2023-166-Minutes for Meeting May 10,2023 Recorded 6/7/2023'�31 E S COG2�
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon
(541) 388-6570
•
Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2023-166
Steve Dennison, County Clerk
commissioners' Journal 06/07/2023 4:49:15 PM
° 2023-166
FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY
9:00 AM WEDNESDAY May 10, 2023 Barnes Sawyer Rooms
Live Streamed Video
Present were Commissioners Tony DeBone, Patti Adair and Phil Chang. Also present were Nick Lelack,
County Administrator; David Doyle, County Counsel; Kim Riley, Assistant County Counsel; and Brenda
Fritsvold, BOCC Executive Assistant.
This meeting was audio and video recorded and can be accessed at the Deschutes County
Meeting Portal website www.deschutes.org/meetings.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair DeBone called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CITIZEN INPUT:
Dorinne Tye objected to ongoing operations and activity connected to the Bend
airport. She said although residents value wildlife and quiet, the County allowed the
airport to expand which has resulted in multiple negative effects on ecosystems in
the area.
Jeff Fatland opposed the piping of the Arnold Irrigation District (AID) canal, saying
that neighboring properties will lose the amenity of this attractive water feature,
and thus lose value. He added that many wells along the canal are already failing or
starting to run dry and was concerned that fire hazards will increase.
David Zimmerman also opposed piping the AID canal, saying that his plat shows a
25-foot easement for maintenance but the District now claims a 50-foot
BOCC MEETING MAY 10, 2023 PAGE 1 OF 9
construction easement. He said this change will affect many adjacent property
owners and result in the loss of many trees without compensation.
• Jerry Rudloff said residents who will be negatively affected by the canal piping are
being ignored by the AID. He said while the canal may have a seepage problem, and
he agreed with water conservation efforts, he opposed a pipeline as it would
damage many trees and impact over 300 wells. He said installing a liner would
protect against water loss at much less cost.
• Wade Fagen said the most efficient and environmentally sound way to recharge the
aquifer is through the canal. He lamented the loss of history, heritage and beauty
that will happen with the conversion to a pipeline.
• Debra Rudloff expressed concern about the loss of old -growth Ponderosa pines that
will result from the AID pipeline project and said many trees are already marked for
removal, including 383 large trees in Phase 1 alone. She said several thousand trees
are expected to be removed in Deschutes River Woods and advocated for lining the
canal instead of removing it.
• Ruby Swanson objected to the AID piping project, saying that it was a waste of
money to convert to a pipe, which will degrade and leak over time. She claimed that
only 4 cfs will be gained by piping and said it was absurd to spend that much money
on something with so little benefit yet many negative effects.
• Rich Gilbert agreed with the need to conserve water but was concerned that
installing a pipe would be invasive and impact his septic system. He added that no
individual communication has been made to adjacent property owners about this
project.
• Geoff Reynolds said many plants will be lost by piping the canal, and wildlife
subsequently endangered due to the loss of habitat. He supported granting the
County authority to manage and oversee projects such as this in the public right-of-
way and questioned whether the piping project would actually save water that
would remain in the river.
• Douglas Eldred also opposed piping the canal and said lining it would be far better
option for many reasons.
• Dorinne Tye also opposed the piping of the AID canal.
• Alexandra Nickoli (via Zoom) spoke against piping the canal, saying this would
disrupt the ecosystem and residents. She explained she would need to move her
fence and shed and said many trees will be lost.
Commissioner Chang noted that the AID has some of the most junior water rights in
the Deschutes River basin, which is over -appropriated. He explained that the right-
of-way for this use is established in State law and the courts, and the County did not
authorize the funding for this project or weigh in on the EIS. He appreciated the
concerns about potential impacts but said the appropriate body to hear those is the
AID board.
BOCC MEETING MAY 10, 2023 PAGE 2 OF 9
CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of the Consent Agenda.
1. Approval to authorize the County Administrator to sign a Notice of Intent to
Award a contract for electronic monitoring services
2. Approval of minutes of the April 28, 2023 BOCC Legislative Update meeting
3. Approval of April 3, 5 and 12, 2023 BOCC meeting minutes
ADAI R: Move Board approval of the Consent Agenda as presented
CHANG: Second
VOTE: ADAI R: Yes
CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
ACTION ITEMS:
4. Letter of Support for the Deschutes County Justice Reinvestment
Preliminary Formula Grant Application for the 23-25 Biennium
Trevor Stephens, Business Manager for Community Justice, and Tanner Wark,
Deputy Director of Community Justice, sought approval of a letter
communicating the Board's support for the Oregon Justice Reinvestment
Program preliminary formula grant application. Stephens said the County
received $1,563,762 for staff and services for the 2021-2023 biennium, and
anticipates being awarded a similar allocation for the next biennium.
Commissioner Chang noted that the Public Safety Committee is strongly in
support of moving this application forward.
CHANG: Move approval of Chair signature on a letter communicating the
Board's support for the Oregon Justice Reinvestment Program
preliminary formula grant application
ADAI R: Second
VOTE: ADAI R:
CHANG:
DEBONE
Yes
Yes
Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
BOCC MEETING MAY 10, 2023 PAGE 3 OF 9
5. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Annual Report
Tanya Saltzman, Senior Planner, expressed gratitude for the Board's support of
the work done by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC). The
Board joined her in presenting certificates to the Safe Sidewalk award winners:
Owen Brand, Newport Ave Market, Brian See, Joseph Therrien, Technology
Design Associates, Nate Lund, Thomas Stewart, Joanne Bulley and Stahancyk,
Kent & Hook Family Law.
Commissioner DeBone acknowledged friends and neighbors who clear snow,
leaves and other materials from sidewalks and expressed appreciation for the
work of the BPAC to address issues with the aim of enhancing safety for
bicyclists and pedestrians.
Dave Thomson, BPAC Chair and Dave Green, BPAC Vice Chair, described key
items the Committee has been working on, including an update of the Deschutes
County Transportation System Plan, the Central Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian
Summit, and opportunities and issues relating to e-bikes.
6. Public Hearing to take testimony on proposed amendments to Deschutