thereby harming public safety by potentially subjecting these consumers to harmful pesticides or heavy metals through unregulated cannabis. t• r,0 0 ,. 1 Environmental Impact Natural light cultivation includes outdoor,greenhouse and mixed light cultivation.This type of cultivation is not only energy efficient but also encourages additional environmentally conscious farming methods in order to preserve the necessary resources for natural light cultivation. Unlike indoor cultivation,natural light cultivation does not require massive energy consumption. Natural Light cultivation consumes up to 80% less energy than indoor cultivation and is the most practical and efficient method of cultivating cannabis.Rather than consuming resources,it takes our County's best natural resource,the sun,and maximizes their effects to reduce cannabis Cost of Goods (COGS) by up to 75%.The only reason that cannabis has been produced indoors under artificial light was its prohibition. Land Use In order to implement responsible business regulations for adult use and medical cannabis businesses that comply with the spirit of HB3400,Deschutes County should allow cannabis farming on all EFU land and on MUA and RR-10 land on a case-by-case basis for parcels over 5 acres that meet CUP and setback requirements. Many parcels are well suited for cultivation while others are not.By regulating cannabis businesses through the CUP process,the County ensures its ability to impose reasonable regulations while also encouraging business owners to participate in the emerging industry,benefiting our schools and public services. Economic Impact Despite technological innovations,cultivating high quality cannabis is a very labor intensive process.Allowing cannabis business to operate within the County will create countless job opportunities for individuals with varied skill sets.The cultivation and production of medical and adult-use cannabis will promote innovative technologies to help to mitigate any detrimental environmental effects related to cannabis including odor mitigation and energy consumption. Land zoned for traditional farming uses are best suited for this type of environmentally conscious production and processing. Small farmers should have the option to participate in the cannabis industry if they choose to.By limiting cultivation to more industrial areas,the County would be reducing the incentives for small farmers to participate in the industry and utilize their land to its maximum potential.In todays ever changing and evolving economy the residents of Deschutes County should have the opportunity to earn their living in a manner of their choosing.Infused product manufacturers, laboratories,and advanced horticulture will allow the cannabis industry to have a positive impact on other sectors of the County and State economies.These businesses require expertise in the operation of compliant facilities as well as push technological innovation that has a multitude of applications outside of the cannabis industry.This will enable the residents of the County to remain ahead of the curve in todays economic environment.The significant number of applications of agricultural and manufacturing technologies to the cannabis industry make it an excellent fit for the innovative development sectors of Deschutes County. In Closing A well regulated and responsible cannabis industry in our County will not only increase public safety and limit the environmental impacts by promoting greenhouse cultivation,but it will also have a positive economic impact on all members of our community,with the exception of the black market. Responsible regulation will also lead to a safer community by ensuring that products are safe for consumption by patients and consumers. About First Harvest Financial First Harvest Financial is an investment firm dedicated to the cannabis industry. Our goal is to support innovative technologies and advancements in the industry by identifying individuals and businesses that can utilize our financial expertise.This includes not only funding but an advanced mentorship program for small businesses and entrepreneurs in the ancillary and core cannabis businesses. Broader Economic Impact Oregon has a unique opportunity to make a significant mark on the industry nationwide due to the extensive expertise of high caliber growers and processors that have been operating in a regulated medicinal market,with an overwhelming dedication to organic and sustainable farming practices,which is evident above all other States.When high quality producers are given ample support by their County and State governments,they are best positioned to advance their brand and take their company national through licensing partnerships.This strategy has been successful for Colorado businesses because they were first to market,not necessarily due to producing the highest quality product.We believe Oregon has the potential to be the first real competitor in the national landscape. Some Colorado cannabis companies have recently expanded internationally, one of them gaining a$100m contract with Jamaica.Once a brand is built and technology developed locally,the intellectual property can be expanded globally.And the citizens and local and State governments will continue to benefit from this expansion through taxes and job creation across many sectors of the economy. • Land Use and the Environment Perspective of FHF We support most of the original draft of the County's proposed rules regarding zoning and land use,allowing farming on all EFU land,and on MUA and RR-10 land on a case-by-case basis for parcels over 5 acres that meet conditional use permit(CUP) and setback requirements.This is extremely important in order to balance the needs of our community while protecting small farmers. Individuals who have purchased homes adjacent to EFU have accepted the risks associated with all agricultural activities.Marijuana is considered an agricultural crop and thus needs to be allowable on ALL farmlands that are compliant with setbacks from neighboring properties and schools.However,we have determined that many EFU properties,particularly larger parcels over 20 acres,are not located on County roads.Over the last two decades much of the rural EFU land in Deschutes County has become luxury estate home property,where our high quality soils and water resources are not being utilized to the best of their ability.Instead,much has been converted into heavily watered lawns consuming up much of our precious resources while depleting and polluting our soils with agrochemicals and fertilizers.We ask that you not protect these estate home owners and instead allow for true agricultural farming on all EFU property regardless of their neighbor's approval and proximity to County roads. We also encourage Deschutes County Commissioners to promote greenhouse cultivation which provides a perfect balance of sustainability and high quality crop production.Historically,we have seen dramatic increased property values in Colorado and Washington since regulation and licensing of adult use cannabis.Colorado crop land is up 22% and Denver residential is up 16%. I have included excerpts from news reports regarding real estate for the Commissioner's to read later. Real Estate in the News: Early on, the pot business was seen as a boon for Denver real estate. "There has been a huge bump in real estate prices due to the legalization of marijuana," James Paine, managing partner at West Realty Advisors, told in June. "It's massively pushed up raw land and industry prices." The in Denver, $350,500, is up 15.9% from this time last year. Vacancy rates in all sectors—residential, commercial, industrial—are all down, and so is unemployment. Home sales are up 3.1% from last year. -Lisa Davis, realtor.com While the legalization of marijuana isn't the only thing driving the market, it has contributed to job growth in the area that has people flocking to Denver. "The pot industry is creating jobs we didn't have before," said Kelly Moye, a Re/Max real estate agent who has worked in the Denver area for 24 years. "It's brand new, it adds a whole new factor to the area; you have real estate needs, housing needs,job needs." The industry has created jobs beyond growers and dispensaries. Legal marijuana has also been a boon for existing businesses like security and HVAC companies who service the new "green" businesses. "Electricians have grown from mom and pops to big-time electric companies," said J.P. Speers, an agent at Berkshire Hathaway Home Services. -CNNMoney (New York) June 4, 2015: 2:28 PM ET Colorado cropland soared 22 percent in value to $1 ,780 per acre in 2013, well above the national rate, as high crop prices and long-term prospects for food production lured venture capitalists and other investors to the agricultural land market. -Steve Lynn, BizWest.com a Boulder, CO Industry Magazine Testimony Relating to House Bill 3400, Providing Opt Out Options for the Establishment of Marijuana Businesses, etc. in Regard to Land Use Outside of the Cities. Hearing Date: Wednesday, December 2, 2015 You did 5in did not offer testimony in person. Your Name: -0 • 'Yv Mailing Address: Li O' ''7 a. v ALA Asa D Yt G ) o,"?7 Off. E-mail address (optional): t��. f Iry 5c linetzit.LIDIAA Phone #s (optional): 9-11 5SLo - btk►b Your Comments: C . (Use back of page if desired.) Signature: _` } Ortfile Chair Tony DeBone Commissioner Tammy Baney and Commissioner Alan Unger Testimony from Hunter Neubauer, Oregrown Inc. December 2, 2015, Final Public Hearing Deschutes County Regulation of Adult-use Cannabis Chair DeBone, Commissioner Baney and Commissioner Unger, my name is Hunter Neubauer and I am the co-owner of Oregrown Industries, Inc. I am here to testify in support of Deschutes County adopting sensible cannabis regulations to promote responsible use and economic opportunity. Our local business, Oregrown, currently employs over 3o Central Oregon residents. Our business plan is to employ more that double that number by the end of 2016! This is a wonderful opportunity for much needed job growth here in Deschutes County. We are providing good benefits and pay a living wage to our employees. These are people that love living in this area of the country because of our wonderful quality of life. We urge the Commission to support policies that will fuel the momentum now and in the future. Our community truly needs the economic boost that comes with a well-regulated cannabis business sector. Those of us who make up the cannabis business community are, farmers, concentrate makers,processors and dispensary owners.And we work with allied professionals in the legal,laboratory and security arenas too. We respectfully request the Board of County Commissioners work to meet the economic and public safety needs of the community by acting to ensure fair and balanced regulation of cannabis farming and other businesses in our county. We app r ec i ate t h e public process the Coun ty has undertaken to develop thoughtful regulations for cannabis businesses. Please act now to: 1. Adopt responsible business regulations for adult use and medical cannabis businesses. Licensed and regulated businesses are the key to public safety and job creation in rural Deschutes County. 2. Adopt the original draft of the County's proposed rules regarding zoning and land use, allowing farming on all EFU land, and on MUA and RR-10 land on a case-by-case basis for parcels over 5 acres that meet conditional use permit (CUP) and setback requirements.We urge Deschutes County to allow cannabis cultivation on land zoned for exclusive farm use. 3. Please leave current state-based water regulation in place and take no further action at the local level. action at the local level. We are concerned that a prohibition of cannabis businesses in Deschutes County would have the unintended consequence of propping up the illegal market, driving criminal activity and making it harder for licensed and compliant businesses to succeed. Sensible regulation and oversight supports public safety in our rural communities and brings jobs and economic opportunity to our county. The Oregon Cannabis Association and other cannabis small business owners'thank you for the hard work that has gone into the thoughtful approach to regulation in Central Oregon. Please enact the draft rules as proposed.Thank you. ### December 2, 2015 Deschutes County Planning Commission 1300 NW Wall St. Bend, OR Re: Finalized recommendations for regulating marijuana businesses in unincorporated areas as reported by Ted Shorack The Bulletin Published Nov 25, 2015. Commission Members, My name is Dan Burkhalter and along with my wife we are residents of Oregon Water Wonderland Unit II (OWWII), a rural residential area of Bend just south of Sunriver. The intent of this letter is to express my agreement with the Planning Commission's recent recommendation that marijuana growing be restricted to farm/agricultural zoned areas and be barred from areas zoned residential. I offer the following comments supporting my position. In May 2013 we purchased our retirement home in OWWII a residential community and home owners association dating back to the late 1960's. OWWII consists mainly of%2 acre lots and home sites. Property owners are a mix of full time residents, seasonals and unimproved lot owners. Shortly after our purchase an adjacent neighbor built a commercial size greenhouse to grow marijuana ostensibly under the medical grow regulations. This greenhouse includes multiple commercial/industrial size fans, blowers and heating apparatus. My wife's and my choice of OWWII was based upon the development being a residential community affording good size lots, a true 4 season environment and home owner association regulations ensuring the peaceful and quality enjoyment of our home. Contrary to the recent patently absurd comments of Mr. Hunter Neubauer that residential growing is "..fair for the community..", our choice of home location did not include: • Heightened risk of security due to the thriving black market for marijuana which invites criminal trespass and theft of property, • Industrial/farming noise pollution 24 hours a day 7 days a week far beyond reasonable ambient noise disturbing our peace and enjoyment of our home and outdoor areas, • A reasonable belief that adjacent neighbor's property values have been depressed, Burkhalter/Deschutes County Planning Commission December 2, 2015 Proposed Marijuana Regulations • Large scale greenhouses and the like are not consistent with the look and feel of a residential neighborhood, and • Final stage growth and cultivation of marijuana can best be described as having the overpowering odor of a skunk. I am not some anti-marijuana zealot. I am 64 years old and smoked and grew"pot" as far back as my teenage years (perhaps longer than most of these growers have even been alive) and I even voted for its legalization; however, regulations need be established that protects the fundamental right of a neighbor's peaceful and quiet enjoyment of their home. Clearly protection need be afforded neighboring property owners from the degradation of the quality of our lives and the enjoyment of our properties and homes by marijuana growers. We believe the growth of marijuana as a crop should be limited to agricultural zoned property and NOT allowed in unincorporated or rural residential zones. I solicit your agreement. Thank you, Dan Burkhalter 17472 Killdeer Dr. Bend, OR 97707 (541) 213-4386 Bonnie Baker From: Robert H Blake III <rhblake828 @gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 3:16 PM To: Board;Tammy Baney;Tony DeBone;Alan Unger; Nick Lelack; Matt Martin Subject: Public Hearing Testimony and Comments/Bob Blake Attachments: BOC Recommendaitons 12-02-2015.pdf;ATT00001.htm Dear Commissioners,Nick, and Matt, Please find attached my testimony today. In listening to all of the testimony provided today, we heard some important considerations about"right to farm." Please recognize that there is a big difference between indoor and outdoor cannabis production. It seems that virtually all of the opponent complaints have resulted from outdoor production operations. Most all medical cannabis farmers have been growing indoor, especially those on MUA and RR properties. As Mike Hayes,the 10 year veteran Marine, stated this afternoon,there should not be set back limits other than lawful permitted ones for indoor cannabis operations. There is o sight, sound, smell, light, etc. pollution with indoor cannabis operations. We also have provided a pathway for medical cannabis operators to enter the regulated market and provide Deschutes County 100% control over approval of operations. The alternative is promoting the "black market." Your public policy decisions are not easy. Thank you for your thoughtful leadership to date and forward. We simply cannot permit or allow outdoor greenhouses without strong regulation and certainly not on small parcels without the controls of filters, shades, etc. The 100 ft./300 ft. setbacks and the CUP perhaps are the best solutions that we can achieve for MUA and RR properties. A 200 ft. setback is not feasible on most 5 acre properties. And although not discussed today, medical cannabis research is my true drive or target. Once we move beyond all of this land use, we can really focus on bringing medical research to Deschutes County as some of the later testimony today presented. Sincerely yours, Bob Blake 1 Pdjz-" Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Public Hearing December 2, 2015 OBH ] Oregonians for Better Health, Inc. 63552 N. Highway 97 Bend, Oregon 97701 I. Facts Learned From Public Hearing Testimony and Other Comments 1 . Cannabis is a divisive issue among the citizenry of Deschutes County. Specifically, many citizens do not want cannabis grown, processed, or otherwise handled on property that is adjacent to their own private properly. This issue becomes acutely divisive for many citizens due to (i) smell and light pollution and (ii) direct sight considerations in communities with young families and children. 2. Oregon "right to farm" considerations, specifically on EFU Property, are protected under state law and local land use regulations. 3. Some cannabis business owners simply have NOT been "good neighbors" and have been poor industry representatives. 4. Cannabis business owners have produced 100's of new jobs in Deschutes County since the passage of H.B. 3460 (medical dispensary legislation) in 2013 and H.B. 3400 in 2015. 5. The majority of small cannabis producers have been silent, if not invisible, during this entire land use review process by Deschutes County. It is the nature of these smaller medical cannabis growers on MUA and RR zoned properties to be private and NOT have anyone know of their existence. II. Recommendations Thoughtful leadership is required from our elected representatives and county planning staff. There is no one solution that will make every constituent group or individual happy. 1 1 . "Opt in" and accept the original planning recommendation matrix proposed to the Planning Commission. By the Board of Commissioners. 2. Grant "grandfather" exceptions for indoor facilities built prior to December 31, 2014 that do NOT violate smell, light, sight, and other considerations. The real objections have been with outdoor greenhouse operations that are used without any smell, light, or direct sight management. 3. If MUA and RR zoned properties of 5 acres or more are going to be disallowed or have setbacks greater than 100 ft./300 ft, allow smaller medical cannabis growers with statutorily limited 48/96 plant count limits that have been registered with the OHA on these properties prior to December 31, 2014 to continue their medical cannabis production operations and "opt in" to the OLCC licensing program, as permitted under H.B. 3400, given approval from the county. In this way, the potential for "black market" production and distribution is decreased and the county retains 100% control over property use. 2 GOT WATER? My name is Susan Tunno. I am a real estate broker. I have worked in Deschutes county since 1999. I have background in water law, water rights, and have followed the Thornburg Destination Resort project with special focus on that projects' struggles to gain the water rights it needs to grow. I have here a letter dated November 6th, 2015 from ODFW which is profound and compelling in its implications for the decision making of this body as it considers permitting a new ground water user to extract from our federally , listed Deschutes Basin aquifer, the borders of which are illustrated on this s 9 map. As you must know, the Federal Listing of the Bull Trout has resulted in a lockdown of sorts to any and all new users in the prescribed are of impact to the preservation of the Bull Trout. The No Net Loss standard developed by Deschutes County Planning department is one of the strictest standards in the country. To clarify,when a species is Federally listed, Deschutes County policy is to protect the habitat of the listed species at a 'no net loss to the habitat'. The habitat of the Bull Trout is the Cold Springs, and the plumbing to the Cold Springs is the Deschutes basin aqua fur, see map, therefore the entire aquifer may not be degraded or compromised or extracted from unless the proposed new user applicant can prove it can put back into the aquifer every gallon of water it extracts. Hence the Thornburg decision, see letter. What this letter shows us is that Thornburg has not been able to accomplish this feat, and until it can demonstrate how its resort industry development can meet the No Net Loss test, the Destination Resort Industry, our biggest single industry in Deschutes County is effectively stopped. This fact has not processed through to the decision making today. I understand this, as a Realtor who follows the land use issues and development code issues. Never the less, this body must get up to speed. The Thornburg decision is the canary in the coal mine to the destination resort industry. It makes our Destination Resort overlay zone, most of which is overlaid upon EFU lands meaningless. You can't grow a resort if you can't touch the water. You can't touch the water until the Bull Trout becomes `delisted'. The Bull Trout will never become delisted because the aqua fur is now known to be declining by 1.5 feet per year. This fact referenced in the letter as new information. The results of a new water basin study. This documented decline is now anticipated to accelerate as a result of the piping of the irrigation canals, which previously allowed SO% of its diversion waters to seep back into the aquifer and provide a bit of recharge. That gain is lost added to the current drought all spell an acceleration of decline. The monitoring of our basin water crisis is continuing and forever. A moratorium on permitting new agricultural wells and water rights was declared in the Plainview area late 90's. I know. I bought the parcel that had the last agricultural well ever to be placed in the Plainview ground in 2000 prove right and earn the certificate of and I worked hard to ro up the water r� o P P g water right to that extraction well. That era has past. The commercial wells of the privately owned rural area water providers, like Sun Mountain Water District, have their deep commercial wells and distribution system to service the MUA rural subdivisions and users pay for that water by the gallon. There is a natural check and balance to the quantity consumed by each user by virtue of the retail cost. Those water providers have probably reached end game on their ability to add more customers because they are stressed with monitoring their well depths just to preserve their ability to service the existing users. No new commercial wells may be installed in this basin. There never were any agricultural wells established in the Tumalo area. ( except Research Road Laboratories project.)That project was created by Harry Lonsdale, a close friend and associate of Gov. Tom McCall and carefully built to all environmental and land use laws which McCall had created for Oregon. All the rural residential lots, are eligible for a domestic well permit which restricts its water extractions to a residential house, 1h acre of landscaping and a few livestock. No more. The Y reen you see on these lots is strictly g provided by the surface diversion waters of the irrigation district—not one drop from the ground. Result, no pressure on the water table, no draw down of the aquifer, in normal times the recharge subterranean keeps everything stable. It is not possible to convert a domestic well to an agricultural well. The water right simply cannot be changed. This is how it has always been . Now comes the Federal Listing of the Bull Trout. Now comes the results of the major water basin study which concluded that this basin is like no other in the world. And it is in decline. Now faced with the reality that the growth of our biggest industry is over because of our water situation, how can our local governance consider for a moment allowing the marijuana industry into our basin. How can this governing body consider it has the right to allow this new user of agricultural ground water access to a single drop? Not even asking the question "how much will you be taking?" And this new taker expects to be allowed to extract federally listed habitat waters for the purpose of growing a federally listed banned plant substance called marijuana ? The federal government is expected not to notice this illegal water theft occurring in this basin which it monitors for the sake of protecting its Listed Endangered Species? In allowing this industry to continue its current criminal practices of extracting from domestic wells for its agricultural industrial uses and simultaneously allowing the OLCC to issue grow licenses within the same designated Federal Endangered Bull Trout Habitat territory puts Deschutes County squarely in the cross hairs of the federal government. You have defied its authority and its rule of law on two fronts. If the federal government decides that the decline rate of the aquifer has become unacceptable it can and may declare a total shut down of all growth in the basin. That means no permits issued to do anything whatsoever. And if the federal government also notices that the cannabis industry is operating in its protected basin and stealing its protected waters in the conduct of its federally illegal acts, don't you think it might pull the trigger? This event has already occurred in a community very nearby. It is called Gilcrist. The federal government, through its arm, the DEQ, has shut down the region in a mapped enclosed area, to all growth. You cannot get a permit to build a carport in Gilcrist. And this moratorium on growth will not be lifted until the water basin can be shown to be restored to full health. Proceed as you are Deschutes County Commission and face the certainty that any time in the near future the federal government can pull the trigger. And so I ask you... do you feel lucky? The OLCC should have stuck with whiskey. Because whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting.And we here have already lost this fight. We simply cannot afford the water bill for the cannabis industry. We need to just say no... we can't grow. And we need to not allow this cannabis industry to destroy all that we have built up and developed out to the limits of what is possible in this rare high desert region with its totally rare, only one of its kind in the world water drainage system. A delicate dance played lightly upon the land has carried us this far. Gov. Tom McCall would be proud. Now comes the test of our resolve he warned us would always come courting to this Oregon seeking only to extract wealth at the cost of our Oregon country's health. r } s HB3400 and its enabling legislation was constructed so as to allow the counties to decide, as a separate and personal decision, whether they wanted to allow this new agricultural industry and its practices in its agricultural zones. The Opt Out provisions, as crafted , are designed to accommodate this rural decision making. The assumption made is that no county will vote to allow an industry in its territories which it is totally not capable of accommodating. And the question of whether to 'allow' has always been couched within the assumption that if, in the future, cannabis is delisted as a federally banned substance and class #1 drug, then all the problems associated with it will magically disappear. For Deschutes County we can't even get to that page because first and foremost we have to ask ourselves the simple and primary question which always must be asked when you live in a desert...Got Water? xoxo r; (IJi'e'g�yti 11 � y , Deschutes Watershed District •r':Ec". ;c East Region z. Kate Brown,Governor 61374 Panel!Road •�``. Bend,Oregon 97702 (541)388-6363 FAX(541)388-6281 OREGON iriP74 Rah&Wlldiife November 6, 2015 Deschutes County Community Development Department Planning Division 117 NW Lafayette Ave Bend, OR 97701 ATTN: Peter Gutowsky RE: Thornburgh Resort Company-Final Master Plan Remand The purpose of this letter is to clarify Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife's (Department) recommendation whether fish and wildlife mitigation proposed in the Thornburg Resort Company Final Master Plan meets a No Net Loss standard. Based on new information and changes since 2008 the Department believes there is significant uncertainties as to whether a No Net Loss standard is being met by the proposed mitigation. Thus, we recommend a reassessment needs to be conducted. On Friday October 31, 2015 I sent an email to Kameron DeLashmutt which I understand was forwarded to you by him. Based on information I was not aware of at the time of sending that email and on further review,the Department is retracting that email and statements in it. In addition, the Department is retracting all statements made in our June 13, 2008 letter to the County regarding adequacy of proposed mitigation to address fish and wildlife impacts from resort development. Specifically,the Department is retracting the statement: "ODFW has determined that providing the proposed mitigation outlined above should mitigate for potential impacts on springs and seeps and provide a net benefit to the resource." At this time the Department does not believe that the proposed mitigation has been shown to be adequate to meet a No Net Loss standard and to do so there needs to be a reassessment. The Department requests that the record in this matter on fish and wildlife issues be reopened for a new assessment, given new information and other changes since June of 2008. On the Deschutes River, a re-analysis is needed of whether the Deep Canyon Creek springs proposed for mitigation will provide long-term cold water mitigation giving the declining water table identified in the 2013 USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2013-5092 titled "Analysis of 1997-2008 Groundwater Level Changes in the Upper Deschutes Basin, Central Oregon." The report indicates that groundwater appears to be declining in the Central Deschutes Area about 1 foot per year. Given this new information, we are not sure the Deep Canyon Creek springs will persist and actually provide the proposed mitigation. As for mitigation in Whychus Creek subsequently proposed by the Resort, the Department was unaware of such a proposal at the time of our June 13, 2008 letter and thus did not comment on the proposal's adequacy. It is our position however, that warmer instream water as proposed would not mitigate to No Net Loss for lost cold spring water. Flow changes in Whychus Creek over the past seven years, including this year's drought, need to be assessed, as well as any new information on the springs in the lower Creek. We also believe a reassessment is needed of the proposed wildlife mitigation to assess changes on the land in the Cline Buttes area and management of it over the past seven years. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, cakit Robert M. Hooton Deschutes Watershed District Manager 2 okt 4 e. J E . r :ii .T. V 7-. Its AN �' " "" .w ■ r f l f IAwi V I ,. S f`14 4 -f I I 4'1111 , _ . ,,)',,. ''ti 1 1$,, i , . \,,,a v ! 7, ,". , 45 ( • 4 4 rr e. glib;,.41. ."' :0110044 m'S y ti f I'11 wM tf ' ' .lr b f . !e. sr 1'1 .iu .Kw :.+e 4.: .., rn+ w.i v /. X i" I• ter :4 :a.: �-' .,e v ct s,_ qvp = l',..% = -..' to C I— w D CO 7 Testimony before Deschutes County Commission Dec 2, 2015 My name is Jim Petsche, I live at 66145 Becker Rd and my property is adjacent to a Medical Marijuana Greenhouse Grow Facility so I have first hand experience of what it is like for 2 seasons. It has not been a good experience ! I've testified before so I'm not going to go into detail except to remind you of what I call the 3 C's of the living next to a pot production greenhouse... Sights, Sounds, Smells. I actually applaud the County for coming up with some reasonable regulations to control the conflicts that have been occurring and will continue to occur with this new industry. I just think that some of the Planning Commission Recommendations need to be adjusted before they are actually implemented: While the idea of pushing production to EFU lands 20 acres and larger is a reasonable idea... it will result in more of these facilites on fewer and fewer parcels. I guess for the Greater Good....but it makes it even more important now to enact rules to protect what little RIGHTs and property values the existing EFU residents, like me, have left. 1. The setback requirement FROM EXISTING HOMES should be increased from 300 to 400 feet. These large grow facilities, in my view, are commercial/industrial operations and are basically ruining the rural character of the existing farm lands. Several current operations have unreasonably sited their facilities and PUSHED their presence onto existing rural residents in the past 2 years since there have been minimal regulations. This should not be allowed to recur. 400 feet of setback from existing homes is not near enough but should be a reasonable compromise. 2. Bring back some screening requirement for these facilities. There should be a requirement to install a min of 8 ft tall trees at not greater than 10 ft centers. It is not an onerous requirement. I've planted trees, installed fencing, built a berm and a building to block the view my neighbor has done nothing even though OHA rules require screening. 3. Increase the requirement that growers show where they intend to get the water from to grow their crops. If they intend to use wells, they MUST show they have a commercial water right for this use. Irrigation districts only supply water for part of the year so at some point they all will try to use wells. Many of these facilities are using `exempt wells'and these uses currently are illegal for the actual growing of ANY crop — not just marijuana. (SEE attached memo from State Water Resources Department) 4. Strengthen the wording regarding ODOR control. The current wording is vague and will be very difficult to enforce. It only requires a filter system and there is no discussion about the amount of odor released. You may want to consult with the city of Denver that uses a device called a Nasal Ranger to measure and enforce their odor ordinance. (www.nasalranger.com) 5. Require that processing of extracts take place only in an area with commercially available water hydrants and require fire sprinklers in the facilities. Allowing them just where there is a fire district is not acceptable. Many of the processes used are dangerous and the buildings that will be used will likely be AG buildings without even building permits let alone turnaround spaces for fire trucks, dual entrances hydrants or fire sprinklers. Finally, 6. No multiple cardholder medical marijuana production or processing allowed on EFU lands. These should only be grown indoors in industrial facilities only. Whatever you do,make sure these new"Reasonable Regulations" are in-force by the end of the year. Even with these regulations, I encourage you to OPT OUT ! I think the County should tread carefully when it comes to impacting our agricultural resources and the investments of its existing rural residents. By OPTING OUT the county can take a Deliberate, Considered Approach and allow the"Marijuana Gold Rush Frenzy"to just cool down and let things get sorted out. l n (Icrstau (ling \\ ater- t se Regulations : ".4111,'', Medical and Recreational Marijuana Marijuana-related water use is subject to the same water-use regulations as any other irrigated crop. Under the Oregon Water Code of 1909,all water belongs to the public.With a few exceptions,cities,irrigators,businesses,and other water users must obtain a water right from the Water Resources Department to use water from any source—whether it is underground,or from lakes or streams.Generally speaking, landowners with water flowing past,through,or under their property do not automatically have the right to use that water without authorization from the Department. New water permits are not available in many areas of Oregon, so individuals are strongly encouraged to investigate their water-resources options before investing in a project that requires a water supply. Violations of Oregon Water laws can result in civil penalties or prosecution for a class 13 misdemeanor. The best way to identify your legal water resources options is to speak with your local watermaster(see next page). For more information,you can contact the Department at 503-986-0900,or visit our website at http://www.oregon.gov/owrd. What are the water-use authorization options? 1. A water right may already be associated with your property;however,you will need to confirm that the right is still valid, and that it can be used for pmP our purposes. Similarly,water may be obtained from a water purveyor such as a Y city or a water district that delivers water under an existing water right. cty g 2. If available,water may be acquired by obtaining a new water-right permit for surface water or groundwater. 3. Certain water uses are authorized through Oregon law as"exempt"from the need for a water right. More information about exempt uses is provided below. Check with your watermaster to make sure your use qualifies. 4. There can be other options to obtain water aside from obtaining a new right to surface water or groundwater. In some cases,with Department approval, a water right from another property can be transferred to a new parcel, or stored water that is captured during the winter and spring can help provide a supply. Talk to your watermaster about options. What else should you know about the use of your water right? Once you have a water right,make sure that you comply with the conditions on the right. It is always a good idea to check with your watermaster to understand the conditions. Water rights are issued for a particular place of use, type of use,and point of diversion. Water rights also have limits on the amount of water that can be used, and may include limitations on the season of use. Your watermaster can help you to understand the terms of use on your water right. If you want to change how the water is being used(for example,from field irrigation to a greenhouse),check with your watermaster to make sure that the change fits within your existing water right. In some instances you may need to obtain approval from the Department through a process called a transfer. In addition,there may be limits on the months that the water can be used. Water rights may be subject to forfeiture if not used for five consecutive years. In addition,there may be times where there is not enough water for every water user who holds a water right_In times of shortage,the senior user is entitled to receive all of his or her water,before a junior user.For example,a senior user with a priority date of 1910. can make a call for water,and users with a junior date(after 1910. for this example)may be regulated off in order to satisfy that senior right. You should talk with your local watermaster to understand how frequently regulation is likely to occur, so that you can plan your operations accordingly.Note:Although exempt groundwater uses do not require a permit, the well may be subject to regulation like any other water right in times of water shortage. How do I obtain a water right permit in the State of Oregon? Most water rights are obtained in a three-step process.The applicant first must apply to the Department for a permit to use water. Once a permit is granted,the applicant must construct a water system and begin using water.After water is applied, the permit holder must hire a certified water-right examiner to complete a survey of water use(a map and a report detailing how and where water has been applied).If water has been used according to the provisions of the permit,the Department will issue a water-right certificate. 10/09/2015 What sources of water are exempt from the permitting process and how can the water be used? • Natural springs:Use of a spring that,under natural conditions,does not form a natural channel and flow off the property where it originates at any time of the year is considered exempt from the need to obtain a water right. Check with your watermaster to determine if your spring qualifies for the exemption. • Rainwater: Collection and use of rainwater from an artificial impervious surface,such as a roof, is considered exempt from needing a water-right.For more information,refer to ORS 537.141. Check with your watermaster to make sure that your rainwater system is properly set up to meet this exemption. You may also need to check on local regulations with your county and/or city. • Exempt use of groundwater for non-irrigation-related commercial/industrial purposes:Under the exemption,up to 5,000 gallons per day could be used for commercial or industrial use without a water right. This would include processing marijuana;however,this exemption does not include water to promote plant growth/cultivation. 1 i • Exempt use of groundwater for one-half acre of non-commercial lawn I and garden: Water for cultivation/growth of marijuana,whether in a NOTE: This is not a complete greenhouse or not,does not require a water right permit provided that the �' � q list of exemptions, but rather irrigation is no more than one-half acre in area AND the cultivation is non- lists those most pertinent to commercial. Use of groundwater to brow marijuana plants where there is the growth and production of .000,P0 intent to profit does not quali for a groundwater exemption. Non- commercial includes homegrown recreational marijuana and medical marijuana. Like any crop, the marijuana for personal use,or where there is no intent to profit. Medical growth of marijuana for , growers that seek to make a profit from medical or recreational marijuana commercial purposes, whether are not eligible for this exemption. For example, an individual that grows medical or recreational, is not marijuana and donates it to patients and dispensaries could qualify for the eligible for groundwater exemption. Conversely,an individual that grows marijuana and is exemptions. reimbursed for the costs of the production and labor—intending to make .. money—would not qualify. _, Can water be obtained from a federal water project? The federal government is responsible for determining whether water from their projects can be used to grow marijuana. Previous statements by the federal government indicate that use of Bureau of Reclamation water for the purpose of growing marijuana is prohibited. Contact the Bureau of Reclamation or your irrigation district for more information. Who is my watermaster? \- Map of Watermaster Districts District 1 Nikki Hendricks 503-815-1967 District 2 Michael Mattick 541-682-3620 District 3 Robert Wood 541-506-2652 • " =' 4 R11.11 ' District 4 Lric Julsrud 541-575-0119 ' m K� �� d r xELit11 District 5 Greg Silbernagel 541-278-5456 . u ' ,w d ,- District 6 Shad Rattan 541-963-1031 . ir, , ^, ,, _, sof shy .5-1--., District 7 David Bates 541-426-4464 District 8 Rick Tusk 541-523-8224 , ii 11 a .. r l H � District 9 Ron Jacobs 541-473-5130 �� District 10 JR Johnson 541-573-2591 , ' i'* R,,x:i nay" District 11 Jeremy Giffin 541-306-6885 °"'' District 12 Brian Mayer 541-947-6038 ) District 13 Travis Kelly 541-774-6880 ,,� ;.. District 14 Kathy Smith 541-479-2401 r " , : : :: District 15 David Williams 541-440-4255 ) • , r r n k r:...Jo.c t r.rK■ District 16 Joel Plahn 503-986-0889 "' ": " r %,.'1 District 17 Scott White 541-883-4182 "°'• f"' "` District 18 Jakc ■Constans 503-846-7780 �, `, � 1:1 "a r It a c: ct s. "- c District 19 (ire ,Wacker 541-396-1905 (7. r "4 `^"" `: District 20 Amy Kim 503-722-1410 5 "i ('District 21 Ken Thiemann 541-384-4207 e 1. % I I l UK\ I 1 .. I \ 1II 10/09/2015 Testimony of Jeff Glasberq 12-2-15 1. My following comments are not a referendum for or against the MJ industry. These are strictly are land use and property rights issues. It doesn't matter to me what the subject of the proposed operations are, however when proposed operations substantially impact property rights of others it's an important issue to be considered with the highest standard of diligence and consideration. 2. After repeatedly seeking clarification from the Planning Commission on how many licenses would be allowed to be issued per lot, and it being stated in a recent public hearing that the recommendation was going to be 1 license per lot. I now see the Planning Commission is"considering" permitting 1 indoor and 1 outdoor grow for every 10 or 20 acres of parcel area. 3. This appears to me to be in complete contradiction to the current recommendation of having NO commercial marijuana production on EFU lots smaller than 20+ acres. This makes NO sense. 4. IF YOU ARE LIMITING MARIJUANA PRODUCTION TO 20+ACRES WHY ARE YOU THEN PERMITTING OWNERS OF THESE LOTS TO BE ABLE TO UTILIZE 10 ACRE PORTIONS. I don't understand the logic because BY DOING SO YOU'RE IN EFFECT PERMITTING INDOOR AND OUTDOOR GROWS ON 10 ACRE LOTS. This will benefit only owners of larger lots at the great expense to neighboring properties. And by packing all growers into 20+ EFU, it will substantially increase the negative impact to adjoining land owners. 5. If Deschutes County moves forward with these guidelines, let me share with you what life would be like for me and my family. 6. I currently reside next to a 60 acre EFU parcel and the current proposal would have the effect of creating the possible following scenario for me: 1 indoor and 1 outdoor grow per every 10 acres of land would result in the entire lot essentially becoming full of marijuana production. Let me break this down for you: Up to(6) 40,000 sq foot outdoor grows(1 for each 10 acres). That's 240,000 sq ft. Up to (6) 10,000 sq foot indoor grows(1 on each 10 acres), another 60,000 sq ft. Additionally the grower could locate a Processing plants (up to 20,000 sq feet in size.) WITH ONLY A 200 SETBACK FROM MY PROPERTY LINE AND NO SCREENING! I also don't know why extending setbacks to 200'will eliminate the need for any screening. As you may recall, the previous recommendation was to have evergreen screening. How does moving the setback back another 100' invalidate the need for screening of these large structures. We'll still see them. 100' is home plate to first base. 7. Do you know how many plants are in a 40,000 sq ft outdoor grow, which is roughly an acre in size? (Acre= 43,560). 8. According to TheWeedBusiness.com (a MJ industry website), they estimate 10,000 plants per acre at 36 inch spacing per row. 9. On the large lot next to me, and for a huge percentage of rural residents who adjoin 20, 40+ acre lots, this means 60,000 outdoor plants within 300' from my house. 10's and 10's of thousands of plants a mere 200' from the yards where the children in our community play. How is that OK? 10. The stink from these would render neighboring properties virtually UNINHABITABLE. 11. I have a friend who is just putting his house on the market outside of Boulder CO and told me he's relieved because his neighbor recently cut down the one 8' plant he had in his backyard. It smelled so strong, he didn't want perspective buyers experiencing the odor because he knew it would make it more difficult to sell his house. And that was ONE plant. t2.'It's bewildering, that you're proposing to put patches of 10's of thousands of outdoor plants all throughout our rural neighborhoods. 13. THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES LIKE MINE WOULD BE SEVERELY COMPROMISED by the horrendous odor, MULTIPLE INDUSTRIAL FANS RUNING 24/7, AND ALL THE LIGHTS AND OTHER ASSOCIATED issues that come with these operations. 14. EVEN IF THESE PROPERTY OWNERS WANTED TO SELL WHO WOULD BUY THEIR PROPERTIES....WOULD YOU?? 15. Colorado does not permit outdoor commercial grows. 16. The Director of the Colorado High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area,Tom Gorman, recently advised us the reasons why Colorado does not permit outdoor grows as follows: • You don't want cultivation open to the public view, particularly youth. It tends to normalize, advertise and condone marijuana. • Security problem. More subject to theft since high price"crop",as well as theft by youth for both use and sale. • Some concern with environmental impact, i.e.,water usage. (The High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas(HIDTA) program, was created by Congress with the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, and provides assistance to Federal, state, and local enforcement agencies operating in areas determined to be critical drug-trafficking regions of the United States. The purpose of the program is to reduce drug trafficking and production in the United States) 17. By implementing a 20+ acre rule and permitting multiple licenses on one lot, in effect Deschutes County will have taken an EFU Agricultural property and turn it into nothing short of an "industrial" complex with all the nuisances they entail. 18. This will forever change neighboring property owners' views, quality of life, and it bears repeating, most definitely their property values. A.) Nobody who is looking for the peace and tranquility Tumalo once offered will buy our homes when they're next to,or could be next to, industrial sized marijuana operations. B.) We will not even be able to sell our properties to Marijuana growers because Deschutes County will have now designated our less than 20 Acre lots as too small for commercial pot production. 19. IN ESSENCE DESCHUTES COUNTY HAS NOW MADE OUR PROPERTY Virtually UNSALEABLE. We STAND TO LOSE 100,000'S OF DOLLARS. IS DESCHUTES COUNTY OR THE MJ GOWERS PROPOSING TO COMPENSATE HOMEOWNERS FOR THEIR LOSS OF CURRENT AND FUTURE PROPERTY VALUES? Marijuana owners can afford to plow thousands into 1 the Commissioners are concerned that"The Marij 20. I know legal and lobby fees to protect their businesses." I would like to remind the Commissioners that they were elected to protect and serve the interests of ALL the citizens of Deschutes County not just a handful who stand to profit handsomely and the expense of so many rural residents. 21. I urge the Commissioners to OPT OUT now, so we can all take the time to figure out these complex issues as a community. 22. Failing that, Deschutes County should limit licenses to one per lot, no matter the lot size (unless located in a commercial/industrial zone). AND like COLORADO, prohibit outdoor commercial grows entirely. That would be a "reasonable" compromise. Respectfully Submitted, Jeff Glasberg Tumalo Resident 4 • • \I . . : _ . . X .. ”(7 2 , , 1 F_ ,...i - , , A• -,• • • g , ---, •-- -,\ \- . .. .. .,. . .:.; . , `7 Q, 7 > 1 ll r� i ,._.2 i-) t.....--) i., . 7) --.)- 1 ,..,f.—1 ---, ' - 4 • r J .i I . . (4 • r •-• .... - •l r fix `� I � � 2. ,,,$)Q. r:. \c- u \- fl 0 .7.\-2- ,„ r_L..' E 0 ,- c cA y0 • . 1 \...) r R .,. rc3 23 J I 1 9 1 � r (c3 e F-..D ,,,,_ \ cr:__,)"- 1 •C '''3• .. ,tea . ,,) g tK) t ,, i., ./.) ci) .,.. •.° c. ,t , . ,f, ,,z---- c.,_, , -- ,,.., c. (,,,„ ,...,, Q 0 c7 . . . 1 . • . 7-23-15 Dear Commissioners, Chair Ludlow, Commissioners Bernard, Smith, Schrader, Savas I posed the below question to the Director of the Colorado HIDTA and got the below response. Shirley Morgan Citizens for Public Safety, Quality of Life, & Property Values www.protectoursociety.org U nwantedpotgrows.com From: Shirley Morgan Sent: Wednesday,July 22, 2015 7:54 AM To: 'Tom Gorman' (tgorman @rmhidta.org) Subject: Tom Gorman Director Colorado Rocky Mountain HIDTA Importance: High MUBISIMMO Lis4N1ofiiuonn Mr.Tom Gorman-Director Colorado Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area 303-671-2180 ext 221 Dear Mr.Gorman, In researching the various medical marijuana and recreational marijuana programs in Colorado and Washington,I noticed that Colorado does not allow any recreational marijuana outdoor grows. I am wondering if you can provide some insight as to why? Thank you, Shirley Morgan Citizens for Public Safety,Quality of Life, Property Values P.O.Box 1351 Welches,Oregon 97067 From:Tom Gorman [mailto:tgorman @rmhidta.org] Sent: Thursday,July 23, 2015 1:59 PM To: Shirley Morgan Subject: RE: Tom Gorman Director Colorado Rocky Mountain HIDTA Shirley: • You don't want cultivation open to the public view,particularly youth. Tends to normalize,advertise and condone marijuana use. • Security problem: More subject to theft since high price"crop",as well as theft by youth for both use and sale. • Harder to control and regulate. • Some concern with environmental impact;i.e.,water usage. Thomas J.Gorman Director,Rocky Mountain HID'rA 303-671-2180,ext.223 303-618-5496(cell) tgorm an@rmhidta.org www.rmhidta.crg a t 4 v 1 0 3 0 z 4. ++ a) alga c � � 3 0 MI I cm a) s = E ++ 0 Z v Cl) v i `GO co LO O H 'O co C Q Q 0 O E N 3 0 U 1.- -a m 0 O L Q 1 L vf u Cl) 3 v, f° 0 0 c t C a c m a V Cl) L 4 C7 � Y LL ea 8 z 0 __. _ N V1 Easement o ,,, ao - L W O co j v O L a. Q 0 L U 1v. 2 c 0 V C C. C O lA V _0 a) 3 0 u-) u 2 el. ri m L __ O E ate+ E _O ..,. U + Q _c a o ■ ai C c C v •"' O +' a o a cO >• ac) E ° z aa) o a; 0 o o ce a c ra ix; 1--) a u C O U lD v a• •N ,") • C ° C a a E a ti - C a v P4 U vi O. @ E .� a0 v c c '3 v, c 1 E -0 v C 6. a O 7- s.. CO ca a �, a 0 7- L E O dA Q in O C u O- '71 t O C O ,, in '� j O a s an +� ,n a O s_ o a C a ,n O C `� O v 7 a) RI Q aa) /) 4- o = `- v O- O a 0 a u _0 Q a a) 0 a Q a) a u a) a) E O Q N a C U 0 Q _ L ,n L 'c o r+ O , ,. 0 0 0 tea) U O r' 0 „ >, O 0 0 0 0 Z O Z L .Q Z U Z CC ea Z 0_ o Z L 0 Z Z Z Z v � L- a) a a a) E rC° a ° a 4-- c v, L a �" a V, Q m 4- 3 0 L 00 a o o C E c Q }a, ? u 0 E ° a) C ' m E c -0 o 0 a a o - p °m E c v o E .= O@ v ` C v Q CCD+ `� to :E ai o c vai Cr c ,1- U = O 0 bO a ° 't -C ' C C 4.. U 7 a N -q C Cr "4 " '- E ro w u o O a -0 C Cr r CU 0 .� L 0 ... a O 'O a s c O 0 4 U •U o .2 ,0 cu L • C cl) 2 L a 0 a a s 7 c E E n aci o ro +' Q `° 0 0 a a O •L 2 n o c v E ° • 0 a o c L E a. c ao v E cu LL O. u C v) C a aco -o fO 0.0 c n .-- 3 o a ° U C ,r, c (A acn vi m E .ro o co c 0 L +� a q° •+:, • ro ,,, cc) c E ro 0 ra c o t o +a -O m N O 'E' -N a o :a ao v, a ,C C .w -° E •a a 4C o - 't" a o '++ a0 +-' y a E co L (a ,M 4- •+.1 7 C 'X (a C L X a 4- cU C w co .lA w .� •}( C L C Q E E C E E -a IP a a v a) C a ° a c E E c E v 3 a v "'Cl) c O E s L +., O a L a • co E -0 C a- O a ±+ O O C a ,,. ro ro Q O 0 a 7 L b L a u w i C 0 a ro • 4 o a 7 ° �- u U N N 0. a w i.� Q J d v, O d 4 U 4- V 3 N d.. a 4- LL ❑- 0 w C3. v, C a E a L_ O- W CC ro C N 0 7, 0 a 4-- :L o U 0 ro J i U E d° ,+n a �, °° T O •UN C .0 2 L OO u of CC C L u ° a 9 C F2, U "O tic) L O !d a`1 u 0 a0 `1 Vs In 7) c) to ¢ O • ,/) V c,7 Q O =1 to c C 0 0 C) U a O O I— C o C O O d d C co m CO a�i v Efn a C C C o 0 > In U .0 VI E o o a E v Cs_ a 0. C7 C7 0- §® ƒ / / I \ e 2 / o — c ru d / . k k no e . ,- U f .- \ / E on j /cu . O § = p E a a / cli a) o » I- e r o _ � t \ •! a) a. a 0 3 o ® / / Q. = E • 2 ( / % $ k u a c k 2 e ¥ 4-, o § >- 08 `J Q 6 & .2 2 £ 2 u — c a) / CU § m o % • / E 2 \ / / 3 '= • /E § 0. a E • c E • S C $ / c E . $ 2 c2 / 2 v � 2 t b E § E E k CV / 0) / L & , in u v) 2 § o / k 0 tao • / 02 = a = ai k E k / \ km \ : • o § O u m December 2, 2015 Commissioners Baney, Unger and DeBone: My name is Larry Fulkerson and I am a resident of rural Deschutes County. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. I also want to thank you for doing such a good job of addressing complex issues in past that have affected us all here in Deschutes County. I know from past experiences that all three of you are dedicated and very competent professional administrators who are interested in representing the residents of Deschutes County. State law will allow you to put in place robust regulations that will protect the quality of life and property values that are so negatively impacted by the incredible stench emanating from marijuana grow sites. I believe there has been sufficient testimony presented to the Deschutes County Planning Commission, and I am sure to you three as well, by various means, to establish that beyond a shadow of a doubt the odor of marijuana grow sites has a significant negative impact on property values and quality of life of residents that suffer from the odor. In my opinion it smells exactly like that of skunks. Your Planning Department has recommended that marijuana grow sites in EFU to be on parcels of 20 acres or larger. It makes very little difference how big the parcel of land is. If the grow site is only 300' from a dwelling, there will be a significant negative impact from the odor. Removing this requirement and instead stating that there be no odor allowed off the premises would simplify compliance and negate the need to grandfather any of the existing marijuana operations. To grandfather any of the medical marijuana grow sites from the requirements to comply with all portions of this draft code as is proposed in DCC 18.116.330 (A) (13) — Nonconformance, would serve to not reduce or mitigate any of the current problems with grow sites and it would give a competitive advantage to medical marijuana grow sites and thereby encouraging more marijuana to enter the black market in direct contradiction to the purpose of Measure 91, as stated in Section 1 of Measure 91. Numerous other political subdivisions such as Boulder City and Boulder County, Colorado, and Denver City and Denver County, and, King County Washington have all enacted robust odor control regulations that do not allow the odor of marijuana grow sites to negatively impact their neighbors. If such a liberal place as Boulder Colorado found it necessary to control odor from marijuana grow sites it certainly must have been a serious problem. I suggest we learn from others that have dealt with state legalized marijuana grow operations on a much larger scale than Deschutes County has. The City of Bend itself is not allowing grow sites for medical or recreational marijuana within its city limits. They apparently expect the rural residents to put up with the odor and reduced property values caused by the grow sites, while they reap the benefits of controlling the retail marijuana stores. If the County cannot legally implement the necessary regulations due to State law, I implore you to put medical and recreational marijuana statutes up for a vote to the residents of Deschutes County. Due to the fact that Deschutes County voters voted for measure 91 by a very slim margin and the negative impact of the rapid growth that grow sites have had on their neighbors, one can have little doubt such an initiative would pass, especially if this ballot measure would be specifically worded to not allow production and processing operations while not restricting the use, retail or wholesaling of marijuana. If you cannot legally put adequate regulation in place to protect our property values and quality of life, or put both medical and recreational marijuana initiatives before the voters next November, I am sure that there are many others like myself that will work tirelessly to ensure that enough signatures are gathered to put both issues on the Ballot in 2016. I believe that gathering the required 4144 signatures would not be difficult. Along those lines, I would like to request those of you in attendance today who are willing to devote some time to help gather signatures to put this issue on the ballot to meet with me in the hallway so I can obtain your contact information, if we need to petition for a vote. I do hope this is not necessary since I would much rather direct my efforts towards getting the permanent 911 levy passed, but don't see how I would be able to devote time to both. Thank you for your service to the community, and for this opportunity to speak to you. Sincerely, Larry Fulkerson 22321 McArdle Rd Bend, OR 97702 541-977-8988 Page 1 of 1 Larry&Carol Fulkerson From: "Larry&Carol Fulkerson"<landcflkrsn®gmail.com> Date: Monday,November 30,2015 10:51 AM To: "Nick Lelack"<Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org>;"Matt Martin"<Matt.Martin@deschutes.org> Subject: Fw:Marijuana questions TO: Nick LeLack and Matt Martin FROM: Larry Fulkerson RE: Questions to clarify 18.116.330 I plan to attend the County Commissioners hearing and have a couple of questions that I would like to have clarified. 1. Would the proposed 20 acre minimum lot size for marijuana grow operations in EFU P P J 9 P apply to the over 1800 medical marijuana grow sites that are currently licensed in Deschutes County? 2. The proposed codes in 18.116.330 (A) (5) for outdoor marijuana grow lights makes me think that you expect marijuana to be grown outdoors. In 18.116.330 (A) (4) Odor, your detailed requirements for odor control will not control the odor of grow sites if they are permitted to be outdoors. Do you propose to allow outdoor grow sites with NO odor control at the over 1800 currently licensed medical marijuana grow sites, plus all the new medical and recreational grow sites that will be licensed in Deschutes County and who plan to use outdoor grow sites? Please get back to me on this at your earliest opportunity so I can consider this in time to prepare comments to the Commissioners. Thanks for your assistance. 11/30/2015 Page 1 of 2 Carol Fulkerson From: "Matt Martin"<Matt.Martin@deschutes.org> Date: Tuesday,December 01,2015 9:10 AM To: "'Carol Fulkerson'"<fulkerson.caro153Agmai _comma;"Nick Lelack"<Nick.Lelack@deschues.org> Subject: RE:Marijuana questions Good Morning Larry- I have responded to your questions below. Please let me know if you have additional questions. Sincerely, Matthew Martin,AICP Associate Planner Community Development Department Deschutes County Office:541.330.4620/Fax:541.385.1764 www.deschutes.org/cd From: Carol Fulkerson [mailto:fulkerson.carol53 @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 10:47 AM To: Matt Martin; Nick Lelack Subject: Marijuana questions TO: Nick LeLack and Matt Martin FROM: Larry Fulkerson RE: Questions to clarify 18.116.330 I plan to attend the County Commissioners hearing and have a couple of questions that I would like to have clarified. 1. Would the proposed 20 acre minimum lot size for marijuana grow operations in EFU apply to the over 1800 medical marijuana grow sites that are currently licensed in Deschutes County? RESPONSE: To first clarify, medical marijuana grow sites are registered with the Oregon Health Authority not licensed. With regard to the Planning Commission recommendation of 20 acre minimum parcel size in the EFU zone for marijuana production, it would not apply to existing, lawfully established medical marijuana grow site. They would be considered nonconforming. 2. The proposed codes in 18.116.330 (A) (5) for outdoor marijuana grow lights makes me think that you expect marijuana to be grown outdoors. In 18.116.330 (A) (4) Odor, your detailed requirements for odor control will not control the odor of grow sites if they are permitted to be outdoors_ Do you propose to allow outdoor grow sites with NO odor control at the over 1800 currently licensed medical marijuana grow sites, plus all the new medical and recreational grow sites that will be licensed in Deschutes County and who plan to use outdoor grow sites? 12/1/2015 Page 2 of 2 RESPONSE: No odor control is proposed, and probably not possible,for outdoor(not in building or greenhouse) marijuana production. The proposed standards addressing nonconformance require existing registered medical marijuana grow sites within buildings or greenhouses to retroactively install odor control equipment. Please get back to me on this at your earliest opportunity so I can consider this in time to prepare comments to the Commissioners. Thanks for your assistance. 12/1/2015 December 2, 2015 Deschutes County Commissioners Baney, Unger and DeBone: My name is Carol Fulkerson and I am a resident of Deschutes County. In my opinion, the problems with the marijuana industry were caused entirely by the industry itself. To clarify, here are some obvious and not so obvious facts. The marijuana grow sites can and do emit a skunk like odor if not properly controlled. Noise and lights, if not properly controlled, also have a negative effect on neighbors, their quality of life and property values. Since marijuana was illegal for so many years, controls were self imposed by the industry or they would have been fined, incarcerated, or both. As a result, the general public has not been aware of the odor and other problems related to marijuana production and processing sites. When marijuana laws were being crafted by the State of Oregon, the representatives of the marijuana industry who were on the rule making committee did not try to mitigate the negative impact that grow sites have on their neighbors. The cost of complying with reasonable and mitigating regulations would have been placed on all growers and caused the product to be only slightly more expensive. Instead, the marijuana industry seems to have decided that they should not have to control odor, noise or lighting and thereby causing much opposition to their grow operations. This was not a good business decision on their part since voters have the ability to vote their industry out of existence. Medical marijuana was legalized in Oregon in 1998 with very few regulations and almost no enforcement. Now that recreational marijuana has been legalized according to Oregon state law, and Deschutes County has decided to impose reasonable regulations, your Planning Department and Planning Commission was tasked with crafting new code language. After 2 days of hearings before the Planning Commission, members were asked if any of them had ever set foot on a marijuana grow site. The very reluctant and uncomfortable answer was "no". One member said he had driven by one operation. This lack of due diligence serves to discredit the whole process and their recommendations. Maybe this is why the proposed odor regulations will not adequately control the odor problems. Telling the marijuana grow site operators how big of a fan and filter to use and micromanage their operation will be almost impossible for the County to enforce because according to State law you cannot even determine where the grow sites are located. Instead, I suggest the County writes in a requirement that all production and processing sites are not allowed to emit any marijuana odor. After all, growers are able to accomplish odor control in the other 46 states where recreational marijuana is illegal. Let the grow site operators figure out how to accomplish that. If the rules were complaint driven then when a complaint was received you could, through law enforcement channels, determine if the site was properly licensed and legal before taking enforcement action. The marijuana industry has shown no willingness to try to reduce its negative impact on its neighbors. The negative impact on many property owners, quality of life issues and property values means we look to you to impose robust and effective regulations. We all agree that this is a new industry with many problems having been reported. Please err on the side of caution by protecting our rights with strong regulations. Remember that by Federal law, marijuana is still illegal under the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. Oregon's new laws have not been tested at the Federal level. Consider too that it is generally easier to relax tight restrictions, if it is warranted at a later date, than it is to tighten them should that prove to be necessary. And, growers can request a variance if their operation qualifies under DCC 18.132. Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you, and for your service to the citizens and property owners in Deschutes County. Sincerely, Carol Fulkerson 22321 McArdle Rd Bend, OR 97702 541-815-0482 Ordinance No. 7892 (2013) 5ii cILD , " 5-10-6. - Marijuana Odor Emissions. (a) No person, tenant, occupant, or property owner shall permit the emission. of marijuana odor from any source to result in detectable odors that leave the premises upon which they originated and interfere with the reasonable and comfortable use and enjoyment of anther's roe P P nY. (b) Whether or not a marijuana odor emission interferes with the reasonable and comfortable use and enjoyment of a property shall be measured against the objective standards of a reasonable person of normal sensitivity. (c) A marijuana odor emission shall be deemed to interfere with the reasonable and comfortable use and enjoyment of property if the city manager receives three or more complaints concerning marijuana odor emanating from the same source from individuals representing separate households, rooming units, or places of business within the city. (d) No person shall be convicted of a violation of this section unless the city manager has delivered or posted a written warning, in the previous twelve months, that conduct violating this section is occurring or has occurred. (1) The person, tenant, occupant, or property owner must abate the marijuana odor emission within seven days after the warning is delivered or posted. (2) Seven or more days after a warning is posted or delivered, a separate violation of this section occurs on each day that the marijuana odor emission repeats or continues. (3) The warning shall cite this section. (4) The warning may be delivered personally or posted on the property. (5) It shall be presumed that a person charged under this section received the warning if the warning was either (i) delivered to the property owner, a tenant, or an occupant; or (ii) posted on the property. (e) Extended grace period for licensed marijuana cultivation facilities. No person who receives a warning at a licensedmarijuana cultivation facility shall be convicted of a violation that allegedly occurred within ninety days after the first warning issued pursuant to Subsection (d), if all of the following conditions are met: (1) A first warning within twelve months was previously issued pursuant to Subsection (d) of this section for the person's property, and the subject property is licensed as amarijuana cultivation facility by the city or the state; (2) Seven or fewer days after the warning was posted or delivered, the person submitted a written document to the city manager which explained (i) why the marijuana odoremissions could not be abated within seven days feasibly, and (ii) howthe person planned to abate the marijuanaodor emission in the following ninety days; (3) The person receiving the warning has diligently pursued to completion the plans for abating the marijuana odoremission; and (4) The written document described in Paragraph (2) was submitted fewer than ninety days before the date of the violation. Ordinance No. 7931 (2013) BOULDER COUNTY MARIJUANA LICENSING REGULATIONS Article 1:Purpose and Intent Section 14 of article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution permits limited medical uses of marijuana under Colorado law.Section 16, article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution permits personal use of marijuana by persons aged 21 years and older under Colorado law.To enact, restrict,and enforce the state constitution,the General Assembly enacted the Colorado Medik al Marijuana Code,article 43.3 of title 12,C.R.S. (the"CMMC"). In addition,the Colorado Department of Revenue adopted 1 CCR 212-1,Series 100 through 1400, Medical Marijuana Rules("the MMR").The CMMC and MMR authorize counties and municipalities to determine whether to permit,as a matter of state law, certain_medical marijuana businesses within their jurisdictions. Further,to enact, restrict,and enforce the state constitution,the General Assembly enacted the Colorado Retail Marijuana Cade, article 43.4 of title 12,C.R.S. (the "CRMC'). In addition,the Colorado Department of Revenue adopted 1 CCR 212-2,Series 100 through 1500, Retail Marijuana Rules("the RMR").The CRMC and the RMR authorize counties and municipalities to determine whether to permit, as a matter of state law, certain retail (i.e. non-medical) garijuana establishments within their jurisdictions. The purpose of these regulations is to authorize licensing in unincorporated Boulder County as provided in §§ 12-43.3-301(2)(a), 12-43.4-104(3)and 12-43.4-301, C.R.S.,as amended;to establish specific standards and procedures for local licensing of marijuana-related business and establishments;and to protect the health,safety,and welfare of the residents,consumers and patients of Boulder County by prescribing the manner in which marijuana businesses and establishments can be conducted in the county. By enacting these regulations, Boulder County does not intend to encourage or promote the establishment of any business or operation,or the commitment of any act, that constitutes or may constitute a violation of state or federal law.As of the date of the enactment of these regulations,the use, possession,distribution,and sale of marijuana is illegal under Federal law and those who engage in such activities do so at their own risk of criminal prosecution. Article 2: Defined Terms The definitions in the CMMC, § 12-43.3-104, C.R.S., as amended,and the CRMC, § 12- 43.4-103, C.R.S.shall apply to these regulations. a) "Authority":the Boulder County Marijuana Licensing Authority; b) "Dual Operation":A facility that simultaneously operates a licensed medical marijuana business and licensed retail marijuana establishment. c) "Dual Retail Business Operation":A dual operation of a Medical Marijuana Center and Retail Marijuana Store. I d) "Dual Cultivation Business Operation":A dual operation of a Medical Marijuana Optional Premises Cultivation Business and a Retail Marijuana Cultivation Facility. e) "Dual Manufacturing Business Operation":A dual operation of a Medical Marijuana Infused Products Manufacturer Business and a Retail Marijuana Products Manufacturer. f) "Electronic ID Scanner":A device that is capable of quickly and reliability confirming the validity of an identification using computer processes. g) "Medical Marijuana Business":A licensed Medical Marijuana Center, Medical Marijuana-Infused Products Manufacturer,or an Optional Premises Cultivation. h) "Medical Marijuana Center":A licensed retail operation from which Medical Marijuana Registry patients or registered caregivers may purchase medical marijuana and medical marijuana infused products, but is not a primary caregiver See C.R.S.§12-43.3-402. i) "Medical Marijuana Infused Product Manufacturer":A facility which produces medical marijuana infused products such as edibles,tinctures and beverages. These facilities are only allowed to sell their products to licensed Medical Marijuana Centers wholesale.See C.R.S. §12-43.3-404.1"Medical Medical Marijuana Optional Premises Cultivation":A licensed facility which grows, harvests and processes raw medical marijuana product to sell in Medical Marijuana Centers or for use in infused products.See C.R.S. §12-43.3-403. k) "Off-Premises Storage Permit":A permitted off-premises storage facility is an extension of a medical marijuana business or retail ma c- establishment's licensed premises and is subject to all applicable medi al or retail marijuana regulations. I) "Retail Marijuana Cultivation Facility":An entity licensed to cultivate, prepare, and package retail marijuana and sell to retail marijuana establishments, but not to consumers.See C.R.S.§12-43.4-403_ m) "Retail Marijuana Establishment":A Retail Marijuana Store, Retail Marijuana Cultivation Facility, Retail Marijuana Products Manufacturing Facility, or Retail Marijuana Testing Facility. n) "Retail Marijuana Products Manufacturing Facility":An entity licensed to purchase retail marijuana; manufacture, prepare,and package retail marijuana products;and then sell retail marijuana products to other retail marijuana establishments, but not to consumers.See C.R.S. §12-43.4-404. o) "Retail Marijuana Store":An entity licensed to purchase retail marijuana or retail marijuana products from a retail marijuana establishment and then sell retail marijuana and retail marijuana product to consumers.See C.R.S. §12-43.4-402. p) "Retail Marijuana Testing Facility":A public or private laboratory licensed to conduct research and analyze retail marijuana, retail marijuana products,and retail marijuana concentrate for contaminants and potency.See C.R.S. §12-43.4- ' 405. q) "State":The Marijuana Enforcement Division of the Colorado Department of Revenue. Article 3: Local Licensing a) Effective date. Except as provided in paragraph b it is unlawful to operate any business in unincorporated Boulder County for which a license is required under the CMMC without first having obtained a local license under these regulations and a state license under state code. b) Pre-existing businesses.Any person who is lawfully engaged in the business of selling,cultivating, or manufacturing medical marijuana as permitted by the CMMC and the Boulder County Land Use Code prior to July 1,2012 may continue in business if,on or before September 4, 2012,the person submitted an application for local licensing under these regulations. If an application is submitted according to this subsection,the business may continue until such time as the state or local licensing application is denied or the state or local license is revoked. c) Dual Licenses. Dual Operations are permitted so long as appropriate State and local licenses have been issued and remain valid and active for both operations. No Dual Retail Business Operation is permitted to sell marijuana to persons younger than twenty-one years of age. d) No entitlement of vested right. No person shall have any entitlement or vested right to licensing under these regulations,the CMMC,the CRMC, Boulder County zoning approvals, or Boulder County building permits.To lawfully engage in the business of selling, cultivating,or manufacturing marijuana in unincorporated Boulder County, all persons must obtain a license under these regulations. Such a license is a revocable privilege subject to the will and scrutiny of local and state authorities. Article 4: Relationship to Other Laws Boulder County intends to follow and incorporate the requirements and procedures in the CMMC,the CRMC,the MMR,and the RMR.Whenever possible,these regulations and any licenses issued under these regulations shall be construed to comply with federal law,specifically including the Controlled Substances Act_ Article 5:Authority The Boulder County Board of County Commissioners (the "Board") may designate, in its discretion, a person or persons to act as the Boulder County Marijuana Licensing Authority.The Authority shall serve at the pleasure of the Board and be compensated on terms mutually agreeable to the Board and the Authority.The Authority shall accept and determine applications and fees, investigate potential licensing violations,take action against licensees,and perform other duties as provided by these Regulations. Article 6: Licenses The Authority is authorized to issue the following local licenses should the applicant fulfill the requirements: Medical Marijuana Center license; Medical Marijuana Optional Premises Cultivation license; Medical Marijuana Infused Products Manufacturer license; Retail Marijuana Store license; Retail Marijuana Cultivation Facility license; Retail Marijuana Products Manufacturing Facility license; Retail Marijuana Testing Facility license; and an Off-Premises Storage permit.The license requirements in these regulations shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other licensing and permitting requirements imposed by any other federal,state,or local law.The license does not provide any exception,defense,or immunity to any person in regard to any potential criminal liability the person may have for the production, distribution,or possession of marijuana.A valid license shall be required from the State of Colorado as provided by the CMMC and the CRMC. Article 7:Licensing Procedure a) General Procedure.The Authority shall consider and act upon all complete local license applications as authorized by these regulations.The Authority shall defer to the State to enforce compliance with the requirements in the CMMC and the CRMC and any other state regulations not covered by these regulations.The Authority shall grant or deny a license based solely upon the Authority's investigation and findings,and no public hearing shall be required.The Authority shall deny any application that is not in full compliance with these regulations.The Authority may,at its discretion,waive specific submission requirements or require the submission of additional materials as may be useful in making a determination under these regulations. b) Application forms. 1. All applications for a new marijuana business,establishment or dual operation licenses shall be made upon forms provided by the State and shall include the Boulder County New Marijuana Business/Establishment License Application form and all documentation required by the Authority. 2. All applications for conversions from a licensed medical marijuana business to a retail marijuana establishment shall be made upon forms provided by the State and shall include the Boulder County Marijuana Business/Establishment Conversion Application form and all documentation required by the Authority. c) Other County Departments. Upon receipt of an application under 7(b)above,the Authority shall circulate the application to the Land Use Department,the Transportation Department, Public Health,and the Treasurer's Office.These departments should. employ their best efforts to respond within thirty days to the Authority with any concerns they have regarding the application. Failure of a referral agency to timely respond to a referral shall not constitute approval of the license. Article$:licensing Requirements a) Before issuing a local license for a new marijuana business or the Authority shall determine that all of the following requirements have been met: 1. The appropriate application is complete and all fees have been paid; 2. The Land Use Director or designee has determined: a. The use is permitted and that the owner or operator has obtained any required approvals under the Land Use Code; b. No zoning violations exist on the property or any property in the county owned by the business owner; c. All existing or proposed signage meets the requirements of the Land Use Code; d. All existing or proposed lighting meets the Land Use Code's lighting requirements; e. All structures in which the use is located have been inspected by the Chief Building Official (the "Building Official") or designee,who has determined the structure complies with all applicable building code provisions, and all necessary building permits have been obtained; 3. The Public Health Director or designee has determined the property has all required well and septic permits or is adequately served by public water and sewer; 4. The Treasurer or designee has determined alL property taxes have been paid and no tax liens exist on the property or any property in the county owned by the business owner(s); 5. The Transportation Engineer or designee has determined the marijuana business or establishment has satisfactory vehicular access and parking facilities pursuant to the County's Multimodal Transportation Standards and the Land Use Code, has provided for reasonably required offsite transportation improvements to serve the proposed site,and has suitability mitigated any traffic hazards associated with the use; b) Additionally, before issuing a local license for a conversion from a medical marijuana business to a retail marijuana establishment or conversion to a Dual Operation,the Authority shall determine that all of the following requirements have been met: 1. The appropriate application is complete and all fees have been paid; 2. The business has a current and valid medical marijuana business license,for the premises issued by the Authority. 3. The proposed activity must take place on the same parcel as the current licensed area unless a modification has been approved as provided for under Article 11(d) below; 4. No offensive odors have been reported, or odor issues have been rectified as confirmed by Public Health_ 5. For a Dual Retail Business Operation documentation of the required signage and receipt labeling has been provided. 6. No outstanding violations of County regulations or licensing requirements exist on the property where the proposed establishment is located. Article 8.5:Operation Requirements a) Hours of Qperation. Medical Marijuana Centers, Retail Marijuana Stores,and Dual Retail Business Operations must be closed to the public and no sale or other distribution of may occur upon the premises or via delivery, between the hours of 7:00 pm marijuana y and 8:00am. b) Odor Control. Odors should not escape the property line. If any complaints are received, licensees will work with Public Health to rectify air quality concerns. Unresolved air quality complaints may be basis for action on the license pursuant to Article 13 of these regulations. c) Business Conducted Within Building.All cultivation, production,distribution, storage, display,and sales of marijuana and marijuana-infused products must not be visible from the exterior of the business. d) Direct Sales.All retail sales of retail marijuana must be in person,directly to the purchaser. No sales may be made by telephone, internet, or other means of remote purchase. e) Giveaways. Medical Marijuana Centers, Retail Marijuana Stores,and Dual Retail Business Operations may not distribute marijuana or marijuana-infused products free of charge to a consumer. f) Advertising. All marijuana businesses and establishments are subject to the requirements of the Land Use Code and the restrictions on advertising and marketing under the CMMC and CRMC. In addition,no advertisement for marijuana or marijuana products are permitted on signs mounted on vehicles, hand-held or other portable signs,handbills,leaflets or other flyers directly handed to any person in a public place, left upon a motor vehicle or posted upon any public or private property without consent of the property owner.This prohibition shall not apply to (1)any advertisement contained within a newspaper, magazine or other periodical of general circulation within the County or on the internet; (2)advertising which is purely incidental to sponsorship of a charitable event not geared to or for the benefit of children or youth. g) Sponsorship. A marijuana business may sponsor a charitable,sports,or similar event, but a marijuana business must not engage in advertising at, or in connection with, such an event unless the marijuana business has reliable evidence that no more than thirty percent of the audience at the event and/or viewing advertising in connection with the event is reasonably expected to be under the age of twenty-one. h) Additional requirements for Retail Marijuana Stores or Dual Retail Business Operations: 1. Age limitation. Retail Marijuana Stores or Dual Retail Business Operations are not permitted to sell marijuana to persons younger than twenty-one years of age. 2. Signaae. A sign must be posted in the sales area that clearly states: "You must be at least 21 years old to enter." 3. Receipts. Receipts must contain the statement: "It is illegal to transfer or sell retail marijuana or retail marijuana products to anyone under the age of 21." 4. Proof of age. Proof of age of every person entering the business or establishment must be verified with an Electronic ID Scanner. i) Sustainability.All marijuana;cultivation operations must meet the following requirements,unless the Authority in consultation with the Building Official grants an extension of time for good cause shown. 1. Commencing April 30,2015,a sustainability report must be submitted to the Building Official that documents all electrical energy consumed and any fuel associated with generators or CO2 generation since the previous report. Energy usage for January through March shall be reported by the last day of April, usage for April through June shall be reported by the last day of July,usage for July through September shall be reported by the last day of October, and usage for October through December shall be reported by the last day of the following January.This report must be created and signed by an independent third-party commissioning agent who is approved by the Building Official. All fuels must be converted to kilowatt hours("kWh") using the rate of 3412 Btu=1 kWh. Documentation of source of consumption data is required. If a cultivation facility is participating in the Boulder County Energy Monitoring Program,then energy usage does not have to be separately reported in the sustainability report. Energy offset and lamp disposal must also be demonstrated in the sustainability report.All lamps must be disposed of at a hazardous waste or comparable facility and not deposited in a trash receptacle or landfill.The time,date,and location of all lamps recycled must be documented. 2. January 1, 2015,directly offset 50%of electricity consumption through a verified subscription in a Community Solar Garden, renewable energy generated on site, or equivalent approved by the Building Official.The offset must be demonstrated in the sustainability report approved by the Building Official. 3. By January 1, 2016, directly offset 100%of electricity consumption through a verified subscription in a Community Solar Garden, renewable energy generated on site,or equivalent approved by the Building Official.The offset must be demonstrated in the sustainability report approved by the Building Official. 4. By January 1, 2015, if an electrical power generator,CO2 generator or unvented room heater is located on-site,then the consumption of any natural gas, liquid fuel, bio-fuel or propane for this device must directly offset 50%of such fuel consumption through a verified subscription in a Community Solar Garden, renewable energy generated on site, or equivalent approved by the Building Official. By January 1,2016,this consumption must be offset 100%. The offset must be demonstrated in the sustainability report approved by the Building Official. 5. By January 1, 2015,for any expansion of the cultivation area, 100%the energy consumed in the expanded area must directly offset through a verified subscription in a Community Solar Garden, renewable energy generated on site, or equivalent approved by the Building Official. 6. In lieu of the offset requirements contained in subsections(1), (2), (3), (4) & (5) of this article,a facility may choose to pay fees to the Boulder County Energy Impact Offset Fund ("BCEIOF"). The owner(s) of such facilities must sign a BCEIOF agreement in which they agree to abide by all terms, requirements,and conditions of the BCEIOF program. Failure to make any payment shall be considered a violation pursuant to Article 13. Article 9: Inspection By signing and submitting a license application,the owner of the business or establishment certifies that the applicant has received permission from the property owner to allow inspections as may be required under state or local licensing law. In addition,the owners authorize the Authority or designee and the Building Official or designee,to enter upon and inspect the premises.Such inspections, if necessary,shall take place at a reasonable time with prior notice to the property owner,and prior to a determination on the application. Upon request,the owner of the business or establishment shall timely provide the Authority with records related to the business, including, but not limited to,utility bills from the commercial energy provider for the premises.This section shall not limit any inspection authorized under any other provision of law or regulation. Article 10:Decision and Appeal a) The Authority, in its sole discretion, may delay issuing a decision on a license application while the applicant is working toward bringing a noncompliant property into compliance.Applicants receiving the benefit of such a delay must proceed to correct the noncompliance diligently and in good faith or be subject to denial. b) Once the Authority has completed a review of the application,it shall either issue a local license or a denial letter that specifies the reasons for denial.Within ten days of a denial letter,the applicant may request that the Authority reconsider its decision by submitting a letter to the Authority clearly stating the grounds for the request. In response,the Authority may deny the request,issue a revised denial letter, or issue a local license.A denial letter, revised denial letter or local license denial is subject to judicial review as specified in to C.R.S. §12-43.3-801 or Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 106(a)(4), as applicable, but issues that were or could have been decided by the Board of Adjustment may not be raised in such a proceeding. c) A determination by the Land Use Director or designee, under Article 8(a)(2) above,that the use is not permitted or that the owner or operator has not obtained the required approvals under the Land Use Code,shall constitute a final decision of the Director appealable to the County Board of Adjustment under the applicable provisions of Article 4 of the Land Use Code.When the Authority receives such a determination,the Authority shall not issue a decision on the licensing application for thirty days. If the applicant files an appeal to the Board of Adjustment,the Authority shall not issue a decision on the licensing application until such appeal is finally resolved, unless a separate reason for denial exists. d) A pre-existing business operating under Article 3(b) must cease operation within forty- five days after the issuance of a denial letter or revised denial letter,as applicable. Article 11:Chances in License All County forms,State forms and fees must be submitted to the Authority to modify a business premise, location or ownership and shall be made at least thirty days prior to the anticipated change. If forms are received less than thirty days from the change or after the change has occurred a late fee may be charged.All information provided on State and County forms must be consistent. a) No modifications may be made to the business or establishment until the license is issued by the Authority b) Transfer/Change of Ownership.A license shall be transferable only upon approval by the Authority and the State.Any change in ownership shall require approval by the Authority and be requested on Change of Ownership Application. c) Change of Location.A change to the location of a business or establishment shall require approval by the Authority and be requested on Marijuana Licensing Report of Changes form, including the procurement of all permits and approvals from the Land Use Department. If a license has not expired,operations may continue at the current location until the new location is approved. Marijuana or marijuana products may only exist at the licensed location.To be approved for a change of location the new location must comply with Articles 8 and 8.5 of these regulations. d) Modification of premises.A modification of any building structure where a marijuana business or establishment or an off-premises storage facility g ty is located is subject to all applicable provisions of the Land Use Code and County building code.Any modification of premises shall require approval by the Authority and be requested on Marijuana Licensing Report of Changes form. e) Change of Mailing Address. Change may be made only upon approval by the Authority and the State.Any changes shall require approval by the Authority and be requested on Marijuana Licensing Report of Changes form. f) Change in Trade Name. Change may be made only upon approval by the Authority and the State.Any changes shall require approval by the Authority and be requested on Marijuana Licensing Report of Changes form. Article 12:Term of license; renewal a) Term of License. Boulder County marijuana business or establishment licenses shall be valid for a period of one year or upon the expiration and non-renewal of the associated license, whichever occurs first. b) Renewal of License. 1. A renewal application, renewal fee, operating fee,and any required accessory license operating fees must be submitted at least forty-five days before the expiration of the license or a late fee may apply. Failure to submit a renewal application prior to the expiration date of a license will result in the revocation of a license on the expiration date. 2. No violations of these Regulations exist. Renewal of any local license is subject to the laws and regulations effective at the time of renewal,which may be substantially different than the regulations currently in place. 3. No offensive odors have been reported,or odor issues have been rectified as confirmed by Public Health. Article 13:Violations a) Order to Show Cause. If the Authority has reasonable cause to believe that a license has violated the CMMC,CRMC or these Regulations, it shall issue an Order to Show Cause,specifically identifying the alleged violation(s),advising that action may be taken against the license, and giving the licensee ten days to provide a response in writing. b) Decision. Based on the licensee's response and any other evidence that has been presented,the Authority shall determine if a violation has occurred,and if so,the appropriate penalty.The Authority may take into consideration any aggravating and mitigating factors surrounding the violation which could impact the type or severity of penalty imposed. c) Penalties.The Authority will make a determination regarding the type of penalty to impose based on the severity of the violation in the following categories: 1. License Infractions.This category of violation is the least severe and may include, but is not limited to, air quality complaints, unauthorized modifications of the premises of a minor nature,or failure to notify the Authority of a minor change in ownership.The range of penalties for this category of violation include a verbal or written warning, license suspension, a fine per individual violation,a fine in lieu of suspension of up to$10,000 depending on the mitigating and aggravating circumstances.Sanctions may also include license restrictions. 2. License Violations.This category of violation is more severe than a license infraction but generally does not have an immediate impact on the health, safety, and welfare of the public at large. License violations may include but are not limited to, unrectified odor issues, advertising and/or marketing violations, unauthorized modifications of the premises,failure to notify the Authority of a change in ownership.The range of penalties for this category of violation may include a written warning, license suspension, a fine per individual violation, a fine in lieu of suspension of up to$50,000, and/or license revocation depending on the mitigating and aggravating circumstances.Sanctions may also include restrictions on the license. 3. License Violations Affecting Public Safety.This category of violation is the most severe and may include, but is not limited to,medical marijuana sales to non-patients,consuming marijuana on the licensed premises, medical marijuana sales in excess of the relevant transition limit,violations related to collocated medical marijuana businesses and retail marijuana establishments,packaging or labeling violations that directly impact patient safety.Violations of this nature generally have an immediate impact on the health,safety,and welfare of the public at large.The range of penalties for this category of violation may include license suspension,a fine per individual violation, a fine in lieu of suspension of up to$100,000,and/or license revocation.Sanctions may also include restrictions on the license. d) Fines. Fines of$3,000 for each offense may be imposed for a licensee's violations. If a licensee has had multiple violations within a three-year period,fines of$5,000 for each offense may be imposed: If a license has been suspended pursuant to this Article 13 for fourteen days or less,the licensee may petition the Authority for a fine in lieu of suspension,and the Authority in its sole discretion may grant, pursuant to C.R.S. §12-43.3-601(3).Any fine must be paid within thirty days of a final decision by the Authority or the license will be suspended, unless the Authority grants a longer period. e) Appeal Process.Within ten days of any decision by the Authority,the licensee may provide a written response by submitting a letter to the Authority clearly stating its position. In response,the Authority may make a final decision, request additional information or conduct additional investigation prior to issuing a final decision, or withdraw the violation determination.A final decision is appealable under Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 106(a)(4). A licensee may continue to operate during the pendency of an appeal.The Authority may grant extensions of deadlines under this Article for good cause shown. f) Upon denial or revocation of a state license, any license issued under these regulations shall be null and void. If a court of competent jurisdiction determines that the issuance of local licenses violates federal law,all licenses issued under these regulations shall be deemed immediately revoked by operation of law,with no ground for appeal or other redress on behalf of the pp he licensee. Article 14: Fee Structure. a) New Medical Marijuana Business licenses.Only one Application Fee is required per business, per location.An Annual Operating Fee will be required for the first license and an Accessory License Operating Fee will be required for each additional license for that business,at that location. - Application Fee $2,500 Annual Operating Fee $4,000 Accessory License Operating Fee $250 b) New Retail Marijuana Establishment Licenses.An individual application fee will be received from the State for each license.An Annual Operating Fee will be required for the first license and an Accessory License Operating Fee will be required for each additional license for that business,at that location. Application Fee $2,500 Annual Operating Fee $4,000 Accessory License Operating Fee $250 c) Conversion from a Medical Marijuana Business to a Retail Marijuana Establishment or Dual Operations_An individual application fee will be received from the State for each license.An Annual Operating Fee will be required for the first license and an Accessory License Operating Fee will be required for each additional license for that business,at that location. Application Fee $250 Annual Operating Fee $4,000 Accessory License Operating Fee $250 d) Administrative fees- Renewal $300 Late Renewal $500 Transfer of Ownership $100 Change in Ownership Structure $50 Change of Location $3,000 Change in Mailing Address $50 Change in Trade Name $50 Modification of Premises $500 Late Fee for Changes $250 The operating fee may be refunded if the Authority denies the application.All other fees are nonrefundable.The Board of County Commissioners has authority to set and amend fees. Article 15:Severability If any provision of these regulations is found to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction,only the provision subject to the court decision shall be repealed or amended.All other provisions shall remain in full force and effect. 9Sec. 4-10. - Nuisance. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to emit air contaminants that constitute a nuisance as defined in section 4-2. (b) It shall be an unlawful nuisance for any person to cause or permit the emission of odorous air contaminants from any source so as to result in detectable odors that leave the premises upon which they originated and interfere with the reasonable and comfortable use and enjoyment of property. Upon either or both of the following occurrences, any odor will be deemed to interfere with reasonable and comfortable use and enjoyment of property: (1) If odorous contaminants are detected when one (1) volume of the odorous air has been diluted with seven (7) or more volumes of odor-free air, as measured by any instrument, device, or method designated by the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division to be used in the determination of the intensity of an odor and in the enforcement of Colorado Air Quality Control Commission Regulation 2. (2) When the department receives five (5) or more complaints from individuals representing separate households within the city within a 12-hour period relating to a single odordescription, and the department verifies the source of theodor. To be considered an odor complaint the department must have a record of it, which must include the: a. Name, address and phone number of complainant. b. Time and date of call. c. Description of odor nuisance, including estimated location or source of complaint, and if possible, prevailing wind or weather conditions observed. (3) The department must use reasonable efforts to investigate all complaints to verify the source of the odor. (c) It is an affirmative defense to a violation of the odorous air contaminant standard that the violation was caused by an upset condition or breakdown of a device, facility, or process that: could not have been reasonably anticipated or prevented; the facility owner or operator took immediate action to eliminate the upset condition and, if necessary, repair all equipment and devices that caused or contributed to the upset condition or breakdown; the facility owner or operator notified the department about the upset condition or breakdown within eight (8) hours of its occurrence; and the facility owner or operator provided written detailed information describing the upset condition or breakdown and identifying the measures taken to correct it within three (3) working days of the occurrence. (d) Rodeos, stock shows, tarring operations, and other similar temporary events are exempt from this section. (Ord. No. 292-90, § 3, 5-29-90; Ord. No. 683-08, § 5, 12-8-08) Secs. 4-11-4-20. - Reserve Testimony Relating to House Bill 3400, Providing Opt Out Options for the Establishment of Marijuana Businesses, etc. in Regard to Land Use Outside of the Cities. Hearing Date: Wednesday, December 2, 2015 You did did not offer testimony in person. Your Name: 4{At t. ■iter? Lem Mailing Address: P. l7 , gox o2 E 42- E L),s-e to b - Q 71/02. E-mail address (optional): 54evc LiAtee. �.v Cot,c.t. 4 • ve.lt- Phone #s (optional): Et! - 9'5 3-3 qs I Your Comments: fl \A 1 p .53o �44V-A WV %C\--‘e--4-k- -4c-5 4.i a� fi eCM- I ov t - ¢ C.ou.vuA,i5 s 1 h 1.ce Vs 4-t> a Or (1)t)k• r'vw4tk.a.A 5-4A, f_cz1j. "E-(4-tovcAm..\,4[e. y � V--e3u\an > 4o a 43\J'ALL) A kiP V 0.41t."(1.0 (Use back of page if desired.) Signature: , 'ALL, 11/16/2015 XF IN ffY Connect XFINITY Connect steve.wheeler@comcast.net +Font Size- November 12,2015 Planning Commission Hearing From:steve wheeler<steve.wheeler @comcast.net> Mon,Nov 15,2015 07:19 AM Subject:November 12,2015 Planning Commission Hearing To:Board©Deschutes.org Dear Deschutes County Commissioners, November 16,2015 I attended the Nov.12th planning commission meeting regarding the regulation of marijuana grow operations. We purchased a house on 10 acres on Couch Market Road in 2000. We searched for 2 years before purchasing the property for its views,considerate neighbors,and water rights to raise hay for horses. We also loved the tranquility and neighborhood feeling of the area. The hearing alarmed me in many ways. Most disturbing was the testimony of a majority of residents that provided details of grow operations obtaining permits for"hay barns",then building glass greenhouses with grow lights brighter than the moon in the nighttime hours. The"dead skunk"odor is pungent and distinct turning off highway 20 and is one and a half miles from the grow operation. Complaints have been filed and nothing appears to have been addressed. Two of the growers stated that their operations used the proper carbon filters that prevented noxious odors from leaving their property,and buildings that were opaque to prevent light pollution. They also were concerned for their neighbors in regard to traffic and other related issues that could be destructive forces in their neighborhoods. If all growers acted this way,there would not be a need to put in place strict,clear,enforceable code restrictions. Unfortunately,the testimony of long time residents made it very clear that restrictions must be in place and enforced. I wonder if Bend residents complained about odors,night lights as bright as the moon,and traffic nuisances,would the city of Bend address these issues? I am certain the answer would be yes. I believe in people's right to free enterprise and the ability to use their property for beneficial purposes. I do not believe others have a right to disregard destructive behaviors(ie.light pollution,noxious odors,and traffic problems). In conclusion,I believe it is in the best interests of the Commissioners,all growers,and the residents of Deschutes County,to"opt out", and simultaneously adopt strict,clear,enforceable code restrictions that will aid good will and assure a healthy community. I know this s issue is not an easy one to deal with,but if handled decisively,and firmly,Deschutes County will continue to be an amazing place to live. Thank you foryort time and consideration. Sincerely, Steve Wheeler P.O.Box 2542 Eugene,Oregon 97402 hops://web.mail.comcast.net/zimbrs/h/printmessage?id=2791.406.tz=America/Los Angeles&xim=1 1/1 2013 ° 215.2531 Restrictive local ordinances affecting farm use zones prohibited • exception (0) No state agency, city, county or political subdivision of this state may exercise any of its powers to enact local laws or ordinances or impose restrictions or regulations affecting any farm use land situated within an exclusive farm use zone established under ORS 215.203 (Zoning ordinances establishing exclusive farm use zones) or within an area designated as marginal land under ORS 197.247 (1991 g Edition) in ( ) a manner that would restrict or regulate farm structures or that would restrict or regulate farming practices if conditions from such practices do not extend into an adopted urban growth boundary in such manner as to interfere with the lands within the urban growth boundary. Farming practice as used in this subsection shall have the meaning set out in ORS 30.930 (Definitions for ORS 30.930 to 30.947). (2) Nothing in this section is intended to limit or restrict the lawful exercise by any state agency, city, county or political subdivision of its power to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of this state. [1973 c.503§8; 1983 c.826§12; 1985 c.565 §31; 1995 c.703 §10] §215.203 (Zoning ordinances establishing exclusive farm use zones to 215.3 1 9 ) 1 (Log 9 truck parking in exclusive farm use zones) Effect of constitutional provision requiring payments based on government regulations restricting use of property, (2001)Vol 49, p 284 Chapter 215 Published notice is adequate if property owners can reasonably ascertain that property in which they hold interest may be affected. Clackamas County v. Emmert, 14 Or App 493, 513 P2d 532 (1973), Sup Ct review denied Dear Commissioners: I wanted to supplement my comments from the public hearing with the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners on December 2, 2015. After thoroughly reviewing the proposed ordinance and the changes recommended by the Deschutes County Planning Commission, I would ask that the following information be used in your deliberations regarding regulations concerning the legal cannabis industry activity within the County. There seemed to be some confusion on the Planning Commission about state law and OLCC regulations regarding "marijuana" production, processing and distribution. To help clarify this confusion I will lay out some of the key state laws and regulations currently in place regarding the legal cannabis industry in Oregon. H.B. 3400 Section 1 (Definitions) (3) "Cannabinoid concentrate" means a substance obtained by separating cannabinoids from marijuana by: (a) A mechanical extraction process; (b) A chemical extraction process using a nonhydrocarbon-based or other solvent, such as water, vegetable glycerin, vegetable oils, animal fats, isopropyl alcohol or ethanol; (c) A chemical extraction process using the hydrocarbon-based solvent carbon dioxide, provided that the process does not involve the use of high heat or pressure; or (d) Any other process identified by the Oregon Liquor Control Commission, in consultation with the Oregon Health Authority, by rule. (4) "Cannabinoid edible" means food or potable liquid into which a cannabinoid concentrate, cannabinoid extract or dried marijuana leaves or flowers have been incorporated. (5) "Cannabinoid extract" means a substance obtained by separating cannabinoids from Marijuana by: (a) A chemical extraction process using a hydrocarbon-based solvent, such as butane, hexane or propane; (b) A chemical extraction process using the hydrocarbon-based solvent carbon dioxide, if the process uses high heat or pressure; or (c)Any other process identified by the commission, in consultation with the authority, by rule. (12) "Licensee"means any person who holds a license issued under this Act section 19, 20, 21 or 22, chapter 1, Oregon Laws 2015, or any person holding a license or permit issued under any regulation promulgated under paragraph (e) of subsection (2) of section 7 of this Act. [The sections referred to above and throughout H.B. 3400 are as follows: Section 19 = OLCC Producers; Section 20 —OLCC Processors; Section 21 =OLCC Wholesalers; Section 22=OLCC Retailers] 1 (13) "Licensee representative" means an owner, director, officer, manager, employee, agent or other representative of a licensee, to the extent such that the person acts in such a representative capacity. (24)(a)"Premises"or"licensed premises"includes the following areas of a location licensed under section 19, 20, 21 or 22, chapter 1, Oregon Laws 2015: (A)All public and private enclosed areas at the location that are used in the business operated at the location, including offices, kitchens, rest rooms and storerooms, including all public and private areas; (B) All areas outside of a building that the Oregon Liquor Control commission has specifically licensed for the production, processing, wholesale sale, or retail sale of marijuana items; and (C) For a location that the commission has specifically licensed for the production of marijuana outside of a building, the entire lot or parcel, as defined in ORS 92.010, that the licensee owns, leases, or has a right to occupy. (b) "Premises" or"licensed premises" does not include a primary residence. Section 8 (OLCC License Denials) This sections gives the OLCC broad authority to deny licenses for a variety of reasons, including: • There are already a sufficient numbers of licenses already located in the locality • The applicant is in the habit of using drugs or alcohol to excess • The applicant has made false statements to the commissions • The applicant is incompetent or physical unable to carry on management of establishment proposed to be licensed • The applicant has maintained an insanitary establishment • The OLCC has broad discretion to look at all local, state and federal law violations of the applicant, including convictions from other states and can deny a license for those convictions that the OLCC determines are substantially related to the fitness and ability of the applicant to lawfully operate in the state • The applicant is not of"good repute and moral character". • The applicant does not have a record of compliance with the OHA and the OMMP • The applicant is not the legitimate owner of the business proposed to be licensed • The applicant does not possess the "financial responsibility" or ability to conduct the business proposed to be licensed • The applicant does not understand the law of the Oregon regarding cannabis Section 10 (Finger Printing of Applicants) This section allows the OLCC to have applicants fingerprinted for national criminal background checks. Section 12 (OLCC Producers) 2 • Codified this is Sectionl9, and is the section that covers OLCC Producers (adult use/rec). I refer to them as Section 19 Producers. Section 14 (OLCC Processors) Codified this is Section 20, and is the section that covers OLCC Processors (adult use/rec). I refer to them as Section 20 Processors. Section 15 (OLCC Wholesalers) Codified this is Section 21,and is the section that covers OLCC Wholesalers(adult use/rec). I refer to them as Section 21 Wholesalers. Section 16 (OLCC Retailers) Codified this is Section 22, and is the section that covers OLCC Retailers (adult use/rec). I refer to them as Section 22 Retailers. Section 19 (Marijuana Handlers) This, along with OLCC rules establishes a system of licensing and certification for those working in OLCC licensed facilities. All those seeking such certification to work must be 21 years of age or older. Section 21 (Bonds and Liability) The OLCC can and will requiring bonding and the carrying of liability insurance. Section 23 (Seed to Sale Tracking) The OLCC has contracted with a company to fulfill the requirement that all cannabis produced for OLCC distribution be tracked from seed to sale to prevent diversion of cannabis. Section 33 (Land Use) Grants Cities and Counties the authority,on their authority under local charters,the ability to adopt reasonable "time, place and manner" regulations of the "nuisance" aspect of establishments that sell marijuana to consumers with "specific findings"that the "establishment would cause adverse effects to occur." The section then went on to detail what "reasonable regulations" included and what licenses under HB 3400 the localities could impose those regulations. Here is the summary: • "Reasonable Conditions on the manner"that Section 19 Producers may produce • "Reasonable Conditions on the manner"that Section 20 Processors may process • "Reasonable Conditions on the manner"that Section 21 Wholesaler may sell 3 • "Reasonable Limitations" on hours of operation of Section 22 Retailers • "Reasonable Conditions on the manner"that Section 22 Retailers may sell • "Reasonable requirements related to the public's access" to a licensed premise • Reasonable limitations" on where producers, processors, wholesalers and retailers may be located. It is important to note that any regulations that are adopted must be consistent with the localities comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances. Section 34 (Treatment of Marijuana as Crop) This section established Marijuana as a"Crop" for the following purposes: • As a"farm use" under ORS § 215.203 • As a"farm" and "farming practice," under ORS § 30.930; • As a product of farm use as described in ORS § 308A.062; • As a product of an agricultural activity for purposes of ORS § 568.909 However, unlike other crops under state law, this section precluded the following activities on Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Land: • New Dwelling in conjunction with a"marijuana crop" • Farm Stands under ORS § 215.213 and § 215.283 • Commercial Activity under ORS § 215.213(2)(c) and § 215.283(2)(a) Furthermore, this section indicates that the counties may allow marijuana production on other lands zoned for Farm and Forest Use in the same manners as production is allowed on EFU under HB 3400 and ORS § 215.213 and § 215.283. Localities will be requested to fill out a Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS) so as to determine if OLCC license applicants are in areas that have been approved for such use by the localities. The localities must be prepared to act on these LUCS requests within 21 days. OLCC REGULATIONS OAR 845 Division 025 1015 (Definitions) (16)"Financial interest" means having an interest in the business such that the performance of the business causes, or is capable of causing, an individual, or a legal entity with which the individual is affiliated, to benefit or suffer financially, and such interests include but are not limited to: 4 (a) Receiving, as an employee or agent, out of the ordinary compensation, either in the form of overcompensation or under compensation; (b) Lending money, real property or personal property to an applicant or licensee for use in the business at a commercially unreasonable rate; (c) Giving money, real property or personal property to an applicant or licensee for use in the business; or (d) Being the spouse or domestic partner of an applicant or licensee. For purposes of this subsection, "domestic partners" includes adults who qualify for a"domestic partnership"as defined under ORS 106.310. (21) "Licensee" means any person who holds a license issued under section 19, 20, 21 or 22, chapter 1, Oregon Laws 2015. (22)"License holder" includes: (a) Each applicant listed on an application that the Commission has approved; (b) Each individual who meets the qualification described in OAR 845-025-1045 and who the Commission has added to the license under OAR 845-025-1030; or (c) Each individual who has a financial interest in the licensed business and who the Commission has added to the license under OAR 845-025-1030. (23) "Licensee representative" means an owner, director, officer, manager, employee, agent, or other representative of a licensee, to the extent that the person acts in a representative capacity. 1030 (Application Process) Applicants must provide the following: • Proof of Oregon residence for at least two years • Information and Fingerprints for federal background check Person with"Financial Interest"holding at least 10% interest they must submit: • Information and Fingerprints for federal background check • Individual History form and any other forms requested by the OLCC 1045 (Qualifications of Applicants) The following are considered"applicants"under the OLCC rules for application: • Any individual that has a financial interest in the business for which licensure is sought and who is directly involved in controlling the ordinary course of business for the business that is proposed to be licensed; and • Any legal entity that has a financial interest in the business for which licensure is sought and is directly involved in controlling the ordinary course of business for the business that is proposed to be licensed; 5 1115 (Denial of Application) Applications for Proposed licensed premises will be denied for the following reasons: • It is located on federal property • It is located on the same "physical location or address of a medical marijuana grow site registered with the OHA (unless it has opted in and is under OLCC rules), a medical marijuana processing site registered with the OHA, a medical marijuana dispensary (MMF) registered with the OHA • It is located at the same "physical address or location" of a liquor license under ORS § 471 Applications for Proposed licensed OLCC producers will be denies for the following reasons: • It is located on public land • It is located on the same "tax lot or parcel" as another licensed producers under common ownership Proposed applications for licensed processors will be denied if they are in areas zoned exclusively for residential use. 1230 (Licensed Premise Restrictions and Requirements) This covers all the restrictions and requirements for locating licensed premises, access to licensed premises and cover the restrictions listed above and a host of other restrictions. 1300 (Licensee Prohibitions) (1) A licensee may not: O Y (a) Import into this state or export from this state any marijuana items; (b) Give marijuana items as a prize, premium or consideration for a lottery, contest, game of chance or game of skill, or competition of any kind; (c) Sell, give or otherwise make available any marijuana items to any person who is visibly intoxicated; (d) Make false representations or statements to the Commission in order to induce or prevent action by the Commission; (e) Maintain a noisy, disorderly or insanitary establishment or supply adulterated marijuana items; (I) Misrepresent any marijuana item to a customer or to the public; (g) Sell any marijuana item through a drive-up window; (h) Deliver marijuana to any consumer off the licensed premises except as permitted by OAR 845-025-2880; (i) Sell or offer to sell a marijuana item that does not comply with the minimum standards prescribed by the statutory laws of this state; or (j) Use or allow the use of a mark or label on the container of a marijuana item that is kept for sale if the container does not precisely and clearly indicate the nature of the container's contents 6 or in any way might deceive a customer as to the nature, composition, quantity, age or quality of the marijuana item. (2)No licensee or licensee representative may be under the influence of intoxicants while on duty.(a) For purposes of this rule "on duty" means: (A) The beginning of a work shift that involves the handling or sale of marijuana items, checking identification or controlling conduct on the licensed premises, to the end of the shift including coffee and meal breaks; (B) For an individual working outside a scheduled work shift, the performance of acts on behalf of the licensee that involve the handling or sale of marijuana items, checking identification or controlling conduct on the licensed premises, if the individual has the authority to put himself or herself on duty; or (C) A work shift that includes supervising those who handle or sell marijuana items, check identification or control the licensed premises. (b) Whether a person is paid or scheduled for work is not determinative of whether the person is considered"on duty" under this subsection. 1400 (Security Plans) Requires detailed security plans and information to be submitted at the time of application 1410 (Security Requirements) Details all the security requirements for licensees 1420 (Alarm System) Details all the security alarm system requirements for licensees 1430 Video Surveillance Equipment Details all the video surveillance system requirements for licensees 1440 (Required Camera Coverage and Camera Placement) Details all the camera coverage and placement requirements for licensees 1450 (Video Recording Requirements for Licensed Facilities) Details all the video recording requirements for licensees 1460 (Location and Maintenance of Surveillance Equipment) Details all the location and maintenance of surveillance equipment requirements for licensees 1470 (Producer Security Requirements) 7 Details all the additional security requirements for production licensees 1620 (General Sanitation Requirements) Details all the sanitation requirements for licensees 2000 (Recreational Marijuana Producers) This section details that "indoor production" involves using artificial light and "outdoor production" involves growing outdoors or in greenhouse, hoop house, etc. that does not use artificial light. 2040 (Production Size Limitations) This section details how producers must establish"cultivation batch sizes" and other requirements for tracking product. More importantly, it established the following canopy size restrictions for growers: Indoor Production: • Tier I =up to 5,000 square feet • Tier II = 5001 to 10,000 square feet Outdoor Production: • Tier I=up to 20,000 square feet(less than 1/2 acre) • Tier II =20,001 to 40,000 square feet(less than acre) Producers can do both indoor and outdoor, but only at a 1 to 4 ratio. Current Proposed Ordinance by Deschutes County The first concern I raised during public comments was about the proposed regulations under the ordinance applying to both large scale commercial producers and small individual medical growers. The way marijuana production is defined in the proposed ordinance, it would apply to the largest commercial OLCC producer as well as the cancer patient who is growing six plants for themselves and six plants for another patient. This seems hardly fair and I doubt it was the intent i' make of the ordinance. However, a plain reading of the definition of"marijuana production" to all OLCC licensees and OHA grow site registrants required to comply with the regulations. If the county were to proceed with such requirement of medical growers who are only producing for themselves or a small number of patients and are not doing so as a "commercial" operation, I believe those would be beyond the time, place and manner restrictions allowed under H.B. 3400. The land use section of H.B. 3400, as detailed above only gave the localities the ability to regulate OLCC licensed producers (§ 19),processors (§ 20),wholesalers (§ 21), and retailers (§ 22). I also believe that if the county tried to impose these regulations and restrictions on medical growers (§ 8 81) it could lead to litigation between the County and small scale medical growers. The County should make a clear policy distinction between those operating commercial cannabis operations and non-commercial medical patients, their caregivers and their growers. I also believe that the County would be doing a large disservice to the areas small farmers if marijuana production was only permitted on EFU on 20 acre parcels as requested by the planning commission. The original ordinance would have permitted production on all EFU and required a conditional use permits in other zones that traditionally allow"farm use"or"agricultural activity". MAU,Fl, F2 and RR-10 districts all allow either"farm use"or"agricultural activity". These are generally smaller tracts and traditionally owned by smaller family farms who are permitted under the current zoning ordinance to engage in a variety of agricultural activities and farm uses. Some of those activities can involve odors and noisy machinery. Odors and noisy machinery are a common part of the rural landscape, and a necessity for many farming operations. "Farm use" and "agricultural activity" are also permitted in various other zones that the proposed ordinance would require a conditional use permit for marijuana production applications. Under the current zoning ordinance, the Redmond Urban Area permits "farm use", as does the Sisters Urban Reserve Area. "Farm use" is also a permitted use under the current Code for F 1 and F2 zones. RR 10 zones permit "agricultural activity". General, farm operations are permitted under the Code for all these zones. The proposed ordinance would require those small farmers who own these properties to go through h the conditional use permit process. This could be very time consuming and potentially lead to the permit being denied and the producer not being able to get a license with the OLCC and use their property for a use that is recognized as a "farm use" and "agricultural activity" under state law. This would be fundamentally unfair to small producers, some who have lived in the area and farmed for multiple generations. Also, unless a strong rational basis for not allowing a state recognized farm use or agricultural activity to occur in zones where it is customarily allowed, the County will be vulnerable to costly litigation. However, the County has recognized some zoning areas were "agricultural activity" is permitted, but is excludes hog farms, mink farms and feed lots. There were obviously additional circumstances in these zones in which the county recognized that agricultural activities that had offense odors were not going to be allowed. The Rural Service Center and Alfalfa Residential Center are zones under the current code with these odor related restrictions to use. It would seem fair and legally and defendable to exclude marijuana production in these zones for the same reason as not allowing feed lots, hog farms and mink production. Thus,with regard to the land use and zoning issues,the County should be consistent with state law to avoid unnecessary and costly litigation. Any zone that permits farm use or agricultural activity, should permit marijuana production. Additional, the consistency should be a two-way street. If an activity, like processing generally required a special or conditional use permit under the current 9 code, it should be required for marijuana processing. Currently, the proposed ordinance permits marijuana processing in EFU zones. However,under the current County Code,processing of farm crops is permitted but subject to the special conditions under D.C.C. 18.16.038 and pursuant to Limited Use permit under D.C.C. 18.16.042. To be consistent, marijuana processors on EFU should have to comply with the same special conditions as other processors of farm products. pY p p p The proposed ordinance requires producers to utilize carbon filter systems to eliminate odor. Though this is one method of odor reduction, for most greenhouse facilities, it would be insufficient. Also, there are other methods like ionization and others that may be more effective. The technology is rapidly changing in this area as well. The proposed ordinance should require, if anything, "reasonable measures" to eliminate odors. Again though, unless the county can establish a "rational basis" for odor restriction on this farm use and not others that also involve offensive odors, they will be in jeopardy of facing litigation over this issue. Restricting any farm use based on odor complaints is a very slippery slope with regard to rural zoning. The same exact statement applies to the noise and light portions of the proposed ordinance. Unless similar noise and light restrictions are placed on other farm operations, the county would need to establish a rational basis for imposing those restrictions only on marijuana production. The light casts by HID lights inside many riding arenas in the County are on after dark,as people give riding lessons after work and school. Tractors are frequently observed with lights on after dark,mowing, bailing and picking up hay. They generate a tremendous amount of noise. Well more than the decibel limits established under the proposed ordinance. Again, consistency with the treatment of farm use and agricultural activities is the best way to avoid uncostly litigation. It is also the only way to be fair to the small farmers in the community who may want to the opportunity to be involved in the cannabis industry. This goes back to the mandate of H.B. 3400 requiring localities to be consistent with their current zoning. The 100 foot setbacks from property lines and 300 foot setbacks from existing dwellings can and will in some circumstances drastically limit some producer's ability to use their farm. They will have entire sections of their property that will not be usable. This will allow situations to arise where a residence will prevent EFU land from being in production. Again, without any sort of rational basis for this sort of restriction of farm use and agricultural activity, the county will be begging for litigation. Farm use and agricultural activities on EFU land or any land where these activities are permitted should not be infringed upon or restricted based on potential sensitivities of rural residents to sights, sounds and smells. There are plenty of both urban neighborhoods in the county,as well a rural developments and subdivisions that do not allow farm use or agricultural activities. Additionally,there will be issues when the existing house itself violates current setbacks under the Code or when there are property line disputes. Any dwelling that is currently in violation of Code setbacks, that is located on property created by a partition of EFU land, or that is a new dwelling built on EFU and required to file the nuisance suit affidavit should not be included in any setback requirements; nor should any property lines that are currently under some form of dispute. 10 • The 1000 foot setback from schools, daycare,parks, etc. will also have to be supported with some sort of rational basis. These setbacks could also have the effect of limiting a person use of their EFU land or other land for otherwise permitted activities. Though there are probably very few instances were these setbacks will come into play, their impact could be huge on property owner rights. Additionally,without grandfathering of current operations,daycare facilities or other buffer targets could move in after the fact in an effort to zone out operations. Clearly,the big concerns from citizens commenting during the last hearing revolved around, sight, smell and sound of the production facilities. Again, I preference the comments with the thought that we are talking about farm land and farm operations,which all inherently have sight, smell and sound issues, depending on whose perspective you are looking at. Also, Oregon and Deschutes County have adopted right to farm statutes and ordinances that signal a priority in allowing farm use and agricultural activities to be conducted without undue interference in rural area. Deschutes County even requires those seeking to build new dwellings on EFU land to sign and file affidavits precluding them from bringing nuisance claims for farm related activities. I would strongly caution against relying on citizen complaints about odor, smells and sights as a "rational basis" for prohibiting state recognized farm use or agricultural activities. This would stand the right to farm laws on their head. It would also make other farm activities vulnerable to these same type of complaints. This goes well beyond people's ability to grow cannabis legally in this new industry in Oregon. It goes right to the heart of agriculture and producers' ability to run their operations without interference from encroaching suburbia and their urban sensitivities. Unless the country restricts this industry to large 20 plus acre tracts, you can expect that many of the licensed producers will be small farmers who also raise livestock, hay, commercial vegetable gardens,and are involved in other agricultural activities on their farm operations. This is the model g g the state and county should be looking to obtain. This is the model that will reduce and eliminate some, if not all, the current complaints issued against non-licensed producers currently operating in the county. Allowing only large tracts to be involved is only going to lead to super large production sites, which will lead to further complaints and issues. If we can get regulations that place the cannabis producers on the same footing as other producers in the county, we will eventually see this industry become understood and accepted as an agricultural activity in Deschutes County farm land. That is the best way forward as we try to bring a formerly un- regulated production activity into the light and make adhere to the basic principles of farming. I thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Michael R. Hughes Attorney/Farmer Bend, OR 11 a. • Document Reproduces Poorly (Archived) p ri- 0 -O L1 ;am 0 ? ems. P-17; = ," i_v,,,, -0 -, '.'14 ..■ . . Pig' e v., 1:1= = (I 1 ro Marla 4 U P ' i"mi1 0 bfJ ., elitiWa w - ter; = . . = 1• 1° t I, . COIC ;-.4 4, ; . = P4 I' of w �,. T , '"�W•,. . 410 . • „.,,..,„,„:,:...,..,.,,,,,,.,?.....,,,,,,_.. ,.,.,,, , ,...4„,„.„&,,,..„.11„.:...:,:,. ., ,. ,..,;„1 ,,,,_ . .,„.w:,;:.:,,,......,14.,..,,, ,..0,,,,.,,..,:,„.,,.,,, , ,,„.:,..1,, ,,,,,i....-....,,,, ., . . , ..0.''' '''''''' , . '.,',',,,,.;-%,,•,,' ',,,,,,-.,,ifi).,,,,,,,,,,,it414,,,,; ,,l,U-diW-,,,,',,A'Atoi,t,',,•,',,,,,;‘,,,',',. d , . .4,''''':*".‘ . .. ‘t,„;.0,,,,.. .:,,;,..:i,,'„„.., ,,, ,,y',"',Cc',..,..7,til*,ri,,,p,.,4•:,1k'.,", ,,,.."Fit°111, • roe' ' ' ,, r,,,,;,,,,,,,,,,,''.4';94',:t;t' .411:r'.' ''''',■' .''''.';‘,P4.',40,Ara,,',U'A.,1,,,":'..',.0'7i 1 . ..,..:..,...,,q,.'+ .',',',.:.40',4.,',.:,, , 41'1S '..,4,„•,'-, ,, .,, t',.., .,. , 11,"' ' :2 ,,...'',,,:i.,,,-.... .:,, ,. ,,,i.,.,,,,:, ,:.,,"io',f,1;,..,,,,,,,‘,:','•,t,?'7,-,,-,,t;:s.,', 1," .,. .-„,' , ".. ,.',4'.'.!;',','.',..'''.•.:.-.4,,,.::,',,t'\' i", ',,,'i",,.. '''.■''',',.:'..";;:',',7,,A;,',4°,-,",",.,'', -' ,1::4, ",., . ,. . ... , ' ., „. ,, .,„".;.. 1. i:,','''','1'','„,,';„-,:,1',:••#34,/,,,t4,,,,;"..e.:'...,, .,, Cdep ',,,., ' .' ' •', .,.,‘,..,'',',!0.,,:..1•„--:::.,441hi:?': ., .. .,.4i,., , ,,,.„,.,.„., ,,,.,..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, , it,!„,,,:,,,i,, ,,, '''-‘,;';',,:*•:::''.1,',,t,",','Z'i'',1,,.°,t^:'..t,'.'0.'' .*'''.t* ''•' . , , '' . .. ";::,1','.. 7. ''''''''."' ''':''' '',' .. '. ,'''' 'treLA-',,,... t :,f, •'',';' ::,-..' '';''' :: '''"'1''' ',;:,'',1‘2,,'":#' ' ' ' '' - ''.'1,..;'.,,,',''',,;:',t',. ''',,),..,•,' ,:oa,.,.4!":,,;i'',,',',11,:"±ti.'4,',,:'/'',"4,2,,„lt,..°'....:. 1 ._40 ce 4,4 / la , „ .,1'.. '-',.ii .1 ''.','',.'..;', ';‘' .c1-','', ' '";'s:,!..;,,,.. ,, ..,'".'';',„:,zit',;,,. .. A, ".,", --.'c.,,, .• ,.',.,, -.;„,,,„ .:', : ,,- ,,'"',',,,ip4.,,,,,,co-71,', ""4,‘"P" , ,,,/,-,",:,:l.t. z , ,' Z .... 0 ' o ,, • ••• 4 '','','...• , '. ,f. '''r ' ''• ''',',....., ' ...t, ''''' ..','' .., ,,.'‘'',,'',,i,i''''''t:I'''',',‘'',1".":0 A,'-.,,b,. i'llt,,,,t.i.'ef ,,,',40,„•,,It ''' ''4r** Imp • W : ' w ,°.. ......,..:., , .,.. f.,... ;,,,,,,,, ,,,,4,,,, 0 . ' N I- ,‘, ,., ,' ,V,, ', ,',. . • '', :'''''''''', ;.■::;;*.'.'''''''i,,'":‘;'1;',4 14 ft.* N >. lilt • ,Y','" • 'ir‘ ' •• Z .• ',. '''''1',.. '''l ' ,, -•i '•'''' ,' 11- m Ce , . z ' , ...,ii,''-... ,..,..,,,.?..,::,-.. 4,4,,,. ,1, ' .4tv'jrt .,: '''''''' ''' '''' ..., ,, 0 1...is, •.,, -. P.t... ,.. cc . r 4 ..LI If, . .. '... u•N,, 1.1.1 F•sn , : ' '.' '''' ,,ak -• , --;-„:,,,e,:sici,;,,,,,:-'14.r.'„!,,..,,,,,t,,,- .....„-- ,-...,,,:',-; .',A,,,,,4.„,,, .: .,,..i, , .,4,.,,, 4 ;.,,...„,,,, _:,44' ;,, : '',,' '', ,... ,. ,.■ 7 . ,'•%,',' ' ‘, ,,,,- . ,* --0,,,,' ;,„,„ ,,,t.-,i ..4.,qb. 4.....,. ,7 , ■° rt''', , _ ,,.' •,.,..i . '',.....,',' ', 4 .,. et CC l. r ,,rr ,, -‘,...r.).,. illie,'V, 1Z ..., . ..,,,.. ' ''' ''.1'''"i4 4,';;' ''';;;t4ii,-'' I..,4'::.',.. ',.r.,'..,..4.....,.‘,, '. ' . ,., .,,,,,,........** ., ' a _ .11 '•••-i','''" ''-,', .':!7,•';;;'''',01F.., '0‘ . ..'": . '. , 0 ..'.. ' ,.'''. ,., , 1 ,,,,„.,,,,,..,,,, .. ,,,,.4 ,* 4"' - *, -, -.",`,,t i‘'4..r..4 .1.. .,.- , ..:,,,,,,... .,..0.....,. , .. . . 4,,, ,-.,4'„.1,,.„4 ,.(' ' •1...,.' '.'•,,,.., .,,-''''F4' rs - 1 , l ,, ., '^' , ..,,,f,..,,,,.1.,,p,:., ., „'..,.... . . fir 0 ...-. . 4- ' '''' a•'''' '- ,,.!,;,04? V i 0 * di " c J IV; p. g y0 H C ai L -1 4! ; 'A W -v y a 0 3 ; c F &O C w es C� .. c 21 a A E T — 4) A,<+ 1 g L, S o o d C a L 6. a 142 1/4,- 0 a 9 P, '' ' ' a -o y p� a L o 0 ;11011 t o to al e Ii o -6 2 a - 0 n 21 IIHfl *d V Ai a � f a IiflIi •Y 0 :0- c a o M = y �L ■M1 X O C L p '" p� a " y p p 'M a r,_ .� c g a C u 1 �/ > 41 4 pp A Y — 'O 6a 0. G C 0 X W rtl c L N a A d ro — L o a C r ro e,; a� a 0 0 x L ao a "0 Q 7 w a w C ° �j a 5 N E c C A L " ,. tx" ¢ W �� QL1, . {aaaJ/// 5 ma L E = i 411 s 0= o Q a o o � ffi o a A � C ■ ■, 1 ! a N ■ ■= _■ = a■ M 1r� IC • • • • • • + r3 t: rnht O d m=-0 6 u Rot -V ...9.., , y l 'Elo n =p '=" r O }. u *°„, , � - " o ! • t 0 o y .� by b •1jiiLI ' UEI1 t -tit-E 4g , ',,, C0J R -B s a_, n a E 2`E = . .E c2 g..0 g .yU F- cLt ' •. :° ' 0 1.1.2•,, 01.1116, ..,r :`,, ''A-V,:;,,.,4",''' ° 4.. ,4i sh„'.v ....1dn ....v.,,,^ W:.. , , . MST,' . i'`. Iv , Ti' .- i° M i ' u, ,-,,ro Wfi �d f�'4+ i d,, ' pp t '4",''' � F L a .-TM., rtn .:. i t 1 • n a , .v v� 4 ; i kil ''''S:1;:all: r.,;:, 4;,,,,*.t..04,1.,„,10,c.:,,,. t,,,,,,,t,,,,,;,, .,:e:,2,;:r,,,,„: 1,..,,,,,,,.. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:: ,, r.:■',''',4i 'a 1441 , Atiti■ ' 701N.,,,, f,i:ii:,, ■l, i,i, ., , , l, i R d t.5»R 7 '...t,''* f ' b ` 3 A .0 9 d "' , A g+ N ,, p Deschutes County has strict land-use laws.It is im necessary permits and your project is consistent with all ap- portant to understand the land-use rules that apply plicable regulations. to the parcel you are considering and to the prop- The Planning Division processes individual land-use erties in the vicinity applications and establishes policies and regulations to reflect Things can change: some properties can be sub-divided the community's vision for the future.The Planning Division into smaller parcels and forests can be logged. Not all zones maintains information on zoning, land-use regulations and allow for a new house as a matter of right.If a property doesn't historical land-use permits. have a satisfactory home or is vacant,before purchasing,you The Environmental Health Division oversees the instal- will want assurances that you will he allowed to build a new lation of on-site sewage disposal systems for homes that are one at the location you desire or remodel the old one.If you not served by a community or centralized sewer system.The want to fill in a wetland on your property,remove trees in a Division also licenses and inspects restaurants, pools, spas stream channel or do similar activities,you may first need to and other facilities. obtain a permit from Oregon's Department of State Lands, The Building Division reviews construction plans and illwhich regulates the removal or filling of certain amounts of inspects all new structures for conformance with applicable material in state waters. building,plumbing and electrical codes. County Permits, Planning and Zoning The Deschutes County Community Development } ' ' 'aervic a ,0'3�'4 E Department (CDD) has available all county-issued The setting and ul ,ual chail '.t ISti,e,,that tlt'aw people to development permits. The CDD facilitates orderly growth rural property,are the;same vaiues,tha°t crealte °tthe die tin'E and development through coordinated programs of planning Scenic Waterways Prggram L r4,, u,r;,hase l along the 'De _ and zoning environmental health and building safety. schut�s;River ec uld`be within'the boun'dar'ies pia states ,nrcw , Obtain information, such as development history, zoning, 'water'^'ay � : a� '',:E , current development regulations and procedures maps of A major funetlo oti,the r9. # t�jr+atect the natural "`' your property with overlay zoning, flood .lain soils aerial and scenic diverslt tfEEwa 9'rw0ys# 'ed ouragipg new dev,Fl Y P 1 Y Y g, p pmerlt°t+ blend'with existing•development rhil prtt t trlles'c` views and other useful tools at CDD offices. .co achieve :a,,balance between, p ros ih nat,yrai •resources, Research past development activities or the potential for and granting the wishes,of rixrfrorrt proierty owners �it ° development on-line or in the County's office. Customized 'ling uses in the form of residerti es,irazi,ng,farming aindla,est` mapping products are available through their Geographic crops 4r recognized as a part of tab sonic.beauty of th .r: Information System (GIS). Complaints about perceived , scenie'watra ! - ,®l N violations of county codes will be investigated upon written : The QregortParksand Recrc e.i n pa trt'ient (OP!D),fi, request. Counter staff are available to assist during regular reviews' land use cha)a:,4es','-,thin suite s efilr errWays,You office hours. are required to notify'"the OPR 4pf t;ertain impro± tS' All proposed buildings on your property must be re c r changes' in _and use you may wartit toy rpake.The pro , ehat►ges may not start;$,da,er than one�ar afC+er such.6°C-1 e:: '''. viewed and approved by the CDD. Be sure to consult '� aii E E N ';'' ,' . unless OPRD has, yen written ; the CDD before starting a project so that you obtain all , „ , ,, : .. r« , [- ODRD rules and regulations:http://egov.oregon.gov/pord/rules/waterways.shmtl#background Setback regulations and allowed uses on a specific property:Deschutes County Community Development Department,www.de- schutes.org/cdd 1' �N.ye p 4 v� .,F ti 5 M cv.y�f .S y 1 ... ..p4y; �{ I, ,yy-rte w e H^ fr- .* Y;• • 1 ' 1 °4 id a;':, h: •w Ca .., rat h ''" o 1. ti -,,u r• w + l d'444 C'L.' .00', F o.•,l7* a , 4 kaki+ ,• '' I ,A;),$ 4•'..A llf .err "'s n+t.n .y.kn r'e;...Yw,...,.,, ro*r-«.:-;,r••,.,q.. .:.". ' MME eo lc move to the country for numerous reasons.It is P y Under? tandingriRur l=Living: important to become acquainted with daily and sea- B a..Goo'd Neighbor Pr sonar activities that go along with the joy of living ��blems'-"arises when ;people don't understand what is. O next to agriculture. Many farmers depend on their land to happe.i itig and the reasons why Avoid-potentiak conflict:brun,;'; make a living; it is important for non-farming neighbors to derstanding some basic.prin;ciples: have a clear understanding of an agricultural-based lifestyle. '•. Communicate:,Get :to,.<know your .neighbors arid make Right-to-Farm an effort�'to°understand more aboutmtheir operation.With,. Agricultural operations are protected by Oregon's coif munication, m ny problems can be avoided:.Don'ts as sume'anything.. right-to-farm law, a policy that seeks to protect the invest- ;,. _ ment farmers have made in their agricultural operations. •. Respect'Private petty:.Ask:`:pe7'Aaission before enter Neighbors in rural communities understand the following . F';ing;private:proerty:'If you are granted permission to travel dawn private roads,be sure to leave gates as they are found re ardin agricultural lands: principles regarding g (closed or opened). P.ay at[enrion tyo,,"No`Trespassing/Pri= ill • Farm operations may involve practices that result in vate Drive"signs;,:. noise,dust and odor. • Privacy: Realize'that while people who:live:'in rural..areas • Agricultural operations are sometimes conducted outside often value their.privacy they also,depend:on..their neigh of normal business hours.Cutting and baling machinery bors for help,advice'and,;perhaps a cup of.sugar%=.to;fin.ish. often operate at night, and agricultural equipment can their batch of..cookies : Respect one;:"nother's privacy,but be noisy don t be afraid to extend dTsome friendliness and courtesy::. • Pesticides are commonly used in raising crops and their use is strictly regulated by state and federal governments. a Tillage operations can raise dust,and field burning cre- ates smoke. a Agricultural equipirient has the right of way on public roadsx.> M" ar + r , r c • :.r + i 5 � Y ' f ,s.. .- � _. i r .F ,. ` �C'� .�lwF ¢ "1` ' ' ,4 w :4f '. • ' • ' 1 r • M11P•4� +,« �� in . = r t� '+ r Qi 1 � 4,� s rig j y + ;. r.+ y, .!.•••'z �,5�w f t k,.r f' ..r ...... ' �` ';14M. YS + 4'., '.r,ar )I i..,',"T y,.« s,, ti '.I.Rt% + , %• rt.: I a ,ii'f y4',},• 'rrw. .+.::i i.'•::4 uif .' y y aiai` N 'I Testimony Relating to House Bill 3400, Providing Opt Out Options for the Establishment of Marijuana Businesses, etc. in Regard to Land Use Outside of the Cities. Hearing Date: Wednesday, December 2, 2015 You did _' did not offer testimony in person. Your Name: /oyvt. //fit/ cic+ Ll Mailing Address: . 2.679 i?I(6PcX 7-77bt E-mail address (optional): Phone #s (optional): 511 1— )0- V990 Your Comments: '2 I/i)WWP 011\A + /414_11A- -s L9 .be ) it Mtn) Soh? © r oPer07 Cg vere 14. ,b�,•��;,� s 1 Eic a d row c o 1 e )s 7© Yi u /19ineer e q h4e_kdoor q/91,Pgik 71 v)et-71-.4i/;- 1(2 017y b()01(wce 9► # 1-#,/7s e t, Q 1/4 7--I f"4 `r 7 0,12L-e4 ) e cAKre Cvu4 7 e /m T'�4 c �� til`01(4ce �- 4)--ipi l c /`ai 1%A' . Is L.� 4. I Ivry kit r, D O ivoi 4/47- /N c/ -n (1, l eel u.r r: ,4 7 L r t/got` 1-effe/ ICar14/1 /er.Z 1-,). (Use back of page if desired.) Signature: Al "% Testimony Relating to House Bill 3400, Providing Opt Out Options for the Establishment of Marijuana Businesses, etc. in Regard to Land Use Outside of the Cities. Hearing Date: Wednesday, December 2, 2015 You did &ZI did not offer testimony in person. Your Name: Mailing Address: /1)5(41:-:5--- 6 OA' f r E-mail address (optional): Phone #s (optional): Your Comments: a/62_-- _ rider/tr r-7‘ `"— 9. 7- 6a—a— eiZ/Lst_ 7L,A.44 AAP-4 i/ez._ 7-1./ e4A- 4e.)071,7 a- ,4 (Use back of page if desired.) Signature: To: Board of County Commissioners December 2,2015 From: Ron& Elizabeth Davis Subject: Marijuana Rules I hope you will agree that a major responsibility of the County Commissioners,is to protect the life-style of our people in Deschutes County. We are about to see the greatest change in life-style for people living in the unincorporated areas of the county and I hope you will take action to save what we now have. The legalization of marijuana,allowing its production and sale, has the potential to cause a major change to the life-style of people seeking a quiet, peaceful, rural life. After retiring from the United States Air Force and several years working in the Middle East, my wife and I settled on 20 acres in Tumalo and have now been there for 30 years. We raise registered Quarter Horses on our property. There is a marijuana growing operation cranking up across the street from our ranch where two very large green houses have been built high on a hill. I am concerned that our horses will be frightened by people looking for a place to buy(or perhaps steal)marijuana. And, in some cases, to steal something else to support their habit. I speak from experience; I have a teenage family member who had a very bright future derailed due to an addiction to pot. And he stole from us. I don't want to have to install a locked gate across our driveway to keep people from wandering in. I also don't want to have to walk around my property heavily armed. And I don't want to see the ultra bright lights emanating at night from those very large green houses on the hill. When one of those green houses is fully lighted, I'm sure it can be seen from the International Space Station. Tumalo is a desirable area because it allows a quiet, peaceful living environment and people pay a premium to live there. Now,with minimal warning,we see a new industry pop up with foul odors, excessive night lighting and heavy water and electricity use. And I think we can expect to see an increase in traffic,and unsavory characters cruising our previously peaceful neighborhoods. Those characters include the people who previously and probably still are, involved in the illegal drug trade. I have heard nothing in the testimony to date that refers to those"experienced, "pot farmers. They haven't disappeared. They will be involved. The changes we should expect will not only affect our life- style,it will definitely have a negative impact on property values. I have been told by several parties that some people have already moved or are preparing to move from the area because of the expected impact on property values. They are afraid the commission will not take the necessary action to preserve our way of life and the value of our property. I hope they are mistaken. I think the number of people attending these meetings makes it obvious that we are not ready for the tremendous changes the new rules may bring. We should opt out as many other counties have done at least until we can satisfy the citizens of Deschutes County that we are truly ready for a significant change to our way of life and a reduction in our property values. The citizens of our county are depending on you to make appropriate decisions. It will take time. Please help us. Sincerely, 1 Ronald R. Davis Elizabeth E. Davis Testimony Relating to House Bill 3400, Providing Opt Out Options for the Establishment of Marijuana Businesses, etc. in Regard to Land Use Outside of the Cities. Hearing Date: Wednesday, December 2, 2015 You did AI did not offer testimony in person. Your Name: Krista Knoernschild Mailing Address: 70 SW Century Dr, Ste 100-457, Bend, 97702 (street address 18850 Couch Market Rd) Email address: oaktree2448ftgmail.com Phone #s: 541/388-0475 Your Comments: The Bend area has changed, as we all know. From its lumber mill era, to the quieter and slow- growing area with little traffic, to our fast-growing periods with more residents and businesses and traffic. For a long time, Deschutes County has been a desirable area to live in, whether living in town or on a farm or in the County areas not on a farm. Now there is a chance that this will change. It will not be a desirable place to live if you would be in the neighborhood of a Marijuana growing facility! Not all of us remember the farms that used to be all around the city of Bend. They have been sold to developers or individuals and now there are private homes where the farmlands used to predominate. Zoning changes have followed or led this trend. I would wager that most of the Deschutes County tax income is from private landowners and businesses and not from the farms. In Tumalo, which still has large portions of EFU zoning, the same growth of private dwellings has happened. Large custom homes have been built for the gentleman farmers who now live there. Many of these landowners do not farm their own property. The farmland is leased out so the owner can maintain his EFU tax benefit. But the tax revenue from these larger dwellings is more than what the farm properties generated without the bigger homes. Here's a scenario of decline in tax revenue: a person builds a $1,000,000 home in an EFU area and pays taxes based on that price. Given the increase in housing values, they could sell it for more than that and the County would get even more taxes. BUT, put a marijuana growing operation next door to that $1,000,000 estate. The owners want to get out of there and end up selling their used-to-be expensive home for less than half that, and the County loses taxes because of the decline in property value. (continued on other side) Signature: (continued from other side) In Tumalo, I have seen 2 farm properties on Collins Road that were sold in the past few years. Millions of dollars have been invested in improvements to those properties. It would not be fair to those owners to decrease the livability and value of their properties to have an unexpected ty P p p type of farming operation built in their neighborhood. People who have previously bought properties in EFU areas and have moved there have expectations of usual farm operations. The very helpful Deschutes County Rural Living handbook has outlined the typical noise and routines of standard farms, cattle ranches, horse ranches, or haying operations, so the new owners know what they will have in their neighborhoods. The current owners did not buy their properties with any expectation of having a Marijuana farm in their area. Marijuana farming is a different set of unwelcome noises, smells, lighting and structures. Property values would be negatively impacted by their existence in the area. Even if Deschutes County has restrictions on minimum acreage, lighting and noise restrictions during the night and setback from property lines, that won't remove the obnoxious effects during the day or the skunk odor all the time. And county codes are difficult to enforce with limited manpower and budgets. The negative impacts of allowing commercial Marijuana farm operations in our fast-growing Deschutes County far out-weigh what possible benefits could exist. Just because an area has been historically zoned EFU, that doesn't mean the residents who live there want noisy, smelly, brightly lit big greenhouses near their beautiful farms or expensive new homes. Deschutes County should OPT OUT of Measure 91 and have marijuana growers work further away from our beautiful and desirable living locations in Central Oregon. I do not use marijuana, and I did not vote for its legalization for recreational use. Medicinal uses are fine and worthwhile, but to ruin property values and the beauty of our county for the new cadre of marijuana growers and their recreational using customers is not sensible. OPT out of Measure 91 and put the question to a vote by the people who live in our County. Don't let a slim majority of all voters in the state rule what happens here in our neighborhoods. It is not reasonable that the three County Commissioners should bear the sole burden of making this very important decision about allowing commercial marijuana production in County areas even with regulations proposed by the Planning Commission. I recommend you vote to Opt Out of Measure 91 and put it to a vote of the County residents. The people who live in the areas that would be negatively impacted should have the chance to vote on whether or not Marijuana farms could be allowed in their neighborhoods. I live in an EFU area and voted against legalizing recreational Marijuana use. The measure passed by a slim margin statewide. The consequences of increased Marijuana farming would most affect the rural residents whose voices were overshadowed by the greater numbers of urban voters. Please let the residents decide by having a County election on this significant issue. L. PLEASE DO THE RIGHT TIIING: OPT OUT!!!! We are writing regarding the Opt Out Marijuana proposal. We have lived in Tumalo for eleven years and are extremely concerned at the rate of marijuana growing facilities in our area. We are distressed by the prospect of modifying current zoning to allow tourist facilities on farmland. We did not move to this area to have a " pot lodge" as our neighbors-with all of the inevitable disturbances that will bring to our peaceful area. We worked hard to be able to live here and feel it is unjust and unfair to us (and all of our neighbors) for a small group of special-interest individuals to take advantage of this new, controversial agricultural endeavor benefit at our g � g expense. This will inevitably affect the quiet rural life, security, peace of mind and many other reasons we have chosen to live here. The increase in traffic will require more maintenance on roads, fire protection and law enforcement associated with a development of this type. It is impossible to imagine the extent of the problems which may arise since this is new to central Oregon. Its no leap to imagine difficulties and perils will outweigh any benefits. We urge you to carefully consider the many negative impacts this industry could have to established home owners and our children, as well as the wildlife in this area. Oregrown's plan for a lodge on EFU land is not acceptable under the OREGON definition of EFU: Oregon law establishes the following statewide policy for use of agricultural land (ORS 215.243): • Open land used for agriculture is a vital natural and economic asset for all the people of the state, • Preservation of a maximum amount of agricultural land, in large blocks, is necessary to maintain the agricultural economy of the state and for the assurance of adequate, healthful and nutritious food, • Expansion of urban development in rural areas is a public concern because of the conflicts between farm and urban activities We are very concerned that Deschutes County has rushed to push the marijuana bill through without first providing regulations and restrictions that protect the citizens. We urge you to consider the impact that your decisions will have on the citizens who have elected you. Thank you, Irene and Lance Olivieri 65580 Sisemore Road Bend, Oregon 97703 Testimony Relating to House Bill 3400, Providing Opt Out Options for the Establishment of Marijuana Businesses, etc. in Regard to Land Use Outside of the Cities. Hearing Date: Wednesday, December 2, 2015 You did did not offer testimony in person. Your Name: GSM i 1rt"`^ Mailing Address: (Ali e 44 k r°` r DWG h.c,4„44 917411 E-mail address (optional): Phone #s (optional): Your Comments: 2e-Ca C 0-14-07 1( `--t-Ci t.i.k2-4-t 69-01te °vI 441184-Y-4.) NYieCie 5 4et-4-1/..42-9' vt“2-1P-c-- *-76-47 ‘Like, -47v-er-NA- rev.24.74y AAR. rd13-124"4 (Use back of page if desired.) Signature: -- `� Comments To Deschutes County Planning Commission Regarding Pot Planning In Deschutes County Oregon (11/16/15) Corrected Version My name is Steve Munson. I was a resident of Deschutes County living in Tumalo area for about 9 years. Most recently I lived about 3 months of the past 18 months at the Tumalo OR ranch where I had previously resided 2008 thru early 2014 and nearby prior to that. I am opposed to pot smoking and to put growing. I do seek to assist some reasonable accords taking place soon between diametrically opposed pot growers and pot opponents. It is my primary intent to protect our ranch open spaces, their values and lifestyles. This Planning Commission is aware that many opponents of their current direction are very much opposed to the fast track schedule being driven by pot grower advocates on the Deschutes Planning Commission and at least two of the three Deschutes County Commissioners. One county commissioner spoke at the Friday November 13 meeting in opposition to this accelerated schedule and suggested (in essence) that much more time is required to deal with issues being raised by opponents. I suggested months not weeks are required. I requested significant time to respond to the newly proposed 50 page set of standards prepared by pot growers. Instead, after 3 hours of opposition testimony, and after 28 of about 31 comments reported by attendee in the prior meeting who also opposed the earlier shorter version of this pot plan, this Planning Commission allowed a mere two (2) days over the weekend to deal with complex issues. These issues and phoney pot regulations affect: the value of the primary store of wealth of thousands of Deschutes County residents, which are their homes and farms, over $ 1 billion of value in TID alone, their lifestyle and literally the safety of families and their children. That is completely wrong. IT MUST BE REVISED IMMEDIATELY. I demand 15 days to fully respond to this obvious "railroad" of new regulation driven by pot growers, many of whom are new to our area. 1 Many land owners complained they had not been properly notified of this process. Many complained they were not allowed to vote on opting out. My suggestions have been stated by others and/or were supported at the meeting. We estimate about 100 local citizens were at the November 13 meeting and virtually all of them opposed the Planning Commission supported pot growers standards. These comments to the Deschutes County Planning Commission are meant for inclusion in its near term report to the Deschutes County Commissioners. These comments focus on the following primary issues which require detailed evaluation of the validity and/or the implications of these concerns. 1. Pot Grower Potential Water Use Violations Water From Federal Land: Discharge Impact Endangered Bull Trout Habitat Potential Violation Of Ag Water Rights Acreage Limits Potential Violation Federal Endangered Bull Trout Habitat Protection 2. Oregon Rural Land Use Board (LUBA) Potential Permit Violations 3. Pot Exclusion Zones Inside All County Irrigation District Boundaries 4. Increase Sheriff Nelson's Pot Enforcement Budget $ 2 Million Now 5. Appoint 50 % Pot Opponents To Pot Planning Committee Now 6. Planning Commission Suggest County Commissioners Opt Out Now 7. Form Pot Growers Cooperative And Negotiate County Safe Zones S. Locate All Growers In County Industrial Zones: Sherriff. OLCC. 9. Three Deschutes County Commissioners Opt Out December 2015 10. Deschutes County Opt Out Vote ASAP 4 Cities and Unincorporated Continued next page 2 1. Pot Grower Potential Water Use Violations Deschutes Water From Federal Lands. The vast majority of all Deschutes County water, stream and groundwater, originates on Federal lands as does the vast majority of all water resource discharge, surface and groundwater. Endangered Bull Trout Habitat. In addition the natural discharge cold springs into the lower Deschutes River comprise Federal endangered Bull Trout habitat. It is now established fact the Bull Trout critical habitat is adversely affected by water withdrawals upstream in Deschutes County. (See Deschutes Basin Map next page.) (Also refer to public 2008 Deschutes Basin independent water report for the Thornburg Resort permit process alluded to the letter described below.) It is highly likely the new Deschutes Basin water resources study and report which the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife demanded to the Deschutes County Planning Commission by letter November 6, 2015 will further curtail planning regarding water use approvals and mitigation programs allowable, if any, by the Deschutes Planning Commission. The letter which is attached deals with the Thornburgh Resort. It also water use le g will require evaluation of other large potential new withdrawals, like pot. (Sett 11/1/15 letter to Deschutes County Planning Commission attached.) It is incumbent on the Deschutes Planning Commission and the Deschutes County Commissioners not to rush forward with any pot grower plans or approvals until their impacts upon Deschutes Basin water supplies and on the Federal endangered Bull Trout habitat are evaluated and reported on. Potential Violation Of Ag Water Rights Acreage Limits. Deschutes County ag water permits are stated in terms of feet of water per year per acre. From current water use statements of pot growers their water use vastly exceeds allowable water per acre standard. Likely by ratio of over 10 to 1. Potential Violation Federal Endangered Bull Trout Habitat Protection This concern is covered by the first comment above on the Oregon Dept of Fish and Game letter of 11/6/15 to the Deschutes County Planning Commission. 3 It is our opinion this water issue alone is sufficient cause for the Deschutes Planning Commission to advise County Commissioners to opt out now. At a minimum it obviously requires substantial time to evaluate, report and make allowances in planning decisions regarding commercial pot grower impacts. 2. Oregon Rural Land Use Board (LUBA) Potential Permit Violations The county has not yet made available the video and/or tape of the meeting last Friday evening. Hence we do not yet have names of numerous local citizens who spoke in opposition to the proposed new pot grower standards. One opponent spoke eloquently and appeared well informed on the Oregon Land Use Board permit process. He cited a list of 5 major reports which are required under Oregon law to construct and operate pot operations. He stated many operations are now in violation and many more are in process which together represent an enormous and illegal "gutting" or Oregon land use law. It is our opinion this land permit issue alone is sufficient cause for the Deschutes Planning Commission to advise County Commissioners to opt out now. At a minimum it obviously requires substantial time to evaluate, report and make allowances in planning decisions regarding commercial pot grower impacts. 3. Set Pot Exclusion Zones Inside County Irrigation District Boundaries Over 100 Deschutes County residents have spoken out in the past two weeks in opposition to the pot grower deplorable adverse effects on their lifestyles, their property values, their view, the horrid disgusting stench of pot and the coming dangers to themselves and children from adjacent stoned pot workers and/or buyers. They objected to night lights in violation of code and law. They objected to what appear to be illegal grow operations now. One Planning Commissioner, recently arrived from Humbolt County, bragged about his affiliations there, his knowledge of pot growing, as though we are stupid ranchers who just fell off the turnip truck. We are not. The ranks of opponents are filled with former well educated senior executives, the former colonel of the Air Force Top Gun Fighter School, major highly successful cutting and reining horse ranch owners. 4 All of us have invested large sums, for retirement, enjoyment and business in our properties. Wee don't want them destroyed by pot, by growers, by workers, by stomach churning stench, by gangs fighting over the product. There are now about 1500 property addresses in TID boundaries. That is very roughly 3000 to 5000 resident citizens. The irrigated lands in Deschutes County likely contain 15,000 to 20,000 people, most here to enjoy this wonderful place. The pot growers likely comprise 5 to 15 biggies and a bunch of medicinal growers who want to expand if this abomination of planning proceeds. Many of us say NO to their plans. We are in many ways the backbone of this county and have been since its inception over 100 years ago. Nothing against the city folks here. We have lots of friends in towns of course. In fact many of them love and use our outdoors as well. But lets not ruin what we have. For these reasons I suggested at the meeting and I suggest again hereby that we NOW put a boundary, by and through the Deschutes County Planning Commission to be advised to County Commissioners, which excludes pot growing inside of each and every irrigation district in Deschutes County. Then we can vote later on opting out or not. See # 10 below. 4. Increase Sheriff Nelson's Pot Enforcement Budget $ 2 Million Now Pot opponents living on rural lands met with County Commissioner Alan Unger and with County Sheriff Nelson. The Sherriff has spoken eloquently about the need for large funds to safeguard citizens and, yes, growers too. Opponents asked Commissioner Unger if it was true, as pot growers stated, that the county did not have money it could provide to rural law enforcement. He reportedly stated, its not right. We have plenty of money. Accordingly I suggest and demand County Commissioners immediately provide Sherriff Nelson the sum of $ 2 million of county funds to hire, train, and enforce pot laws NOW and into the future. The funds may be enough to hire and train 25 or more deputies and staff, cars, pot scent dogs, test lab and ongoing expenses. If and when the pot business is moved to secure county zoned land with fencing, the county should pay for Sheriff offices there too. If these Commissioners want to support pot, then they need to act like adults and fund this now like they give a damn about citizens who suffer impacts. 5 I - 5. Appoint 50 % Pot Opponents To Pot Planning Committee Now Opponents have tried without success to join the pot planning committees in this area. They have been blocked by pot growers and their allies on the Planning Commission and/or County Commissions. This is actually bad for both pot growers and others. It puts the growers in isolation and is going to predictably result in vast litigation and delays for years by pot opponents who are only now learning of the impacts and are only now beginning to voice their outrage. I suggest that pot planning committee members NOW be spit evenly between growers-supporters and opponents. Then work can start on fixing the mess created by self-serving largely outside interests at our expense. 6. Planning Commission Suggest County Commissioners Opt Out Now Many opponents have demanded the two members opt out NOW, of the County Commission, Unger and DeBone, who "took the bit in their teeth" and the "law into their own hands" when the two of them refused to opt out I agree as did many who spoke up and who met after the Friday meeting. I request the Deschutes County Plannning Commission advise the Deschutes County Commissioners OPT OUT NOW, in December 2015. I suggest they do so in a way that puts us all in Deschutes County on course to a county-wide vote within about 6 months when all issues are settled by necessary reports, evaluation and informed planning. As stated above, with even division on pot planning committee, the growers and would be growers can negotiate settlement with opponents as well. It is suggested a "Pot Settlement" include the following major provisions. 7. Form Pot Growers Cooperative And Negotiate County Safe Zones Both myself, not in favor of either pot smoking or growing, and the other signatory to this Comment Letter, Lou Gillette who is a legal medicinal pot grower suggest the Deschutes County Pot Growers from a cooperative. We further suggest they find agreement with county and city and economic development agencies to locate all pot growing inside county designated 6 save zones, outside the irrigation district areas, but served by water and electric utilities. It is our understanding that some La Pine area growers have suggested creating such a zone in the county-owned industrial park land which exceeds needed acreage. We both concur with that idea. We suggest Bend and Redmond industrial areas also be considered as well. S. Locate All Growers In County Industrial Zones: Sherriff. OLCC. It is our second-hand understanding from opponents we have both met with that Sherriff Nelson also supports a concept like this. It is our second-had understanding our county Sherriff has stated his department cannot do its job of providing citizen safety with its current budget and likely not unless pot growers are centralized for regulation and safety purposes. We concur with the idea that both a county sheriffs office and OLCC lab be safety and efficient operations reasons. In co sited with pot growers for both s y p a cooperative arrangement both small and large growers can succeed. 9. Three Deschutes County Commissioners Opt Out December 2015 As stated above, we proposed the County Commissioners opt out for this county in December 2015 after getting the above stated ROT REFORMS fully underway. Then they will have done their job under admittedly tough conditions. We can only note, the time jam was created by intent. It need not have been handled in this way, but these suggestions can allow settlements. 10. Deschutes County Opt Out Vote ASAP 4 Cities and Unincorporated We suggest a county-wide vote on opting out or not opting out to be held not later than June 30 2016. We suggest voting be tabulated and areas be designated by the following five (5) voting majorities within the following boundaries: Bend, Redmond, Sisters, La P e . • also by the Unincorporated County. More I saith not. ► 11Air Date: 11/16/15 teve Munson 7 s. a 2 4 , II m 214. 1124 Z .:...:1:::'..''! ... ....'4P4!A4iOr iii 1! i i :" ii i',,,I.'::"...iijil':...1 .:.:-.:'.:f...„.!.;14 .4!!„36t5!1:11',!!'t iu k w iy 0• .+ 1b�. ' ig :1* . .......7'-'\''.'„'.....-.. .3 .., ".mow. ' "isn r � a � Y � dr+, g. ',pr ° ' . ", r r O �Yt.aeu • k�. ry � t.11 i 1 .b 7 4 I�. i/ '.v T ..J f • i h F M 0 a I § § .di ...„. v • 1 a ter , 00 4-I m 8 re on Department of Fish and Wildlife h i i Deschutes Watershed District East Region t"�:;:;:,-°•`±Y{ts •.__E` Kate Brown,Governor 61374 Farrell Road Bend,Oregon 97702 (541)388-6363 FAX(541)388-6281 OREGON 1 Fish&Wildl fe November 6, 2015 Deschutes County Community Development Department Planning Division 117 NW Lafayette Ave Bend, OR 97701 ATTN: Peter Gutowsky RE: Thornburgh Resort Company-Final Master Plan Remand The purpose of this letter is to clarify Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife's (Department) recommendation whether fish and wildlife mitigation proposed in the Thornburg Resort Company Final Master Plan meets a No Net Loss standard. Based on new information and changes since 2008 the Department believes there is significant uncertainties as to whether a No Net Loss standard is being met by the proposed mitigation. Thus, we recommend a reassessment needs to be conducted. On Friday October 31, 2015 I sent an email to Kameron DeLashmutt which I understand was forwarded to you by him. Based on information I was not aware of at the time of sending that email and on further review, the Department is retracting that email and statements in it. In addition, the Department is retracting all statements made in our June 13, 2008 letter to the County regarding adequacy of proposed mitigation to address fish and wildlife impacts from resort development. Specifically, the Department is retracting the statement: "ODFW has determined that providing the proposed mitigation outlined above should mitigate for potential impacts on springs and seeps and provide a net benefit to the resource. At this time the Department does not believe that the proposed mitigation has been shown to be adequate to meet a No Net Loss standard and to do so there needs to be a reassessment. The Department requests that the record in this matter on fish and wildlife issues be reopened for a new assessment, given new information and other changes since June of 2008. On the Deschutes River, a re-analysis is needed of whether the Deep Canyon Creek springs proposed for mitigation will provide long-term cold water mitigation giving the declining water table identified in the 2013 USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2013-5092 titled "Analysis of 1997-2008 Groundwater Level Changes in the Upper Deschutes Basin, Central Oregon." The report indicates that groundwater appears to be declining in the Central Deschutes Area about 1 foot per year. Given this new information, we are not sure the Deep Canyon Creek springs will persist and actually provide the proposed mitigation. As for mitigation in Whychus Creek subsequently proposed by the Resort, the Department was unaware of such a proposal at the time of our June 13, 2008 letter and thus did not comment on the proposal's adequacy. It is our position however, that warmer instream water as proposed would not mitigate to No Net Loss for lost cold spring water. Flow changes in Whychus Creek over the past se ven years, springs includin g this year's drought, need to be assessed, as well as any new info rmation on the in the lower Creek. We also believe a reassessment is needed of the proposed wildlife mitigation to assess changes on the land in the Cline Buttes area and management of it over the past seven years. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, VAILit Y y 1 • At •, Robert M. Hooton Deschutes Watershed District Manager 2 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY Meeting: December 2 2015 "LAND USE REGULATIONS" IN UNICORPORATED DESCHUTES COUNTY For This Public Record Previously Submitted In Other Water Evaluation Processes Independent Reports Commissioned For Various Evaluation Uses Independent Deschutes Basin Water Resources Reports Reports Cover: Proposed Thornburg Resort Water Issues Deschutes Basin Water Resources: Including Drawdowns Prior 10 Years By Mark Yinger Associates (Sisters Oregon) DESHUTES COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY Meeting: December 2 2015 "LAND USE REGULATIONS" IN UNICORPORATED DESCHUTES COUNTY Steve Munson Tumalo Ranch LLC Expert Witness On High Desert Horse Ranch Operations Cofounder With Sandy Lonsdale. Far West "Born of Fire Consortium" Tumalo Native Bunchgrass and Forest Restoration and Water Effects Sisters Wilderness Bill Proponent Including US Congress Film Planting Willows In Klamath Marsh: Wendell Wood, Others. Executive Producer: 2011 Emmy-Energy Nominated Documentary Film "Houston We Have A Problem" Deschutes Basin Water Resource Drawdown Independent Reports Sponsor Of Independent Yinger Reports On Basin and Thornburgh Resort Federal Endangered Bull Trout Critical Habitat Protections Primary Leadership Of Following Oregon Landmark Legislation: Gov Tom McCall. Sen George Wingard. Speaker Of House Bob Smith. Executive Director: Steve Munson Oregon House Task Force On Pollution Oregon Air and Water Pollution Protections Oregon Land Use Process Protections Nuclear Plant Siting Green Power Laws History Of Steve Munson A Leader In 5 States: NV CA NM TX OR Oregon Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) US Senator# 1: "An American Hero' US Senator# 2 "Mr RPS" Education: Redmond Union High School 1961 UofO BS. Stanford B School: MBA Finance. Stanford: MA Pol Scienc 1 Projected Financial Losses Of Deschutes County "Going To Pot" Property Owners Value Losses. County Tax Revenue Losses. (Dollars In Millions) Chart 1 2014 Property Assessed Valuations (1) Tax Due Coun ty Areas Valuations Assessed Exclusive Farm Use: Unincorporated Area: Bend: Redmond: Sisters: La Pine: Subtotal Cities TOTAL County $ 20.9 Billion $ 298 Million Note: (1) Due to payment timing difference, penalty, other: actual July 2104 to June 2015 total property tax payments to county was $ 318 million. Only data easily available for this report are total county numbers above. The balance of missing data makes the case that county commissioners MUST OPT OUT. Then gather and report the: Property Valuations and Tax Revenues and Cost Benefits Analysis data to public. Deschutes County citizens vote in election after mid 2016, if public gets data with 3 months to fact check and to evaluate. Then hold fully informed election. Data and report must be impartially sourced. Not another pot committee. 2 1 CHART 2 1 Estimated Maximum Property Owners and County Losses Property Owners Value Losses. County Tax Revenue Losses Years 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Owners Loss (%) 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% County Tax Loss (%) 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Maximum Property Owners Losses By Area (Dollars In Billions) Years 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Exclusive Farm Use Unincorporated Area Bend: Redmond: Sisters: La Pine: Subtotal Cities TOTAL County ($20.9 Billion) $2.1 B $4.2 B $6.3 B $8.4 B $10.5 B Estimated Minimum Property Owners and County Losses Property Owners Value Losses. County Tax Revenue Losses Years 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Owners Losses (%) 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 0 10% 0 20% 0 County Tax Loss (Q/o) 5% 10 % 15% 20 % 25 /0 Minimum Property Owners Losses By Area (Dollars In Billions) Years 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Exclusive Farm Use Unincorporated Area Bend: Redmond: Sisters: La Pine: Subtotal Cities TOTAL County ($20.9 Billion) $1.1 B $2.1 B $3.1 B $4.2 B $5.2 B 3 CHART 3 Estimated Maximum Property Owners and County Losses Property Owners Value Losses. County Tax Revenue Losses (2) Years 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Owners Loss (%) 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% County Tax Loss (%) 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Maximum County Tax Revenue Losses By Area (2) (Dollars In Millions) Years 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Exclusive Farm Use Unincorporated Area Bend: Redmond: Sisters: La Pine: Subtotal Cities TOTAL County Estimated Minimum County Tax Revenue Losses By Area Property Owners Value Losses. County Tax Revenue Losses (2) Years 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Owners Losses (%) 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% County Tax Loss (%) 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Minimum County Tax Revenue Losses By Area (2) (Dollars In Millions) Years 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Exclusive Farm Use Unincorporated Area Bend: Redmond: Sisters: La Pine: Subtotal Cities TOTAL County 4 • I Deschutes County Property Valuation Tax Effects With No Opt Out And No Cost Benefits Study Planning Documents Deschutes County Treasurer was asked today if there is a cost benefits financial study he is aware of on potential effects of pot growing on rural lands in county. He is a highly trained public servant who was conversant on every major aspect of county financial operations he was asked about. He reports to the three Deschutes County Commissioners I believe. He said there is no such study. He was not pressed on the point Why Not? The county collects all property taxes and distributes them to cities and other entities like county law enforcement. County keeps about 12 % of property taxes collected to meet some of its budget: . Nearly 90 % of county Sherrifs budget comes from property taxes, about $30 million last tax year for two special use law enforcement entities: (1) all county services like jails; and(2)rural resident services. BIG POTENTIAL PROBLEM....If pot drops county property values enough to also drop property tax revenues as it seems likely to do, then the law enforcement budget will drop: EXACTLY when we will actually need big Sherriff budget increase to keep our families, houses, properties, animals and children safe from pot-related crime wave across county. County Commissioner Unger reportedly stated to Opt Out Proponents that county has plenty of money to much increase Sherriff budget for pot NOW. I proposed immediate county payment increase of$ 2 M to Sherriff for pot related law enforcement. I now think its low. Much more soon, as needed. Note (2): County Tax Operations Are Complex. A diagram will be submitted later summaring how the county property tax rate and collections are designed and work. By example a few years ago Redmond property tax payment receipts dropped from 87 % of taxpayers, if I correctly understood the brief discussions with knowledgeable county tax officials. 5 Chart 4 (2) Deschutes County "Going To Pot" Now Costs and Benefits Analysis Requires Independent Public Report and 3 Months Review Prior Voting Not Including Owners and Tax Revenue Losses On Previous Charts Above (Dollars In Millions) Annual Pot New Costs and Benefits Analysis: 2016 thru 2020 County Bend Redmond Sisters La Pine TOTAL Pot Tax Revenues As Per Cent (Proposed) Tax County Gov't Revenues Plus: Pot Strtucture Tax TOTAL Pot Revenues Less Go To Pot Costs:, Law Enforcement (24 hrs) Add: 12-15 Pot Staff Patrol Cars. Equipment Operations Overhead Drones-staff: Sniff-Lights (cost savings ?) School Outreach Net New Incarceration (3) Inmate Days Cost Per Day Inmate Costs DA/Court Costs (3) New Jail (s)? Subtotal Law Costs Planning Departments. Add: Pot bldg permit staff Special water use staff Pot water meters. Gals/mo. Permit Enforcement staff Vehicles Overhead Other costs Subtotal Plan Costs 6 CHART 5 Continued: Pot New Costs and Benefits Analysis: 2016 thru 2020 County Bend Redmond Sisters La Pine TOTAL Social Services Costs: Indigent Family Support Medical Services Food Payments Mental Health Other Social Costs: 1 2 3 4 5 • Subtotal Social Costs Other Costs: 1 Reduced debt credit ratings? 2 Violate debt covenants? 3 Loss new jobs bad image? 4 Tourism Loss bad image? 5 Pot use housing loss? 6 7 Subtotal Other Costs TOTAL Costs TOTAL (Net Costs/Benefits) pot related crimes inmates (harrasment, new inmates by combining new pa e ( , Note: (3) Calculation is net Y 9 driving stoned, violence, pot-money thefts, neighbors goods theft, explosion deaths) and inmate ,descriminalize reduction. 7 Chart 6. Costs and Benefits Comparisons "Going To Pot" With No Opt Out Policy Compared To Three (3) Deschutes County Pot Grow Zones Opt out. Research. Independent Cost Benefits Reports. 50/50 Committee Negotiate New Plan In First Half Of 2106 It is highly likely that Cost Benefits Analysis of a proposed centralized three (3). Pot Growout Zones Plan for Deschutes County will be much more beneficial to our citizens, county and environment than the contentions course we are on here IF county commissioners do not Opt Out. Property owners values are much less likely drop precipitously. Maintain property tax revenues at the same or higher levels. Keep life styles, outdoor values, area beauty which attract tourists and jobs. Our county, our rural areas, our children are likely to be much safer. Law enforcement, planning department, social service costs much lower. Plan for budges increases of above costs and fund them prior to needs. ftossibly even drealize net benefits from pot under 3 Pot Grow Zones Plan. o u i ity nee as include water, heat and power. We can provide and/or mitigate uses at centralized sites. 8 A Case Study: Thornburgh Resort Water Resources Impact Evaluation Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon • F.. d W - d + 0 Mark Yinger Associates and Northwest Land & Water, Inc. February 2008 `\\ NORTHWEST land&Water,enc. RaiMark linger ASSOCiA S Case Study: Thornburgh Resort Water Resources Impact Evaluation Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon Prepared for: Steve Munson, President Sandy Lonsdale, Director Native Restoration Fund Vulcan Power Company Bend, OR Prepared by: Mark Yinger, R.G. Mark Yinger Associates 69860 Camp Polk Rd. Sisters, OR 97759 541-549-3030 and Laura Strauss, Principal Hydrogeologist, LG, LHg Northwest Land & Water, Inc. 6556 37th Ave NE Seattle, WA 98115 www.nlwinc.com 206-525-0049 February 2008 Art „„ - � V . ........... Mark Yinger , `' a " " F S T g— ,� land be Watrr,N ASSOCIATES i a \k „, ,` -;-:,- : Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary 1 2.0 Introduction 3 2.1 Proposed Development 3 2.2 Purpose 4 2.3 Scope of Investigations 4 2.4 Study Area 5 2.5 Warranty 6 3.0 Background Information 7 3.1 USGS Investigation 7 3.2 Regulatory Framework 7 4.0 Previous Work 10 4.1 Geology & Hydrogeology 10 4.2 Other Technical Work 11 4.3 Management &Mitigation 11 5.0 Geology& Hydrogeology 13 5.1 Physiographic Setting 13 5.2 Climate 14 5.3 Geologic Setting 15 5.4 Hydrogeologic Setting 17 5.5 Groundwater Flow System 20 6.0 Recent Hydrologic Data 23 6.1 Precipitation 23 6.2 Groundwater Levels 24 6.3 Streamflow 27 6.4 Groundwater Use 29 6.5 Seepage Data 30 6.6 Stream Temperature 32 7.0 Groundwater Flow Modeling 35 7.1 Description of the USGS Model 35 7.2 Data Source for New Runs 37 7.3 Verification of USGS Steady-State Model 38 7.4 Steady State versus Transient Conditions 38 7.5 Simulations with Proposed Thornburgh Wells 39 a " a r " „ MarkYinber 'Ilk, di Land e Water c�c. � AS SOCIATES it m' W a t x 8.0 Water Rights Activity 43 8.1 Data Sources 43 8.2 Method 44 8.3 Results & Discussion 44 9.0 Deepened Wells 46 9.1 Data Source & Method 46 9.2 Discussion 46 10.0 Fish Habitat in the UDB 48 10.1 Data Sources 48 10.2 Discussion 48 11.0 Mitigation 50 11.1 Current Alternatives 50 11.2 Concerns 51 11.3 OWRD Evaluation 52 12.0 Analysis of Projected Impacts 54 12.1 Impacts Related to Thornburgh Case 54 12.2 Climate Change 55 12.3 Habitat Resources 55 12.4 Considerations for Future Developments 55 13.0 Recommendations 57 14.0 References 58 List of Tables Table 6-1 Precipitation Summary Statistics 1989 through 2007, Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon Table 6-2 Summary of Monthly and Annual Water Use, in Million Gallons, for Selected Public Supply Wells 1997-2006, Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon Table 6-3 Summary of Monthly and Annual Water Use, in Million Gallons, for Selected Private Supply Wells 1997-2006, Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon Table 6-4 Total Annual Water Use, in Million Gallons, for Selected Public Supply Wells 1997- 2006, Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon Table 6-5 Total Annual Water Use, in Million Gallons, for Selected Public Private Wells 1997- 2006, Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon Table 7-1 Summary of Diminished Streamflow, Model Results for Scenarios 1 and 2 µ ca R S 33 w 4 r M Mark Yinger4 land&Water,a*ta.. \\ , ASSOCIATES Hi a\ a „tr,, Pua•.,, Table 8-1 Summary of Groundwater Rights Permits and Granted Water Use per Year since 1/1/1998, within USGS Study Area, Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon Table 8-2 Summary of Groundwater Rights Applications and Requested Water Use per Year since 1/1/1998, within USGS Study Area, Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon Table 8-3 Summary of Surface Water Rights Permits and Granted Water Use per Year since 1/1/1998, within USGS Study Area, Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon Table 8-4 Summary of Surface Water Rights Application and Granted Requested Use per Year since 1/1/1998, within USGS Study Area, Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon Table 9-1 Summary of Number of Wells Deepened since 1980 in the Vicinity of Thornburgh / Redmond, by Township and Range List of Figures Figure 2-1 USGS Study Area Figure 2-2 Location Map Figure 5-1 Generalized Geologic Units of the Upper Deschutes Basin Figure 5-2 Detailed Geologic Map & Well Locations Cline Buttes Area Figure 5-3 Generalized 1-lydrogeologic Units of the Upper Deschutes Basin Figure 6-1 OWRD Observation Wells and Precipitation Stations In Vicinity of Thornburgh, Up- per Deschutes Basin, Oregon Figure 6-2 Annual Precipitation at Six Sites in the Upper Deschutes Basin Figure 6-3 Days of Snowpack per Water Year at Wickiup Darn Figure 6-4 1-lydrograph for Upper Deschutes Basin Observation Well DESC 3903 Figure 6-5 (lydrograph for Upper Deschutes Basin Observation Well DESC 3949 (15S/l3E- 21ABD1) Figure 6-6 I lydrograph for Upper Deschutes Basin Observation Well DESC 3581 (15S/12E- 14CDD) Figure 6-7 Hydrograph for Upper Deschutes Basin Observation Well DESC 8626 (14S/12E- 02CCC) Figure 6-8 Hydrograph for Upper Deschutes Basin Observation Well DESC 1957 (14S/1 lE- 01DDDl) Figure 6-9 Hydrograph for Upper Deschutes Basin Observation Well DESC 3193 (15S/10E- 36AAD2) Mark Yinger " ' 5i " ' 5 T g— ° a + land&water, ∎ic ASSOCIATES iy Figure 6-10 I lydrograph for Upper Deschutes Basin Observation Well DESC 3614 (Eagle Crest H2) Figure 6-11 Hydrograph for Upper Deschutes Basin Observation Well DESC 53714 (Eagle Crest#3) Figure 6-12 Hydrograph for Upper Deschutes Basin Observation Well DESC 386 (Eagle Crest #1) Figure 6-13 Selected Stream Gauging Stations in the Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon (from Gannett et al., 2001) Figure 6-14 Hydrograph for Stream-Gauging Station Crescent Creek Figure 6-15 Hydrograph for Stream-Gauging Station Wickiup Reservoir Figure 6-16 Hydrograph for Stream-Gauging Station Little Deschutes River at La Pine Figure 6-17 Hydrograph for Stream-Gauging Station Deschutes River at Benham Falls Figure 6-18 Hydrograph for Stream-Gauging Station Tumalo Creek near Bend Figure 6-19 Hydrograph for Stream-Gauging Station Deschutes River near Bend Figure 6-20 Hydrograph for Stream-Gauging Station Deschutes at Cline Falls near Redmond Figure 6-21 Hydrograph for Stream-Gauging Station Deschutes at Lower Bridge near Terre- bonne Figure 6-22 Hydrograph for Stream-Gauging Station Whychus (Squaw) Creek at Sisters Figure 6-23 Hydrograph for Stream-Gauging Station Deschutes River near Culver Figure 6-24 Hydrograph for Stream-Gauging Station Deschutes River near Madras Figure 6-25 Gains or Losses to Deschutes River, Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, OWRD Au- gust 2005 Data Figure 6-26 Stream Temperature From Thermal Infrared Data, Upper Deschutes Basin Figure 7-1 Diminished Streamfiow Results of Steady-State Model Simulation Scenario I Figure 7-2 Diminished Streamfiow Results of Steady-State Model Simulation Scenario 2 Figure 7-3 Calculated Drawdown Contours, Layer 1, Scenario 1, Pumping 3.25 cfs from Layer 2 Figure 7-4 Calculated Drawdown Contours, Layer 1, Scenario 2, Pumping 3.25 cfs from Layer 7 Figure 7-5 Calculated Drawdown Contours for Layer 2, Scenario 1, Pumping 3.25 cfs from Layer 2 Figure 7-6 Calculated Drawdown Contours for Layer 2, Scenario 2, Pumping 3.25 cfs from Layer 7 Figure 7-7 Calculated Drawdown Contours for Layer 7, Scenario I, Pumping 3.25 cfs from Layer 2 Mark Yin er Is'a.(7 R ' ii R I S E ASSOCIATES V Figure 7-8 Calculated Drawdown Contours for Layer 7, Scenario 2, Pumping 125 cfs from Layer 7 Figure 9-1 Area of Deepened Well Survey, Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon Figure 10-1 Critical Area Habitat For Bull Trout Figure 11-1 OWRD Deschutes Ground Water Zones of Impact List of Appendices Appendix A Detailed Geologic and Hydrogeologic Descriptions Appendix B Well Logs For Thornburgh Area Appendix C Public Well and Private Well Water Use Data Appendix D Seepage Data Collected by the USGS for the OWRD Appendix E Water Rights and Permits Data Mark Yinger nc� s'Tsiw rsr Land&Water,NC.. ASSOCIATES vi ,A CASE STUDY: 1IIoRN/BURCII RESORT WATER RESOURCI:s I,IrA(r Ev,u.0 TON. 1 .0 Executive Summary This report details the results of an investigation conducted to assess the potential impacts of pumping 3.25 cubic feet per second (cfs) of water from six new wel Is in the Upper Deschutes Basin (UDB). These wells are part of the proposed Thorn- ' burgh destination resort, which is located near important ecological resources. The proposed Thornburgh development will exacerbate rising trends in water use, which has increased consistently since 1998. Likewise, water right permits and applications have also increased significantly since 1998. They reflect the history of water rights policy in the UDB. To assess the potential impacts to ecological resources, we analyzed geologic, wa- ter level, climate, streamflow, water use, water quality, temperature, seepage, and habitat data. We also ran a model developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Our modeling and hydraulic analyses identified reaches of the middle Deschutes River and lower Whychus Creek that will be impacted by pumping from the proposed Thornburgh wells. Listed critical bull trout, core populations of redband trout, and unique plant communities live within these reaches. Groundwater level impacts. Declines in groundwater levels are important because they impact not only other water users but also streamflows. Hydrau- lic and well deepening data indicate that groundwater levels are already de- clining in parts of the UDB. A concentration of wells has been deepened near the Eagle Crest Resort, which is located a short distance east of Thornburgh, indicating declines. Recent hydrogeologic information for the Cline Buttes area also indicates that impacts to groundwater levels in the Thornburg area will exceed the predictions of the USGS model. The Thornburgh wells will accelerate water level declines, impact existing water wells and reduce streamflows. / Water quality impacts. The temperature in UDB streams currently exceeds the recommended quality for bull trout and general stream health. Cold groundwater discharges are essential to reducing stream temperatures. Pump- ing from the Thornburgh and other future wells will cumulatively reduce these groundwater discharges if not properly mitigated. More specifically, modeling indicates that pumping from proposed Thornburgh wells would reduce cold spring discharges to the middle Deschutes River and Whychus Creek reaches that have federally listed critical bull trout habitat, core populations of redband trout, and important ecological resources for reintroducing Chinook salmon and summer steelhead. As cold groundwater discharges decline in response to new pumping, warm water will migrate downstream, negatively impacting these resources. Mark Yinger j " " '' " ) s T ASSOCIATES �� CASE STUDY:TIIORNBURCH RESORT WATER RESOURCES IiNIFACI EVALUATION Streamflow impacts. Our analysis indicates that impacts will occur to the middle Deschutes River above RM 125, lower Whychus Creek, and Tumalo Creek. Seepage does not occur consistently along the Deschutes River; rather, it is strong in some places and weak in others, indicating significant preferred groundwater flow paths. River sections with small gains are most vulnerable to small changes in groundwater level. Water temperature in these sections is at great risk of increasing as cool groundwater inflow declines. Mitigation must be within this zone of impact. The water permit for"Thornburgh allows mitigation in the general zone, anywhere in the basin above the Madras gauge. This will result in an unmitigated new groundwater permit. in addition, current mitigation strategies rely on current streamflow measurements to evaluate the effectiveness of the water rights banking system. Streamflows will undoubt- edly change in response to declines in precipitation and increased pumping. Success of the mitigation program must be measured against the goal of moving toward a more natural hydrograph, not by comparing streamflow to the histori- cally lowest streamflow, when diversions were at their maximum. Mark Yinger �� " " g__. land&Water N.0 ASSOCIATES 2 A ?' iwut . 'n f1,1. yi i.,,ipv CASE STUDY:THORNBURGH RESORT WATER RESOURCES INIPACT Eva!tJATioN 2.0 Introduction Development in the Upper Deschutes Basin (UDB) has increased dramatically over the past 20 years. However, land use authorities and regulatory agencies have not required developers to comprehensively evaluate impacts to hydrological (streamflows, aquifer levels) and ecological resources due to new groundwater development. Although the USGS has characterized the hydrogeology of the UDB, the potential impacts to hydrological and ecological resources have not been adequately evaluated. Furthermore, recent data suggests declining trends in both precipitation and groundwater levels. These trends would not only impact streamflows, groundwater levels, and ecological resources of the upper and mid- dle Deschutes River, but they would also be aggravated by future groundwater pumpage if not correctly mitigated. Key ecological resources along the upper and middle Deschutes River include habitat for native bull and Redband trout; in addition, some reaches contain criti- cal spawning and rearing habitat. Reduced streamflow and discharges from cold springs would impact fisheries. The middle Deschutes canyon is also home to unique riparian habitat. This study focuses on impacts that a 1,970 acre destination resort planned in Deschutes County will have on water resources and water dependant ecology. In addition to this resort there are fourteen other destination resorts that are either under construction or in some stage of planning in Deschutes, Jefferson and Crook Counties. The total acreage of these resorts may range from 20,000 to 25,000. These destination resorts will rely almost entirely on groundwater. Their impact on water resources will be significant. The impact of each resort and the cumulative impact of all the resorts should be evaluated. 2.1 Proposed Development Legislation passed in 2005 authorized the allocation of water from the Deschutes River and from the aquifers that feed it during seasons when instream flows are unmet. The legislation allows further groundwater development, which may di- minish both quantity and quality of water in the Deschutes River and its tributar- ies. A recent case of this legislation in action is the destination resort proposed by the Thornburgh Resort Company, LLC. This resort would cover about 1,970 acres west of the City of Redmond and would require new groundwater supplies to sup- Mark _. ...-_-Y inger R 1 an d&Water, Nc ASSOCIATES CASE Si' IrIV:THORNBURG11 RESORT WAFER RESOURCES IMPACT l'VA! port 1,425 dwelling units, three golf courses, two clubhouses, a community cen- ter, shops, and meeting/ dining facilities. As part of the review process, Thornburgh hired David Newton and Associates to prepare a hydrology report to inform and support Deschutes County land-use de- cisions about the resort. This report was released in 2005. Unfortunately, it falls far short of evaluating the impacts that pumping six proposed wells will have not only on valuable hydrological and ecological resources but also on existing wells. 2.2 Purpose We have undertaken this study for two reasons. The first is to evaluate the im- pacts of the Thornburgh resort's use of groundwater. The work summarized in this report represents an effort to better understand the current hydrogeologic conditions in the UDB and to evaluate impacts to the hydrogeologic system from the proposed resort. However, an additional—equally important—goal is to dem- onstrate an appropriate level of evaluation that regulators should apply to any proposed developments involving new groundwater withdrawals (pumpage from new wells). We see the Thornburgh project as a case study that has a potential to establish new standards for reviewing current and future projects in the UDB. We hope these results help establish mitigation and water use strategies that sustain the Deschutes' high habitat and recreational values. This study was authorized by Steve Munson, long-time resident of the UDB, out Y _ Y � g 7 of his concern for the region's resources. 2.3 Scope of Investigations Work for this study was conducted under two separate phases, by Mark Yinger Associates (MYA) and Northwest Land & Water, Inc. (NLW). MYA, the project manager, was responsible for evaluating the regional and local geology and hydrogeology. NLW analyzed water resource data and conducted groundwater flow modeling. 2.3.1 Phase I Phase I of this study was outlined in a scope of work our team prepared to evalu- ate the impacts resulting from pumping large amounts of groundwater for the Thornburgh Resort. It entailed using a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) ground- _-- n " , ' T \ � Mark Yinger Land&Water, v "w ASSOCIATES 4 CASE STUDI:•J HORNBURGII RI•:SOR r WATER RESOURCES IAIPACT EVALUATION water flow model (McDonald and I larbaugh, 1988) to predict impacts to the Deschutes River and its tributaries from the proposed pumping. The proposed Thornburgh wells were incorporated into the USGS model so we could simulate conditions under a range of steady-state scenarios. 2.3.2 Phase II The scope of work was revised under Phase II to review and assess recent hydro- logic data, and to compare this data to the data used by the USGS for its 1993- 1997 study. Major components of Phase II included: / Summarizing information about water use, policy, and legislation pertinent to the UDB. / Compiling and summarizing hydrologic data collected since 1997. 1 Evaluating trends in hydrologic data—specifically, trends in parameters that can profoundly affect fish habitat: water levels, stream temperature, stream flows, climate, seepage, and groundwater use, among others. / Using the steady-state USGS flow model "as is"to predict the effects of pumping the proposed Thornburgh wells on streamflows and groundwater levels. / Evaluating the ecological impacts resulting from reduced streamflows and groundwater levels predicted by the modeling. 2.4 Study Area The study area for this report, shown in Figure 2-1, covers the same area as the USGS modeling investigation but focuses on the geology and hydrogeology near the proposed Thornburgh resort. The USGS study area encompasses approxi- mately 4,500 square miles of the Deschutes River drainage basin in central Ore- gon, which includes several major tributaries: the Little Deschutes River, Tumalo and Whychus Creeks, and the Metolius River from the west, and the Crooked River from the east. Land-surface elevation ranges from less than 1,300 feet near Gateway in the northern part of the study area to more than 10,000 feet in the Cascades. The study area also includes the basin's major population centers, where groundwater development is most intense and resource-management questions are most urgent. These communities include Bend, Redmond, Sisters, Madras, Prineville, and La F Mark Yinger `i nd O R T I W F S T C Water , ac ";>, ASSOCIATES 5 CASE STUDY: I HORNBURCH RESORT WATER RESOURCES IMPACT EVALUATION Pine. Figure 2-2 shows the location of the Thornburgh resort property, the pro- posed wells, and public and private lands. 2.5 Warranty This work was requested by Steve Munson and completed by MYA and NLW. It was performed, and this report was prepared, in accordance with hydrogeologic practices generally accepted at this time, in this area, for the exclusive use of Steve Munson. No other warranty, express, or implied, is made. Mark Yinger ►, . ASSOCIATES CASE STI;DY:THORNRURGH RESORT \\ATER RESOURCES IININ,1CT EVA!UATION 3.0 Background Information The UDB is presently one of the fastest growing areas in Oregon. The number of people in Deschutes County, the most populous in the basin, quadrupled between 1970 and 2001 (Gannett and Lite, 2004), and grew by about 29 percent from 2001 to 2006. Approximately 160,000 people lived in the UDB as of 2001. Growth is expected to continue, and residents and government agencies are concerned about supplying water to the growing population while protecting the rights and re- sources of existing water users. Surface-water resources in the area have been closed to additional appropriation for many years. Therefore, virtually all new de- velopment in the region must rely on groundwater sources. 3.1 USGS Investigation In response to this concern, the USGS conducted an investigation of the hydro- geology of the UDB, collecting data from 1 993 to 1997. Prior to the USGS study, researchers had insufficient data to quantitatively evaluate the connection between groundwater and streamflow—or even the behavior of the regional groundwater flow system in general. At the time of the USGS investigation, and prior to 2005, Oregon water law required those applying for new groundwater rights to evaluate the potential effects of groundwater development on streamflow. The USGS investigation was born out of the hydrologic information void. The ob- jectives of the study were to quantitatively assess the regional groundwater sys- tem and to provide analytical tools for making sound resource-management deci- sions. It has helped State and local government agencies, geologists, hydrologists, and residents when considering applications for new groundwater rights. 3.2 Regulatory Framework 3.2.1 Scenic Waterways Act The Scenic Waterways Act was voted into law in November, 1970 to protect the free-flowing character of designated rivers for fish, wildlife and recreation and protect and enhance scenic, aesthetic, natural, recreation, scientific and fish and wildlife qualities along scenic waterways. Under this law, the portion of the Deschutes River below the Pelton Reregulation Dam to the Columbia River is Mark Yinger L%U l dR&S SW e I S v r „ ASSOCIATES 7 a +. CASE STUDY:THORNUURGII RESORT WATER RESOURCES IMPACT EVALUATION classified as a Recreational River Area under the Scenic Waterway Act (OAR 736-040-0070). In accordance with a 1988 Supreme Court Decision (Diack vs. City of Portland) the Water Resources Commission must find that scenic waterway flows will not be impaired before issuing new water rights. As originally enacted, the Oregon Scenic Waterway Act prohibited new allocation of water from scenic waterways unless the Water Resources Commission determined the use was consistent with the scenic waterway law. 3.2.2 Instream Flows Established In 1991 the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD), Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) established the specific flow levels needed for fish, wildlife, and recreation in the Deschutes Scenic Waterway. The State also established instream water rights to protect flows in the river system for fish and recreational values. According to the 2006 Water Summit report on instream flows (Golden and Aylward, 2006) these protected flows are already not met many months of the year for reaches in the study area. In general, irrigation storage and diversions are the primary reasons. Streamflow in the Little Deschutes River and upper Deschutes River is primarily affected by reservoir storage operations. Conversely, streamflow in the middle Deschutes River, Tumalo Creek, and Whychus Creek is affected by irrigation di- versions (Golden and Aylward, 2006). 3.2.3 SB 1033 & Appeals In 1995, the State legislature approved Senate Bill 1033, which amended Oregon's Scenic Waterways Act, allowing new groundwater uses that measurably reduce streamflows of scenic waterways—if mitigated. A measurable reduction is de- fined as 1 percent or 1 cubic foot per second (cfs), whichever is less. All new rights would be subject to the proviso that groundwater use would be curtailed if data demonstrated a negative impact to scenic waterways. A public process to de- velop mitigation rules was started in 1998. Based on preliminary results of the USGS study, OWRD determined there was significant potential that new groundwater use would result in reduced streamflow on scenic waterways, and therefore, in 1998, a moratorium was placed on granting new groundwater per- mits. Issuance of final mitigation rules occurred in September 2002. In November 2002, WaterWatch, an advocacy group for Oregon rivers, filed a case against OWRD arguing that the mitigation rules violated the Scenic Water- ways Act and over allocated surface water in the UDB—thus failing to protect in- 4 012 I" \i. t. a'r %y Mark Yinger ilk land .Water N.C. a ASSOCIATES „ CASE STUDY:•I'HORNBURGII RI.SOR I WATER RESOURCES INIPACT EVALUA I ION stream water rights. In May 2005, the Court of Appeals found in favor of Water- Watch. The mitigation rules were rejected because the Court found that they al- low a lessening of impact even though the law requires maintaining current flow. The Court in its opinion recognized that the legislature could choose to alter water resource policy established in statutes, opening the door for House Bill 3494. 3.2.4 House Bill 3494 In 2005, House Bill 3494 passed, authorizing allocation of groundwater whether or not it impacts the Deschutes River, regardless of the instream flows already es- tablished under the Instream Water Rights Act. The potential effects of groundwa- ter development on streamflow did not need to be evaluated when considering ap- plications for new groundwater rights. House Bill 3494 undermines Oregon's Sce- nic Waterways Act, passed in 1970 to protect flows needed for fish, wildlife, and recreation in the Deschutes and other world-class rivers in Oregon. HB 3494 passed with a"sunset provision" of January 2, 2014. After HB 3494 sunsets, the rules found illegal by the Oregon Court of Appeals in 2005—but which became legal under HB 3494—will be terminated, precipitating the devel- opment of a new mitigation and water use strategy for the Deschutes basin. 3.2.5 Current Concerns The sunset provision raises a number of concerns related to the long-term eco- logical health of the UDB. Developers now have an incentive to rush projects re- quiring new groundwater sources before the sunset date. Developments and asso- ciated water rights may be approved without adequate scientific investigation to quantify hydrogeologic impacts. Because development is essentially unchecked, the current and future health of the Deschutes hydrogeologic system is threatened by declining groundwater levels, spring flows, and streamflows, along with in- creased river water temperatures. Although the USGS did much to characterize the hydrogeologic system of the UDB in the 1990s, development has been significant since then. As a result, trends in water use, streamflows, and groundwater levels have changed, poten- tially affecting the region's ecological resources. N (D R H W } s r Mark Yinger 40, x and r w l I d ASSOCIATES 9 CASE STUDY:THORNBURGH RESORT WATER RESOURCES IimPACT 1?vALU.a-rIory 4.0 Previous Work Many researchers have studied water resources in the UDB. This section identi- fies much of the work conducted, the agency responsible for the work, and how it was used in this report. Rather than listing all work done in the UDB, we have fo- cused on investigations that provided the most pertinent information for under- standing the general history and technical hydrogeology of water resources in the UDB. A complete list of references used to prepare this report is included in Sec- tion 14. 4.1 Geology & Hydrogeology The USGS has published many reports on different aspects of water resources in the UDB. A complete list of this work can be obtained online'. The work de- scribed below was the basis of the geology and hydrogeology summary in Section 5, the comparison of recent and previously available hydrologic data presented in Section 6, and the modeling efforts detailed in Section 7. 1 Groundwater and Water Chemistry Data for the Upper Deschutes Basin (Caldwell and Truini, 1997). Presents basic data collected and compiled for the UDB, such as well log records, water levels, and water chemistry data for selected well, spring, and surface water sites. 1 Groundwater Hydrology of the Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon (Gannett et al., 2001). Provides a comprehensive, qualitative description of regional groundwater flow in the UDB and an analysis of the data compiled or col- lected for the study. ► Geologic Framework of the Regional Groundwater Flow System in the Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon (Lite and Gannett, 2002). Describes the geologic structures and stratigraphic units that form the framework for the groundwater flow system in the UDB. The geology has a direct effect on the occurrence and movement of groundwater. Hydrogeology of the Upper Deschutes Basin, Central Oregon:A Young Basin Adjacent to the Cascade Volcanic Are (Sherrod, Gannett, and Lite, 2002). Ex- plores the visible and conceptual aspects of the regional groundwater hydrol- ogy of the UDB, including the interaction between groundwater and streams. I http://or.waterusgs.gov/proj/cleschules_gw/pubs.himl . ....... ........................................................ Mark Yinger " ' " ' " " Land& :N ASSOCIATES 10 `f' "' CASE:STUDY: IIIORNRURCII RESORT WATER RESOURCES IMPACT EVALUATION 1 Simulation of Regional Groundwater Flow in the Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon (Gannett and Lite, 2004). Describes the mathematical simulation of regional groundwater flow in the UDB. It includes a description of the hy- drology of the UDB and the methodology for representing the hydrologic sys- tem in the numerical model. It also includes hydrologic data used for the model calibration and a description of the calibration procedures. 4.2 Other Technical Work Other technical work has been conducted to quantify seepage in the gaining and losing reaches of the streams in the UDB, to document stream temperature, to identify critical habitat for listed fish, and to survey and document flora and fauna. This report does not discuss the flora and fauna surveys, but the reports are listed here because they comprise important technical work that has been done in the UDB. Seepage Data (McSwain, pers. comm., 2008). Seepage measurements were made for OWRD and Bureau of Land Management (BLM). These data were used to quantify seepage in gaining and losing stream reaches as reported in Section 6. Stream Temperature (Watershed Sciences, 2002). Continuous temperature ) erature p measurements and aerial visible and infrared photographs were collected and re- ported for the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) by Water- shed Sciences. Temperature measurements were used in Section 6. Critical Fish Habitat(USFW, 2005) and (Ties et al., 1996). Identifies critical habitat for bull trout and native redband trout; also, identifies and discusses the re- introduction of salmon and steelhead. These data were used for Section 10. Botanical Surveys (WPN, 2006). A botanical inventory on the Middle Deschutes from Odin Falls to Culver gauge that was prepared for the BLM. Aquatic Invertebrate Survey. A macroinvertebrate study was conducted for BLM to establish baseline conditions for comparison to data collected in the fu- ture. Invertebrate populations and diversity are indicators of stream health. 4.3 Management & Mitigation Much work has been done towards managing water resources in the UDB. Al- though there is a large body of information about the legislative history of water Mark Yinger '� w O k '' u . `T , Land&Watera!,IC ASSOCIATES ��k � CASE SI-UDY: r HORNnURGH RESORT WATER RFS01;RCFS IMPACT I'.VAI.LAIION resources in Oregon and the UDB, it is beyond the scope of this report to compile that information. However, a few crucial documents describe water resource man- agement, and, in particular, mitigation of diminished streamflow in the UDB. They are described below. Hydrology Report, Water Supply Development Feasibility: Proposed Thornburgh resort, Deschutes County, Oregon (Newton, 2005). Prepared for the Thornburgh destination resort, this documents reports on the feasibility of groundwater devel- opment. The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners accepted this report as an adequate demonstration of sufficient groundwater supply for the proposed pro- ject, deeming that the potential impact to groundwater levels and nearby streams is acceptable. Deschutes Groundwater Mitigation Program, 5-Year Program Evaluation Report Draft (OWRD, 2008). Evaluates the first 5 years of the groundwater mitigation program. We used this information in Section 12. Deschutes Basin Water Summit 2006. This conference brought together stake- holders to enroll them in a consensus process for developing a comprehensive wa- ter management plan. It communicated the findings of a number of comprehen- sive studies on the following topics: instream flows; growth, urbanization, and land use changes; water management scenarios; groundwater demand; irrigation district water efficiency; and reservoir management. All of these reports can be viewed from the Deschutes River Conservancy website2. While most of these re- ports were not used directly in the report, they comprise an important body of work on management strategy in the UDB. The report on instream flow was used in Section 12. 2 hItp://www.deschulesriver.org Yinger MarkYin rOsIasA o ASSOCIATES� L l.and�wat�r evKw CASE.STUDY: I HORNBURCII RESORT WATER RESOURCES IMPACT EN ALUATION 5.0 Geology & Hydrogeology gY This section summarizes the geology and hydrogeology of the UDB and the Thornburgh resort area. This information largely based on publications of the USGS, OWRD, and the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI). For additional information, consult the following references: 1 Geologic Map of the Bend 30-x 60-Minute Quadrangle, Central Oregon, USGS Geologic Investigations Series 1-2683 (Sherrod et al., 2004) 1 Geologic Framework Of The Regional Groundwater Flow System In The Up- per Deschutes Basin, Oregon, USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 02-4015 (Lite and Gannett, 2002) 1 Groundwater Hydrology of the Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, USGS Inves- tigations Report 02-4162 (Gannett et al., 2001) 1 H Y dro eology of the Upper Deschutes Basin, Central Ore g on: A Young Ba- sin Adjacent to the Cascade Volcanic Arc, DOGAMI Special Paper 36(Sher- rod et al., 2002) 1 Groundwater Hydrology of the Upper Deschutes Basin and Its Influence on Streamflow (Gannett et al., 2003) A limited amount of field work was done for this study in the vicinity of Thorn- burgh resort. 5.1 Physiographic Setting The UDB is the portion of the Deschutes River drainage basin upstream of Trout Creek. Trout Creek enters the Deschutes near Warm Springs, Oregon. The basin stretches from the crest of the Cascade Mountain Range east approximately 100 miles and from Trout Creek south to just north of Chemult, Oregon, a distance of approximately 100 miles. The cities of Bend and Redmond are the major popula- tion centers and are located 25 to 30 miles east of the crest of the Cascade Moun- tain Range and near the center of basin, north to south. The combined population of the rapidly growing cities of Bend and Redmond is approximately 102,000. The smaller cities of Prineville and Madras are located 18 miles to the east and 25 miles to the north of Redmond respectively. Their combined population is ap- proximately 16,000. The small city of Sisters is located about 20 miles west of Redmond. The small community of Tumalo is located about 5 miles south of the Thornburgh property. \,, Mark Yinger " a "' " ' S b— land&WVater. N ASSOCIATES 13 _ + CASE STUDY:THORNBURGH RESORT W..vrI:R RESOURCES INIPACT EVALUATION The 'Thornburgh resort lies approximately 6 miles west of Redmond and 2 miles west of the north-flowing Deschutes River (Figure 2-2). 11. is located on and adja- cent to the Cline Buttes, which consist of three prominent buttes and a lower ridge. These features have a northeasterly trend. The buttes rise 1,000 feet above the surrounding plain. The surrounding plain generally slopes gently to the north- northeast. The Deschutes River enters a narrow, steep wall canyon just north of the community of Tumalo. East of the Cline Buttes, the river canyon is 100 to 150 feet deep. The major tributaries of the Deschutes River are the Little Deschutes River, Meto- lius River, Crooked River, Fall River, Tumalo Creek, and Whychus Creek3. The Deschutes is dammed twice near the northern boundary of UDB, forming Lake Billy Chinook and Lake Simtustus. The mean annual flow of the Deschutes River at Bend is 378 cfs;just above Lake Billy Chinook, it is 928 cfs (Gannett et al., 2003). Portions of three major physiographic provinces occur within the UDB. The High Cascades physiographic province along the western edge of the basin is domi- nated by large stratovolcanoes with summit elevations of just over 10,000 feet. The northeastern portion of the UDB includes the western end of the Blue Moun- tain physiographic province. This area includes the Mutton, Ochoco, and Maury Mountains and most of the Crooked River drainage basin. The southeastern por- tion of the UDB includes the western end of the High Lava Plains physiographic province, where the dominant feature is the large Newberry shield volcano. The central crater of this shield volcano is about 20 miles south of Bend. 5.2 Climate Moist marine air moving eastward from the Pacific Ocean has a dominant and moderating influence on the climate of the UDB. The winters are cool and wet and the summers are warm and dry. The great majority of the annual precipitation in the UDB occurs as snow and rain along its western margin; as moisture-laden marine air rises to flow eastward up and over the crest of the Cascades, it cools, leading to large amounts precipitation. The amount of precipitation varies dra- matically across the UDB—from 100 plus inches per year along the Cascade crest to less than 1 foot over much of the basin (Taylor, 1993). The 30-year average annual precipitation at Redmond is 8.6 inches (Taylor, 1993). '' Whychus Creek is the new name of Squaw Creek. MarkYi iger ,1. ,n R _' W ` S T Land V4aFr IN~. ASSOCIATES .4 a w,;, µM ,v; CAsi•:Sruuv:THORNBIiRCII RESORT WATER RESOURCES INIPACT EVALUATION 5.3 Geologic Setting The following discussion of the regional geology is based on our literature review and on well logs. The discussion of local geology focuses on the Thornburgh des- tination resort area and includes observations made during field reconnaissance conducted for this study. A more detailed description of the regional geology is contained in Appendix A and selected water well logs for the Thornburgh area are included in Appendix B. 5.3.1 Regional Geology The region has a long and complex history dominated by volcanic activity that stretches from the Eocene through the Holocene Epochs. The UDB is a deposi- tional basin filled with lava flows and volcaniclastic material known as the Deschutes Formation, derived primarily from the Cascade Mountain range, which flanks the basin on the west. To the north and east, the volcaniclastic material of the basin fill lapped onto uplands composed of older Oligocene to Miocene vol- canic material of the John Day and Clarno Formations. The John Day Formation likely underlies most of the UDB. Much of the southern portion of the basin is filled with Pleistocene to Holocene basalt lava flows of the Newberry volcano and alluvial and glacial outwash deposits of silt, sand, and gravel. Figure 5-1 is a generalized geologic map taken from a USGS study (Gannett and Lite, 2004). The following table summarizes the stratigraphy of the region. Geologic unit Age Description Generalized Geologic Units of Figure 5-1 Sediments Pleistocene to Alluvium and glacial outwash silt, sand and Quaternary sedimentary Holocene gravel, and sands and gravels of present day deposits streams Volcanic Pleistocene Andesite and basaltic-andesite lava flows, basalt Volcanic deposits, of the deposits lava flows, ash flows, Quaternary Cascades and _Newberry volcano Deschutes Forma- Late Miocene Mudflows, debris flows, sandstone, conglomer- Volcanic and sedimentary tion to Pliocene ate, basaltic and andesitic lavas flows, ash flows, deposits, late Tertiary and air-fall ash and cinder cones Quaternary Volcanic and Pliocene Basaltic-andesite and basalt lava flows and allu- sedimentary rocks vial fan deposits Prineville basalt Miocene Basalt lava flows Prineville basalt John Day Oligocene to Altered andesitic ash flows, air-fall tuffs, tuf- Early Tertiary volcanic Formation late Miocene faceous sediments, rhyolite domes, and andesite deposits and basalt lava flows Clarno Formation Eocene Altered andesitic lava flows, ash flows, mud- flows, tuffaceous sediments, mudstone, clay- stone, siltstone and conglomerate MarkYingqer ti C) R T S9 R t e r ASSDCIA bES 15 „,o �a Land&Water, *•Ih,, CASE.Sruuv: I}IORNBLJR(a1 RESOR I WA I ER RESOURCES INIPACT EVALUA HON 5.3.2 Local Geology The Thornburgh property is located on, and in the immediate vicinity of, Cline Buttes, a rhyolite dome complex that rises approximately 1,000 feet above the surrounding plain, which consists of basalt and basaltic-andesite lava flows of the Deschutes Formation (Figure 5-2). These flows overlie sandstones and conglom- erates of the Deschutes Formation. The thickness of the overlying lava flows is quite variable, ranging from 40 feet to as much as 300 feet. The bulk of Cline Buttes consists of devitrified, light-tan, sparsely porphyritic rhyolite with very faint to no discernible flow banding, a sugary texture with brownish clots of iron oxides, and an irregular tight fracture. Other textures in- clude spherulitic in combination with faint flow banding. The rhyolite dome com- 1 plex and contemporaneous basalt lava flows suggest a strongly bimodal basalt- rhyolite magma (Streck and Grunder, 2007). A low ridge extending to the southwest of the highest butte is likely a rhyolite lava flow or flows that may have buried older vents. The ridge consists of tan to light-gray rhyolite with distinct, fine, and generally planar flow banding having a platy fracture coincident with flow bands. The platy fractures are generally tight. Two linear zones of intense siliceous alteration were observed. They appear to be associated with southwest-trending fracture zones. Here the flow-banded rhyolite is completely replaced with massive, pure white, very-fine-grained silica. A large rock quarry on the east side of the northern butte cuts into the flank of the butte, exposing distinct zones of rhyolite breccia. A long bulldozer-cut near the top of the quarry exposes at least four distinct zones of autoclastic breccia. The breccia and hydrothermal alteration zones dip steeply away from the dome sum- mit. The intensity of brecciation and degree of alteration increases outward from the dome core. Each zone likely represents an episode of movement and hydro- thermal alteration associated with a pulse of magma moving into the vent and pushing upward and outward. The outer breccia zones of the dome have under- gone repeated episodes of fracturing and fracture surfaces are commonly coated with brown clay or silica, the products of hydrothermal alteration. The lower por- tion of the quarry, at the base of the slope, cuts across an apron of rubble. The ma- terial comprising the apron is a complex assemblage of angular, broken rhyolite shed off the steep upper slopes the dome, tephra, agglomerate, and lavas. The lavas are discontinuous and very broken, consisting of flow-banded gray and red- dish-gray rhyolite and flow-banded obsidian. The volcanic rubble of the apron is loose to weakly cemented with silica and very porous. Locally, the material has undergone intense siliceous alteration, a process that has greatly reduced its per- meability. The debris apron of the dome complex is, to a large extent, buried be- neath Quaternary colluvium and alluvial fan deposits. Paleo-tributaries of the vOR'Tt1U I S T Mark Yinger &Water. NI.. ASSOCIATES 16 , , CASE STUDY:TIIORNBURGII RESORT WATER RESOURCES IMPACT EVALUATION Deschutes River that flowed northeast may have eroded away significant portions of the debris apron along both the southeast and northwest sides of the buttes. In the rock quarry, three areas of loose or very weakly cemented spherulites (4-10 mm) were observed in areas near the contact between the debris apron and rhyo- lite breccia. The spherulites may be the residual of intense and localized hydro- thermal alteration of the chilled glassy margin of the rhyolite. Relatively little is known about the subsurface in the vicinity of the Cline Buttes rhyolite dome complex. The rhyolite has an isotopic age of 6.14+0.20 Ma (million years ago; Sherrod et al., 2004). The complex is generally contemporaneous with the surrounding Deschutes Formation, which consists of basalt and basaltic- andesite lava flows and volcaniclastic sedimentary rocks. Driller's logs for the six water wells located nearest the dome complex (DESC 756, 952, 1198, 3666, 3669 and 54485) were examined (Appendix B, Figure 5-2). Well DESC 756, located on the south slope of the highest butte at about 3,350 feet in elevation, may inter- sect as much as 830 feet of rhyolite. The driller describes a hard, brown sand- stone, possibly misidentifying devitrified rhyolite as sandstone because of its sandy or grainy texture and flow banding. The driller of well DESC 3669, located about a half mile to the south at approximately 3,160 feet in elevation, describes hard brown and gray rock and sandstone to 496 feet beneath the surface and then water-bearing sand and gravel from 496 feet to 535 feet beneath the surface. The other four wells do not appear to intersect the rhyolite based on the well logs. A well (DESC 1198)just north of the dome complex may intersect the dome debris apron. 5.4 Hydrogeologic Setting The discussion the regional hydrogeologic setting is largely based on the USGS study Geologic Framework of the Regional Groundwater Flow System in the Up- per Deschutes Basin (Lite and Gannett, 2002). 5.4.1 Regional Hydrogeology The USGS study identified several hydrogeologic units, as shown on Figure 5-3. A hydrogeologic unit may consist of a single geologic unit with distinct hydraulic properties or portions of one or more geologic units grouped together because of similar hydraulic properties. The following table summarizes the hydrogeologic units of the UDB. Additional description of the regional hydrogeology is included in Appendix A. Mark Yinger N 'O R H T � Land& Jdater. ASSOCIATES 17 \ rv, „w, CASE STUDY:"1 HORNBURCII RESORT WATER RESOURCES IMPACT EVALUATION Hydrogeologic Unit Description Quaternary sediments Unconsolidated silt, sand and gravel, low to moderately permeability Cascade and Newberry Fractured lava flows and tephra, moderately to very permeable volcanic deposits Inactive margin deposits Fine grained sediment facies of the Deschutes Formation deposited along the eastern edge of the basin, low permeability Ancestral Deschutes Coarse sand, gravels and intra-canyon lava flows, ancient River channel deposits Deschutes River channel deposit fades of the Deschutes Formation, very p ermeable Proximal deposits Fractured lava flows, flow breccias and coarse tephra facies of the Deschutes Formation, moderately permeable Arc-adjacent alluvial plain Fractured lava flows, sandstone and conglomerate facies of the deposits Deschutes Formation, moderately to very permeable Pre-Deschutes Forma- Pervasively altered volcanic and volcaniclastic deposits of the John tion deposits Day Formation, includes hydrothermally altered rock at depth be- neath the Cascades and Newberry volcano, very low permeability The Deschutes Formation is the primary aquifer in the UDB. It has been subdi- vided into four hydrogeologic units. These units generally relate to the source of material deposited and the depositional environment. 5.4.2 Local H dro eolo Y g 9Y The Deschutes Formation is also the primary aquifer in the Cline Buttes and Thornburgh resort area. The nearest large-capacity wells are those of the Eagle Crest destination resort, located about 1 mile east of Cline Buttes. They appear to produce water from Deschutes Formation sandstone beneath basalt flows— reportedly 300 to 500 gallons per minute (gpm). One Eagle Crest well (DESC 54485, Appendix B) located about a half mile north of the northern butte pene- trates, starting at the surface, 242 feet of basalt, then 360 feet of"multi-colored rock," and then confined water in sandstone (Figure 5-2). The multicolored rock that varies from soft to hard may be material of the rhyolite dome's debris apron. Wells (DESC 9358 and 9359) in the Crest Ridge development, about 2 miles northeast of the northern butte, produce over 100 gpm from Deschutes Formation sandstone. Few wells appear to intersect the rhyolite dome complex. DESC 756, located up the south slope of the tallest butte, is the highest elevation well in the area(Figure 5-2). This well appears to penetrate 550 to 830 feet of rhyolite and produces 10 gpm from a fractured lava at 830 to 880 feet beneath the surface. The water in the fractured lava is confined, rising 100 feet above the top of the fractured lava, indi- cating that the rhyolite is impermeable. An Eagle Crest well (DESC 1083), lo- cated along Cline Falls Highway about a mile east the summit of the buttes, pene- trates lavas and "rock" to 460 feet and then from 460 to 800 feet brown and gray "andesite" variably described as soft, hard, and weathered. The andesite described by the driller may he rhyolite. This well produced only 30 gpm. Wells one-half ....................................................................... N i7 N r 1 1t I S r M arkYin er , rid w car rti . g ASSOCIATES 18 CASE STUDY: I'IIORNBt RGII RESORT WATER RESOURCES IMPACT EVALUATION mile farther east encounter water-bearing Deschutes Formation sandstone at shal- lower depths. The permeability of the Cline Butte rhyolite is likely significantly lower than that of surrounding volcaniclastic sedimentary rocks. Repeated episodes of argillic and siliceous hydrothermal alteration have filled fractures, reducing its initial fracture- dependent porosity and permeability. A zone of argillic and siliceous alteration is also likely to extend into the surrounding volcaniclastic sedimentary rocks, reduc- ing their original permeability. It has been stated that the rhyolite of Cline Butte and the rhyodacite lava flows near Steelhead Falls (approximately 8 miles north) are more permeable than the surrounding material (Sherrod et al., 2002; Gannett et al., 2001). There is good evidence to support this statement for the rhyodacite lava flows of Steelhead Falls, but not for the hydrothermally altered rhyolite of Cline Buttes. Water levels in wells that penetrate the sandstones and conglomer- ates around Cline Buttes are higher on the south/southeast side (the upgradient side of the buttes), and lower by approximately 100 feet on the northwest side. This is what would be expected if the rhyolite represented a zone of significantly lower hydraulic conductivity. If the rhyolite of Cline Buttes were much more permeable than the surrounding volcaniclastic sedimentary rocks, the groundwa- ter gradient would be much flatter across the dome complex; however, this is not the case. In contrast, what remains of the debris apron around the dome complex will have a much higher permeability than the rhyolite and, to a lesser degree, than the sandstone and conglomerate. Because of the very sparse subsurface data in the area, it is impossible to reliably estimate the extent of the debris apron and its ex- tent of saturation. We suspect the debris apron is limited in its lateral extent. 5.4.3 Hydrogeologic Units & Hydraulic Properties In this study, we use the USGS groundwater flow model for the UDB to simulate the stress of the pumping of the wells proposed for the Thornburgh destination re- sort. The USGS defined a set of hydrogeologic units and used them to inform the distribution of hydraulic properties within the flow model (Gannett and Lite, 2004). Figures 5-1 and 5-3 show the USGS units, which include: / Quaternary sediments / Quaternary volcanic deposits of the High Cascades and Newberry Volcano / The four facies of the Deschutes Formation consisting of arc-adjacent alluvial plain deposits Inactive margin deposits Mark Yinger Yin " ' " .r. g__. , i2nd kk Water *ac. ASSOCIATES 19 a\l (:'�Sf•:Srum:TnoloiluRGii RI•;SORr WA l ER RESOURCES IMPACT EVALUA TION / Ancestral Deschutes River channel deposits / Proximal deposits / Pre—Deschutes Formation rocks Because of the lack of subsurface geologic data and the heterogeneous character of the hydrogeologic units, hydraulic properties were not assigned to each unit. Rather, the modelers considered the characteristics of the units in combination with other data to define the distribution of hydraulic properties. This data in- cluded aquifer tests, drillers' logs, specific-capacity tests, groundwater level measurements, and published data specific to the basin or considered typical or representative of the lithologies present in the basin. Gannet and Lite (2004) de- scribe how they derived the horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivities and storage coefficients for the model. 5.4.4 Spatial Variability The Deschutes Formation is a complex hydrogeologic unit consisting of many rock types; therefore, its hydraulic properties are expected to vary significantly, both laterally and vertically. Preferred groundwater flow paths are formed by the lava flows and coarse sand-and-gravel channel deposits that filled paleochannels and canyons that crossed the depositional basin. These coarse sandstones, con- glomerates, and fractured intra-canyon lava flows have very high permeabilities. The Felton basalt and the Opal Springs basalt of the Deschutes Formation are very permeable lava flows that filled paleocanyons cut by the ancestral Deschutes River(Lite and Gannett, 2002). 5.5 Groundwater Flow System 5.5.1 Regional Recharge & Discharge Patterns Groundwater flow patterns in the UDB are well documented in USGS studies (Gannett et al., 2001; Lite and Gannett, 2002; Gannett and Lite, 2004). Ground- water flows from the region's primary recharge areas—the High Cascades and Newberry volcano-- in a northeasterly to northerly direction. These recharge ar- eas receive the great majority of precipitation in the UDB, and the young, rela- tively unweathered volcanic deposits of these areas are very permeable, allowing rapid infiltration. The average annual recharge for the basin from 1993 to 1995 was approximately 3,500 cfs (Gannett et al., 2001). N O R S it . S r Mark Yinger A . land&Wager,tvc. ASSOCIATES 20 CASE STIIDY: 1ITORNBURGII RESORT' WATER RESOURCES IMPACT EVALUATION The first large discharges of groundwater occur along the lower slopes of the Cas- cades to spring-fed streams. These include the upper Deschutes River, above Wickiup Reservoir, Fall River, Spring River, and the upper Metolius River. Some segments of the Deschutes River between Sunriver and Bend gain water from groundwater discharges; others lose water. However, gains significantly exceed losses. In the Bend area, water is diverted from the Deschutes River into unlined irrigation canals that extend to north of Madras. The canals that leak at the great- est rate are located in the Bend area and to the north and east of Bend. For the year 1994, leakage from canals was estimated at 490 cfs—about 46 percent of the water diverted into the canals (Gannett et al., 2001). From Bend downstream to the Lower Bridge area the Deschutes River has both reaches with small gains and small losses, and the flows varied from 29 to 44 cfs (Gannett, 2001). Between Lower Bridge and Whychus Creek, the river begins to gain from spring discharges, however there are reaches with small gains and reaches with small losses (McSwain, 2007). Seepage along this section of the Deschutes is discussed in more detail in Section 6. From approximately Lower Bridge north to Lake Billy Chinook, the Deschutes gains about 390 cfs from groundwater discharge. The lower Crooked River gains about 1,100 cfs. Ground- water discharge to Lake Billy Chinook is estimated at 420 cfs. This large dis- charge of groundwater in the confluence area occurs because the permeable Deschutes Formation thins against the relatively impermeable John Day Forma- tion as it nears the surface and eventually outcrops in the Deschutes canyon 10 miles north of Lake Billy Chinook (Gannett et al., 2001). 5.5.2 Proposed Resort Area In the Thornburgh resort area, groundwater flows in a northwesterly direction. The groundwater elevation in Deschutes Formation wells is generally 2,700 to 2,750 feet on the southeast side of Cline Buttes and about 2,600 feet on the northwest side (Figure 5-2). This drop of 100 to 130 feet over a distance of about 3.5 miles is significantly steeper than the regional gradient indicated by the USGS study (Gannett and Lite, 2004). Hydrothermal alteration associated with the rhyolite dome complex and its vol- canic Y P canic conduits likely has reduced the permeability of the rhyolite and adjacent Deschutes Formation volcaniclastic sedimentary rocks. In contrast, a debris apron around the dome complex consisting of broken rock shed off the steep flanks of the domes, tephra, and very broken lavas and agglomerate is likely significantly more permeable than the either the rhyolite or the rocks of the Deschutes Forma- tion. 2� , Mark Yinger ` `' 'Water,' _-- �, Lana�.'s>Ya[er v� ASSOCIATES CASE STUDY:THORNBURCH RESORT WATER RESOURCES IMPACT EVALUATION There are extensive irrigation canal networks approximately 2.5 miles south of the Cline Buttes and along the east side of the Deschutes River from Bend to about six miles north of Redmond. In these areas, leakage from canals and irrigation water lost to deep percolation recharges groundwater. A very small portion of the canal leakage discharges to the middle Deschutes River. From just north of Bend to Odin Falls, approximately 4 miles north of Cline Buttes, the estimated gain to the Deschutes River is only 6.5 cfs and this gain has been attributed to return flow from leaky irrigation canals (Gannett et al., 2001). Mark Ymger " " R ' t ' ' r Land C Water N'(. ASSOCIATES 22 CASE S1111)1: rIHORNBUR(:11 RES(Rr \A1 T1 R RE:SOURC:ES 1\rr AC:r Ev...i.u.a'rION 6.0 Recent Hydrologic Data The USGS study reported precipitation, groundwater level, streamflow, and water use data. For this study, we compiled recent data and compared it to the USGS data. This section describes the result of this comparison and summarizes stream temperature and habitat data. Discussion of how trends in recent hydrologic data may impact water resources is discussed in Section 12. 6.1 Precipitation Precipitation is the source of groundwater recharge. Since groundwater feeds parts of the Deschutes River, any reductions in recharge eventually translate to reduced streamflows, which can affect stream temperature and fish habitat. Re- charge can be profoundly affected by climate change, which can decrease either the amount or duration of snow pack or the amount of precipitation that infiltrates into aquifers. The USGS used precipitation data for the years 1993 to 1995. to calculate groundwater recharge for its regional model. This data was obtained from six sites in the UDF3. For this study, we examined precipitation data from water year 1990 through 2007 for the same six sites. 6.1 .1 Data Source Precipitation data is maintained by the Western Regional Climate Center(WRCC) at the Desert Research Institute in Las Vegas. Data is available for purchase by internet download`. Data for the six sites used by the USGS was purchased from the WRCC for the period 1990 to 2007. These sites are shown on Figure 6-1. 6.1 .2 Method Data include maximum, minimum, and average temperature; total precipitation; precipitation, snowfall, snow depth, and date. Data were compiled in an Access 4 help://www.wrec.dr•i.eda.r Mark Yinger , " k ' " " ' T £3a'Watr^r 'e' ASSOCIATES 2:3 �e\� �,,KM,,: CASE STUDY:'I'HORNBURGH RESORT WATER RESOURCES IMPACT EVALUATION database and a"water year"---the 12-month period from October 1 through Sep- tember 30—was assigned to each date.' Total precipitation was summarized for water years 1991 through 2007 at each of the six sites. Snowfall data was summarized for Wickiup Dam, the site with high- est elevation, to help assess trends in the snow pack that recharges groundwater and provides surface runoff to streams. Table 6-1 summarizes annual precipita- tion at the six sites; Figure 6-2 shows annual precipitation trends. Figure 6-3 shows the number of days per water year with snow pack greater than 0 inches at Wickiup Dam. 6.1 .3 Results In general, the recent data indicate significantly less precipitation than the 1993- 1995 data, the period used for the USGS model. The data for Wickiup Dam sug- gests that climate change may be reducing snow pack, but it is inconclusive. 6.2 Groundwater Levels Groundwater levels were monitored throughout the basin and reported by the USGS for over 85 wells (Caldwell and Truini, 1997). The OWRD continued to monitor groundwater levels in 14 wells throughout the UDB (Gannett and Lite, 2001). Of these, about eight are in the vicinity of the proposed Thornburgh devel- opment and were considered in this section; these well locations are shown on Figure 6-1. The data was downloaded from the OWRD website and used to pre- pare water-level hydrographs. The long-term water level hydrographs were then reviewed, and recent trends data were compared to trends discussed by USGS (Gannett et al., 2001). 6.2.1 Data Sources & Methods The locations of OWRD observation wells in the vicinity of the proposed Thorn- burgh development were identified using GIS data. The shape file, wells.shp, was 5 The water year is designated by the calendar year in which it ends and which includes 9 of the 12 months. Thus, the yew-ending Seplemher 30, 1992, is the 1992 water year. ... ........................................................................ Mark Yinger w"L; ASSOCIATES ItiC r p ,� ` " CAsp;STUDI': I noRNBURC;u Ri SOR I WATER RF,SOURCFS IMP UI I'.vALUAIION obtained from the OWRD website6. All available water level data for the Deschutes basin was obtained from OW RD7. Sixteen observation wells were identified in the vicinity of Thornburgh. Eight of these wells were included in the OWRD water-level database and were evaluated for this report (Figure 6-1). Hydrographs for these wells are shown on Figures 6- 4 through 6-12. Although each observation well has a different period of record, the same time scale was used for each hydrograph to compare trends. The longest period of re- cord, 1972—present, was used for each hydrograph. Each hydrograph includes the OWRD well name (a number preceded by DESC, the identifier for Deschutes County). The well's depth and its corresponding USGS identifier are noted paren- thetically if the data was included in the database. 6.2.2 Discussion The USGS investigation of hydrology of the UDB (Gannett et al., 2001) reports that, in general, large-scale water-level fluctuations reflect responses to weather patterns. Groundwater levels rise after periods of high precipitation and decline in response to drought conditions. The USGS modeling report(Gannett and Lite, 2004) cites the 2001 report: "There is no evidence to suggest that the regional groundwater system in the UDB is not in long-term equilibrium with the natural climate cycles and human activity. For example, no long-term water level declines due to pumping were observed in the data, and (with,few exceptions) groundwater discharge meas- urements show trends that can be related only to climate." This conclusion is based on hydrographs presented in the USGS report (Truini, 1997), which show cyclic water-level trends with rising and declining limbs last- ing no more than about 5 to 7 years and complete cycle durations lasting about a decade. Although the USGS conclusions may be correct for the observed period, they may not reflect current conditions, which are likely affected by factors other than climate. The hydrographs for the wells near the Thornburgh project have presented an opportunity to revisit old data and to assess recent trends by incorpo- rating new data that has been collected over the last decade. lutp://www.wrd.slate.or.us/OWRD/GW/well_data.shtml 'http://wwwl_wrdstate.or.us/groundwater/obswells/data/owrd wls_txt Mark Yin er ` " d_.'' " 5 T g Land&Water, ASSOCIATES 25 e ^a CASE STUDY:THORNBURGH RESORT WATER RESOURCES IMPACT E.vALUA IION 6.2,3 Results Two hydrographs show cyclic trends and five show a declining trend since 1993. Two show a difference between older and recent data that appears inconsistent with cyclic trends, but data between the two periods is missing. These trends are detailed in the next few sections of this report. In addition, data collected since 1997 suggest that some observation wells reflect declining water level trends that are inconsistent with the decadal trends resulting from climate variation. 6.2.3.1 Declining Water Level Trends Figures 6-4 through 6-8 (wells DESC 3903, 3949, 3581, 8626, 1957) are hydro- graphs that show consistent declining trends since about 1994. DESC 3903 (Fig- ure 6-4) has the longest period of record, from 1972 to about 1994, and shows fluctuating water levels typical of the decadal trends that reflect climate variation until about 1994. During this period, the maximum change in water level is less than about 10 feet. However, after 1994, water levels continue to decline for 12 years, with a slight flattening from 1996 to 2002. This pattern differs from the previous 22 years. Figure 6-5 (DESC 3949) has limited early data, in about 1979, and then a complete record from about 1993 through 2007. Because of this large hiatus,the trend between 1980 and 1994 is unclear. However, it is clear that there is a consistent downward trend from 1993 through 2006, with a flattening be- tween about 1997 and 2003, similar to DESC 3903. The declining trend in these observation wells is inconsistent with a cyclic pat- tern, suggesting that water levels may be responding to other factors. The water level decline is likely a response to not only climate change but also to groundwa- ter pumping at rates in excess of the recharge rate. 6.2.3.2 Cyclic Water Level Trends Figure 6-9 (DESC 3193), Figure 6-10 (DESC 3614), and the early parts of Fig- ures 6-4 and 6-8 show cyclic water level trends. In these wells, water level fluctu- ates up and down. Each period of rise or fall lasts for 3 to 6 or more years; each cycle lasts approximately 10 years. The maximum and minimum values follow a flat trend, hovering around a consistent water level. This pattern is typical for wells that respond to the cyclic fluctuations of climate, with decreasing trends corresponding to periods of drought and increasing trends corresponding to par- ticularly wet years. r n R a u a I \k Mark Yinger „„,, land&Water,iN.. . ASSOCIATES 26 A n u i NSF; CASE STUDY:THORNBURGH RESORT WATER RESOURCES IMPACT EVALUATION 6.2.3.3 Differences between Older & Recent Data Figures 6-11 and 6-12 (DESC 53714 and 386) have insufficient data to establish a clear trend. However, recent water levels are significantly lower in both wells than they were during the early period of record. For Figure 6-11 (DESC 53714), the data from about 1995 to 2005 suggests a cyclic or slight decline, but water levels during the entire I 0-year period are more than 16 feet lower than they were from about 1990. Similarly, for DESC 386, the data point from 1995 is more than 10 feet lower than the data point in 1975. Figures 6-5 and 6-8 also exhibit a sig- nificant difference between older data collected from 1978-1980 and recent data; the early data does not fit as part of the trend of the later data, but can only be ex- plained by a declining trend. 6.3 Streamflow The USGS reported streamflow data for the UDB available through 1997 (Gan- nett et al., 2001) and used the data to develop the groundwater flow model (Gan- nett and Lite, 2004). For this investigation, we compiled data available through water year 2007 for selected streams. These hydrographs are presented in this sec- tion. They provide current information and show the dramatic increase in stream- flow between the headwaters of the Deschutes River and locations downgradient near Madras. Stream-gauging sites were selected based on data availability and location. Figure 6-13 shows the map of stream-gauging stations from the 2001 USGS re- port. Stations with data presented in this report are circled. Data from two stations on the Deschutes River— Lower Bridge near Terrebon and Cline Falls—are in- eluded in this report but not covered in the USGS report. Although these stations have limited data, we have included them because their locations are important to understanding the groundwater flow system. 6.3.1 Data Source & Methods Tabular electronic streamflow data was provided by either the Oregon Water Re- sources Department or the USGS8. Hydrographs were plotted for the 11 selected gauging stations. Figures 6-14 through 6-24 are presented in order from upgradient to downgradient. Stations 'ti http://www1.wrd state.or.zzs/cgi-h in/choose gage-pl?huc-17070301 http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwisisw Mark Yinger �� �, laca�i Ac'r�ater v .. ASSOCIATES 27 \ CASE:STUDY:TIIORNBURGH RESORT rl•:R RESOURCES IMPACT EVALUATION were selected to show the change in streamflow of the Deschutes River as dis- tance away from the headwaters increases. Stations on tributaries Whychus Creek and Tumalo Creek were included because they contain important fish resources near the proposed Thornburgh project. 6.3.2 Discussion Hydrographs for all the gauging stations show a dramatic difference between the high flows of winter/spring and low flows of summer/early fall. In general, the low-flow conditions represent summer/early fall baseflow, when the stream is fed primarily by groundwater. High flow conditions occur when the stream is fed by groundwater, precipitation runoff, and/or snowmelt. Each hydrograph shows that baseflow dominates total streamflow beginning in about May and reaches its low- est flow in August or September. The relative impact of declining groundwater levels is significantly greater under baseflow conditions than under higher flows; therefore, this discussion focuses on the baseflow conditions shown in the hydro- graphs. Gauging stations at Crescent Creek, Deschutes below Wickiup, and Little Deschutes at La Pine (Figures 6-14, 6-15, and 6-16) represent streamflow in the most upgradient portion of the basin. Baseflow at these sites is commonly about 20-30 cfs at Deschutes below Wickiup, 5-10 cfs at Crescent Creek, and 30-60 cfs at Little Deschutes near La Pine. Gauging stations on the Deschutes at Ben- ham Falls, Bend, Cline Falls, Lower Bridge, near Culver, and near Madras illus- trate how flows increase with distance in the downgradient direction. Low-flow conditions are commonly about 500 cfs at Benham Falls, 40-85 cfs near Bend, 40-10 cfs near Lower Bridge, cfs near Culver, and 3 500--3 800 cfs near Ma- dras. > dras. This trend shows that the most dramatic increase in groundwater discharge to the Deschutes River—about 3,000 cfs---occurs between Culver and Madras. Al- though baseflow increases from less than 50 cfs at the most upgradient gauging stations to 500 cfs at Culver, it decreases by about 400 cfs as it moves downgradi- ent from Benham Falls (about 500 cfs) to near Bend (about 100 cfs). Because the data for the Deschutes at Cline Falls is old, no direct comparison to nearby gaug- ing stations is possible. Likewise, the data record for Lower Bridge is relatively short, but its hydrograph is consistent with low baseflow conditions for Deschutes at Bend. Gannett and Lite (2001) report that the most substantial stream losses measured in the basin occur on the Deschutes River between Benham Falls and Bend. Stage and flow rate in this reach is reported to be controlled by reservoir operations up- stream. Gannett and Lite report that streamflow is highest from April to October, , cyaa ,l � ts•r Mark Yinger � , nd&Water Iti ASSOCIATES 28 naw u, CASE STUDY:THORNBURGII RESORT WATER RESOURCES IMPACT EvAiwATION when water is released from reservoirs for canal diversions near Bend. However, Gannett and Lite (2004) acknowledge that there is a losing reach between Ben- ham Falls and Bend, reporting losses of about 90 cfs, based on a long-term data record (1945-1995); this is likely due to irrigation diversions. The hydrograph for the Deschutes at Benham Falls shows high flows during the typical low-flow season, from about May to early October. At Bend, high flow occurs during the wet season, from late fall through spring. Streamflow at Ben- ham Falls is affected by reservoir operations, while streamflow at Bend is affected 7 by irrigation Regardless diversions. Re ardless of the reason, baseflow in the Deschutes River from Bend to Lower Bridge is the lowest flow in the middle Deschutes River and is about 100 cfs. 6.4 Groundwater Use Monthly pumping data from both public and large private water supply purveyors was summarized for 1997 through 2006. This data was then compared to usage during the period of record for the USGS groundwater flow model (Gannett and Lite, 2004). 6.4.1 Data Sources & Methods Groundwater use data for public systems from 1997 through 2006 was acquired from an OWRD online database`'. We also obtained from OWRD water use data for private systems in the central portion of the UDB. Data was provided in elec- tronic format and is generally reported in million gallons (MGals). Some water purveyors report water use in cubic feet; these data were converted to MGals. Pumping records were entered into an Excel spreadsheet and compiled into an Access database. Appendix C summarizes public and private water use data. Ta- ble C-1 lists monthly water use for each year for each public supply well included in this analysis; Table C-2 lists monthly water use for each private supply well. Tables 6-2 and 6-3 summarize the total combined monthly and annual water use for public and private wells, respectively. Tables 6-4 and 6-5 are for public and private wells, respectively, and summarize the annual water use for each well, making it easy to see trends and identify data gaps w. 9 http://www.wrd.state.or.us/OWRD/WR/water_use_report.shtml H)Although pumpage was'reported, it was never entered into OWRD's database because of resource constraints. . . ....... ..................... \ .. Mark Y i n g e r N 0 R T 11 W E S T \,, hand&Water, NC. ASSOCIATES 29 ,\ CASE Srunv:I IKIRNBURCH RESORT WATER RESOURCES In PAC:r EVALUATION Because the missing data affects the annual totals, we had to estimate pumpage to assess trends in public water use. For example, Table 6-2 indicates that pumping from public supply wells was 2,546 MGals in 2006 and 3,533 MGals in 2005. However, Table 6-4 indicates that data is missing for 12 wells in 2006, even though pumping occurred. If 2005 pumpage values were applied to the missing 2006 data, Table 6-2 would show 3,891 MGals instead of 2,546. Similarly for 2004, data was not reported for 19 wells. If 2003 values were applied to 2004, an- nual water use would be 4,796 MGals, instead of the 1,642 shown on Table 6-2. 6.4.2 Results Tables 6-2 and 6-3 show that public and private water use has increased signifi- cantly since 1997, and that it differs from the estimates in the USGS model, which used 3 I cfs, or 7,369 million gallons per year(MGY) for pumping from public supply and irrigation wells. Trends in public and private water use show a com- bined increase of as much as 4,000 MGY (17.0 cfs) since 1997. 6.5 Seepage Data Seepage data provides important information about the relationship between a stream and the adjacent groundwater system. In areas where the stream elevation lies above the water table, water seeps from the stream into the aquifer along a "losing" reach. Conversely, where the stream elevation is below the water table, water seeps from the aquifer system into the stream along a"gaining" reach. Con- sequently, when groundwater levels decline along gaining reaches, streamflow also declines. Along losing stream reaches, seepage to the underlying aquifer in- creases, provided the stream is not perched above the aquifer. Seepage can be estimated by measuring streamflows at points located a few to Y g P several miles apart over a relatively short period. Other factors are considered in developing seepage estimates, including reach length, diversions, and tributary in- flows. Because seepage data is collected over a relatively short period, it repre- sents a snapshot of both the rate and distribution of groundwater inflow to, or leakage from, a stream. Seepage runs conducted by the OWRD in the UDB are reported by the USGS (Gannett and Lite, 2001). More recently, the OWRD and BLM have measured seepage. This section of the report discusses recent data, which were analyzed and compared to results reported by the USGS in 2001. Mark linger ®�� l4 o and k i:Wr i ater vc. ASSOCIATES 3[1 C4s1•:S uuv: 111ouNBL;RGII RI NOR I W.4rI•:R RI,SOUR( INIPAC'I 1'.VAI.IIAI ION 6.5.1 Data Sources & Method The results of seepage runs conducted by the OWRD during the period from 1992 to 1994 are reported by the USGS (Gannett and Lite, 2001). The BLM contracted with the USGS to collect seepage data on July 12, 2005, at seven sites from Deschutes River below Bend to near Culver; this data was p rovided to us on a CD (McSwain, pers. comm., 2008). The OWRD collected seepage data on August 3 and 4, 2005. This preliminary data was provided in the form of an Excel spread- sheet (McSwain, pers. comm., 2008). Appendix D contains tabulated seepage data from each of these sources. The recent BLM and OWRD data were compared and appeared consistent with each other. Because the BLM data does not include tributary discharge measure- ments, gains at Deschutes below Whychus Creek could not be fairly compared. Therefore, the OWRD data set was analyzed for this study because it was larger. Reach length was calculated as the difference in river miles between measurement locations. Seepage rate along a stream reach between two adjacent measurement sites was calculated by subtracting the upgradient measurement and tributary in- flow (if any) from the downgradient measurement. The seepage rate per river mile was calculated by dividing the total reach seepage by the reach length. We used ArcMap, a geographic information system, to map the seepage meas- urement points and identify them by river mile (RM), as shown on Figure 6-25. The site description that corresponds to the river mile is included in the table in Appendix D. Figure 6-25 shows the calculated seepage rate between each desig- nated river mile using a color-coded gain/loss value; total seepage per stream reach is also noted. 6.5.2 Results Figure 6-25 indicates that minimal groundwater inflow occurs into the Deschutes River between Bend (RM 164) and Lower Bridge (RM 134). The Deschutes gains flow from Lower Bridge to RM 128.7, and then loses some flow again from RM 128.7 to RM 126.1. Gains are then mild from RM 126.1 to RM 124.9, strong from RM 124.9 to RM 123.3, and mild to RM 120 near Culver. Downgradient from Culver, the Deschutes gains strongly, as shown by the streamflow hydrographs between Culver and Madras. These gains and losses are important to understand- ing how declining groundwater levels may affect flows to or from a particular reach. The USGS reports discharge measurements at 19 stations along the Deschutes River from Bend to Culver(Table 5; Gannett and Lite, 2001). These measure- ments were used to estimate gains or losses for larger stream reaches that extend II ....................................................... Mark Yin g er ' N 0 R T i K I. S r land&Water. ASSOCIATES 31 \ CASE STUDY:TIIORNBURGH RESORT WATER RESOURCES IMPACT EVALUATION over many stations. Color is used to indicate the seepage rate per RM, and a num- ber indicates the total gain or loss along a reach (Table 7 and Figure 12; Gannett and Lite, 2001). Although this map shows general patterns of groundwater inflow to streams in the IJDB, it may be misleading because combining the individual measurements results in a loss of important detail. For example, the reach from RM 130.5 to RM 120 combines results for seven sub-reaches and indicates sig- nificant inflow of 305 cfs. However, of the seven sub-reaches, two have signifi- cant inflow, one is losing, one has zero inflow, and three have mild inflow of less than 20 cfs. This breakdown is similar for the OWRD data, except that two of the sub-reaches were losing in 2005. Figure 6-25 shows that the reach sections in the vicinity of Thornburgh, between Bend and Whychus Creek, are characterized by both losing and gaining condi- tions. Most of these sections have relatively small gains or losses; only a few short sections have significant inflow rate. It is likely that within a river section characterized by a"loss" there are sub-sections within it where gains, or inflow, occurs. 6.6 Stream Temperature Stream temperature, a critical factor in fish viability, provides useful information about seepage into a stream". Groundwater inflow to streams can be identified from a temperature profile. Groundwater has a relatively constant temperature that is cooler than the water in streams—particularly in the summer, during low- flow conditions, when consistent groundwater inflow is critical. Conversely, y, where groundwater inflow does not occur, stream temperature increases down- gradient. Thermal infrared (TIR) remote sensing, a reliable method for measuring stream temperature, was used to survey selected streams in the UDB in late July 2001. The survey was conducted for ODEQ, and the TRR results reported in Aerial Sur- veys in the Deschutes River Basin-- Thermal Infrared and Color Videography (Watershed Sciences, 2002). 6.6.1 Data Source & Method A complete set of project data and a report was provided by ODEQ. This data was mapped using ArcMap as shown on Figure 6-26. II Stream temperatures below 15°C are required for hull trout habitat vO ,a I S Mark Yinger r rand OR T&Water.aw<,. \, ASSOCIATES 32 ;��?1�, CASE S I!uv:1 IIORNHURGH RESORT W.-\Tl:R REsouRcl•:S I:\mA(:r ENALlJAr1oN 6.6.2 Discussion This discussion describes the general temperature distribution and focuses on Whychus Creek and the part of the Deschutes near the Thornburgh resort. Stream temperature ranged from 3.5 to 28.0°C during the temperature survey in July 2001. In general, cool stream temperatures—below 14°C—occur mostly at higher elevations along the headwaters of tributaries to the Deschutes, in the up- permost reaches of the Deschutes, and throughout most of the Metolius. The warmest stream temperature, over 26°C, occurs in Whychus Creek and in the Deschutes just downstream from Redmond. In general, temperatures increase gradually as the stream flows downgradient; abrupt temperature decreases occur periodically. The temperature distribution along the stream reaches shown in Figure 6-26 is consistent with the seepage data (Figure 6-25). Abrupt temperature decreases correspond to locations where stream inflow from groundwater is moderate to significant. From its cool headwa- ters, the Deschutes increases in temperature as it flows downstream and hovers between 14° and 18°C until a few miles upgradient from Bend. From above Bend, temperature continues to increase to as much as 26°C and exceeds 22°C for most of the reach from Bend to about RM 130. Little change occurs until about RM 134, where temperature starts to decrease slightly but stays above 20°C. This first slight decrease corresponds to the location of the first reach with moderate groundwater inflow. Temperature decreases significantly, to below 16°C, down- gradient from RM 130.5, where significant inflow occurs (Figure 6-25). Tem- perature increases again to more than 19°C until about RM 124, and then de- creases abruptly, falling to about 15°C at the confluence with Whychus Creek. This decrease corresponds to the reach with the largest groundwater inflow. Stream temperature increases again as the Deschutes flows downstream from Whychus Creek and then stays at about 17 C, until the endpoint of the tempera- ture survey on the Deschutes River, RM 120. In Whychus Creek, temperature is below 14°C from its headwaters to just up- stream � - p J P stream from Sisters; temperature continues to increase from Sisters, reaching ov er 26°C for several miles. Whychus Creek starts to cool significantly at about 2 miles upstream from the confluence with the Deschutes. It is likely that the hy- drogeologic conditions that cause strong groundwater inflow to the Deschutes near the confluence with Whychus Creek also cause this significant decrease in temperature. Temperatures in the Deschutes River, near the Thornburgh resort, and in Why- chus Creek upstream of Alder Springs (about two miles above its confluence with the Deschutes) are relatively high, exceeding by more than 10°C the optimal maximum of 15°C for bull and native redhand trout. It is apparent from Figures . ......... .. ...................................................................................................................... Mark Yinger g ASSOCIATES CASE STUDY:THORNBURGH RESORT WATER RESOURCES IMPACT EVALUATION 6-25 and 6-26 that groundwater inflow is critical to maintaining cool stream tem- peratures. Mark Yinger NORTHWEST 4, Land&Water,ENC ASSOCIATES 34 , CASE STI;1)1':7 IIORNBURGII RESORT WATER RESOURCES IMPACT EVALUATION 7.0 Groundwater Flow Modeling The USGS modeling report (Gannett and Lite, 2004) states, "In the Upper Deschutes Basin, the principal source of water to pumped wells once equilibrium has been attained is diminished streamflow." We used the USGS model, with a few modifications, to evaluate the magnitude and distribution of impacts resulting from pumping the proposed Thornburgh wells. It predicts affects on streamflow in specific reaches of the Deschutes River and Whychus Creek, and on groundwater levels in the proposed project vicinity. These reaches on the Deschutes River include Bend to RM 149 and Odin Falls to Whychus Creek, and the lower part of Whychus Creek. This section describes our model simulations and results. Groundwater VistasTM (version 5) was used to run the MODFLOW simulations conducted to evaluate potential impact of groundwater withdrawal from the proposed Thornburgh wells. Groundwater Vistas, developed by Jim Rumbaugh of Environmental Simulations, Inc., is a graphical user interface for three-dimensional flow- modeling software that allows users to prepare input files, run MODFLOW with a variety of solvers including ModSURFACTTM, and process output files. ModSURFACT uses MODFLOW code with a proprietary solver developed by HydroLogic. 7.1 Description of the USGS Model The original USGS groundwater flow model for the UDB is described here briefly. For more details, refer to the modeling report (Gannett and Lite, 2004), which contains detailed descriptions and maps of all the model components. The USGS model was "constructed" using the modular,three-dimensional, finite- g , difference, roundwater model MODFLOW, developed by McDonald and Har- baugh � p Y baugh (1988). A "constructed" model consists primarily of input files that contain information on the properties of the modeled area. Some properties describe the physical attributes of the area—such as its geometry, boundary conditions, and thickness and hydraulic conductivity of the geologic strata. Other properties de- scribe the "sources" and "sinks" of water to the groundwater flow system--- recharge, streams, and pumping wells. Once these files are created, MODFLOW was run to simulate groundwater flow under the conditions described by the input file. Simulation output includes groundwater elevations and streamflows. Mark Yinger I. `' R "° t ' S r I" land&Water KNc. ASSOCIATES 35 a^^ CASE STUDY:TIOR IWRGD RF:SOR'I' WATER RESOURCES INIPACI EVALUATION 7.1.1 Grid The UDB's groundwater flow system is represented by a grid of cells: 87 north- south trending columns and 127 east-west trending rows. The grid cell size is smaller where the most hydrologic data is available and larger where less data is available (the less populated places with fewer wells). Eight layers are used to represent vertical changes in geology and allow simulation of vertical head gradi- ents and groundwater movement. Each layer is of uniform thickness--100 feet for layers 1 through 5; 200, 300, and 800 feet, respectively, for layers 6, 7, and 8. The complex geology is represented by zones of hydraulic conductivity ranging from less than Ito more than 1,000 feet/day. In the Thornburgh property vicinity, hy- draulic conductivity is higher in layers 3 through 7 than in layers 1 and 2. 7.1 .2 Pumping & Stream Nodes The pumping well data used in the USGS model (Gannett and Lite, 2004) is dis- cussed in detail in Gannet et al. (2001). The model considers only irrigation and public supply wells. Pumpage for irrigation was reported to be about 20.4 cfs (4,812 MGY) in 1994. Total pumpage for public supply was reported to be about 20.8 cfs (4,906 MGY) in 1996. The total pumping from wells in the input file, des.wel.all, is 31.2 cfs (7,369 MGY), using annual averaging for the steady-state model to account for the seasonality of the irrigation pumping. Grid cells that coincide with the location of significant streams were identified as "stream cells," which occur in the top three model layers (I, 2, and 3). Such a cell is identified in layer 2 at locations where the stream is incised to depths below the bottom of layer I. Similarly, a stream cell is identified in layer 3 at locations where the stream is incised to depth below the bottom of layer 2. Seepage data (Section 6.5) was used to identify the streamflow in each cell. Streamflow at a T given cell is head-dependent; in other words, it changes depending on the groundwater level and the streambed conductance. If groundwater level in a cell g g decreases, the streamflow component originating from the groundwater would also decrease. Conversely, if groundwater level in a cell increases, streamflow in that cell would also increase. Detailed discussion of the movement of groundwa- ter to and from streams in the model is in Gannett and Lite (2004). 7.1 .3 Recharge Recharge to the ground-water system from infiltration of precipitation, canal leakage, and deep percolation of applied irrigation water is simulated as specified flux to the upper-most layer of the model. These recharge values vary from cell to Mark Yin er 4 e i W ST g \` Lannd d&Water, sr:. ASSOCIATES 36 �`" CASK:S ruuv:TIIORNBURGII RhsoIrr IA ATM:R RhSOURC.FS IMPACT EVALUATION cell. The methods used to estimate recharge from all sources are described in de- tail in Gannett and others (2001). 7.1.4 Steady State & Transient Simulations The USGS conducted both steady state and transient simulations. Steady state im- plies that, except for rates for recharge, discharge, and streamflow, no time vari- able is incorporated into the input or output files. In other words, wells pump at the same rate the entire time, and the results represent equilibrium conditions. Conversely, transient conditions consider time, so the input data may incorporate wells that are pumping at certain rates for a certain amount of time. Similarly, re- charge may occur at one rate during one year, or part of year, and a different rate during a different year, or part of year. The period of the USGS' transient simula- tion was from 1978 to 1997, using two time periods per year. The results of the transient simulation apply to specific time periods. 7.1.5 Calibration The steady-state model was calibrated to the water-level contour map prepared using measurements made between 1993 and 1997. During calibration, input pa- rameters are adjusted until the model results are consistent with observed meas- urements. Hydraulic conductivity was the primary parameter adjusted to achieve calibration (Gannett and Lite, 2004). 7.2 Data Source for New Runs The UDB groundwater flow model was obtained from the USGS (Gannett, pers. comm., 2007), along with all data input and output. The six proposed Thornburgh wells were located using a map along with the description included in the draft permit to appropriate waters for application G-16385, issued to Thornburgh Util- ity Group by OWRD. Each well location is described by a given distance in the east-west and north-south directions from a specified section corner. The pumping rate for each well was based on the withdrawal amount indicated in the water right application. The draft permit is for an annual withdrawal of 2,355 acre-feet (about 767 MGals) and a maximum instantaneous withdrawal of 9.28 cfs NOR S I W I. S 7 Mark Yinger g\w a� Land&Water NC ASSOCIATES 37 „y�1\\\ CASE Sruuv:THORNBUR(;n RESORT WA-I ER RESOURCES I NII'AC:r EvALUA I ION or 4,165 gpm I`. For the steady-state model, a constant pumping rate of 3.25 cfs was used, which is equivalent to the annual withdrawal of 2,355 acre-feet if the well is pumped continuously for l year. The rate of 3.25 cfs, referred to in this re- port as Q-average, was divided evenly between the six wells indicated on the draft permit. The rate of 9.26 cfs is referred to as Q-max. Pumpage was reported to be about 20.4 cfs (4,812 MGY) in 1994 for irrigation and 20.8 cfs (4,906 MGY) in 1996 for public supply use (Gannett et al., 2001). The steady-state model uses annual averaging to account for the seasonality of the irrigation pumping. The total pumpage from wells in the USGS steady-state model is 31.2 cfs (7,369 MGY). 7.3 Verification of USGS Steady-State Model We verified the results of the USGS steady-state model by using the input files from the simulation to run MODFLOW with Groundwater Vistas. We then com- pared output to confirm that Groundwater Vistas yielded the same results as the USGS MODFLOW software. The groundwater level in each cell/layer combina- tion from the USGS output was subtracted from the corresponding groundwater level we generated; the results indicated essentially no difference between our output and the USGS output. 7.4 Steady State versus Transient Conditions The results of the steady-state and transient simulations are compared in the USGS report (Gannett and Lite, 2004). Most impacts from pumping wells occur on the Deschutes River after about 7 years (transient conditions); about 50 percent of water pumped from the wells comes from storage and about 50 percent comes from the stream. After 10 years, 58 percent is from diminished stream flow, and after 42 years, 90 percent is from diminished streamflow. After about 10 years, the cone of depression will have stabilized even if pumping is greater in the sum- mer and less in the winter. The cone appears stable, with a local-scale contraction and expansion that occurs in response to each pumping cycle. Therefore, steady state is appropriate for evaluating the long-term effects of pumping from the pro- posed Thornburgh wells on water levels and streamflow. The final permit wis issued/or 2,129 acre-feet(annual)and 9.97 c/c peak,flow. Mark Yinger ra a n d&R Wn r L T aler ;wy:. ASSOCIATES 38 � l CAST:S'IiDV:THOR\BURGH RF:SORT WATER RESOURCES IMPACT LVAI.LiAIION 7.5 Simulations with Proposed Thornburgh Wells 7.5.1 Method Two simulations were conducted to evaluate the potential impacts of pumping from the six proposed Thornburgh wells. Scenario 1 simulates pumping from shallow wells in layer 2, and Scenario 2 simulates pumping from deep wells in layer 7. The bottom of layer 2 is about 200 feet below land surface. The bottom of layer 7 is more than 700 feet deep. Simulations were conducted using Q-average and Q-max for each scenario. The six proposed wells were added to the well input file, and Q-average or Q-max was divided evenly between them. Even though Q- max is the permitted maximum instantaneous withdrawal rate (presumably for the high-demand water use season), we used it to evaluate the upper limit of instanta- neous impact on Deschutes River flow. The specifics of how water would be pumped, distributed, applied (for domestic and irrigation purposes), and treated (as wastewater) are currently unknown for the proposed Thornburgh project. It is possible that a portion of the proposed pro- ject wastewater could be treated and recharged to the groundwater system, poten- tially offsetting some of the impact to river, and thereby reducing the Q-average and Q-max to values that reflect consumptive water use13. However, until a water management plan is developed, we will assume that the Q-average and Q-max are appropriate for our modeling. The numerical solver, PCG5, was used for the simulations run during our study to evaluate impacts from the proposed Thornburgh wells. To establish baseline con- ditions, we used PCG5 with the USGS steady-state model. We then compared these baseline results to the results from our simulations incorporating the pro- posed Thornburgh wells. Using ArcMap, the stream cells that lie within the reaches of concern on the Deschutes and Whychus Creek were identified. A table with these cells was im- ported into the database, and the simulation results for these cells were brought into an Access database. For each stream cell, the baseline condition was sub- tracted from simulation results to calculate diminished streamflow within these reaches. Finally, we used ArcMap to map diminished streamflow for each stream cell. 19 Consumptive uses result in a net loss to the hydrologic system. Water that is "lost"to evapotranspiration is con- sidered consumptive use,for example. '" 1 R S r i lb F S'F ` ,` it linger ., and Water �<. ASSOCIATES 39 ,e\\�\ „a i CASE STUDY:TIIORNBURGH RESORT WATER RESOURCES IYII'AC:T EVALUATION 7.5.2 Results 7.5.2.1 Diminished Streamflow Table 7-1 summarizes diminished streamflow for Scenario 1 and 2 within several reaches: Bend to RM 149 on the Deschutes and Odin Falls to Whychus on the Deschutes and lower Whychus Creek. Combined diminished streamflow within these reaches is 2.33 cfs, or 72 percent of total pumping, for Scenario 1 (from shallow layers), and 2.08, or 64 percent or total pumping, for Scenario 2 (from deep layers). Total diminished streamflow for the entire stream system (all the stream cells) is 95.1 percent of total pumping for Scenario I and 99.7 percent of total pumping for Scenario 2. The difference in evapotranspiration between base- line conditions and Scenarios 1 and 2 accounts for the 4.9% and 0.3% of total pumping that does not manifest in diminished streamflow. Figures 7-1 and 7-2 show diminished streamflow for stream cells. Values less than 0.01 are omitted. Diminished streamtlows of 0.01 to 0.02 cfs are shown in pink, and values of 0.02 to 0.1 cfs are shown in dark red. The majority of dimin- ished streamtow occurs within the reach from Odin Falls to Whychus (Squaw) Creek, which has the most cells with values between 0.01 and 0.02 cfs. While di- minished streamflow for each cell seems small and insignificant, it adds up to a significant percentage of the total pumping amount. Under Scenario I, pumping from layer 2 will have a greater effect on shallow groundwater levels than it will under Scenario 2, where pumping is from Layer 7. Evapotranspiration is modeled as a head-dependent function. Therefore, when the water level in a cell declines below the "extinction depth" of 5 feet, as the USGS model assumes, no evapotranspiration occurs. As water levels decline under Sce- nario 1, evapotranspiration is less than what occurs under the USGS assumptions, and more water is "available" for the wells. Pumping from layer 7 does not affect shallow groundwater as much, and therefore does not affect evapotranspiration. 7.5.2.2 Water Level Change The change in water level, or the drawdown, due to pumping the proposed Thorn- burgh wells was calculated for each layer under both scenarios. The new water level elevation in each layer was subtracted from the corresponding baseline wa- ter level, yielding results that are consistent with what is expected based on hy- draulic conductivity in the vicinity of the Thornburgh wells. Drawdown contours are shown on Figures 7-3 through 7-8. In general, drawdown is similar for the two scenarios, except for layer 2. Contours are, in general, broad, MarkYinger N " u ' "' " T ST `� !znd fr Water gar~.. ASSOCIATES ®\ ` '` CASE STUDY:I'IJORNBURCII RESOlt I WATER RESOURCES IMPACT I;VAI U:\IION and maximum drawdown is less than 1 foot. Drawdown in the pumping layer is significantly larger for Scenario I (layer 2, Figure 7-5) than for Scenario 2 (layer 7, Figure 7-8). Maximum drawdown is 8 feet in the pumping layer in Scenario I (Figure 7-5) and 0.6 feet in Scenario 2 (Figurc7-8). Maximum drawdown is 0.5 foot in layer 1. Contours are not shown for each scenario/layer combination be- cause they are similar, but are shown for layer 1 because it is the most shallow, and layers 2 and 7 because they are the layers from which modeled pumping oc- curs. Maximum drawdown is larger in layer 2 than layer 7 because hydraulic conduc- tivity is lower in layer 2 in the Thornburgh vicinity. The thicknesses of layers 2 and layer 7 are 100 and 300 feet, respectively. Transmissivity, the ability of an aquifer to transmit water to a well is the product of aquifer thickness and hydrau- lic conductivity. Therefore, transmissivity is significantly larger for layer 7. While maximum drawdown is only 0.4 feet in layer 2 for Scenario 2, the convoluted na- ture of the contours illustrates the effect of lateral change in hydraulic conductiv- ity. The large drawdown in layer 2 accounts for the larger impact to streamflow in the selected reaches for Scenario I as compared to Scenario 2. 7.5.3 Effects of Recent Data on Model Results 7.5.3.1. Hydrologic Data Data presented in Section 6.2 indicates that, locally, groundwater levels have de- clined since the USGS investigation. Therefore, groundwater discharge to streams will have decreased, resulting in diminished streamflow relative to baseline condi- tions. Similarly, if climate change results in less precipitation and duration of snow pack, then the groundwater system would receive less recharge—also re- sulting in diminished streamflow relative to baseline conditions. Although the ab- solute value of the impact to the stream from the proposed Thornburgh pumping cannot exceed the Q-max (3.25 cfs), the impact as a percentage of streamflow will increase as streamflow diminishes. 7.5.3.2 Geologic Data Hydrothermal alteration associated with Cline Buttes rhyolite dome complex has likely reduced the hydraulic conductivity of the rhyolite and adjacent Deschutes Formation (Section 5.3.2). The reduced hydraulic conductivity likely occurs at depth throughout the entire model-layer sequence. The conductivity of the altered rhyolite and Deschutes Formation is likely to be significantly lower than that as- signed in the model. Mark Yinger " ` R ` 1 " ` \�+ � tand�e VWater ,�r•.. ASSOCIATES 41 CASE S r LI)):TIIORNBURGII JU;soR r WATER RESOURCES IMI'ACI EvALUA•IION The USGS model was calibrated by adjusting hydraulic conductivity; as such, the conductivities assigned to the Cline Buttes area may yield the observed water level measurements. However, if the low conductivity Cline Buttes rhyolite com- plex occurs in the vicinity of the Thornburgh resort, water levels would decline more locally in response to pumping—and the contours might resemble those for layer 2, Scenario 1 (pumping from layer 2, Figure 7-5) instead of the broad con- tours shown in Figures 7-3, 7-4, 7-7, and 7-8. 7.5.3.3 Current& Future Water Use Private water use in the central part of the UDB was 4,093 MGY (17.35 cfs) in 2003 and 2,658 MGY (11.27 cfs) in 2006. Water use for public supply has in- creased by more than 300 percent since 1997 (Table 6-2, Section 6.4). Water right permits since 1998 have granted 44 cfs (Section 8). Considering these trends, current withdrawals are significantly higher than the USGS model as- sumed. Therefore, the impact to streamflow from pumping the Thornburgh wells at 3.25 cfs becomes a significantly larger percentage of streamflow if the stream- flow rate decreases. In addition, groundwater levels will likely decline as pumping from public and private wells increases. Water rights applications since 1998 (1 17 cfs; 27,700 MGY) suggest that future use will be even greater. Pumping of this magnitude can lower groundwater levels significantly, affecting streamflow and stream tem- perature. The cumulative effect of pumping from both the Thornburgh and other pumping wells will exceed the water level decline predicted by the model (Gannett and Lite, 2004). N 0 R7 rl R ! S Mark inger �, land&Water.wr. ASSOCIATES 42 'e "' CASE STUDY:TIIORNBURGH RF:s.R I WATER RI SOURCES IMPACT I,VAEUAI ION 8.0 Water Rights Activity This section presents an analysis of water rights activity in the study area. Water rights provide important information about changes in current and future water demands and usage. For this analysis, we examined trends in both recently granted permits and recent applications. 8.1 Data Sources Data was compiled from the OWRD website, which contains a database of all wa- ter rights applications and permits14. We downloaded all applications and permits in the UDB with a priority of later than 1/1/1998. Information included point of diversions (POD), point of use, and stakeholder data. Point of diversion and stakeholder data was downloaded to two separate tables. Township, range, and section information is included for each water right and application. Data in shape file format was also downloaded15, along with POD and point-of-use data mapped by OWRD16. Each record in the POD table corresponds to a unique water right, point of diver- sion, and water use combination. Therefore, a'single water right can have many records if it covers several wells (points of diversion) and if each well has more than one use. For example, the water right application for the proposed Thorn- burgh development has six records in the water rights database—one for each proposed well. Each well has only one use, quasi-municipal. If there were two types of use for each well (irrigation and municipal), there would be 12 records in the database for that water right application. The terms of the water right permit or application are given by the Q-average and the Q-max. If a well pumped the Q- max rate 24 hours per day, everyday for the entire year, the volume withdrawn would be significantly larger than the Q-average. Once the Q-average has been met, no further withdrawals are permitted. Note that the Q-average is not shown in the database. For this reason, water rights analysis was conducted on the Q- max information. For the Thornburgh development, the Q-max for the entire right is 9.28 cfs. The database shows this divided between six wells at 1.546 cfs each17. http://apps2.wrd.st at e.or.us/apps/wr/wri nfo/Defaul t.aspx 'http://wwwl.wrd.state.or.us//files/watei_right_data 16 http://www.oregon.gov/OWRD/MAPS/index.shiml#Water_Right Data_GIS Themes f'The final order for Thornburgh now has a 9.97 cfs max. Nt) It >'rlW x T Mark linger " can"&water ASSOCIATES 43 a CASE STIIDY:TIIORNBURGH RESORT WATER RESOURCES IMPACT 1'.VAI:uATIO 8.2 Method The OW RD water rights data were brought into an Access database. Using ArcMap, the township, range, and section information was summarized for the area included within the USGS model area, which is a portion of the larger Deschutes basin. Water rights permits and applications within the model area were extracted. We summarized this data separately and further categorized it by surface water or groundwater. We then calculated the total water use attributed to each right. Appendix E contains a complete list of water right identification numbers, prior- ity dates, Q-max rates, and the stakeholder information; Table E-1 lists applica- tions and Table E-2 lists permits. The number of water rights per year and the an- nual sum of the individual Q-max rates are summarized for groundwater permits and applications, and for surface water permits and applications in Tables 8-1, 8- 2, 8-3, and 8-4, respectively. 8.3 Results & Discussion The moratorium on granting water rights from 1998 to 2002 (Section 3.2) is somewhat apparent in the number of water right permits and water use rate granted each year(Table 8-1) and in the relatively small number of water right applications (Table 8-2) during this time. The passage of HB3494 in 2005 (Sec- tion 3.2) is very apparent in the large number of water right applications and wa- ter use requests (Table 8-2) from 2005 to 2007. Based on water rights granted since 1998 (Table 8-1), Q-max withdrawals have increased by as much as 44.14 cfs (10,414 MGY) since the USGS period of re- cord (1993-1997). The USGS steady-state model assumes that about 31 cfs is pumped from wells. If new water rights indicate additional pumping since then, a more realistic value for current conditions is about 75 cfs—more than twice the rate considered by the model. Table 8-2 indicates that the sum of the Q-max withdrawals was about 5.1 cfs (1,203 MGY) for all water rights applications for the 5-year period from 2000 to 2004. In contrast, the corresponding sum was 117.3 cfs (27,200 MGY) for the 3- year period from 2005 through November 2007. This difference indicates that groundwater pumping will increase dramatically if all these water right permits are granted for each application. W r l K F. $ T Mar Yinger " a�', Land a Water A S 5 0 ,wc IATES 44 t�V\ CASE STUDY: rFIORNBURG I RESORT WATER RESOURCES IMPACT EVALUATION New permits and applications for surface water rights permits are few and for small quantities. One permit (for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation) is for 2.64 cfs. It seems to be associated with 36 other surface water permits that have priority dates of 1914 and 1917. 4 (J 6'S 38 M1G L..S f Mark Yinger ,,� land.&Water.Nc. ASSOCIATES 45 w` CASE STUDY:'IIIORNBUR(:u RESORT WATER RESOURCES IMPACT FYAEU,-\110N 9.0 Deepened Wells In general, water wells are deepened when they no longer provide adequate sup- plies. If the demand has not changed since the well was installed, a decline in production capacity will result in inadequate supplies. Although such declines may be due to lower well efficiencies, they are most commonly caused by declin- ing water levels. It is reasonable to assume that wells are deepened when the pumping water level reaches the pump intake and yields decrease. As water levels decline, the well intercepts less of the aquifer, and therefore produces less water. As part of this investigation, we examined wells that were deepened over a spe- cific period, within a specific area, around the Thornburgh site, to learn more about possible groundwater level declines. 9.1 Data Source & Method OWRD maintains an online database of water well logs filed by drillers'8. The da- 1 tabase identifies wells that have been deepened. We downloaded this database for our analysis. The database includes information about the type of construction conducted for each well and identifies wells that have been deepened. This database was queried based on township, range, and section. The 198-square-mile search area is shown on the Figure 9-1. 9.2 Discussion Since 1980, 210 (of about 3,400) wells have been deepened in the study area19. Table 9-1 summarizes the number of deepened well logs for each 5-year interval since 1980. Well deepening has accelerated since 1980, and 82 wells have been deepened since 2000. This trend is likely to continue in pace with increased groundwater pumping in the area. The increasing rate of well deepening indicates that groundwater levels are declining, likely because of increased pumping by ma- jor groundwater users, such as Eagle Crest Resort and the City of Redmond, and, to some degree, by reduced annual precipitation. /,4 http://www.wrd.state.or.us The actual number of wells in the study area is somewhat lower because multiple logs have been filed for some. ;12';',4:1R8: Fd M1i i.ST *,\\�\, Mark Yinger vales ,NC R'` ASSOCIATES 46 CASE STUD\:"I IIOR\IHIRGII RESORT WATER RESOURCES IMPACT 1?VALI;AI ION The Cline Buttes and Thornburgh resorts are located near the center of Township 15 South, Range 12 East. Fifteen wells have been deepened within this area (Ap- pendix B). Of these, 13 wells were deepened between 2001 and 2007. These wells are located near the Eagle Crest Resort (Figure 5-2). Well logs for four of the deepened wells, 56980, 56063, 56877 and 55438, could be matched up with the original well logs to determine the amount of decline in static water level over time. The declines in water levels for these wells are, respectively, 42 feet be- tween 1995 and 2005, 10 feet between 1982 and 2004, 21 feet between 1976 and 2005, and 3 feet 1985 and 2003. It is likely that the pumping of the Eagle Crest Resort wells has caused a decline in the water table. ; Mark Yin g-er � ° " d , i R S \ � ]and&Water \∎ ASSOCIATES 4 7 ` ('ASE STUD):I HORi\R1;R(::1I RESORT WATER RESOURCES IMP\ r 1•:\ALIJAI ION 10.0 Fish Habitat in the UDB 10.1 Data Sources We examined critical fish habitat using data 4vailable online from the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW) in shape file format2°. The data included locations (streams and lakes) of critical bull trout habitat. We also downloaded data identi- fying the endpoint of the extent of critical bull trout habitat21 . 10.2 Discussion 10.2.1 Bull Trout Critical Habitat Bull trout is listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In October 2004, USFW designated critical habitat for bull trout in the Deschutes River basin (USFW, 2005). Bull trout have more specific habitat re- quirements than other salmonids; very cold water is the first criteria listed. Bull trout can occupy streams with temperatures ranging from 0° to 22°C, but they are found most frequently in temperatures ranging from 2° to 15°C. There are three listed areas of critical bull trout habitat on the Deschutes River between Big Falls (RM 132) and the mouth of Whychus Creek (RM 123; Figure 10-1). Based on our modeling, this reach would be impacted by a reduction in cold groundwater discharges to the Deschutes River due to the pumping of the Thornburgh resort wells. The springs discharging into the river in this reach provide the sole source of cold water for the listed habitat. Any reduction in the flow from these springs will lead to temperature increases in the river. The TIR (Figure 6-26) shows that the river temperature in the area of the critical habitat is 12° to 14°C, while just upstream the temperature is 24° to 26°C. A botanical and springs survey of the middle Deschutes River conducted in 2005 for the BLM recorded an average spring water temperature in the critical habitat area of about 10.6°C (WPN, 2006). 20 help://criticalhahitat,fws.gov 21 http://www,fivs.gov/pacific/bulllrout;the publication date for this data is September 26, 2005. NOR a HVG ! ST Mark Yinger „ Land 84 Water. , ASSOCIATES 48 CASE STUDY: I DORNRURCII RESORT \V.•\TER RESOURCES IMPACT EVALUATION 10.2.2 Native Redband Trout ODFW's Upper Deschutes River Basin Fish Management Plan identifies a core redband trout population located mostly within two reaches that would be im- pacted by the pumping of the Thornburgh destination resort wells (Fies et al., 1996; Figure 10-1). These reaches are the Odin Falls to Whychus Creek reach on the Deschutes River and the Alder Springs to Deschutes River reach on Whychus Creek. The native redband trout is an Oregon-listed sensitive species. The cold water springs that discharge to the Deschutes River and the lower end of Why- chus Creek are essential to maintaining the excellent habitat for the native red- band trout in this core population area. Our modeling shows that pumping the Thornburgh wells will reduce cold groundwater discharges to the Deschutes River from Bend to just south of Cline Buttes. In this reach, native redband trout production is very limited because of low summer flows and high water temperatures (Fies et al., 1996). Even small re- ductions of cold groundwater inflows will likely have a negative impact on this stressed redband population. 10.2.3 Steelhead & Salmon Reintroduction A major effort is underway to reintroduce summer steelhead and Chinook salmon to the UDB. This effort focuses on establishing self-sustaining populations in Whychus Creek, where Chinook historically spawned (Fies et al., 1996). The cold water springs that discharge to this creek from Alder Springs down to the mouth of the creek are very important to the success of the reintroduction program (Wise, 2008). Modeling indicates that this reach will see reduced cold groundwa- ter discharges as a result of pumping the Thornburgh wells. The TIR data, plotted on Figure 6-26, shows that Whychus Creek water temperature from Alder Springs to its mouth is 12°to I4°C, while just upstream of Alder Springs the tem- perature is 24° to 26°C. Mark Yin er r .nd&& u T g— w ; I and Wager t ur:. ASSOCIATES 49 „77 CASE STUDY:THORNRURGH RESORT WATER RESOURCES IMPACT EVALUATION 11 .0 Mitigation 11 .1 Current Alternatives This section briefly describes the mitigation program currently used by OWRD to minimize diminishing streamflows in the UDB and to enhance streamflow on the middle Deschutes River. The program is authorized under Oregon Revised Statute 537.746 and implemented through Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 690, Di- visions 505 and 521. 7 7 The mitigation program began in 2002. Mitigation, which is required for all new g P 27 b g � q groundwater permits in the UDB, may be accomplished via a mitigation project or mitigation credits, also referred to as "mitigation water." Mitigation water can be acquired by various methods: Instream leases / Time-limited instream transfers / Permanent instream transfers / Allocation of conserved water / Aquifer recharge / Releases of stored water For example, an instream transfer occurs when a water diversion at a specific point on the river is terminated to allow a diversion or impact to the stream at a different location. For each new P g roundwater permit, OWRD determines the zone of impact. Mitigation credits associated with that zone may then be used for miti- gation. The zones of impact are shown on Figure 11-1. The ODFW, Oregon State Parks and Recreation Department(OSPRD), ODEQ, and BLM all have an obligation to evaluate the appropriateness and effectiveness of mitigation for new groundwater permits. These agencies are charged with pro- tecting resources that will be impacted by future groundwater withdrawals that are not properly mitigated. This section addresses elements of the mitigation pro- grams for which we have identified concerns. Mark Yinger N n" I ' ' Land&Water Nc N N ASSOCIATES 50 �'AS1S STUDY;THORNBURCII RI•:SORT WA I I It Rf:SOURCES IMPACT ISVAI.UATION 11 .2 Concerns 11.2.1 Zone of Impact The OWRD determined for Thornburgh that the zone of impact is the general river zone (Figure 11-1)—that is, the entire Deschutes River basin above the Ma- dras gauge. This means that it could be acceptable to use mitigation water from a stream diversion or impact that currently occurs downstream of the stream reaches shown to be impacted from proposed Thornburgh pumping. Under this condition, the impact would not be mitigated; instead, more water would simply flow downgradient of the point of impact from the mitigation water. Temperature at the reaches impacted by Thornburgh pumping would increase due to pumping. This impact would not be mitigated under the conditions described above. Our simulation of pumping from the Thornburgh wells indicates that decreased groundwater discharges, and therefore decreased streamflow, to the middle Deschutes River and lower Whychus Creek. These impacts must be mitigated us- ing credits or projects that target the middle Deschutes River Zone and the Why- chus Creek zone—specifically,the reaches indicated by our modeling efforts. 11.2.2 Canal Lining or Piping / "Conserved" Water Lining existing canals or conveying water via pipes instead of canals would elimi- nate losses due to leakage. The mitigation rule allows this so-called "conserved" water to be used to mitigate new groundwater pumping. However, water leaked from canals eventually discharges to streams downgradient and comprises an im- portant part of the local hydrogeologic system. This mitigation scheme would in- crease streamfiow at the canal diversion; however, downstream groundwater dis- charge into the stream is diminished. In addition, groundwater discharge to streams would be further diminished by the newly permitted groundwater pump- ing. Groundwater mitigation based on this so-called "conserved" water would have a long-term, cumulative impact on water quality—specifically temperature— because it reduces cold groundwater discharge into streams. Mark Yinger i. , N 1 w1 and�: ASSOCIATES 51 11 .3 OWRD Evaluation CASE STUDY: i HoI(M t.rRGH RESORT WATER RESOURCES IMPACT EVALUATION OWRD evaluated the first 5 years of the mitigation program (OWRD, 2008). In general, the report concludes that the mitigation program is successful based pri- marily on two factors: increased streamflow (which is documented in the Deschutes River at Bend), and the availability of plenty of mitigation water"in the bank." The OWRD report shows a graph of streamflow at Bend from 4/1/2007 through 9/30/2007 and compares it to monthly average for the period of record at this stream gauge. The graph shows that streamflow was about 100 cfs during low- flow conditions in 2007 and that monthly mean streamflow for the period of re- cord during these months was less, ranging from about 50 to 60 cfs. The graph il- lustrates that, compared to earlier conditions, the mitigation program has in- creased streamflow at Bend. However, it is important to note that this graph only monitors the effectiveness of mitigation credits that affect reaches upstream from Bend. The OWRD report indicates that no other gauges are available for evaluat- ing the effectiveness of mitigation in other parts of the basin. Furthermore, there is no data addressing the effect of mitigation on stream temperature—a very im- portant parameter for maintaining a healthy stream. The Deschutes Water Alliance comprises representatives from major stakeholders in the UDB, including cities, irrigation districts, the Deschutes River Conser- vancy, and the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs. The working mission for this group with diverse needs includes the objective of moving streamflow "toward a more natural hydrograph while securing and maintaining improved instream flows and water quality to support.fish and wildlife." A more natural hydrograph is one that represents conditions before so much water was diverted from streams in the UDB. The Deschutes River has a Wild and Sce- nic designation; as such, returning to a more natural condition is appropriate. This mission statement reminds us that the success of the mitigation program should be measured by how well streamflow is returning to the natural condition to enhance its wild nature—not just by documenting that flows exceed the lowest, or most impacted, condition ever recorded. The OWRD evaluation fails to consider this mission. If the Thornburgh Resort is developed and mitigation occurs in the general zone, pumping from the six new wells would likely still impact the river in the vicinity indicated by the model (Section 7)—even if mitigation is allowed anywhere above Madras gauge. Yet, based on the OWRD's method of evaluation, the miti- gation program would still be considered successful as long as flows at Bend are Mark Yin er N O B T D r e, g land&�Alatrr rc 52 E T A I C O S S A CASE STUDY:THORNBURG}I RESORT WATER RESOURCES IMPACT EVALUATION higher than historic flows. As such, the method used to evaluate the success of the mitigation program needs to be improved. Mark Yin er N R 3 ' S g land 8L ater.cNc ASSOCIATES 53 CASE STUDY: IIIORN6lJRG11 RI SORE WATER KESOURCI•S IYIrAC:T Ev i,UA HON 12.0 Analysis of Projected Impacts In Section 6 we analyzed data collected over the last I 0 years to identify trends that will affect future water and ecological resources in the UDB. In section 7 we conducted modeling to evaluate the effect of pumping Thornburgh wells on the hydrogeologic system. In Sections 8, 9, and 10 we analyzed water rights activity since 1998, deepened wells in the Thornburgh vicinity, and fish habitat, respec- tively. This section summarizes the results of these analyses with respect to im- pact to water resources and the current mitigation program (Section 11) and offers a roadmap for evaluating the impacts of future development. 12.1 Impacts Related to Thornburgh Case 12.1 .1 Modeling Results Our model simulations show that pumping from the new Thornburgh wells will reduce streamflows primarily in two segments of the middle Deschutes River and lower Whychus Creek (Table 7-1, Figures 7-1 and 7-2). The two reaches on the Deschutes River are from Bend to just south of Cline Buttes (RM 149) and from Odin Falls to the mouth of Whychus Creek. On Whychus Creek, streamflows are reduced from approximately Alder Springs downstream to the Deschutes River. These streamflow reductions are related to groundwater level declines. Because a significant portion of streamflow originates from groundwater seepage— especially during the low-flow season—these declines mean less groundwater is available to feed the stream. Reaches of the Deschutes River near the proposed Thornburgh development are especially vulnerable to water level declines be- cause baseflows are relatively low. Water level decline could also affect Whychus Creek, which has base flows of about 7 to 15 cfs, and Tumalo Creek, which has baseflows of 10-20 cfs. All of these reaches are important to fish resources near the proposed develop- ment. 12.1.2 Related Impacts The predicted groundwater level declines—and the resulting reductions in stream- flow—also have profound impacts on stream temperatures, which in turn can im- pair fish habitat. The mildly gaining reaches are especially vulnerable to water Mark Yinqer `y " b— tared 7 W t ater »:. ASSOCIATES 54 CASE STUDY:THORNBURGH RESORT WA rE:R RESOURCES INIPAC:r EVALUATION level declines, which can lead to higher water temperatures because less cool groundwater is available to enter the stream. Groundwater level declines also impact existing wells and water rights. As water levels decline, a well's production may also decline. Many owners in the UDB have already resorted to deepening their wells to obtain the supplies they need. 12.2 Climate Change If future precipitation is less than historic precipitation, this will eventually mani- fest in reduced streamflow. If impact to streamflow from groundwater pumping is expressed as a percent of streamflow, then relative impact from pumping would be greater under conditions of reduced precipitation and reduced streamflow. 12.3 Habitat Resources Pumping from the six proposed Thornburgh wells will cause water level declines and associated reductions in cold spring discharges. It is reasonable to assume that if mitigation for the Thornburgh wells does not occur at the specific reaches af- fected by pumping, cold water discharge into the stream will be less at those reaches, causing water temperatures to increase on both the Deschutes River and Whychus Creek. Increased stream temperature negatively impacts not only criti- cal habitat for bull trout, a federally listed species, but also a core redband trout population. In addition, this warming trend will impede the success of the reintro- duction of Chinook salmon and summer steelhead. 12.4 Considerations for Future Developments In a region that is growing as rapidly as the UDB, it is imperative to consider im- pacts in the context of trends in water usage. Although the impacts on streamflow due to pumping the Thornburgh wells alone will never exceed 3.25 cfs (the Q- average), the effect of declining groundwater levels is cumulative. If streamflows decrease, impacts to the Deschutes River from the proposed Thornburgh devel- opment would become more significant because they would represent a larger percentage of streamflow. . ................................................................................................... Mark Yin er g_ \�\ t.and�Water kMC. ASSOCIATES s5 CASE STUDY:1 RORl\`611RC11 RESORT WATER RESOURCES I>IPAC: 'EVALUATION Furthermore, groundwater development will undoubtedly continue in the UDB, and water level declines will be additive. It is reasonable to assume that pumping the six wells at the Thornburgh destination resort will contribute to the rate of groundwater level decline, perhaps requiring other wells in the area to be deep- ened. Similarly, while reduction in stream temperature from reduced cool groundwater inflow due to Thornburgh pumping may be relatively small, the cu- mulative effect from other groundwater developments in the vicinity will be sig- nificant. Section 13, "Recommendations," lists specific actions that planners can take to ensure the long-term health of ecosystems along the Deschutes River. Mark Yinger k ' ` " ti r land&Water Nc... ASSOCIATES 56 ,� 4' CASE STUDY:"I'IIORNBURC11 RNSOR`I WATER RESOURCES INi PAC I ('.VALUATION 13.0 Recommendations Agencies and planners should... / ...consider the cumulative impact of individual proposed groundwater devel- opments rather than considering each one individually. ...require the use of the best available scientific method to evaluate the im- pacts of groundwater development on water resources. ... acknowledge the effects of lining and piping canals on groundwater levels and related groundwater discharges to streams. The "conserved" water may enhance flows at the diversion, but any benefits are subtracted downstream because groundwater discharges to streams are diminished. ...acknowledge that when pumping is not mitigated at the place of impact, cold groundwater discharges to streams are reduced, resulting in higher water temperatures. A greater emphasis on evaluating and monitoring water quality is needed. / ...target mitigation for Thornburgh pumping to the middle Deschutes River and Whychus Creek zones, which will be impacted the most. / ...monitor stream temperature and use the data to measure the effectiveness of mitigation. / ...address the Endangered Species Act and other laws protecting fish and fish habitat when considering groundwater withdrawals. / ...use the natural hydrograph for Deschutes River as a means by which to evaluate the success of water resource management in the UDB, rather than a comparison to the historic low flow. The critical habitat listing prohibits federal actions that would adversely modify critical habitat ODFW, ODEQ, OSPRD, and the BLM should develop programs specifically to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation for new groundwater development. N O R 7 3 1 R P S T Mark Yinger *> Land Water. ASSOCIATES 67 ""' ('AsI:SI'11tY:711ORNRURCII RESORT WA rF:R RESOURCES 1>IPACT EVALUATION 14.0 References Bestland, E.A. and Retallack, G..1., 1964, Geology and paleoenvironments of the Clarno unit John Day Fossil Beds National Monument, Oregon, U.S. National Parks Service. Caldwell, R.R., and Truini, Margot, 1997, Groundwater and water-chemistry data for the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 97-197, 77 pages. Enlows, H.E., and Parker, D.J., 1972, Geochronology of the Clarno igneous Activity in the Mitchell Quadrangle, Wheeler County, Oregon, State of Oregon, Oregon State University,Department of Ge- ology,pp104-110. Fies,T, Fortune,J., Lewis, B., Manion, M., Marx, S., and Schrader, T., 1996, Upper Deschutes River Subbasin Fish Management Plan, Oregon Fish & Wildlife Service, pp. 40-73. Gannett, M.W., Lite Jr., K.E., Morgan, D.S., and Collins, C.A., 2001, Groundwater Hydrology of the Up- per Deschutes Basin, Oregon,: US Geological Survey Oregon Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4162, 77p. Gannett, M.W.,Manga, Michael, and Lite, K.E.,Jr.,2003, Groundwater hydrology of the upper Deschutes basin and its influence on streamfow: in O'Connor,J.E., and Grant, G.E. eds., A Peculiar River-Geology, geomorphology, and hydrology of the Deschutes River, Oregon: American Geo- physical Union Water Science and Application 7, p. 31-49. Gannett,M.W., and Lite Jr., K,E, 2002, Geologic Framework of the Regional Groundwater Flow System in the Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, U.S. Geological Survey Oregon Water Resources Investiga- tions Report 02-4015, 44p. Gannett, M.W., and Lite Jr., K.E, 2004, Simulation of Regional Groundwater Flow in the Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, Oregon Water Resources Investigations Report 03-4195, 84p. Gannett, Marshall, 2006, Personal communication by email to Jim Mathieu,Northwest Land & Water, Inc.from Marshall Gannett, U,S.Geological Survey, June 5, 2006. Electronic transmittal posted on USGS website per this email. Hill, B.E., and Taylor, E.M., 1990, Oregon Central High Cascade pyroclastic units in the vicinity of Bend, Oregon, Oregon Geology, v. 52, no. 6,November 1990, pp125-125-126. Hooper, P.R., Steele, W.K., Conrey, R.M., Smith, G.A., Anderson,J.L,, Bailey, D.G., Beeson, Mil., To- Ian,T.L.,and Urbanczyk, K.M., 1993, The Prineville basalt, north-central Oregon, Oregon Geology, v. 55, no. 1,January 1993, pp3-12. Lite, K.E. Jr., and Gannett, M.W., 2002, Geologic framework of the regional groundwater flow system in the upper Deschutes Basin Oregon; U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4015, 44 p, [http://or.water.usgs.gov/pubs/WRIR02-4015/] McClaughry,J.D., and Ferns, M.L., 2007, Field trip guide to the geology of the Lower Crooked River Basin, Redmond and Prineville Areas, Oregon, Oregon Geology, v. 67, no 1, Fall 2006, pp15-23. McDonald, M.G., and Harbaugh, A.W., 1988, A modular three-dimensional finte-difference groundwater flow model: U.S. Geological Survey, Techniques of Water-Resources investigations, book 6, Chap. Al, 586 p. Mark Yinger " " r " ' r a land&1lFater wy ASSOCIATES 58 ,�`�\ it CAST:STUDY:THORNBURGII RF:SORI Wxrr:R RESOURCES IMPACT I•:VALuAl ION McSwain, Michelle, 2008, Personal communication by e-mail from Michelle McSwain, Bureau of Land Management Michelle_McSwain(a)or.blm.gov,to Mark Yinger, Mark Yinger Associates, January 16, 2008, 8:15 A.M. Newton, David, 2005, Hydrology Report—Water supply development feasibility: Proposed Thornburgh resort, Deschutes County, Oregon,Newton Consultants, inc., entered in the Deschutes County plan- ning record for the Thornburgh destination resort. Noblett, J.B., 1981, Subduction-related origin of the volcanic rocks of the Eeocene Clarno Formation near Cherry Creek, Oregon, Oregon Geology, v. 43, no. 7, July 1981, pp91-98. OWRD, 2008, Deschutes ground water mitigation program, 5-year program evaluation report, Oregon Water Resources Dept., draft January 18, 2008. Peck, D.L., 1964, Geologic reconnaissance of the Antelope-Ashwood area, north-central Oregon, U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1161-D, p D1-D-26. Sherrod, D.R., Gannett, M.W., and Lite Jr., K.E, 2002,Hydrogeology of the Upper Deschutes Basin, Central Oregon: A Young Basin Adjacent to the Cascade Volcanic Arc, Oregon DOGAMI Special Paper 36, 144p. Sherrod, D.R.,Taylor, E.M., Ferns, M.L., Scott, W.E., Conrey, R.M., and Smith,G.A., 2004, Geologic Map of the Bend 30-x 60-Minute Quadrangle, Central Oregon, US Geological Survey Geologic In- vestigations Series 1-2683, 48p. Smith, G.A., 1991, A field guide to depositional processes and facies geometry of Neogene continental volcaniclastic rocks,Deschutes basin, central Oregon, Oregon Geology, v. 53, no. 1, January 1991, pp.3-19. Streck, J.M. and Grunder,A.L., 2007, Phenocryst-poor rhyolites of bimodal,thoeliitic provinces: the Rat- tlesnake Tuff and implications for mush extraction models, Bulletin of Volcanology. Taylor, G.H., 1993,Normal annual precipitation, State of Oregon,: Corvallis, Oregon State University, Oregon Climate Service, map. U.S. Fish and Wildlife, 2005, 50 CFR Part 17, Endanger and threatened wildlife plants; designation of critical habitat for bull trout; final rule, Federal Register, v. 70, no. 185. Watershed Sciences,2002,Aerial Surveys i the Deschutes River Basin, Thermal Infrared and Color Videography, February 11, 2002. Prepared for Oregon Department of Environmental Quality by Wa- tershed Sciences. Wise, Ted, 2008, personal communications, ODFW. WPN, 2006, Middle Deschutes wild and scenic river botanical inventory: Odin Falls to Culver gauge, prepared for Bureau of Land Management, Prineville District Office. Mark Yinger " `' R " W � ' eland&Water. ASSOCIATES 59 se I„ , Groundwater & Environmental Consultants Mark Yinger Associates 69860 Camp Polk Road, Sisters, OR 97759 - 541-549-3030 July 23, 2008 Steve Munson Vulcan Power Company -Native Restoration Fund 345 SW Cyber Drive, Suite 103 Bend, OR 97702 Ref: Thornburgh Resort -rebuttal and comment in response to applicants written and oral testimony submitted to Anne Corcoran Briggs, Deschutes County Hearings Officer, on July 15, 2008. Dear Mr. Munson: The following are my responses to written and oral testimony given to Anne Corcoran Briggs, the hearings officer for the Thornburgh Master Plan proceedings, presented by the applicant's representatives on July 15, 2008. Thornburgh Memo,Exhibit G The Thornburgh memo is incorrect when it states that we "attempts(ed)to run the USGS model". We did run the model using an installation of the model that was verified to be operating g n st p g correctly on our computer. The only change to the USGS groundwater flow model was to add the Thornburgh wells and their pumping rate. We also used a newer numerical solver to improve computing efficiency. The Thornburgh memo also incorrectly characterizes our use of the USGS groundwater flow model as inadequate or inappropriate to "determine site specific impacts". The model is simply used to evaluate the impact of the pumping of the Thornburgh wells. The modeling results show both near and distant effects on groundwater levels and discharges to streams. The model was calibrated by the USGS and model simulation runs done by the USGS closely fit observed data in the area most significantly impacted by the pumping of the Thornburgh wells. Our use of the model is appropriate. The USGS demonstrated the usefulness of the model by using it to evaluate the impact of a hypothetical well near Redmond on groundwater discharge to the Deschutes River (Gannett and Lite, 2004). The Thornburgh memo also characterizes our results as being in conflict with OWRD's determination of the zone of impact to be the general zone. There is no conflict here at all. It is simply that our approach used the peer reviewed and calibrated flow model to produce a much more detailed evaluation of where the impact of Thornburgh's groundwater pumping will occur. OWRD's evaluation (OWRD, 2005) merely states that the Thornburgh wells will withdraw water from the Deschutes Formation and that groundwater discharges to the Deschutes River 5.8 to 8 miles north of the proposed resort. Thornburgh misused this simple description to justify ignoring impacts to Whychus Creek and focus mitigation only on the Deschutes River. Kyle Gorman, OWRD's South Central Region Manager, in his oral testimony on July 15, 2008 stated: "Our department, if we ran the model, we wouldn't find that the impacts would be in the Sandy River. We'd find that they'd (impact) be in the exact same place that Yinger found." If OWRD had run the model to evaluate the impa ct oft he pumping of f the Thornburgh wells they would have found that there are impacts to Whychus Creek,just as we have. By repeated reference to OWRD's use of"site specific" information Thornburgh further attempts to show a conflict between our evaluation and OWRD's evaluation where there is none. The site specific information used by both Mark Yinger Associates and OWRD is the same. We both used the same well locations and pumping rates provided by the applicant in their water right application. On page nine the Thornburgh memo admits that using the USGS model can yield more site- specific information concerning impacts. I agree. The memo then suggests that because our data inputs and results are not peer reviewed our results cannot be relied on. This is unfounded. Again, the data input for our USGS model runs was the well locations and pumping rate specified by the applicant in its water right application. The USGS model is peer reviewed therefore; there is no point in a peer review of the modeling results. Has the work of the applicant's consultants been peer reviewed? It has not been. Thornburgh's insistence on peer review of our work by extension must also apply to the work of the applicant's consultants. I disagree with the consumptive water volume of 1,356 acre feet per year for several reasons: 1. The intent of the mitigation is to protect fish habitat from impact by this particular project. The USGS groundwater flow model is the best method to define where that impact will occur. Mitigation must be targeted to these areas and address both water quantity and quality; the cold groundwater crucial to fish in the impacted reaches. It is not sufficient rotection of the habitat in the impacted stream reaches to simply return P P PY water back into the surface water system anywhere. It is unlikely that the potentially unconsumed water will actually end up discharging to the streams where it would have if it had not been pumped in the first place. The potentially unconsumed water cannot be presumed to mitigate the impact resulting from the withdrawal of groundwater by this particular project on streamflow and fish habitat. This is one reason we used the full annual volume specified by the applicant in their water right application for our groundwater modeling. 2. The applicant's assumptions concerning consumptive use are not supported. The claim that standard irrigation is 60% consumed and 40% recharges the aquifer would only be reasonable if flood irrigation were used, which will not be the case. In the USGS groundwater hydrology report for the upper Deschutes Basin, modern sprinkler irrigation is assumed to result in no recharge (Gannett and others, 2001). This is based on a review 2 of irrigation practices in the basin. The following statement is made in the USGS hydrology report: In areas of sprinkler irrigation with efficiencies of 94 percent, only 6 percent of applied water is lost (mostly to evaporation and wind drift), and no water is assumed to be lost to deep percolation [recharge]." The applicant's use of the consumptive/non-consumptive ratio of 40%/60% for standard irrigation is based on an OWRD study that compared the water meter totals to outfalls of sewage treatment plants. The difference between water metered to customers and sewage treatment plant outfall flow is assumed to be the amount of water consumed. It is inappropriate to apply this reasoning to modern irrigation practices. Early in our study we did an informal poll of golf courses managers in the area. The universal response of greenskeepers and agronomist, was that 100%percent of the water applied to the golf course is consumed by the turf and direct evaporation, leaving none to recharge groundwater. The claim that only 40% of the 971 acre feet for quasi-municipal use is consumed is not supportable. The portion of this water that is not directly consumed will end up in the resort's sewage system which is designed to evaporate the waste water to prevent it from potentially impacting groundwater quality. This is a requirement of the resorts waste water treatment permit issued by the DEQ. In Newton Consultant's July 15, 2008, response letter the following statement is made: "Much of the water used for domestic, municipal and quasi-municipal purposes returns to ground water via septic systems and sewage treatment systems, and through seepage from landscape irrigation." This is contrary to the conditions of the DEQ issued permit for waste water treatment and the design of the sewage treatment system. If we had assumed, for the purpose of our groundwater modeling, that 90% of the pumped water was consumed and 10% recharged groundwater it would not have had a substantial impact on our modeling results. The use of a mitigation obligation of 1,356 acre feet is not realistic and will result in unmitigated impacts to streams and fish habitat. The mitigation obligation should be at least 1,916 acre feet. On page 10 the Thornburgh memo attempts to related their determination of consumptive use with the intended use of the USGS model. The determination of consumptive use has nothing to do with the USGS model. In fact, their determination of consumptive use ignores pertinent findings in the USGS Deschutes Basin hydrology study (Gannet and others, 2001), such as the rate of recharge attributed to different irrigation practices. On page 11 the Thornburgh memo states to the effect that using the Big Falls Ranch water will mitigate impacts to Whychus Creek. The use of Big Falls Ranch water will not mitigate impacts to Whychus Creek. Whychus Creek is not down stream of Deep Canyon Creek. The memo goes on to imply that ODFW agrees that Big Falls Ranch water will mitigate impacts to Whychus Creek. In their June 13, 2008, letter ODFW did not say that Big Falls Ranch water will mitigate impact to Whychus Creek (ODFW letter attached). The Thornburgh memo is correct,that we did not quantify temperature impacts to streams. However, the applicant's consultants have quantitatively confirmed that there would be stream temperature increases. The statement that Tetra Tech's analysis indicates that temperature impact to Whychus Creek is "statistically insignificant" is not correct. No statistical analysis was done by Tetra-Tech. Tetra Tech Memo of July 2, 2008 The stated ur ose of the Tetra Tech memo of Jul 2, 2008 is to review Thornbur h s mitigation p p Y � t, g plan assuming that our conclusions that there will he impacts to the Deschutes River and Whychus Creek are correct. They then go on to describe at length mitigation flows to address impacts to the Deschutes River. These impacts would result in a stream temperature increase in a reach of the Deschutes River that includes listed bull trout habitat. I lowever, they ignore Whychus Creek because the Thornburgh mitigation plan provides no mitigation for Whychus Creek. The abandonment of three domestic wells on the Thornburgh property and providing funds for thermal modeling of Whychus Creek does not mitigate the impacts that this particular project will have on Whychus Creek. Tetra Tech Memo of July 8,2008 On page one of Tetra Tech's memo of July 8, 2008, under"Similarities of the Two Methodologies" the statement that both we and Tetra-Tech based analysis on the Simulation of Regional Ground-Water Flow in the Upper Deschutes basin, Oregon prepared by the USGS (Gannett and Lite, 2004) is misleading. Tetra Tech has not run the groundwater flow model, which is presented in USGS report, to evaluate the impacts of the pumping Thornburgh wells. Our analysis used the USGS model and is much more thorough and detailed. On page 4 in the third bulleted item the statement is made that their calculations are conservative because if local lithology were considered the"direction proportional connection between groundwater pumping and stream flow" would become less. That is not supported by any significant discussion of geology either in this memo or early work by Tetra Tech. The fact is that they have not used the best analytical tool available which is the USGS groundwater flow model, which accounts for complex heterogeneous geology through defining 171 zones of hydraulic conductivity and model calibration. At the beginning of the memo Tetra Tech says that they based their analysis on the USGS modeling report (Gannet and Lite, 2004) and then on page 5 in the first bulleted item under "Comments Regarding the Yinger and NW LW, Inc. Methodology" they attempt to dismiss the use of the USGS model. This is a contradiction. They present the same argument they presented in their May 2008 evaluation (Tetra Tech, May 2008). Their argument is simply an excuse for not using the groundwater flow model themselves. 4 The use of the USGS groundwater flow model to evaluate the impacts of Thornburgh pumping is appropriate and the best method for the following reasons: 1. The USGS groundwater flow model for the upper Deschutes River Basin is a calibrated model, peer reviewed and published. Our input to the model consisted of only well locations and pumping rate specified in the applicant's water right application. 2. The USGS groundwater flow model utilizes a large body of observed data. This data includes: geologic mapping, boring logs, well logs, geophysical logs, groundwater levels from observation wells, private wells and public wells, well and aquifer tests, precipitation, streamflow, groundwater seepage, evapotranspiration and pumpage. The numerical model is the best method to synthesize all of this data and a conceptual model in order to predict the behavior of a complex natural system in response to new stress such as the pumping of wells. 3. The USGS groundwater flow model does account for complex heterogeneous geology through defining many zones of hydraulic conductivity within each model layer and through the calibration of the model. The eight layers of the model are divided into a total of 171 zones based on hydraulic conductivity. To demonstrate the use of the model the USGS used it to simulate the impact on streamflow for a hypothetical well in the Redmond area (Gannett and Lite, 2004). 4. In the area of interest, the groundwater discharge to streams simulated by the model closely matches measured or estimated discharge values, which are based on data from seepage runs, gauging stations and streamflow measurements (Gannett and Lite, 2004). The fit between simulated and measured or estimated discharge of groundwater is close for the Deschutes River between Lower Bridge and the gauge near Culver. The first bulleted item on page 6, is not correct in saying that we did not use "site-specific pumping scenarios for the proposed water supply wells because it is not applicable to apply the USGS model .... to localized impacts from pumping." First, we used the used well locations and pumping rates specified by the applicant in their water right application. This is the same site specific data used by OWRD in their analysis contained in the Public Interest Review for Ground Water Applications (OWRD, 2005). Second, it is applicable to use the USGS model to evaluate the impact of the proposed pumping. The modeling results show both near and distant impacts to groundwater level and discharges to streams. Again, the authors of the USGS groundwater flow model chose to demonstrate its usefulness by modeling the impacts on streamflow for a hypothetical well in the Redmond area. The second bulleted item on page 6 is correct in that we did not quantify stream temperature changes. We did predict temperature changes and Tetra Tech's calculations appear to confirm our prediction. I find it hard to understand how they can claim here that an increase in water temperature "may be, valid" when in fact they show that there will be an increase in temperature by their own calculations. 1 addressed the issue raised in the third and fourth bulleted items on page 6 regarding consumptive use above. Our use of the actual annual pumping rate is justified. For mitigation to 5 (. be effective it must be targeted at the areas impacted by the pumping. Returning water anywhere in the hydrologic system will not mitigate the impacts of this particular groundwater withdrawal. The last bulleted item, page 6, cites some of the good reasons to use the USGS calibrated groundwater flow model to evaluate the impact of the pumping of the proposed Thornburgh wells. We use site specific data based on the information contained in the applicant's water right application. The results of the modeling show both local and distant impacts on groundwater level and groundwater discharges to streams. The following addresses only some of the issues I have with the table attached to Tetra Tech's memo: 1. The first item in the summary table deals with our use of the USGS groundwater flow model. It is inappropriate to complain that it is difficult to evaluate our modeling results. All the information that is needed to exactly duplicate our modeling results are contained in our report (Yinger and Strauss, 2008). Tetra Tech can acquire the groundwater model from the USGS and run it themselves. To raise the issue of a natural hydrograph is simply a pointless obfuscation. The flow conditions on the middle Deschutes River and Whychus Creek have not been remotely near a natural hydrograph for many decades. 2. On page 38 of our report we do have a typo error. The instantaneous pumping rate given as 9.26 cfs should have been 9.28 cfs. Everywhere else in the report the value of 9.28 cfs is given. This typo has no impact on our modeling results. 3. Tetra Tech questions our use of the figure of 31.2 cfs. The USGS report does not contain the figure of 31.2 cfs for total pumpage used in the USGS steady state model (Gannett and Lite, 2004). However, the figure of 31 cfs is given in Table 5 of the USGS report. The values in this table are apparently rounded to whole numbers. The exact figure of 31.2 cfs comes from the well input file of the steady state groundwater flow model. The rest of Tetra Tech's discussion related to 31.2 cfs is confused and pointless. Again, if they disagree with our modeling results they can acquire the model from the USGS and run it themselves. Tetra Tech Memo of July 14, 2008 Tetra Tech's July 14, 2008 memo addresses the impacts to lower Whychus Creek. On page 2, the first bulleted item is not correct when it states that the flow from Alder Springs is 100 cfs. The source of their data cannot be checked as it is not identified adequately. To the point, the flow from Alder Springs is much less. In Table 1 of Deschutes River, Whychus Creek, and Tumalo Creek Temperature Modeling prepared by Watershed Sciences (2008) for the DEC) the value given for the flow from Alder Springs is 8.7 cfs on July 26, 2000. The 100 cfs volume is approximately the total flow gain on Whychus Creek between Alder Springs and the mouth of the creek. 6 If the reduction of groundwater discharge, at 0.15 cfs, as indicated by our use of the USGS groundwater flow model occurs at Alder Springs there will be a significant increase in the temperature of Whychus Creek. Alder Springs is located at the top of the spring system and significantly lowers the temperature of lower Whychus Creek. Using the 0.15 cfs reduction in cold groundwater discharge and Tetra Tech's thermal mass balance approach the increase in temperature of Whychus Creek at Alder Springs would be 0.07° C. This is based on a pre- pumping Alder Springs flow of 8.7 cfs at a temperature of 1 I° C and a Whychus Creek flow of 10.85 cfs above the spring at a temperature of 26.7° C (Watershed Sciences, 2008). The 0.07° C increase in the temperature of Whychus Creek at Alder Springs as a result of the pumping of the Thornburgh wells is much greater than the "less than 0.01" value calculated by Tetra Tech. This is due to the error in the first bulleted item discussed above. The Thornburgh mitigation plan provides no mitigation for Whychus Creek. The general form of the equation used to calculate the temperature resulting from the mixing of (TM-earn x 1+Vi x l two flows of water is, T, = �.lream I \ inflow �mflnw/ resulting �) (Qslream +`Ginf low) Tres,.,,ng • Stream temperature after mixing 7 ,re„n : Stream temperature Q stream Stream flow rate Tin f/ow lnflowing water temperature Qint mw Inflow rate. Newton Consultants,Inc July 15, 2008 Response Letter T he s tatement in the bulleted item on bottom of page 2 of the Ne wto n Consultants letter says that "much of the water for domestic, municipal and quasi-municipal purposes returns to ground water via septic systems and sewage treatment systems, and through seepage from landscape irrigation". This is not correct,the DEQ permit for waste treatment requires that waste water be surface applied during the irrigation season and stored in lined lagoons during the non-irrigation season. The intent of the permit and treatment system is to prevent waste water from recharging groundwater and impacting water quality. This is significant because a large portion of the annual 971 acre feet of groundwater withdrawn for quasi-municipal use will end up in the 7 recharging groundwater.treatment system and thus not recharging groundwater. The consequence is that the proposed mitigation will not fully mitigate impacts to streamflows and fish habitat. Cumulative Impact Anne Corcoran Briggs, the hearings officer, asked the following question in her memo date July 7, 2008. How do I evaluate the broader impacts of the development ascribed to the proposal? For example, the opponents argue that the cumulative impacts must be considered in the wildlife 7 e\'. analysis, but do not explain how those impacts can he quantified against the proposed mitigation. The impacts of the Thornburgh resort groundwater withdrawal on the middle Deschutes River and Whychus Creek should be considered in the context of whatever other groundwater permits have been issued but not yet fully developed and the location of their proposed mitigation. The rivers and creeks have not yet seen these impacts, but will. The applicant could determine the relevant groundwater withdrawal volumes from OWRD records and then run the USGS model. Additionally, the impacts of the Thornburgh resort development on streams, fish and wildlife should be considered in the context of future developments that will also depend on groundwater withdrawals. There are proposed destination resorts in various stages of planning that would likely also impact the middle Deschutes River and Whychus Creek. These include the following: • Ponderosa Land & Cattle Company on Green Ridge, 2,350 homes,two golf courses, 150 overnight accommodations, water right 7,550 af, 10.4 cfs • Aspen Lakes expansion as a destination resort • Skyline Forest development of potentially 1,000 homes and a golf course • Thornburgh II potentially needing an additional 2,100 af, 2.9 cfs The cumulative impact of these developments will likely have significant impacts on streamflow and temperature. Groundwater pumping scenarios for these developments could be modeled using the USGS groundwater flow model to evaluate the cumulative impact to streamflow and water temperature. for the pumping Given that it will take 20 to 30 years or the impact of Thornburgh groundwater pumping to be fully realized, it is critical that the cumulative impact of this particular groundwater use and future groundwater uses be critically evaluated. The failure to mitigate the impact of each new groundwater withdrawal fully will add up to substantial loss of fish and wildlife resources. It would be difficult and costly to recover the lost resources. Sincerely, Mark Yinger, R.G. Hydrogeologist Attachments: ODWF letter dated June 13, 2008 8 e II References: Gannett, Marshall and others, 2001, Ground-Water Hydrology of the Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, USGS Water-Resources Investigation Report 00-4162. Gannett, Marshall and Lite, Kenneth, 2004, Simulation of Regional Ground-Water Flow in the Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, USGS Water Resources Investigation Report 03-4195. OW RD, 2005, Public Interest Review For Ground Water Application, prepared by Kenneth Lite for the application G-16385. Tetra Tech EC, Inc. May 2008, Evaluation of the Proposed Thornburgh Resort Project Impact on Hydrology and Fish Habitat, prepared for Thornburgh Resort Co. LLC. Watershed Sciences and MaxDepth Aquatics, 2008, Deschutes River, Whychus Creek and Tumalo Creek Temperature Modeling, prepared for the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Yinger, Mark and Strauss, Laura, 2008,A Case Study: Thornburgh Resort Water Resources Impact Evaluation Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, for Steve Munson and Sandy Lonsdale, Native Restoration Fund, Vulcan Power Co. 9 Groundwater & Environmental Consultants M_ ark Yin__ ger Associates 69860 Camp Road, Sisters, OR 97759 — 541-549-3030 June 13, 2008 Steve Munson Vulcan Power Company -Native Restoration Fund 345 SW Cyber Drive, Suite 103 Bend, OR 97702 Ref: Review of portions of the Thornburgh Final Master Plan Application, Deschutes County file number M-07-2. Dear Mr. Munson: I have reviewed two portions of the Thornburgh Final Master Plan Application. These are the Thornburgh Resort Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan Addendum relating to Potential Impacts of Ground Water Withdrawals on Fish Habitat prepared by Newton Consultants (Newton, 2008) and the Revised Well Indemnification Plan contained in Exhibit 3. Background The Thornburgh Resort development would use groundwater to supply all uses. These uses include: irrigation of three golf courses, landscaping irrigation, maintenance of artificial lakes and potable water. The annual volume of groundwater withdrawn from new wells would be 2,129 acre feet (af) and of this amount 1,356 af must be mitigated for impacts to streamflow. The basis for the mitigation requirement for new groundwater withdrawals is the established principle that virtually all water pumped from the Deschutes Formation aquifer and consumed is water that will not discharge to streams in the upper Deschutes River basin (Gannet and others, 2001, and Gannett and Lite, 2004). In the summary and conclusions section of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) report, Ground- Water Hydrology of the Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, the following conclusion is stated: "Groundwater and surface water are, therefore, directly linked, and removal of ground water will ultimately diminish streamflow." (Gannett and others, 2001). The questions are where will the streamflow diminishment occur and what resources will be impacted as a result of the Thornburgh development. To address the first question we used the numerical groundwater flow model developed jointly by the USGS and Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) and simply added to the model input the pumping of the six proposed Thornburgh wells. Based on the model output the primary stream reaches with diminished flow would be the Deschutes River from Odin Falls to the mouth of Whychus Creek and lower Whychus Creek (Yinger and Strauss, 2008). In these areas cold groundwater discharge from springs and seeps is critical to hull trout and native redband trout habitat and unique riparian ecology. The cold water of lower Whychus Creek is also critical to the successful re-introduction of Chinook salmon and steelhead. The Thornburgh developer proposes to mitigate its impact on streamflow with a combination of transferring irrigation water rights on Deep Canyon Creek to instream flow rights, the purchase of I00.7acres of water right from the McCabe Family Trust and the remainder from Central Oregon Irrigation District (COLD) water rights. The developer claims that their mitigation plan will fully mitigate negative impacts to habitat and fishery resources. Comments on Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan The following are my comments on the Thornburgh Resort Fish and Wildl fe Mitigation Plan Addendum relating to Potential Impacts of Ground Water Withdrawals on Fish Habitat in the Thornburgh Final Master Plan (FMP, 2008). The following comments are organized using the headings in the above referenced document. II. BACKGROUND(page 1) The statement to the effect that the use of groundwater is expected to indirectly impact flows of the Deschutes River is incorrect. The pumping of the Thornburgh wells will directly impact flow of the Deschutes River. It has been well established that in the upper Deschutes Basin groundwater that is withdrawn and consumed is groundwater that does not discharge to streams. III. D. 1. OWRD Mitigation for Phase A Big Falls Ranch Water Right(page 5) No evidence is given to support the expectation that an acre of irrigation water right should be converted at the rate of 1.8 acre feet of mitigation water. No evidence is given as to the volume of irrigation water actually applied annually per acre for the 464.9 acres. No evidence is given that the 464.9 acres of Big Falls Ranch irrigation water rights on Deep Canyon Creek are valid water rights. No proof is given that all of the 464.9 acres have been irrigated within the last five years (ORS 540.610). It is apparent in a June 2005 color aerial photograph that significant portions of the acreage have not been irrigated (USES, 2005). In fact, some areas bordering pivots that are claimed as irrigated acres appear to have been fallow for some time. The claim that the initial 175 acres of irrigation water right transferred to instream for Phase A will result in 2.07 cfs from Deep Canyon creek is not supported with any data, evidence or explanation. No data or evidence is given to substantiate what the flow volume of Deep Canyon Creek actually is. III. D. 2. OWRD Mitigation fir Phase B/Full Build-Out (page 6) Again the validity of an additional 289.9 acres of Big Falls Ranch irrigation water rights on Deep Canyon Creek is not substantiated. No evidence is given that all of these acres have been irrigated within the last five years. No evidence is given that the 100.7 acre McCabe water right is valid. The particular water right is not identified. No specifics are given on the COLD mitigation water which is apparently based only on an expectation of availability of water due to conversion of land to urban uses. 111, E. Summary cif OWRD Mitigation Plan (page 6) The claim that mitigation will result in 5.5 cfs of flow from Deep Canyon Creek during the irrigation season is not supported with evidence. No evidence is given that the creek is actually capable of a flow of 5.5 cfs. No evidence is given that the irrigation pump or pumps are capable of pumping 5.5 cfs. It is possible that the Big Falls Ranch water rights exceed the capacity of the creek. The claim is made that the Big Falls Ranch mitigation water from Deep Canyon Creek will be g g P Y cool water. No evidence is given to support this claim. What is the water temperature of the creek now and how does it vary seasonally and along its course'? IV. FISH HABITAT POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY GROUND WATER USE(page 7) It is implied that because the state requires mitigation there will be no impact to streamflow and stream temperature due to the Thornburgh groundwater withdrawals. The state's mitigation requirement is no assurance that this particular impact will be mitigated by this particular plan. The mitigation plan is Thornburgh's plan, not the state's, and Thornburgh must present clear and convincing evidence that their mitigation plan will actually mitigate their impacts on streamflows, water temperature in the streams, fish and critical fish habitat. This evidence is not given. The impact to lower Whychus Creek cold water springs and seeps is dismissed in the mitigation plan. Our groundwater modeling of the impacts of the Thornburgh withdrawals show that there will be reduced discharge of cold groundwater to the lower reach of Whychus Creek (Yinger and Strauss, 2008). We used the USGS-OWRD developed groundwater flow model with no modifications other than the added stress of the Thornburgh groundwater withdrawals. No evidence is given to support the Thornburgh position that the impacts will occur only on the Deschutes River. The modeled reduction in cold groundwater discharge to lower Whychus Creek is 106 of annually. This reduction in cold spring water discharge is not a negligible impact. The ecology of Whychus Creek is cold groundwater dependent. The statement that"...NCI (Newton Consultants Inc.) determined the potential temperature impacts attributable to the project(Thornburgh) are expected to be slight and below levels that can be effectively measurable." is not supported with any evidence. On what basis did NCI make this determination? There is also some discussion of ODFW "Habitat Categories." The impacted reaches of the Deschutes River and Whychus Creek should he considered Habitat Category 1 as defined in Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) administrative rule (OAR 635-415-0025). The cold water springs and seeps are irreplaceable and essential for fish and wildlife and a unique ecology. The ODFW's mitigation goal is no loss of habitat. It does not allow dismissal of impact based on arguments that the impact will be negligible or un-measurable. Nor does ODFW habitat mitigation policy specifically allow impact to occur in one area in exchange for improvements in another area. \\ 3 V. C. Elimination of Existing Irrigation Pond(page 9) The statement is made to the effect that Thornburgh will work with Big Falls Ranch to remove the pond at the point of diversion (near the mouth of Deep Canyon Creek). Notes on Figures 3 and 4 of the mitigation plan state that a second pond located approximately 1,800 feet upstream on Deep Canyon Creek will also be removed. However, the upstream pond is located on property owned by Nolan Weigand. Will this property owner allow the pond to be removed? To realize a lower temperature for the creek water both ponds must he removed. V E. Funding for Thermal Modeling(page 10) The mitigation plan characterizes the proposal to provide $10,000 for completion of a stream temperature model for Whychus Creek as enhancement and part of its mitigation "package". The completion of this model and its use provides no mitigation of the impacts the Thornburgh development will have on reaches of the Deschutes River and Whychus Creek. VII CONCLUSIONS The statement that"...potential for loss of habitat due to reduced surface water flows was quantified in connection with the OWRD review of Thornburgh's application for a water right." is not supported with any evidence. As pointed out earlier,just because OWRD rules say you will fully mitigate consumptive use of groundwater does not mean this particular plan fully mitigates Thornburgh's impacts. Comments on Well Indemnification Plan The following are my comments on the Revised Well Indemnification Plan, Exhibit 3 of the Thornburgh Final Master Plan application. The Probability of Interference is High In the second paragraph of the introduction of the indemnification plan, statements are made that based on Newton Consultants original hydrology report for Thornburgh (Newton, 2005) and OWRD water rights application there will no interference with existing wells. Newton's original hydrology report failed to investigate the history of wells in the vicinity of the proposed development. It is standard practice when evaluating the impact of new large production wells to investigate the history of existing wells in the vicinity of the proposed wells. In our evaluation of the impacts of the Thornburgh development on water resources we did this basic research (Yinger and Strauss, 2008). We found that in the area of the Eagle Crest Resort, located just east of the proposed development, that there are 13 wells that have been deepened between 2001 and 2007. The documented water level decline in these wells has been as great as 42 feet. It is reasonable to conclude that the pumping of the large production wells at Eagle Crest has drawn down water levels in wells in the vicinity of this resort. Further, it is reasonable to conclude that the pumping of the six Thornburgh wells will only accelerate the decline of water levels in existing wells in the area and expand the area of water level decline associated with the Eagle Crest Resort. Our modeling of water levels in response to the pumping of the Thornburgh wells reveals that the pumping of deep Thornburgh wells (model layer 7) will cause declines in water levels of much shallower wells (Yinger and Strauss, 2008). Newton's statement"...that because of aquifer characteristics, depth, and location of Thornburgh's proposed wells, the new groundwater 4 \<,,,\\,,,,\\\,,,,, use was not expected to cause interference with other existing ground water uses (wells)" is not supported by the facts. It is clear that the effects of the pumping of deep wells are not isolated from existing shallower wells. Radius of Well Indemnification No justification is given to support a two-mile radius limit to indemnify existing wells from impact due the pumping of the Thornburgh wells. The impacted area is certain not to be circular. Based on the impact of the Eagle Crest wells and low permeability of the core of the Cline Buttes rhyolite dome the impacted area will likely be elongated in the north-south direction (Yinger and Strauss,2008). The radius should be increased to 3 miles to be conservatively protective. The plan does not define from where the radius of indemnification will be measured. Each new Thornburgh well should be at the center of a 3-mile radius of indemnification. Duration of Indemnification Agreements The five year duration of the indemnification agreements is too short. The USGS simulations for pumping wells in the Redmond area indicate that most of the impact on water levels occurs 7 to 10 years after the start of pumping (Gannett and Lite, 2004). The duration of the indemnification agreements should extend for ten years past the completion of the development. Conclusions I have pointed out that there are numerous statements and conclusions in the Thornburgh fish and wildlife mitigation plan addendum that are not supported with evidence. The plan cites no references. The claim that this particular fish and wildlife mitigation plan completely mitigates negative impacts to these resources is not credible. The well indemnification s.lan has serious shortcomings. g Sincerely, Mark Yinger, R.G. Hydrogeologist Attachment: Summary Table Diminished Streamtlow, Model Results for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, and map of reaches References: Gannett, Marshall and others, 2001, Ground-Water Hydrology of the Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, USGS Water-Resources Investigation Report 00-4162. \,„ ,.,,\\\,,, 5 Gannett, Marshall and Lite, Kenneth, 2004, Simulation of Regional Ground-Water Flow in the Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, USGS Water Resources Investigation Report 03-4195. Newton, David, 2005, Hydrology Report Water Supply Development Feasibility Proposed Thornburgh Resort, Deschutes County, Oregon, for Thornburgh Resorts, LLC. Newton, David, 2008, Thornburgh Resort Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan Addendum Relating to Potential Impacts of Ground Water Withdrawals on Fish Habitat, Newton Consultants, Inc. in Thornburgh Final Master Plan. Strauss, Laura, June 6, 2008, personal communications. Watershed Sciences, 2007, Deschutes River, Whychus Creek and Tumalo Creek Temperature Modeling, for Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Yinger, Mark and Strauss, Laura, 2008,A Case Study: Thornburgh Resort Water Resources Impact Evaluation Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, for Steve Munson and Sandy Lonsdale, Native Restoration Fund, Vulcan Power Co. 6 u C o .e) N L m LL U C @ O Q E f- 0 a) -p U O , a) N .,*\1‘,, pi . .e, ,... ,-c= s., 0\E kVA 184.i?'`;'\\% \ 't *,,' ..I ktv (,,,,,,,.\\,.. \‘,.. ,,,,,,k \ , „.„,..„ , ,,,,,,, ,,,,,,ti\ ,o.. ,,,c‘, . „RR, ,,, ,„„. , t, tp,,kitsak\.\\,. ,,;„ - ,,,,w1.sk \ \ t \` N . D) 0 C) O u) .•- CD o ti •, N f� 0 (V yy r O r N c OA N\ 0 , , \x,\.e„ E k7141" ‘\ ,,y: ,■\,Nv 'a }"���: ,a O C x co 0 0 0 0 (''',_° � 0 0 o r o 0 o a o N Cn r.. O a O Lo ii ° .4 ._ -N wAvv e 4,,,Li vv:;,.1koo,- \ ! v l'C ° in a) J ic°,x ii',044R4%.- 6 (N'i Cr' \0\OD C) O nt D) z C)L a Cfl O r CD (D 0'3 O .`- d o LL a) .■,t1,\\\\ , 0 1; c sir;. ' -o p?ti r. '4\X''''CittiNN'1:\\\\\\.,,\ E 1144‘*,)\\—\,,,t E \%„,,,,t;\\\\ cl' „,>-, \),,N),k,\ ,,,'' \ ›, Z 1 0 11 C° iii E \\\\\1\?\a\��\1�\�\\�1 r •� N (O 1 \\ y y ((S ,, Q m \\\\\\\\�\ Z3 \ �\i \ 7 7 N, aq•�\ \\\\ y 'a C C C r`', E \\��.\\ \ Ys c s@ 3Q 03 µ H ., d 'o 0 0 o 0- o U) \\\a\\\\\\ ,„ , m 0 U F- .J 0 >, f- 7. ..r-, T; fl � .,Jir I �`-4 s t l� ' C. e N/i// creek Lower >tt•. - W�tychus r, .. , ._ * == Creek ' \tt ........._....',�w,;. ... „rte,.,,..rr-n. , ... ....., :' �,._.m... ,., ,�, .... .... °t,Z L , " t y h , 3 e \,) e� � 7 t M�� a1�A 3 i�. it ,..r.,,i;,z,,,,s.1,„.\\40. cg , ! R" $ o 1 it 55 6 7 9 10 1 ; 12 13 14 15 16 17 d., r i t Diminished Streamflow i ; ..,,. ,,, i L ,�:. Results of Steady-State Model Simulation ?__ Scenario 2: Six Proposed Wells in Layer 7 `" Pumping 0.54 cfs/well 355 , \ fffH u pr g - (2355 aY ) � .�--- � m n 2 af/yr) t_:p r I �t1� ,,iW . ��. � �� \, a Diminished Streamflow = ��_- A Scenario Outflow*- USGS Steady State Outflow*: p` k, \\ .� .--7---- 1 � l \a\ ..:i 0.01 - 0.02 cfs �. i j oil _ 0.02 - 0.1 cfs , L. t , 11 _ r 0 r se Wells x r ' Streams o , Highways a) , ,. ........_ + ? Specified Reaches rn *Outflow=flow from stream into aquifer ; i Miles O 1 0 3 6 12 >N ,5M Ql .., 7 ..- ...? , NOR"1 )f W CST as �...., [ Case Study:Thornburgh Resort Land&Water,INC. 0 ! Water Resources Impact Analysis Table 6-1. Precipitation Summary Statistics, Water Years 1991 Through 2007 Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon :rogr\ \111,1"441ik3;3714°,1 :\' ‘Ik:\l'W.11'''1":„44\''‘' '''*\'I'''\‘.1\\ 'IR11"\\ ,,,,,,,\,\\„, 45,1060;;;,x0W,O,Wo.,,,,,m, ,,,,,,„„,,,,,,,„,,„„,,„:„„,,,,,,.,,4,,,,,,,, \,,,,, ,,, \ ‘4 ,,,\, ,,\‘'\‘\,\AVailttitta: POi ;':','V'[...;.,t:'',',.itiN\1;ts,,,I.,‘,11 .)‘;',Z:1,,T*\,..„.:A,Nkiii,‘ ,tvo„.04:,\ \N\,„04'„Vh.,,,..',. 1! .1': ,, ‘.. ''i:;,„ ..\11,\,, \.0...; .,\, "\'‘ ,\\\.:7`,A0iits°;,-,:skil ,U',34.;';',',,a.,5,',":„, a),A141,.. 'lif'S•i:,'" '-'1'''', ,1:-Vlit '‘.•\,,,..,, S. ,,,:k'ttk"'k,,',',\"■\, :Iler''')-43i '\ 1991 1111 7.35 7.79 8.32 5.49 18.36 1992 9.37 9.26 10.32 6.47 ....__17.5 1993 10.37 14.23 17.82 13.82 12.91 28.12 1994 4.98 6.6 6.55 5.36 5.73 10.14 - 1995 10.63 9.52 16.64 13.06 9.66 23.3 1996 11.46 10.78 15.27 12.4 2.28 29.28 1997 16.42 12.03 19.32 13.54 4.73 24.41 1998 13.06 9.23 15.66 11.86 11.34 26.32 1999 15.7 2.89 10.37 9.2 8.89 22.94_ 2000 8.01 2.87 mm 10.41 8.15 6.84 14.83 2001 6.81 4.08 7.38 3.82 1.03 13.19 2002 8.04 1.24 6.43 _ 3.47 5.93 17.07 2003 7.92 2.09 8.95 2.85 7.96 14.6 _ 2004 9.69 1.06 14.13 8.93 9.88 19.16 2005 9.83 8.31 9.78 5.46 10.46 14.58 2006 16.85 7.54 13.21 4.22 11.33 26.05 2007 9.66 5.11 7.82 5.79 5.56 16.15 _ a v �r�; ®\ tau\19 • y�\t"...4,,,, `\\\\\,\\\ '.: 5� J\\\ t` �� 1\\�\\`\ \ `\��N ic,, 111,a okk\\\N ■,.,,N,All ii,,,,,, V§k \\V \ ,,,,,,,A \\'' \W Wk V \ . „ ,„\\,,,,,;,,\.,.,\7' \,‘,,.,1„. .,-, t, i),... 1,1, ,,$\4;..,„ Nv,,,„ ,,, ,*period of study of the USGS groundwater model simulation NORTHWEST Case Study: Thornburgh Resort \ A Land & Water, INC. Water Resources Impact Evaluation , \\U.`,,,,.\\\1\1h b�H\\h�.G.....kCAivhhq�\��1V�1\��\N 2.0\\ '``.'\:\ Consulting in Hydrogeology d:\projects\Thornburgh\Precipitation\pptGraph and stats O 0 O V P r 00 -. n r 00 '"C M 7 N CO-- N f- M V C' BO M 4 Ir. If, 00 cr D o - N M M M M `t -- M N P t j r 2'W 13 0 a U fa I V , C, ,o n -1- 4 - C' 2 E N N r d — •n ,D 00 rn - N N N r- - r- oa 7 00 n N 11. 7 _ _ N N o m O O ,� r DO n n - C 00 00 U ID EU LL Z 00 ,C -T - C, n 00 ,D O tin ;* r N Cr, N en or on 00 M O O v 00 N O, 00 N O G N N N N N CS LI) •n Q 00 4 e 4 00 M D v O Q 'n •* N � in kr, n N n rte- kn N oa C) n n o -- N ■ N 11161 N -C 0o r 0A vn � �n d 7 ra N N ,O N rn 00 M C C 2 ' N N n 00 rl T n 00 M M N nn d N -4 4 •C N ,p n .- n •n r I ■ d 0 cc n -- ,C N d d N .n m W r1 ' .n M d d N E v ""1 n r � 0000 000 N Cr 00 N �'n N R 'r -7 •n 'o 00 'O 4 U IA d O 7 d •te CO -O 1 03 L 3 r• r• O r (,i ■[ - -, C ri a) a) E tt ' f- O, n ,.O fn o ,-o -r N Cr. N •t d' •■ lD ,D --- `7 N ra Ca -0"U 7 f6 7 7 3 > >+ - •00 'C cam—. ,0 o -17' 3 3 O M o n r rn - 06 n 4• c co To CO .n 4, rr, ,D n -- n C, C, V1 O O fn f'7 '� ^S N N N 1- 1 4 0 Ev. o 0 = o o 1 C N Q. ao © '2 n -. w ,O n N 0 d d CV CV 7r 4 N n 6 000 f- od d N -- -- f0 (D sc n N N N N - -- p R1 to E o } CC C t r L a, 'C 'C ,o 'C n M ,o O O all I- .. 4., rn 4, b rn v1 .0 ,o ,D .n N .N N N x Q o o0 00 0 0o co o) .,.r _ N d 4, '7 M n c c ill p N r/) 0 "Q r., x rr. ;IC -ter O fV (� a) a) Z+ a a.)oo a co 00 i•" U 3 co (c x c.E u ' -? C oo n -7 ,,=' . •n J p _O_O (0 EC C0 7 7 I".CS� ru . 3 va) a� any ;. al a) N p CO N a 4 0 C, 000 ...1",, C d C C G C d co co CO CC - C' O O G G C d a) -o D N N N N N N N >- C7 t.0 O O 03 03 O O O I- Z =, CI "C 0 0 to O 7 0 p n 4 , CO F M N d N N q a, a1 w m U C t1 fa C H� 0 O v ^ v n 6 N o o v CD w c ,~y. 4 N 00 M 6 O d NI � N Ni N N EC NI •t N • � Cr 0 U d • IL o oro �' • nEI 0 Cn � `� N N rn N —r•I co'C N —En •• b m Ta rir N - 6 ,,• 6 'C 00 N v1 In v .^ 4. 0 - M r fn r O ^ N N- V = N NI cn N vii in ^-' fn a C `0 MO 0 ^ a to a • M• 6 7 M vl 00 0 co 0 fn �D , 6 N N M M n Cc W ■ A •-• r 00 c0 'I E yy irM 2 p 06 00 N r - ICJ en CD ct. Q N r 00 N r In D rn 0. .-. ti 00 N M = 7 a` W 0 2 oo N Q N M Q O H AO O ' - r O • M .71: 6- 4?ER N M N co MI Q) 'N rn 'C 6 `0▪ 6 a; O O' N v3 c ti C 7 ^ 'C v1 00 v1 f%1 o M r C N a, icx am `3 ww�� N 00 c "3 W ' O� c. N +ri N: O C- r N r 7 n F C v) N N N 6 ti a L 0^, r7 N in v1 r7 N `p 00 r a 'Q °1' b N 0., Q . M N en Q IN N q r7 rn C 6 rn C• co) In c •n N 00 N ■o • O 2 • iF > rn h C:26;, ' 6 N • 0 > CO n rn r7 r') 'ri O r!i ',n '7 ii. '-O '.0 '-0 M n n C' N o0 O. F ei ri o r an n o c w w '' _ ,n 6 6 N DD ''7 _ rn — — N 6 "C 00 N n rn ^a N N r7 n ctl• _ • M, i CO) w-w, 0r L z 3 u To• . co Wr a0 c 4 N rn `� Vi s.O f,y: Oa O� a © O O O 4 4 O f a' a a N N 4 4 4 4 O CO 4rki r un �. n ,t rr n'0 n r 6 c, 6n N O ^ o N a co `n v 00 TO CC^ w H C 111 en DD r - �^ 'c ■'c fn r,, r oC NO O 'D ON a 41 O a r' ni 'n n r: ri ri •c - r a r - s E N n ; ^ o N n n .- n � rt � r i ^ - o n rn co o Q. d' rn c a, m CU CO Ct 3 O ,n .n U m N N 3 U ('I �i - N .r) '0 'D hl •n `- `- rn ,�. 00 en 'C C Xi rn -- m N rn N -r n co r a oc.O n rn o 0 00 0 0o n ^ D m r N •n 4 Q N •n N -7 N b o0 .n NI rn N o ✓ rn •n ,r - n n n n N n n CD N N n r n rn rn c- a a oo M n m ■ 0 °O. o b; 0 00 Q 0o C rn_ -_ 00 - 'o n co rn CO Nr N O N rn - N — 4 .- r. N N NO n- N L O .c t LL r n - n n en Iri rn v7 -r o a -r oo N n n m n OO - n N et r- en - _a - en N N O tl W N Q 0000 o o M _4. n C rev 6 n '0 '0 0000 ��° N - N n --- - N - NO en 00 - -, .n N N O C) CO Cti C 0 p o 4' a k- N a d m a n = N 000 N en e - 'n N n co o a ,n CO; N N D o O 9. la- ■ n en r'7 -f a- •n W .n oc -r a- N en a EC) Q n o o N. o0 00 0 00 0. n a ,N '0 n m n 00 ^ kn '0 a- .4 rn r, 00 N N C '. - .-. --t a- V N N y w II ▪ _ _ m NO OD n x rnJ oo N 04 -r N n a rn -• M a/ 09 - N rn 7 OCS N 6 N M O W 6 41 L a) r on b rn .* .n rn r O to 0 ti Cn 00 NO � C rn MS CD - n N a, N Y - M a- N 73 0 O d ti = a) 1a 4 *. z a N > - r lli ai 0 A —_ —_ J a) o g Vf x — — 6] 6] 6] r^ — ,.� N 7 A, a N — — N r7 O — j 3 0 x a NJ W = a v C] v Y1 N rn 7.. 7 O Cl.) N td • 0. y 2 5'-' 0 o U 0u 0q NI rn -r .n X►y 0 N V 7 J U U 7 7 7 _. N (� - v v a] a] F.08 @ c W di co e- a 5 O O G j C N - 'C 'b - a a � -to ;; NI CO o <S a - O d a a cc 3 0 0 o o c c Z c.) R; a -n a -C a a a a a a a F E E c c a c c c a a a a -o -b -6 a a a a a v a v a� a a a b a> 0 y v y v O v 0 v a) v c = W W 07 27 b M Cl M = = c aC c4 c4 ce CC cG CA C C C C C O C C O O .. O O C G G b G G G 1- C.. U U U U U U U U U U U U U u U U U U C c) u u O N d p C r n 0 0 O N 'C C' `C p : N O 0 7 0 G N -. Q > �l (A A U E D 0 , o n r- d - Q r rri r ~ N N a 7 >1 d 0 ' N 4 C? d1 U tri rrdA -� ^rn rn N d r) C' wi 0 M r~ N 00 • 4 N --- 00 C' it 0 N . ' o r 41 co 06 o N o0 H N L 1 O � lin T On+ tC N , W 0 V1 O 00 ,n r n C 0 r —° r9 �r n N O CC O o 00 In N [� _Tt C ra N ' N N N Q O A m 0 2 O N p T �/1 Q1 N ai N Z 0 CO C' - n r, td Er) O rn d N Q Ir L � n N II � r n e • N quo t C > C c o f U) o a 023 • 0 i y o r Tr it U ± m i r u tu t1 7 c E '4 y 4 : a U U CO oo N 00 4 C f7 C 00 a 4 ,G r,, ‘g c d a —0 ,, •ri �Y •o 4 — O O re; .-- 7 o — n 7 N .-- 00 •V (-Ti N G• .., .c _ 2 w trl c m M n -r n n W 0 .6 n N a E H 0 _ - N n 00 T U ID C. n f1 •n 4 V'] Q M en CC 00 rn ..4 Q r• n rn a a �n N rl 4 7 m = 0 oc Ni n n o 0 o d 4 4 'r o 0 a`) 0 a+ r} 00 rl N - N a co N --, d a` •t — a 00 rrl M co N '•7 •n C n N r7 M N a 00 N n .-- .-, �O a `•7 a N n N Q 6 N rn rr', n re; - .6 rri re; -, ,O cO 4 4 4 a` N 00 rn en 'T n N N — N �L N 't rn a to ca a C, N 00 `7 -- 't a N 'S n '� rry CD N C.7 0 o -, ,- n n < ri N O r7 - a v - O. cc O 00 rn Q, 'r 'r o ,o rn a ' o0 �A� Q r7 M n N N -- . a Ch N N O L U. U �r N a O ^' 'S 00 00 •n t- N Cr, a N r' Yi A Q1 U C7, f7 Q 4 Q, M N rn a` a Cr., rn Cr, Lll n Ci -� b n a n N In 0 C N '" o O c.> m NMI 7 I CO Q Cr., ,p 'J l� a, a` n a 00 '-' 4 n ,O -- C ,a r7 C ,n Q ON n M n ,O C, 0 ren M N t- nn 4 Cr, rry a V �, �n O, t� -� �O �n a [� �n 4 4 n: N a < Q • M N N b N •• Q O N ■ imm 0) n CO co ,p C, .n Ni .n •n N 00 d 2 VI .0 a N �= N o n •n ,a '' a [� 00 n r a - N E en at o O r' 03 C CO n V•1 00 ,- a 4 a, .o a O }t, N a 00 00 n N V'1 rn M N D a 7 Iri r a) NN0 r CO r R N --, — — a N a 6 L i. r `m CD p 17c + n N N rn Vl 00 rn 00 1n 'l .n DO Q N .. .o N rn N a, rn a a n o rn } 'N . . E o M 1- r 0,w r/ C W c• �� C f�. 7, ,' p r i, W c U U >2 r- ca n ^ .. v em Ci a c'' o U ca., N a� �, o c U - c` J 5 U a te. y U U c 35 'U a U u• v a U a ce . /fl. H p m •n o v m 5 o �y F. /A ii L U ! �d C3 N c a d (.J 7 ..J CC F^CIS @ F cd Y/ C 50 c v ":7 c 3 c Q 1 , .2 v c d -o c on c C7^a 011 ¢ •p c3 ei = '� J ..' r) c3 i f`NS :ri x ,�. M 7.--1 ci in d e c C nn c tO cs .= . z 'u o ,3 c r C U r 0 Cq cd y = g cc C C v C W Q) w C . • o c c t c 5 ' o c U �' 'L .. c cC .: z7 V a a -o - V ^ nN v c> �\*• Ii n. < < U U U c-) U -o 5 Z Z 0 a: o cry cn v; o i 0 4 n C O W C — c C - 'n a ,-, rry�. '_ c O a ni o o c c oc r•! a O cc - - " m N � � , C.'. °'w y �Tj ■ Ea ■ in N N 00 1n n — C G CO n a, n O O 0 n a n a` r-.1 c r-- s. n n n = E © N M '* N �O n O OG `7 - a .r;N ,p r' 6 — N O 7 n N H to U V co 0 CL o� Vl Vl 7 1n n O n �D DD r+1 N N 8 0. oo Cr 'D as N O — �� n rrr Do N -r m cE 3 0 N - 1n cr r` O 00 N 'a n C..)y N N N 0 ++ co) N N N CO 'TI- C' O 00 +7 rl Cr, n x 00 Oa Cr, 00 r Q 7 0 N ri r1 n N CD • C, n ,n N r a N 0 n v M P N N ti a` n N 'p `D r'7 n O V's 00 `1. n O O ti- Ca N O 7 4 n N 0 00 p n W !A 0 -- a N n y O N Q co U _ Ti 0 v 4 O r+} N d O 00 Cc N C Q n 4 4 ,C O CO C O ■ N ■ 07 a` -. —. .o a • O a, �i co N o — E _ H H 0 '0 00 � 0 d C m 1,3) a) - - n 1r, ni a` �r N N l N N L L r `m O 0 m � N e '..E- MI = cp M 'C O n n n O s t •y. — N O T 0 A G O r c co a C u, C O a9., O o E a) v v v j L F U x GI T T J. 7. !. ei)CO U O ) a) ) C N . N C y N > C E O = a) >,, 3 '- 5 3 :r.--, 5 E e fl. Y U U x► 7, = a, , .D o o o - t c 5 w F+ �.1, w uy Op? c �/� �' x x CO C c) a Y v .^e `.g in Co a a .-c, Co = .,- L'J� ;,- m C C 'JYt Z*\U I C) C) -C A ,0 n) _O , , ., , L G .2 CO ti a .0 ) CC .7 C C C C - a) > l IC N r c r'1 `r 1n 'a 'C n r- CO CO C- a+ L� ,,,,,.\,p F a a) N ) n) Q) 'U J y 1 11 -- . j j j 3 l J o _o N is 7 t @ m w L _Q• U CO 2 E• a. 1- 0 7, N -p U Cn O illiIIIP lb• ' ` \\\ n\ \ °\\ \ rn, Q " Cr) to, n "0 4\k, ,•J M O N':',,,,,. .4,t), CU 1 ,_ \\\*.„ ,:".., ., \\\\Iw ,":,,,,.,#:.4,. \.., ,,.M , X (s , —� \\r ct CD h O L ii- :::....kk \\.\\N'litis Uy o U\\ ''\\\\ , I d Ii"\\\\to Q v -,o A.i\ w \ \\ \ '8 N J U E \t a 0 x �\ a m d\v— '::::,',,':,,:',:,:,,,'•;,,,!,,,,,:,,',„,:2-,':'''::'.:,:',,,.:,..''',',,,,,.:,: .......trc'' _cg „...--") !Diu , 0 :: 6 U co \\ E on 3 a G f.-CJ G'a G LM (n E r o is c °W c E w F. crs Table 8-1. Summary of Ground Water Rights Permits and Granted Water Use Per Year Since 1/1/1998, Within USGS Study Area, Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon 1s . t d`� se�\" \\\\\\. a\\\\,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\h„��j� rC\.a`.,...a� >k�\\ \\\ � „^.,\,\ v;�\,�"^�U�,4,�, , +^, ;an`,\,a�;4 1998 14 1030 1999 10 1.91 2000 4 1.43 2001 3 5.37 2002 7 9.59 2003 3 11.78 2004 16 0.78 2005 19 2.31 2006 2 0.28 Total- 44.13 d:\Thornburgh\WaterRights\DeschutesWaterRights.mdb:rptSummary of Permits By Year.rpt NORTHWEST Page lofI °; Table 8-2. Summary of Ground Water Rights Applications and Requested Water Use Per Year Since 1/1/1998, Within USGS Study Area, Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon \\�\ 1998 9 26.13 1999 7 27.47 2000 2 0.07 2001 3 0.51 2002 2 1.40 2003 3 0.72 2004 8 2.41 2005 7 32.67 2006 12 13.31 2007 19 71.31 d:\Thornburgh\WaterRights\DeschutesWaterRights.mdb:rptSummary of Applications By Year.rpt NORTHWEST Pagel oil A\ Land&Water, INC. „1 consulting I:747;7d ngy Case Study:ThornburghResort Water Resources Impact Evaluation Table 8-3. Summary of Surface Water Rights Permits and Granted Water Use Per Year Since 1/1/1998, Within USGS Study Area, Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon \ \ \\\ ,\ \ \\ \\\\\fir`\ \�`' �\\\\\\\l\\\ \,\ \�u bd�r of\\�� � \ti u r 2005 2 0.14 2007 1 2.64 NORTHWEST Pagelofl 4`i;,*' land&Water, INC. Case Study:ThornburghResort cansul,fng in 1 yrrugcolnyy Water Resources Impact Evaluation d\Thornburgh\WaterRightsUJeschutes WaterRights.mdb.rptSummary of SW Permits By Year.rpt Table 8-4. Summary of Surface Water Rights Applications and Requested Water Use Per Year Since 1/1/1998, Within USGS Study Area, Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon is N \ 1\\\ \0,\\\\\ ti cnr \\ \ \ �� \\ \\ N : ; \\\ \ 1 , "\ Year,„ s f1s� \ \rors v \\ , , \\\\Vv \ *\1 \,\ \ 2007 10 0.07 NORTHWEST Page 1 of I Case Study:ThornburghResort Impact Water Resources act Evaluation Land&Water, INC. p � t=, .d1tk \` Corm/fling In ttvdrottnntugy d:\Thornburgh\WaterRights\Deschutes WaterRights mdb rptsumm ary of SW Application By Year,rpt Table 9-1 Summary of Number of Wells Deepened since 1980 in the Vicinity of Thornburgh/Redmond By Township and Range Township- 2000- 1995-1999 1990-1994 1985-1989 1980-1984 Totals Range present T14S—R12E 8 6 I 3 4 22 T15S—R11E 8 9 15 5 3 40 T15S—R12E 17 2 0 4 4 27 (Eagle Crest) • '1'155—R13E 23 11 3 0 7 44 (Redmond) T16S—R11E (East hal 6 7 0 4 halt) 26 T16S---R12E 17 13 9 4 8 51 Totals 82 47 35 16 30 210 Source: Oregon Water Resources Department Well Log Database 1 122100' 121100' _________ ______ .........21.,FiprArgro cii ------ San^ti n elrwi �� _At., , t+ yl a ----- Iti ham...• rts . F5011 0 1 ) ! rlr xu ,d �r t1 , C! M1 DJ ti� 4. •' 5 ��. ��J.] Ic+l• 11 T -D — ..� 12 e ...•-;'' / ron,„,,,,..,,,.,,..... ,,_ l' i v `4 t I 44!30' nom' urge 1 1'`•' Cs •f )tii,c.7,.,1 SJ. rg Gray 13 S at 20 tiara _ rn,rr 'k'. trail •� - v - - ass I L A,' Cr•I..in ( �w T, , _._. — l-_.-.--_ �. � (,JIB Cal 0111 ' 1 i." Ile► I,o: C)/ k6 E lj.aa-zle� I it,-- Pas, I ��..F 1 a'Star _a t, (I j�rti I to Approximate Location of r.,t •. ,.;,� .�: 1 yF Proposed Thombur h Reso , f '""Ir a Y" 17• 4dt0a' JF/F l� ., trn,P \�h t,-,Nr . , °° I I 7( dt L Fl tau n y l * anhelcr .1.s art C i a L,ra' Far,°1 "Iridan I a:a , F-` Sheridan 3une.* 19 q / V . I ��V'5f1 II 71 18 9 i 1 1 12 13�. *15 • m li tF Pine 17 o_ n vr,, I w a' /L dinantnin {dal na -5M \larder t. ,r fii?4rr;ri. w , Peak [hind ✓�, ::- ° P68 J.. R rr, Hat T rtanelfx p. r.,;,,-r.,%. 70 Q II .. i ( A �C ra '�j _ 43!30' „I 1 i h C(1ll Cil(iesc } y 24 rF E *fie s,.._,,,,,,: OREGON di 31 1 v g X25 Q ._ .__ $tU Y Va 0 6 10M 5 zg __ a I e IX A 0 9 10 KILOMETERS 4. It 4 mm FJTt '27 m o •_..__—_ _ _— Figure 2-1 USGS Study Area NORTHWEST Land&Water,inc. A Case Study:Thornburgh Resort 770;Mark Yinger Water Resources Impact Evaluation ,;'l r i t: A S S O C I A T E S urY } t i tJE: z l F 1'1!1,'liN 1:' (;til'H1'TES 1 C 1 ; ,• r �Cal•t r 7 L. ,o \,t K„r>ra. _R { � � tSMITII iti)C h '}, Big 1.-ans. I . , , rAT;PA{( T..':'-.1`,'S• W 't 11748 -., J t” I 4 _., ,,,, ,. 1 o - _H A... . .. . Aw Cr. ,, ,m _. il ...•,, .,. ,. , , .., , t ...1l I -0 3. ` I f/, —i v a J Q c Q a \ tally I r'a ti c _ m -T �,}I 0 /� . 1 1, f '',L,.-''' CC 3; 'm < c. ,,� ' I t• 14 it I% .D . .... .. . O 7 RN ri,,(ilC \ , I I I—10 r, r .. n / r-J it C. )1 1.'1.1 11110 If / 1 I I/ l c 1 i f — (, l 1Nh 1'11.1 ch CO 10. .I - _.1.1 �t/1 ............. L. ern c�Nn , � I W , n• a It 0 t Itu m ,r awe l . w.Z q ! �W •1 da 1 w0.r• ` 'f , ' y+.r .d. G r If 7 i'3 � .._O Q 7i i: 5, e,', CD / I rr/, 1 ,/- • 'ratan o - o _..__ E e astir, W plus ...... �' x 3 m re —P j / I n, Figure 2-2 Location Map Bureau of Land Management - State Lands { l Private&Other Ownership l. !Thornburgh 0 Proposed Thomburgh Well \,..‘,.\ Location NORTHWEST land&Water,INC. A Case Study:Thomburgh Resort .,, Mark Yinger W a t e r Resources Impact Evaluation e f,- A S S O C I A t E S CC GEN ED I r 1 I " ` I n I I . ,,,,„,,-- I fo'41,kiiir -4 5 _ # ,4// , „+.eta.. a. .r` = ran --- '1"+ ..... xk &idhl *^r�`..B;w flu�5;' _._ , -- aT p w f 7� fi-� — m .. err f . . tea, _.. �. 1 i C i 11r '? �. . .__ L--- /12 I 9 F t, r ' ' ? 7 ;t:;;;°r` — -..-... 1�. 17--~I p •.A: T i 74F_ -,-.'n 1 _, A I ,.,1 ?'":" _.. i, 1 w:(�V z1-1(l t�,� f • 1 •'MT J 1 Park'..' ` lN 0t ........ ._. —..0,1,...,1 {{ w r ro a.,I v `S? 11 w ;,�� Z�I, sue ?°,k ItZN nNei i yyy;;; E H !� Fes �+r( r��«�,i r � .d■.g,Y r';,�i: 2��� ��F Yr a._ 2- \ 4 t' r, " - l `"" Approximate;,,, f_ 3 ri , — Location o F �s ,_.y m'k,^ "s-,`.•yam • .• : ^-- — r Resort CO 0 r 4 + Thornburgh Reso i o WOO �y ,ti 's. • ; 1 -el w_ 1 L tL, ......i?ke chelar ,s i4 , � IT ^e + 1 I • T Da 1 �i 1 ':6 t 1 :`i ! 1% aTj•I°n ti l`'V DI .i 'rmre -._9 K _ 11. 12 1 _y -`-�N.2� &r- �m �g -tY .,�. FT GYirt t"' 1 , per i vo is n k, 17 2 g "6/. y r• r.1 eSr1e.1 ,^ •ter r Iai:d 4 ------ -- ',. F eq t w en ,S �c. din- �.Inr,s o.o �& al' • r ries.-)1P1>d •g r-'t. Y,a ., Hal 'r �� n G & �. r f. .0 i , — r • "S EXPLANATION ,° .'y� - ; Geologic moils - __.. A= t lo'-i.- }"-J ----_— �`-*,- --_ [ 1 Quaternary sedirreraary deposits T r 6,t Volcanic deposits of the Quaternary _® �1 " } LuSa r � I Cascade Range and Newberry Volcano ._ I• - t - r Ydcanic and sedimentary deposits ut the - Q �? r :+'S r ,. .f.�•1 31 f IateTertiaryandUuatrnary. ID„ , t e .---\ ' Deschutes Formation and age- (,. r e J ft rf o / ' equivalent strata m� I � " �� � y 7111r { f � �+ � � Prineville Basalt E. r3+ w u. _^' -' f; Early Tertiary volcanic deposits,.primarily E"M '` 4r attic Jahn Day Formation `,� .... --- ,•--- _Geelr9ie tferhs _ Si — tS i Q 5 10 MILES aW 4 0 S 10 KILOMETERS E , Figure 5-1 Generalized Geologic Units of the Upper Deschutes . Basin , NORTHWEST�Water,Water,INC. A Case Study:Thornburgh Resort 7,-,,,, Mark Yinger Water Resources Impact Evaluation i c ASSOCIATES ... .,... rion.7tiv' Ire Tdbp Tdb 2280• 2763. rri co4 .4, 069 1 r:IF, salta -' . . , . 2508' EIFEA 2751' - Tds Td 2580' 56206 rffirt. An 0 MEI ' 2.7; 2680 2710' T ' 2710' 2626' . ;-81 4 P . IMP 44 JONI .,1 2890' dbc , , -- 2730* ..±c: 21 : .• w AtT13 CD I " , - 2592' ,.,Er . .= 242V . I 2 Tdc .- '. Tds maze•ii " • 2710 1 - 1 74,_El 2660' • ' :a A, : i i'.. ' MM. P.Flitv,',A at ' 2714' le r.v, 0 ■ 0 ■,••=m 0 0 , ' 1198' . E 8- 3614 • 'le. LI- N., • • ' 5r)Q9,::, ; 2548' Way II, .= . . k':.: ,.q t Tdrcb 2735' -4 f 2723 51..:3 a ! I • , .;; as a Td.,,,,,,,,,, .4 gE. 2577 IC 1 B 2714' IL02 mic : • . li i Tdb 1, :-T... " 'Ei c), ,..,1 ,.. rC .., c,,,!--,n21 EMI . 56 - HIM•• 12• f 2515' , ... 7.f,r7r :• . 6^^ ,20' l' . 2730... ■6'7''.-7':.`:,. ti,i.4r,-!' t!clb IL:ilii atiiiii.' I 0111 iik • I 2743' I 10 0, .21 iiiI16111111 ,.•■1 . ,3'': I / °t, ilIN\kl,. 2 :71 -di IP - u, • •••• 272fy .,, i.w ••moo• .0 1 • dita,;', .0.... /A 0 E, .o i Td,„/ F E 1 Tdba To , (/'„.. Qal _..„,- , ......-- g f Tds '111",k f p, , ) , N-.• a =d•, I • • I'' 15,.. ' ill 1 ..."-..-•'.' • a.. to. Q:1 5i) 0 .. E II ■ Tdt , f!2" • .....--- - ..it•-"- 4 I. (.1 5 i •qr, 9,,,l., S'ke•"-- /P.', t Miles / 6 .5 1 2 T rl I *. ■1 627' •rs TC13—en Tri h , .0011111‘ , Onset-lutes Formation ...e...--•Deschutes County well log nurnber&approximate I Qal I Alluvium Tds Sedimentary rocks&deposits -:- 4, location 2746' -........ , ■Approximate static water level elevation based , I Qe I Eolian deposits I Tdb Basalt on wet log IOf I Talus&colluvium Tdbp Porphyritic basalt Deepened wet log number Qs Sand&gravel BE Basalt of Cline Falls • Approximate location of proposed Thornburgh well Qf Alluvuial sand Tdba Basaltic andesito Figure 5-2 deposits Tdt Ash-flow tuff Detailed Geologic Map ..-••1 i !Approximate location & Well Locations Tddf Debris flow deposits ' . •Thonnburgh Resort Cline Buttes Area N o ur FiWFST 12od&Water,int., rArA,Approximate location Tthcb Rhyolite of Cline Buttes Eagle Crest Resort A Case Study:Thornburgh Resort Mark Yinger a: Tdc i Cinder deposits Water Resources Impact Evaluation ASSOCIATES L 122•00 121'1)0 _.........•1 cr HYHROGEOLOGIC UNITS , 7y F 1 1 \ \ 1 m - Y 4uLu. A ?a M , , 7, i --- as°=o i ry j ` f . 're �u rr m '6 o � .x.rr .i, V tF" Y Y" 1 1 1117,I1 , p y t P' o ( �j r�77 I 1,1)-.) r gs-, 1 , ° m q l zo 1a■ rn I. 0 CI • - APIIV5 r ,?i ''-'.,..,. . , ,,.. i fver?' , mot_ Approximate Location of "`". Nom; r Proposed Thornburgh Resort 44V0 ' , , , a, t ?m t'- 1. ... i mL % r:;. CD a.'.•t .1 r ■ i'1 .� li; ..^� t•'I (1 k �!_ ]x.14 v 1 1 ti u w I. 4 r H ( M 7 '''0 ~ s {{yy� yg "r C-q a �! EXPLANATION I' ii ,a I 4 die es)ogic volts S▪m �� Quaternary sediment w ��• A ar 'Ie j �fi >Tt t L 7 �a;radeHangn and Newberry P �, Volcano deposits r=. _ n,r :.._.1/.. �/t. L I Inactive margin deposits F2 m w / �tl Tt=`El t . r J Ancestral Deschutes Haar channel GC if deposit: y r poundal 1 PTuxlmal deposits 76 cr {,•..- d 47rf/ sr' `sr' L_ I Arc ante ent alluvial-plairi deposits L _...j Pre-[?esct,ute,Formation deposits co 0 m g. ▪au .:..... .r A 5 iii MILL-5 w ' 0 5 10 KLOA4Ct[R7 re w! —_ Figure 5-3 Generalized Hydrogeologic Units of the Upper Deschutes Basin P O0'I'HW EST Land&Water,INC: A Case Study_Thornburgh Resort "-"° Water Resources Impact Evaluation g'r 4 A$s(I C 17 S "ya'' aS50ci AtEs ---...\__ ■ r1°' a %.\"*"'s ■ x i , /Is( ----------\ , 0 Jr x 19571 ';g11 $• wilt ,r\,_ Prinevil - ti 1 r mond s o 35' ;! �. ----'- ----), 3193 71 , w rte) t Z 41,, 4 q4c , V , ir / . . ,„„„,A,o c're. y. I 7 :r 1 9 10 14 12 13 14 15 16 17 } `"----..........____4 � ' B othe • r: :. Figure 6-1. " OWRD Observation Wells and Precipitation Stations ir Eck iu p In Vicinity of Thornburgh w .,` Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon Bendel Precipitation Stations II Study Area " 0 OWRD Observation Well Range/Township Boundaries 4. 0 Proposed Thornburgh Wells Highways 4 ----- Stream ME City Well data is from OWRD: www-wrd.state.oc us/OWRD/GW/well_data-html N Miles 0 3 6 12 A Ait,\ \ NORTHWEST \\\ Case Study:Thomburgh Resort land&Water,lac. Water Resources Impact Evaluation O U 0 --- -- - — .... - 0 v3 c N W m 0 H c ,. x x C u) co r x co To t il O N o r m 2 aE in -CO C:C:k 7 F.,„ c. cT, ■ C CE a A CO el to r co: 111 a) w tea) 761:74:4‘ — M - si rn as 01 r : m -o C a q) (n �� rn ■CO ID a ~ ---- i a) c Im1T a ell 4. 40 d L 0 al , O 47 0 31) O 47 O '4) O r' ur t•) M N N r r setpu! ut `uogemdi3aud lenuuy uopelldloeJd lenuuy Z-9 61 sIX sib Pue 4deis add\uollepdp id\gBanquiogJ\s oadVP C) U v o k. y W ^\ an I m) K o I 3 4--5 b CI x S 1F_ o o = CO • o x b " " m a w N Q = t U z3Ql N 7 0- • E 411.:;; '- '3 T O in ul N N N co 0 • N • _.. -......._..........._.. ..... ..... _..- O N • O M ......_..__.......... .....- O Q N CO Z. • 0 d co • _.._......... ... ........_...__-- —__.__.... ....__ 0, L O r 4f ea CL 3 •1 2 v to co I'D lo IID • °' I 6 d Tr to t. aD • d o ea • rn N 'I o co !'J rn , CO v (`nv o CO CO v tD h7 co M (47 N N N Q! eat(ia;eM aad `sAeq 1' a 7 CD W co I •• _ wv P 7 • • 1 - p • z • 1 o • ° ■ • • 0 t ■ k • • • • • • • N M ! E . co 0 co d N • ro Tra O -0 I • 1' .— a) • 3 M • U' O) co• f> • 0 0 0 • C 3 Nr CD • U) o v, lI1 • MMCa ai IL • T W ,-0. x • co 0 E f • T v Q� A I • • f y 0 n a1 • r L i • • LL v co CD • • r O. 2 Iii ,_�._.. • .---- A. ci. 3 co I • • r •� a) ° - 1 • L ° N • r w al 0 w •± fl. E • 1 • i �i {C ■ N t0 L CU g) • N- Cf o- Q) 0 E N- co co CO Q) C)) T C) A F N N N N N N iL = ,n pal `aaejJns pue-MOIaa lanai aapM m 0 Q a .. ................. o E-, V c O c }..; a • • • p. ate -' I. • i • H • • • 7- d .7 1 • Z 0 0 .4011,,,,..4 • • • • • z.„, • - ; a • • • •• • • . .• •• t — ._. • CO 7 l- ct • . • N • ' • W • cl - a) Cr) 01 m M as 0 c 0 N °p W cn I a- co m a r a)CD cq L w p d o C O MU rn ! o t4 °p CO ° ' .............._... ai ♦�' •• w co N v ia- c' = m . 0 .0 3 0 N co p o a L a) L 0 co ai B Qom II., m O Tv v 7 Q _._ i L W a w CC m X N t CO p C • a ti L 8 ` C-, o N N a cn CO CO M CO T L L f6 F- lea;`e3e;ang pu Of ei mo�eg lanai Ja)e, 0 ° N �, ii: 1 s a co • • W .Z7 • • x x • • • • • • z � v• • • • .r�f< • iI.: • • a•• 0 10 CO CO 00 tr. 713 cc •• co CD ca. d .- ,Fa 6 .) y N J O0. w 3 m o c L II- . co 1' 1 _N. r O d co (N (D O .` �i .1.'" o !C CI-m L N N N N N N 0) d [d N d 0 Oa 11;ea; `aoe}ang pueI mop 'anal Je;eM 3 6 •:1 x as >, tti a IL Z o N U O cn Z r W b • • x' .,.,..... ••• o b ---• 0 .._. ••• T v • : .%: • ..... •1 • O o • r \\0 � • T . . ••. •• • • T N = O ♦' W N T_ N H _ T W N cu v co ❑ () 00 11.1 T _ E d N (O C ca d I o0 03 3 T m a cc tc 0 W o 7 0 LO X (ii N T N N N ya d 3 3. 1 yT.) IU) — col CO T wi.' T -c W 0 �� .� ld Q _C Q m Q- '' L -0 ° w CV E = 1 N- Q _ - O ct co N Co O ID it @ 4 o 0 O O O T N r r T r 41 CO 2 m rE L — lea;`aoe;ans puei molag lanai as;eM Crf a u_ = a a co I-, L5 1, , c a • a L5 • •• 4-,01 x x • ...._ • -�• r t xb • • • Q . • • • t• •• • • •• • C • • r o • p • •'1 0 w N !" a tO r I• 10 N C7 co e. co q 0 _. . .. . co V7 r .. 77 W O y ILI ea C - cc. w T n ❑ `n , d LS tn U SI O w O o 0 p D co c a I Q N 6 rn w CU ca f4 m tn ;Si 0 ro w G! ; N ( 0 Q 3 0, 1 d CD t 0 II D L Q1 m r d Pa ? C. 7:3(1) m 7 v 1 i ,o R o 1 i _ .... ..,�.. _.....,�; L Di fl. 2 O o v oo N co o i ce7 to co co Co co C9 co I- pa; `aaeling puei MO eg lanai Jele/N L 0 •p 0.) IIL S a F' U O 2, T [1.7 iii v • P 3 • • s j Reno • x z • b .• i N O0 _' G z, • • • • N- •• #4 • • •• • ; • a tO W O rn H N pj T M 01 T el a CO I� W D r .1 0 m m lii ++ •. 1 Jill CO• I T- y m ui I i O. Ln m o D co t 0 II .1 N S n 0 r _ ,- CO L E CO W 0) a) a) O O 111 7 s N N N N N M L 2 E o N pa;`aae}1ng puei moue lanai Ja;eM co �, ro LL = a d co 4 F (j o M O 1 Ls7 tr O • al � Z r :� 0 o y Z 0 • i • . ``' cD Illfb' • • N co It .......... • r 3 w L V jq a W m tO to M on o © V 3 to W O Z o i 1 iv 3 °{ H o W 0 .0 u,o O D ° co to m N $ g to .G a 3 O tl o a. vi 4) M -.... { ..— --- ....._.. _._..... . .---- — t7 rr N m (L) -� A• o Q N 3 7 Q. p m J w n Oco P , I , — . o O `t CO N CO 4 r '17 4,0 as o N N N N N N Oi @ ,- ;aa; `aaej.ing puei nnola8 lanai Jo;e, 3 a o 0 IL Z o o N CJ a'o v) a T rxa a • °i"°y.. , •, , H aR cD Ord \a Z , `v 4 ,_,_ • r , • • CD • r+ N d s. V cv in r la 4 e- • 1- ail 4cil ID • co 0 to co Cl) W G r d m o co 0 0o y CO 0 W co 0 Iii v Oi co of C7 a� I. N m I d II `o 0 CL 3 m i I D N 0 d tX m — ■ i _ N,-- e- s E co f--. u') 6) M I— v- L l- o ID F N N N N N N N Cf co 1881 `aOe}ans puei moiag lanai JaleM 3 Ts U. ii Z o o H U n o I W )i c X rri i x- o 6, 0 r m a) r r • it 1 In I. N a) a) T yyO \V W Y CO CO I Y Cl, co U co O V) oo W T © L _ U) ; V �I Tr W W c en o w = O m ° N L a YI . CD m . N N X ,— N N Iii N c1 W N °- o f0 II s 0 d .0 P. ro r a in m O. a) - o cu ru • ' ❑ N CL o ce d i N C N = E O R o d co N (O d ,- 4.0 L § N N N N N N L O a -- lap;`aoe;ang puei Moiag lanai JeleM = 1, z ii Z a 122100 121100' — _ ..........____ .. , 140900 , ,-, \‘;.,esch,i,(:",,-,,, Vc....c,...,Q 14090400 ',.. 'Ai. '0,, ' -:' -.. 51 1 •%_ i\--- Ci"- \ li •,,,...,, „.77.,s‘ ,,\ ,'‘,-..„.:%*409,150/04,,f, ,..,... ,•,.../ .......)),,,,,,,.,..,:„..:: 1 \....„,. ' ' I • V't"<" ‘ , ; ;',"v,„...: .r.., .,.7f,. i ...,090350 ,,!?.i',... „, ) j'''''',,' , !,' -- ', i ''' 140875004, , '. ' ' -',.. ..i.;•ii.'i:,./-, ...r .s, 4 i',(2/4, '...': ,0.30' 14088500 ''''' ' w, '',,-).,•$.$<,'d;:iPletfir' ulver • • 14088009 I'''''''' ''' ':. ,. ‘)',.;•;:s..".,;( ,.:.. ,...,),',..„, V'''''''''' ,,,cic.i., ,,..,e:';'',.,:,,,,,,,,•,,,, ''',1:::;-;,i':"‘‘,, \ --..... ......■20 i 1, ,..au-,r,,rr, ",,;7.1..‘ ,r, ..,rk \ .'''''s-,. esci te8-at.Lower..81\0.•Or iI . — g.. i 1407.50 ,'....,'''''.y,''''''''•'•'••,:o:i`,,,:::: - .",4,'4'-sr, 1',,• t•t..r il..t.itis it„•'cft„',i g'f §9,.0k,(1/Viyr :lkiS)c A at Sisters :,.. . ,• \ ., irister 14'1716e,,,,,i,0:;.,„.. I '',*,. . ,,, 1 e .! „.r,, Ck r1r7Pend,`,',,„',-....,,,,.:'. ;.1. ,e$,Q ,t,p,„,11-1,c,aerld 1 j.;'`" '. '''''' ....."!,' . . '.. ,.; 44100 t_,-,,ii,-,4 ' - kric ,,,..\' .-,.',...“ A../. ',.. 121 S 4966110 bariirr"''''' ‘ , 1406450,,,'' ''.'"'`^', 0 1,„. • eschutes at Beohalls I 14064000 i,l ta 1 -;-..;:.:::''''' 4, lY/ ''''I Cu) i ..''''i j bi i ti' 414050000 0 14057500 '':'• ,____, '1105250 ','":4:.`.'.:.'..`,': .. ''....\\(: :,r: Ni.iwbi:ii•f,...,?..,. VO I C',--; C <IL,. I VI./,..,.,.- 1,-40 5`4.,'50„ct0 . ! , ••••4,,1‘1,.1.„ `. ,. ' ..1 0 6500 i3000 * r ....., 7, 1 I'i ,,,;,,, i D'asck:uteSI3elow •:' ,..L.:11tle'Deschutes or La!"ne • Al.---(-4 .....- , /4 V1(.i eki u p Res. ..., i .„.... :.14asss •-1-,•“- i ' :: '?'''''..•I'''..\' ...-..;\,.`'1‘4055600 ;-,., :..,,. i i -1"?... \ / Crescent C0.k::'" •, ''''' EXPLANATION 11 \ : 1 i T'-''', 14063000, •'s . I r ,, ,,- 5 ‘_... A Stream gage and I U.S.Geological .11% ''''''.... . \\./I .-,--, U.S. Survey gaging -a \fil‘fr.Tund'ill r48 study area" ) station number i - '5'.'t / 0 5 10 MILES I \--r-',...... ,r.r.. .•, [ 0 5 _-10 7,0METERS 1 "\l/r. Figure 6-13. NORTHWEST Selected Stream-Gaging Stations in the Upper Deschutes .0*\ Iznd&Water,INc. Basin, Oregon (From Gannett and others, 2001) .agat,,,,,,....,,,,-,.. Consulting in I I ydrogriology ,,,••''., , .; Case Study.1 hornburgh Resort•'.7,2,:',, ':',..! ':: : ',(..".r.: '.:;:',r:`,.. rr': :• ;;;...‘. rr.,‘sr.,.:2,,,,. Water Resources Impact Evaluation ll . d:\thorn burg h\streamflow\F_6-1 3...pdf 1,- c) - , ----) '8 ,-.), 4; 0 _.. - -,-;",- • 6- 1•- i 11111 »-) c) i_,X 0 i_3 i 04 — 17 LLI ,-- .. _ -- 0 g , °) 2 1 , --- WIMM./.1111 c,. ,- ,- 0 --. 7 1111111111111 cs.i. „... #..„ .a cn --„- ......=-- 4- Et CO ,_ E.C...) 0 ' 0 ■,....,..........- ... _.---- M11111111111111 - _ CV CD -r Illallilli ,- ,- a- ................. E ------- - • It 0 .- 6 ea cn I cn __ r I Ell s "a 6 I,- I 1Th : 4: NW 40 {I) Sa ,..... 0 or 7;6' o ILI t ....--- 4.-'----:____,, 0 a) tim j isi cr) crs T-0ccs- 0 E n ri,;) 1111 0 E.scE r-r))) = w 0 c7"crE s0o a2 a a o)) _c w i T 0 0 C e E A 0 ... ...... CO E 12 V 4' co 1 8 2 (c7, i.. c .... 0 CA u PL) Cli _ —15 a • to :c- c. -0 0 r. 1 LI c U) 1 0_ CV Cr) (1) I 0 .-.Ei• 3 la co o Lo 0 u-) o 10 o in o Lo c. 7-.) 1,) N 0 N. u-) N 0 N. 10 N ) rt a) CV N CV 1- •,- ',- = .CI1/7 0 ca. so U1'05.1e1.13Sla 0 • r- cz, — ,, z -F. ii,..wou -4... ......... 161611111111.111.- .,._ _,... ........m...... -.- z . :-.• .s imoms___ __ ,,4 ‘•-,. . co -- '- 11-1-1.1111.111.11111 .111 F:3 .— Z • _C 0 (S- ,- 411V# % F„ "W..** W C( .....' cu ai :., ,0 — m '') . 0 1-ZOINITION11.111. Pill 1.—"6=11.1111111." IIIII — I FA 6 I • wmwam.,_■,: 10.1111111111111 ,- ..,,,,........--...., 1111 a 1111111111111111_____ , .75rimmummiso co a) Cl co -a- 0 47, X • NIIMr. ---,- CU 0 A+ co -..immININIMININI g- co u; c a' cr) Ell 0 9 ,.... . . _c_, cs) • li N,7 CO = CT) MIMMIIIMM=Er. Cie > cO- up 41 ' , 1.1.11PMIMMEMEk_ ao 1. 0 ii - — co T, 7 TD ___ .. e.mmai—inommummmimm —-0 •-__......... _ _ M-10 =MIMMIIII g- s- 2 LI (6 o o 15 6 0 ummiiiim _ . . E (/) 1 ":"2 X > co 2 0 _...• 1■1• 11_,L1.111111..1 T=3 E CO 0 U) w D imiiim M 40 ct as -c - • z o u E) _ _MPINT1101.11111 . 0 1 4 IMISIMEN111111 _ ..- ------ 2 M.11111MMMMill 6 to 2 (-75 _-6 p .c 1 0_ Fp = 0 ca Tr E o _o H LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ti a) .5 S13 U! `abJetios!a -:-.. o 1 N. I --- ---. D F-■ c j ;, .,';.-i ,,-, - o ...•••■.... (r) 1-• , -- "' c) 4—. ■‘'":,2) .—.....— - • ',; 1, — I. o , ---..- - u-) 0 = a) > n Er LU t-) P u) .•-• -0 E .". 2 E 7„ ...„...7 ' ;. — — ",:•-' '-, c:, co w- co "ro --- -- , ---10=- CNJ -——,— "Ai r i 8 .— ,— 0 ._ ..-- . _ 0 r— 0 • 8 -, ._,.,_— •— . —.----NW 0) co 0 _..... •■■ •-• ilia) . -.- -.. . re i ,_ •-■ c0 0) 0 z cii 0.1 r- C ; a RI 111 ..rwwww --Tw-- ' 41Enr■mm. 0 0 ... 8 0. ' — a in 0 0 a) '0 0 >, 0 a I , 0 5 a) E n _ al e 0 En th° 4 , ..I , ••■ • ',Z . _ -... ■ ••■=MMr..en •■—' 't 0 . 6 0 c:. 0 0 c c..) 0 0 0 0 ,- 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 c 'D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° 0 0 . 0 co r-. (s) in Ni- cn C■I ,- S43 U!U! '36 I e 43 s 1 a r--- 0 1 --„, ...... .. o --..... ■ .. ______ 6 H 08 r q a) > . _ CC I-Li -c 11 — ,- .--- \ 0 _ 2 -6 •■.11—,_,, . 6 Z u ,-. o 0- -o E-,-. , --4 -4- o ..... , 2 8 4pb•-. >, o ,.....___,..- •■•• %,_ 0 a ,- P. Ca2 01 (13 M -___ ,-6 -- — CV 0 1-05 0 6 o co .., 6 "'•• ■•• - 03 cr) ° a) 0 0 ---x- co II lai - a) ... 4.* a) - o OS .0 -L---W-- cr) _ ...- Ia. irll ._ co .0 0 E iit - 6 03 0 co U) - D , __ - -•=.... >, 11 76 8 " ww■■■-• ....; . — co -4- 03 47-. 0 ei-5 0 E el g - _ ,_ 1) ,.--- 6 CO . - o 0 ., .■- 1.. ti.) a.* ■Al. -0 --- 0 LIJ o a) a, T 0 EL' ; __.— - 6 0 -u5 i ---- Ln ) CV , ! ai ° § 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E, — o a o a o a o Lf) o La o Lr) in CO CV 0.1 ,- •.-- t Sp U i '86.1eL3sia 12)- o. o n- o o a s-T.1 •-• bn ...■01110. Cle) .-' CV x'.... ■ —.••41..... (5 E k, CS ----- IP . C. CM 1— s- ..,.......: .. ,'' ;•,•!, m a.) •, .,, • ,• . API C4 4 _. _._.. o o -...c......, ---, Ci ...... ..- . .2 co 0 o) o., .7 C 7.1 CO co ia . — -a a) ... cc 03 0 6- 0, .o ca Zi •.- o"'"D ra = 2 L u■ n <Ts Lo >, (•.) i"-<' --sc3 73 oc° D 0 E u, co O clii CD 0 1r _2 O .10 2 CD2 a) CO D a -0 1j)- 'i .t■ g i 0,1 0) = 6 a) .E i - o o o 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 in o in o in o Lo o Ls) t S43 u!`e6.1243sm 0_ ,... .,.. Z " co Q C1) 7 _ -- X I 2 ,\, c o .7- ---_ _- 1 _ -4- •-el ..z a) > ct Lii .k ra E ›.. o , ..., z_c, I 0 WE 6 _ 0 - N 0 - ski 11116. - 1111111111MW :67 1.1M.--41■11. 0 0 ■ .., C .. - 0 0 '— a) rei 03 - *I co a cr) --- 1 .---- Nu C 131 04 co cr) 0 O- - 0 Ym 0) = . . . 0)N. gla COE CO 1.1.11111 " o mc' I= ,LS a) im cr) 0 •0 a ,-- _____ 6 C N a co 71 W 05) . 1 •=111.1 M E •.'' Z1: :51- Ci(29 . 110111111M ! _ i 2 rma D M_ ommo.—._ Ei :I :3 ow CI .0 E 8 M CA in CD 2 i75 I 8 1= 1111 (..) _ _ a) a) 46 MA - W 0 -0 0 1 0 - - cr) 1".. .., = E 0 ca i a) i — - 2 Li. v. -05 _E- P i cy Z C1 Cr) i E 0 C/ CI 0 0 0 0 ,— ,-- sp u!`a6Jutps!a ao.± 0_ - , . o :2:c ; 5:: 11-13: 1 r— I Cc:4:1 -8 43 1,4- _ -1. 111IMMIIII Lr) -a- EIMIMMIMMIIIMam..-- ■■•■=_ co cc) M1-111.1111.111 1 MEW _ - co 1 7 r: o co ID '13 0 8 E Wii co --- iii ■iiiiil MEIN Mill1 c— ril 0 I o CD I ME co in 2-6 40 U) n .- .■C v CO S 1.1 L O 6, e I IMi g - re .6• 6 NMI= Ell s z a) O. In c ; ir........Emig, - In t co im 1,. 8 u.) co 0 k. 0 r- c,) V c ..:r cr3 >,, i a i cT_ 0 0 (L = to a. E 2 2 CO = I CD EC 1.. C.) E 40 CO ({7) 6 at t. '11 0 co 0 ! NNW cr) In a) 0 c9-) 0 et 6 r„. o cr3 = 0 0 1. va i il7 e- f i c2, r- 2 - a 2 o o o o 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 o ia o a) o (T). Sj.3 lt■`a6ipt1psy3 0 1 c:3 N- 0 g - •- c X . I LI) c4 - co Ta •-cj ..--t. a) > a 1-1-1 • 0 trn ca m ° g 1.2 NJ- cl E E r7, - c'S , o , ,," a to m I N I 0 ---- — 'a E. a 1 o co 6- ‘- a) co o) 13 111 o) ,- ,-• C C a 0 C tr. 2 co ...., 0 CO 6 0) 0 6 C I.. N- o • a. a) CO e e a) co e cy., N- C) -- — , ., , , ...I,-- 0 crj -a a) cr, mi -,- - - -- 0 1,-. a. z'T,. a. ?• '"' — V 0 `)( ....._co — — ..t. --- =■ ■■. ix) a) 1 X 4.■ 2 ,„ r . . 0 E 1 4 ,,■■ .--- 0 41 13 in- _ — 0, E 2 ru), 1— 0 - linw===.—.---- ,_ 0 t D .0 0 0 CD 2 ..-- 6 0 +a 0 a) O () U) 0 g 0 F0 __ c4_ Cei co 7m» 6 CD T E LA 1 C'.' q 4 D r I 0) E.) e r LIN V .C1 E o o o 0 a o o o o o 0 C) o 0 a o o o c) o C) C) a) on n- CO 10 '4" co c•I ,— u Sp in`a6leyosp3 ci- n o co C53 E. ---- --- o szi - 1 1 ---ad. I , ...1■••=--...7- ,- 00i z 0 ...m.■....--- L) C4'ICI .Lrl 2 • '1U1 •3 _ :,E2- , a cc Li1 6 1 -c t-5 -d- o E... (.. , 0- ,:',: f —E ,,t4,5': 0 8 ,, -c 0 0 ca co _,_ a •- CV 0 7., 0 .,- E. ——......------------ E 4 0 ---,— 0 .‘- w RI CI Cr) 01 IZ VS C 0 0 70 07 CO 0 1.. 0, +a 2 ..---.--- 4.1 6 CO u) C i CD cvl N- o CO ID 1 ::-S- le= 0 t 1 o-) -9- co X ...... 0 , ..,- (5 0 O c u) c7 (0) ',- 1. al 2 CV 1 0) 1. Ci) T in- .> cr) k-,,,,, . (U E (/) t) E co i o 0 > ;12 i u) &T. •C (7) D ,,r E r---- 8 .,- - a co 9 (.) h. ,n w 8 2 co Ila (0 in a a 1 0 —'6 o N 4 u) E N-- ID 6 NO dl 1? 0 ‘- cv o rc- cl_ 0 in IT CA L ..._ 3) Tr O C) O o o o 0 O Co . ) . (0 (0 o . - i. _E o c y- ,--. n- S13 U!`o6Jut13sp3 I .,_ , . d k 0 –c- i ._— ..—___ . ._.—••• (.0 0 cu 2 ■■i.M .1 CO .- = t C 8 0 1 —.. ... , r 1 (n To _ _ 1_ NM 1.0 o r1i .-5. <0 > 0 Ci \ ', cc Lu cV g -Fp 75 .0 E 1.1 -4- , 0 0 o -;')-`'" _r 8 ,--, ipii., i—.. t Tr O-- ›, o -0 co Ai `4\ ,\, u) 'A\ a> 45 o — as co 8 C.) NM milli (-0- o ---- (:13 WIIP - , _... ._ . 0 cr, C 0 C r- CO CO — r 0 =-- 00 4+ w CO ). o.) 0 .— CS) cr, Milil — C;"5"- 0 1. ko co il-k 03 r-- c0 .0 0 •r. c0 - -- — I_ CL C '- CO t a) RI --- Y 11.141 E' E -a .-• ''' 4., d' -- - CS = E (1) Illir .0 0 0 1.7. 0 .(1 E.) en" 8 -0 Ft") F , Me .,,- 0-, _ - a E e la 0 e ,-, , 4. 0 cn ul a> .0 [-CC) CU --i Ho _ l ,..„ . to ei r.... 0 .g N 0 55 o E . .... E = cp 1 11 6 en e cs, . cr) a Q . 0 u) E o o 0 0 0 0 P 0 in cD LI') 0 kr) o kr) ck in g Sp U!'eampsw o .- N- C) P. a ,- . w •• .%, tia'' ■Inir- .■■•r" C:1 47' 7-, = ,... X cn• To in 124 PX:it --,z cy > t o --z EK Lij -- _ 0 - - , P a. c 4-- AD E J c — —A _c 0 1.-- .-. 7 0" . ,. 0 .. .., • ci., 0 ca i-Ci 0 1 cv o --. ir ,S I o c E fl—. as C — o m tr, iftim -, E co 110 et 0 0 ..1 . C.) •• En 6 .__ 1 — — N- CY) illeMbl N. aa. cu pa al___ -C 0 E CO ..S9 _0.) _—....,. ...-- di o co -4- 6 2 .--- '7 _ ---d= -13 , a) th a_ 0 --- - 4.• ,-,., — ■ >, 3 cO in if i cs) = 7‹ - ITIMP'-- ,S Ir. to Tg. ra ,, D CO 12 E W 8 .i _ - cr, a. 0 ..; 0 ci5 r „ :3 E) t 4 o )in 0 N t" .. - a 0 0 -... Cil P r I a) a , _ -) (.0 1 0 2 , V wrn .... - 2 1: ,--, 11/MIM■Nili 0) en (7) a) ._._ 0_ C4 u'. D rE co _0 E to o o o o o o o o o c o es, s- c er) co 1--- co Lc) 71- cn " -03. S,3 u!`e6Jetiasm 1 2 1 .a_ o 120 / ! _-,�_........- __..„, — 17 T2��2qq.� 123,E$123.3 �-, 124.9* f� `126.1 "t6's;,127.2 c' 1287 � 13 a 7 2 `-4 7.5 13"ke"',;axe, O. u� I / �,�'�P�9 ' 13t: t e " 14,1.2 ../...-T k‘ _,... ., f •---.._— =''''41H " 14 \;,\:‘\.\\\\ 0 '*,. � 146. ` ,k, Figure 6-25. ® •• \ Gains or Losses to Deschutes River ;; Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon OWRD August 2005 Data 6:9 151.2 '51.1 160.0 • • • River Mile Groundwater Gain or Loss, in cfs per mile 154.5 h 8.0 5.0 1.2 Total gain (+) or loss (-)for o\\\\\\\\\,;.,-_4.g__1.0 shaded reach between \: measurement locations \w\\'w 0.9 0.0 7r.. 0,1 -5,0 , h .M r 5.1 10.0 a 158. \, x :° U g. 8 - N Waal M 50.1 91.3 N 1 16 : { ,, °Y City or Town Limits 'V co O N , • Proposed Thornburgh Wells E C. 164 . Streams Highway " , v Township/Range :i Z Miles \;\ w ....._ ., r „af \ \ ` O 5 R T H w r sr Case Stud Thornburgh Resort Land&Water,INC. Water Resources Impact Evaluation , ”" '"---,----, -,-.., \.; ,' if i �I' C W1//O w;(./.eek 1 • o 122.6 2 / t 123. 24 ` v2 \�\ ;` a, •1614,:t t't--- ��� a��� V� • 128 7,, , :\t..,,,, t 1 ' ` 38 Cr do a" �,.+ kedRir c�c 9 141.2 �� .4‘.) '‘,12\ $ .,, Q \ ! ........ ,,,,,,.._....; � � 0-e,,\gyp°a51 'y... a_._........�.....__ � ,. .,�.,....,._..�..w ,,,..,,..._._.._.._........,R yor 51. 1. B ve\ 54. u 5 iro ') t 15 $ ' \'\ W,ft I 6 ; ' \\\I `"\ \aM'�'i \ : m\aea .i •V \\�\ a\\ �--.-� f Figure 6-26 1,. Stream Temperature From Thermal Infrared Data 6 .._i 8 9 10 , ' 11 12 Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon Stream temperature, in degrees C \\ r"h MEDIAN Proposed 'k`, • 3.5-8.0 e Thornburgh Wells ,......\a'. • 8.1 10.0 _M - Stream 10.1 -12.0 Highways d !p ,`.:,., X \ ;\\ \\v\\\\�\�` 12.1 -14.0 \., au/rrnr Creek ek ....... 14.1 16.0 i �\\\\�6 a a� 16.1 -18.0 y 18.1 -2 D.0 :=�• °-„ „ 20.1 -22.0 \fir ,1\ / v„ 22.1 -24.0 N 4\ \ ~y`\ • 24.1 26.0 � Lek\�, \ a, 26.1 -28.0 ----0° :. City or Town Limits • River Mile \\\\r\ 1 a� Miles \ � NORTHWEST Case Study:Thornburgh Resort Land&Water,tuc.. Water Resources Impact Evaluation ■ , f -..-"-\ 4 f t g , , 2 ' , .;‘. ' .Z.,1:? „ Me r� \•. i C �i e rte, ' M r rb 6 Ana ±..,....... tZ,q.-: ' :" m { -. , x .41 / A i `",,, .µ_ j .. ... 5.5 7 i 9 ` 10 14 15 16 17 I l 12 r ; 13 e 11 ° I- .c Figure 7-1. I,,„;r t Diminished Streamflow +� , ,. ., Results of Steady-State Model Simulation i rh . c' ,,, � Scenario 1: Six Proposed Wells in Layer 2 'sc \"" �t,l;,r; Pumping = 0.54 cfs/well (2355 af/yr) ; a Diminished Streamflow = Scenario Outflow*- USGS Steady State Outflow*: -rc \\\\ 01 0 02 cfs cs i ' - 0.02 - 0.1 cfs r -,-,'''N x ® ProposedWells N tercel' i \ � , »,,. ......... Streams a� ,,_._.„_[,,O '''',' o Highways N , f , \ / ; Specified Reaches m " "Outflow=flow from stream into aquifer a Miles \\ Z f 0 3 6 12 s•:' `;. co t NORTHWEST Case Study:Thornburgh Resort Land&Wa#ex,INC. 0 Water Resources Impact Analysis U) Ma:Li1a I i , .T1 ,1 i' '1W1.,,` r. t Me+ s } _1 llo ,Cis — r d - , I . , , , r tee ? 111 d \ i . g '.. h'it ' (S\ i--1, ,, KW t \,,.,.. ,,,„ , ,,,,,„ „,„ _,. ,, , , , /IL , , :. vr'c 1 � te «7 \ y \\...........,_ o, ,,r —,. + i„1 2 i i ,�. 505 6 7 i $ 9 10 i 12 13 1 i 14 15 16 17 2 7-r-1_I . ! , ' r. Figure 7-2. � Diminished Streamflow ....... ..... . .. I ll� :: µ.. .,,,,,,,..n.... Results of Steady-State Model Simulation i Scenario 2: Six Proposed Wells in Layer 7 i '1-:411 a; l ? \ G ee e Dp \ \ \ t Cr•r aked Riv, _ ` rvVyA � � I i 4 , ;• ci\ / T 8 I ,C� k. /O „T„µ ■ ( ( li i fie\ :` ,„ o , / 41kti..\.,:ztq.,\,\\*\1 $y C Yip \ ,,, \tie ( H1 C j 9 10 D ; 11 ,, , 13 ,,,\,\, 12 \\. 14 J o \ Figure 7-3. 0 Calculated Drawdown Contours U L. Layer 1, Scenario 1, Pumping 3.25 cfs from Layer 2 ci x ® ProposedWells Range N 0 Layer 1, Scenario 1 Highways J.:, , ED StudyArea City Specific Reaches major streams ,. minor streams N \ nr' Water Resources Impact Analysis 0 2 5 N O R T H W E S T Miles Land&Water, xcd , Case Study Thornburgh Resort p t \ (\.4'.44k " , "''' "t ''' \ \ ..........,, I \ , am \ C'L,. a CO e \ \ \ 3 ' ..."...7, ,,041,---, ---74. 0 , c s t4 O�Q a \\ \. a N a Q , 1 8 ti ,. /\ ,,,I , 9 g ' i y e „a,,,,,','4' ^ ' * ' O ` �` s i rum »m o 1 \--3 ' , i \„____e_.: 0 ,' Alt”' 6\‘\. < ,,may.,... 0 0 .2 8 g 10 11 ,, 13 14 15 _o f 0 gb C w u) \ \ \ ems O d� , A Figure 7-4. o .k Calculated Drawdown Contours ( ' g Layer 1, Scenario 2, Pumping 3.25 cfs from Layer 7 o 0s 2 e e Proposed Wells Range N y - Layer 1, Scenario 2 Highways s i StudyArea City a �� Specific Reaches major streams minor streams ��� \ Miles NORTH WEST fl'' mi===iiiimmim a Case Study:Thornburgh Resort 0 3 6 Land&Water,n c p Water Resources Impact Analysis 1 i Cur r \\, {1r//rni creeA my o\ Ne \ ; , "^w W 3 li N �, , r v .777\\ 'O ` I ronkeci+� I v , ..... ......... y AN. e. a \ \' $ Prinevi j ,\' ye .rte d p U� 1 3 { ® iiiiiiirpor, k.,,N4,, 4':01‘41° \I.,__.--,'---.......,, , fir;, i .. 8 9 10 11 12 13 , 14 ; 15 i r E g Figure 7-5. co Calculated Drawdown Contours J1 Layer 2, Scenario 1, Pumping 3.25 cfs from Layer 2 c ® Proposed Wells Range N / — Layer 2, Scenario 1 Highways \\ ,c7 , aq e StudyArea I City __,„ \s "�- ; Specific Reaches ---•-•- major streams 0 minor streams N cu o Miles N O R T H W E S r a Case Study:Thornburgh Resort 0 3 6 Land&WaterµINC . 0 Water Resources Impact Analysis ,, \\\ (;;-.4-''0#'1:1*—‘'''''..j'' : ' \\IT:'''oto,o,No\% \\\\\\a ''' ,ca �gy;)\ M ,u .nu„ xMyM a �a 7-1—' \ xr,......-.14, --1 . "'I i • - vs) \ ._,/ I w t c r o `;sty^' 3 \ 00 \ d 8 9 10 11 2 1 14 15 \ p r ,. X d i Figure 7-6. N 4 Contours of Calculated Drawdown Y, _, Layer 2, Scenario 2, Pumping 3.25 cfs from Layer 7 U ® Proposed Wells Range N o X °W"�•°„.,.,,,,°„-„ Layer 2, Scenario 2 Highways r L 1 StudyArea City _o .. i Specific Reaches major streams ° minor streams. Pill:r \ D r,mm Miles NORTHWEST a Case Study:Thornburgh Resort 0 3 6 Land&Water,iNc a Water Resources Impact Analysis ”" l o ``-"� �~ `� „tea U co 4 i ..f'\\s.-..-- i=7..,,c2s...___ ....,.,,,..... N. I'''..7.-- 6-k.t,- 7 c),,Sdb s i\ � e+111a \\ / \ \ \l \ ® ® \" o , \ i /,,,/ T.....,.,, \ ° t a � 9 1 ci \ O \\ i g \ ' '\‘\n'tli \t'\''4tAi 1 '\\44 \\\ r, :,,4„,,,,,,„ L,..., \ , \ , 1 c:,...J.,K.,,,,,, ,\\\‘‘,„ , , Tama , w. ., ,,, \\ \ 8 9 10 \ 11 \ 13 `a\ , 14 15 1 7 E - 1 Figure 7-7. ti Contours of Calculated Drawdown .� Layer 7, Scenario 1, Pumping 3.25 cfs from Layer 2 O N Proposed Wells Range N x ,,, Layer 7, Scenario 1 , Highways c? En e" StudyArea City Specific Reaches - major streams -,-,, minor streams O / \ auto a� ; ° Miles NORTHWEST OT Case Study:Thornburgh Resort O 3 Land&Water,tvc. o Water Resources Impact Analysis . 02, t \ \m's \ (., i rrked ltiri . - ,I, \ ,.., ,,,„ ../ .1 tt... A i \........), ‘ ' ' ' CY m 1 m 1 , \ , , .", , 4e- ,, \ $ 1 , \ , , ,,,._. ,„„„N,f,,,,\\vo,, $ �\ ° 4� , ,-- -- `,--' - \'"\a---1( \\ " N'\•\‘‘ "7''''‘' Ifi'°'O i , \--• 1 \ i.\\, ,e,'!„:4,\,,,,\\At\\' i kk 8 9 10 \\\\,. 11 \\\\, 12 \ D 113\\ ,0 14 15 16 " r O> k E Figure 7-8. Contours of Calculated Drawdown N1 Layer 7, Scenario 2, Pumping 3.25 cfs from Layer 7 O , o e Proposed Wells Range N Layer 7, Scenario 2 Highways a r StudyArea 1771 City Specific Reaches major streams o minor streams \, ' T y v \� O Miles NQRTH WEST d Case Study:Thornburgh Resort o 3 6 land&Water,nuc. 0 /. Water Resources Impact Analysis w Me7$ir`I \ f_ 4 Cuv.r c r ' tri/iorr C ec .rcck , T �r % / V \ \ Sim V „y. i T14S \ i;01,- ) ,�, R12E CYO . , .• T15S • R12E T1 5S ,\0,,, /'" R11 E , \, R13E \'''. a 1 vv v,' vv v \\ a 1 \ � 716S ,\\\�Y\ \ % R11E c�,�" �\\,,,\ s T16S •„ \ \ �\ R12E \. east \\, \\\ half \ \ ,\,\\�\ \, \ # )' f ,f ■ Figure 9-1. \ 'r '\ I'' Area of Deepened Well Survey ;,���\�`�-"�. ... ..........._._.�.�.._.........,.. ........__._..._. Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon \\\ Study Area Streams ix ® Proposed Thornburgh Wells -- Highway Search Area Deepened Wells Cities and Towns N a, d ❑ A , X i e Miles \�,,, N u N ORTH W 4 S T ■ ■ F Case Study:Thornburgh Resort rand&Water,INC. d Water Resources Impact Evaluation p i , i --_,„., / d \ 1 `•\ i �, per �;.rK � , Mae r• 1, fl Mai: ���..... -_. ...... ... ...... ....... ,� __.._... .,, '7' .., to _., V C iy' , \-_, Y } , Figure 10-1. f 1 0 z Critical Area Habitat For Bull Trout ; .•µ.... (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005) Bull Trout Habitat Endpoints " \\. :, Bull Trout Critical Habitat, Streams s ;' 2r \..., Bull Trout Critical Habitat, Lakes . , 3.... 1 Study Area °. ... Streams ``' 03 ® Proposed Thornburgh Wells r \\ A . .N Rey Cities and Towns 8 Highway a . Core Redband Trout �. / Population, OWFD 2008 o i �� c' iiiiimilisirsviiiii Miles 0 1.5 3 6 A ' , ,:, ::, u NORTHWEST \ �r LT C.. Case Study:Thornburgh Resort Land&Water,lN . i, ▪ Water Resources Impact Evaluation 0 122 CO 1211.00' N E E 1 1, as * ( 6,., , 3-9' ' _..._., 12 1: ? Madras Guage io U _- _N ^ 1 c ri 1_ 11 �� y IS RM16 E C t 1 4i!;-N . 130, n,e �2 ,.. ic ° `METOLIUS l �.: °a pi JacR `� RIVERW"�,,'l,, :. i. ,� ''r n° :• s ck1 .� ,. RM 13.8';''''' ' ; E uam �I .,,,, ..,, a � ZONE H Iw..2tl ' ...... �1i a. I• �1(c Art �} � '� �`ti vv iv. RM 16 C `, a r" WWYGHUS ..""'ow"'ar -5 I'4 �e „s R ,n, . 4 ,v r, ,,V 404,4 S i Kenzie �� .:�;o Pas CREEK t sr $'..elk N a i L ZONE. / .. . Approximate • i ... v g,er " , ,_ .-41..,.,.1.6. , .., ry Location of „, ..-., Proposed MIDDLE a t\ r O DESCHUTES r $ i ,, ,,r, Thornburgh Resort r HRIVER ZONE , , 7� RE R�, r 9r'Ill �° BaCi of iiii,24. r g UPPER*`h;Moen RM 1$5 • , , 1 U DESCHUTES A .- .v n4 i a 13 I 1° Ir, RIVER ZONE / ; "4 „ Mouth of Little Deschutes � ■ '�U ser "`^--'�'�^ '14 ,.�.{c1,i a1&... x 93 �ti 1',..,,,, 4 N ipr AW kr1�„,,,,,,44,\\,„,... • lIPPW■111111111111111's .'” 2 or Maiden ,,r', rkfuXr F�1�� hr a-•. chn.a t.\ y?. '.22 Fra snr7i 1 p L �Ilall6,fe :., V_.l� .,.,.._ _.-_....... `m a P [ ...-144/y.,, I I a ' L- o a L tl / t'' '- rQ .=L LITTLE DESCHUTES 1 L F .r■w•°w RIVER ZONE W_ Ali ) w 313 ��k� Ir_ ..........l .... i area \Desch le, S 8 F useastmrarannommomur P� �� p��� OREGON 't§ lellEIPIlmiewIliiimii■ifiiiiiii-W-f- , E ��L!=/le�118 25 E. StUdy=A�ea BeUnd ry .. tl.. _5 10 MILES f2s e- m O !R. A l i tl 15 10 KILOMETERS 1 g 4P -1017117"n I 127 cc 2 o x,1,1, i ma` — 1 Figure 11-1 OWRD Deschutes Ground Water „�����",,,\S No{1 f Ti W r;5T Zones of Impact )_and Sc Water,INC:. A Case Study:Thornburgh Resort Mark Yinger Water Resources Impact Evaluation ASSOCIATES Appendix A. Detailed Geologic and Hydrogeologic Description Appendix A. Detailed Geologic and Hydrogeologic Descriptions Geology Clarno Formation The Eocene Clarno Formation consists of lavas, mudflows, tuffaceous sediments, ash flows, claystone, siltstone and conglomerate of predominantly andesitic composition(Enlows and Parker, 1972;Noblett, 1981; and Peck, 1964). Individual rock units are laterally discontinuous and stream-reworked material is common. Paleosols and saprolites are dispersed throughout the Clarno Formation(Bestland and Retallack, 1964). John Day Formation The Oligocene to late Miocene John Day Formation unconformably overlies the Clarno Formation. The John Day Formation consists predominantly of pervasively altered andesitic ash flows, air-fall tuffs and tuffaceous claystone_ The formation also includes rhyolite domes, and andesite and basalt lava flows. The John Day Formation material issued from volcanic vents within its the basin of deposition and volcanoes to west in the ancestral Cascades. The tuffaceous material that comprises the bulk of the formation is altered to clay and zeolite minerals. The uplifting of the area along the axis of the Blue Mountain anticline and subsequent erosion has resulted in occurrence of the John Day Formation around the periphery of the Clarno Formation upland. The John Day Formation occurs just east of Prineville and extends north from Smith Rock to Trout Creek at the north end of the UDB. North of Trout Creek the formation is covered by Grande Ronde basalt of the Columbia River Basalt Group. The John Day Formation extends to the west beneath Quaternary to Miocene lava and ash flows and volcaniclastic deposits in the central portion of the UDB to interfinger with volcanic material of the older Western Cascades (Lite and Gannett, 2002; Sherrod et al, 2004). Recent mapping work done by McClaughry (2007), with the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI), has identified a large caldera within the John Day Formation centered near Prineville. The Crooked River caldera is filled with zeolitized pumice-lithic tuff and rhyolite flows that issued from vents that ringed the collapse structure.It is likely that there are other calderas associated with the John Day Formation. The Miocene Picture Gorge basalt lava flows overlie the John Day Formation in the eastern most portion of the UDB. In the g Y Po Prineville area the Miocene Prineville basalt lava flows overlie the John Day Formation and are overlain by late Miocene and Pliocene basalts lava flows of the Deschutes Formation. North of the UDB the Prineville basalt lava flows interfinger with the Grande Ronde basalt lava flows of the Columbia River Basalt Group over a wide area extending from the Portland to the John. Day River (Hooper, et al, 1993). The thickest section (690 feet) is located south of Prineville near Bowman Dam and it is suspected that the basalt erupted from Basin and Range type extensional fractures in this area(McClaughry,2007). Deschutes Formation The late Miocene to Pliocene Deschutes Formation occurs in the area north of Bend and primarily west of the Deschutes River. To the south, north and northeast of Madras the Deschutes Formation laps onto uplands consisting of the John Day Formation. The Deschutes Formation is a complex assemblage of volcaniclastic sedimentary and volcanic rocks consisting of mudflows, debris flows, sandstone, conglomerate, basalt, basaltic-andesite and andesite lava flows, ash-flow tuff and air- fall ash(Sherrod,et al,2004). The formation also includes the Cline Buttes rhyolite dome complex,the rhyodacite lava flows near Steelhead Falls and scattered cinder cones marking vents that were sources for lava flows. The volcaniclastic sediments, ash-flows and lava flows primarily derived from the High Cascades were deposited in a basin aligned along the east flank of the High Cascades through which the ancestral Deschutes River flowed. East of the Deschutes River and south of Bend the Deschutes Formation is buried beneath lava flows of the Newberry Volcano. The basin was defined on the east by uplands consisting of the John Day Formation. The western part of the Deschutes Formation is dominated by andesite and basaltic- andesite lava flows deposited on the flanks of the early High Cascades(Smith, 1991). The more fluid basaltic lavas flowed far into the central basin which was being inundated with coarse grained volcaniclastic sediments and ash-flows. The channel of the ancestral Deschutes River and the shallow braided channels of its tributaries were regularly rapidly filled and buried by debris flows related to eruptive events thus forcing streams to establish new channels and profiles and rework earlier deposits. Lava and ash flows that flowed into the central portion of the basin filled shallow sinuous channels. Mark Yinger ASSOCIATES In the late Miocene to early Pliocene of the High Cascade Mountains subsided into a graben bounded on the east by the Green Ridge fault and by the Horse Creek fault zone on the west. Thus the central portion of the UDB was robbed of its source of volcaniclastic sediments that had inundated the basin (Sherrod, et al, 2004; Smith, 1991). Today the deeply incised canyons of the Deschutes River,Crooked River and tributaries provide excellent exposures of the Deschutes Formation. Pliocene Volcanic and Sedimentary Rocks Pliocene volcanics within UDB include basaltic-andesite lava flows that form the shield volcanoes of Little Squaw Back and Squaw Back Ridge;two low buttes north of Sisters. These two small shield volcanoes cap basalt lava flows of the Deschutes Formation. The basalt of Redmond and Dry River are lava flows in the Redmond area and to the east and southeast of Redmond(Sherrod, et al, 2004). These lavas likely erupted from fissure vents southeast of the basin in the High Lava Plains province. Pleistocene to Pliocene sediments include alluvial fan deposits derived from uplands composed of the John Day Formation and Prineville basalt on the lower flanks Powell Butte and to the north of Prineville(Sherrod,et al,2004). Quaternary Volcanics During the Pleistocene a number of pyroclastic eruptions occurred in an area that has been referred to as the Tumalo volcanic center,an area between Bend and Broken Top mountain(Hill and Taylor, 1990). Ash-flow tuffs and pumice air-fall deposits occur west and north of Bend. These deposits overlie Deschutes Formation material and are overlain by Newberry volcano basalt lava flows and andesite and basaltic-andesite lava flows of the High Cascades. Faults of the Sisters fault zone cut the pyroclastic deposits and the overlying lava flows. The Quaternary volcanic field of the High Cascades and Newberry shield volcano cover large areas in the western and southwestern portions of the UDB. The High Cascades includes the Mount Bachelor volcanic chain consisting of a chain of basaltic-andesite shield volcanoes extending south from Mount Bachelor to the southwest corner of the UDB. The major High Cascade volcanoes include: Broken Top, The Three Sisters, Mount Washington, Three Fingered Jack and Mount Jefferson. There are many smaller vents. Rock types include;basaltic-andesite lava flows and pyroclastics,basalt lava flows and cinder cones,and dacite,rhyodacite and rhyolite lava flows and domes. The vesicular basalt lava flows of the Newberry volcano cover a large area to the east of Bend,extending from the summit crater to just north of Redmond. Hydrogeology The properties of earth materials that influence the movement of groundwater are of primary concern. The porosity and the degree to which pores are connected(permeability)in rocks and unconsolidated material are dependant on many factors. Two examples of factors that determine a rocks initial porosity and permeability are the energy of the depositional environment for sediments and the volatile content of erupted magmas. The initial porosity and permeability may be reduce or increased by weathering, hydrothermal alteration and deformational fracturing. The basement of the UDB groundwater flow system is largely defined by older less permeable rocks that underlie the Miocene to Quaternary volcanics and volcaniclastic sedimentary rocks of the basin. These include the altered upper Eocene to lower Miocene volcanics and volcaniclastic sedimentary rocks of the John Day Formation that extend from the east to interfinger with Miocene to Pliocene volcanics of the ancestral Cascade Range (Fig. 5-1). The John Day Formation also defines much of the eastern and northern lateral boundaries of the groundwater flow system The John Day Formation has very low permeability due to diagenetic and hydrothermal alteration of the original volcanic material, largely ash, to clay and zeolite minerals. The andesite and basaltic-andesite lava flows and intrusives of the ancestral Cascades are pervasively hydrothermally altered resulting in low permeability. The basement of the flow system beneath the Newberry volcano area is also defined at depth by pervasive hydrothermal alteration that has greatly reduce permeability (Lite and Gannett,2002). Quaternary volcanic deposits of the High Cascades and the Newberry Volcano are very permeable. The great majority of groundwater recharge occurs in the very permeable Quaternary deposits of the High Cascades and Newberry volcano. The greatest recharge occurs along the Cascade crest where the annual precipitation can locally exceed 100 inches annually. Precipitation and snowmelt rapidly percolate into the fractured lava flows and tephra deposits. To the south of Bend and west of the Green Ridge and Sisters Fault zones the High Cascade and Newberry volcanic deposits are saturated and discharge to spring-creeks. Fall River and the upper Metolius River are classic examples of this discharge. MarkYinger ASSOCIATES The leaky network of unlined irrigation canals to the northwest, north and east of Bend which are cut into High Cascade and Newberry volcanics are an important source of recharge. Approximately 46% of the water diverted, primarily from the Deschutes River, into the canals leaks out of the bottoms of the canals (Gannett,et al,2001). The great majority of the water leaked from the canals returns as groundwater discharges to the Deschutes River and Crooked River in the northern portion of the UDB. A portion of the water leaked from the canals recharges perched aquifers that supply shallower water wells. The Deschutes Formation is the principal aquifer and the great majority of groundwater in the UDB flows in a northerly direction through it to discharge to the Deschutes River, Metolius River and the lower Crooked River. At the northern end of the UDB the impermeable rising basement rock of the John Day Formation, against which the Deschutes Formation terminates, forces essentially all of the groundwater in the Deschutes Formation to discharge to streams in the three rivers confluence area, at and upstream of Lake Billy Chinook. The groundwater discharge in the confluence area totals approximately 2,300 cubic feet per second(cfs)(Gannett and Lite,2004). A generalized model for the deposition of the Deschutes Formation provides insight into the permeability distribution within Deschutes Formation. The model. was initially proposed by Smith(1986)and is referred to in water resource studies of the the es y p p y ( ) UDB published by the USGS (Lite and Gannett, 2002; Gannett and Lite, 2004). The model recognizes three depositional environments to the east of the ancestral High Cascade volcanic arc,the primary source area: an arc-adjacent alluvial plane, the ancestral Deschutes River,and the inactive-basin margin(Fig. 5-3). In the arc-adjacent alluvial plain facies the volume of lava flows decrease and the volume of volcaniclastic sediments increase from west to east. The arc-adjacent alluvial plain facies composes the bulk of the Deschutes Formation and it is chiefly composed of volcaniclastic sediments. Generally the grain size of the sediments and therefore, permeability decreases to the east and north in the basin. The ancestral Deschutes River facies is characterized by channel deposits of the ancient river. These channel deposits consist of very permeable coarse sandstones and conglomerates,and intra-canyon basalt lava flows. The inactive-basin margin facies co nsists of generally fine grain less permeable sediments deposited along the eastern margin of the basin by streams draining uplands composed principally of the John Day Formation. The inactive-basin margin facies also includes volcaniclastic sediments and air-fall ash of the of the High Cascade volcanic arc province. A fourth proximal facies constitutes the bulk of the Deschutes Formation along the western and southern margins of the depositional basin consisting primarily of lava flows, flow breccias and coarser tephra (Lite and Gannett, 2002). This permeable facies is composed of material deposited in near proximity to volcanic vents of the High Cascades and Newberry Volcano. Mark Yinger ASSOCIATES Appendix B. Selected Water Well Logs for Thornburgh Area •NtrynCE To WATER c o w r B A • -. 1 * V E E- The original and first y of this r it s are to be fit th the �. WATER .�EI.I, - •S e k T l t�et>Sa�DEP - f-�,� S T A T E OF o�y 131979 State Well No. _..I.( . o SALEM. O ON , ,.4 I (Please type or print) within 30 days from . date 2:7) i.F. SOURCES DEP�tate Permit No. _of well completed Do mot write !&If r SALEM, OREGON (1) OWNER: (10) LOCATION OF WELL: Name Mr. John Slisac _ county De s ohm,';e El Driller's well number ddress45 N J. layett e-Bens, Ore g. r 97701 SE E. NW 44 serum 25 T15-..S R. 11--B W.M. . - ]wring and distance from section or subdiv9stan corner (2) TYPE OF WORK (cheek): New Well Or, Deepening❑ Regonditioning❑ Abandon Cl If abandonment describe material and procedure in Item 13 (11) WATER LEVEL: Completed well. (3) TYPE OF WELL: (4) PROPOSED USE (cheek): at et which water was firs[found _ 69g ft. Rtary ' Driven ❑ - Domestic �c industrial a Municipal ❑ Static level . f69y ft.below land surface. Date/10-4-77 ❑ Jetted ❑ ❑ Bored ❑ ._ Irrigation ❑ Teat Well a Other ❑ Artesian pressure lbs.per square inch. Date (5) CASING INSTALLED: Threaded") ❑ welded q (12) WELL LOG: ( ) Diameter of well below casing .. .-. .--- ...._I_-"Diam. from__.'�.'1.._ft. to _. L2-_._.. ft. Gage . _. Depth drilled 1)J+,'g, ft Depth of completed well ti$Z„ ft. "Diem. from ft to ----ft Gage _.-.._..._...-.-. Formation: Describe color, texture, grain size and structure of materials; ler......._.Diam. from____ ft to__.-.__.,.;_.r ft. Gage and show thickness sad nature of each stratum spa aquifer penetrated, with at least one entry for each change df formation.Report each change in (6) RATIONS: Perforated? • • No. position of Static Water Level and indicate principal water-bearing strata. Type of perforator - MATERIri_ To SwL Side of perforations . .3' In- Sand & boulders - 0 Inil - , to_..-.._.,__._._.__ft. Frac. lava 0111160111 .._ _ .....perforations from_.._._ ft. to _.. ________ ft G a' ava wins= perforations from_. _. it to__ • Broken brn, lava cement M M 40 S e.. ., .. a• _. M (7 °'.. '3I+.4 : Well screen installed? [l Yes 'o T s XJ. . 11. WM 61 Manufacturer's N a m e , _____ 8rn ]„ava bro_ke-11_(cement MINIETIII TYPe Dicta _� __Si• B .0 a . . - •. 1 8 .Set frown_-...--__—_ ..-...._._.__.ft Pumice & s e d fin e n t a 183 203 D :•• _____Slot size_ Set from-_._.._..-_.-ft to..-_._._._,.Y • 0_012,glaijerat a 203 272 (8) WELL TESTS: Drawdown is amount water level is Broken lava 27P 277 lowered below static level Cinders (cement) 77 294 111.pump test made? 0 Yes p(.No If yes. lax whom?. . Ern. lava (cement) P94 30 2 Yield: gat/min. with . ft. drawdown after his, Deuce gray lava 30P 32) " -.,.p Sediments & clay r 366 _ .....:. " Gray lava •• 373 T Est / . - " Bed. & clay 3$4� litgat/rain. with i ft drawdown after • a flow _, . - Gp-m. .7. w Temperature of water c/ Depth artesian flow encountered ft. work started 9-26-79 18 completed 10-1 9--79 19 (9) CONSTRUCTION: Date well drilling machine moved'oil of well 1 0-19-79 19 Well seal--.Material used ..._..._..E 4 4%(,T.._.......—. _ --. Drilling Machine Operator's Certification: Well sealed from land surface to __a:24 --„ -, ---_-_ This w was constructed under my direct supervision. Diameter of well bore to bottom of seal _.. 2► Materials L, and info ,. -?ion -,,fried above are true to my —_in. best?fiscal lr: and b- '.1. / Diameter of well)acre below seal .... __� r v [Signed] --� ._ ,/► ,..f!'. _ , .. Hate _1 T-7-`----,4.979. Number of racks of cement used in well seal__If... . .. sacks •• A . Machine Operator) How was cement grout placed? .Reftitv- i ,-._ AIPI{70-6 _____ Drilling Machine Operator's License No. /65715------ ••------ Water Well Contractor's Certification: �- This well was drilled under my jurisdiction and this report is "—` true to the best of my knowledge and belief. Was a drive shoe used? ❑Yes 1:1(No Plugs-----Size:location ft. t C C7' �^c Did any strata contain unusable water? .® ],tes '.No Na**rr Mk__+drtn i?m or_p 4T---- p -.. riot) _ (JEekacm.firm or cprppratlop) (Type�'print) -- Type of water? _ ,,4 pt)*of strata - . -- Address 2021 * Me:dew Line- nd O.. e, ...9?70.1 _ Method of sealing strata off / - . : - '" [Signed] -------°_. ., Wag well gravel paclre[�f_j]Yep 3[No Size of gravel: ------_--_.,,.,...�. "--f; ,, en Cm►traelort) Gravel placed from -......._....._-.:m,.__ft. to ,ft , Contractor's License 1Vo.4 ,3 Date 1 17_7=_9 , 19 - - . (USE ADDITIONAL SAS IF NECESSARY) SPMSE30-119 — .�. _ —_ —_ -.e.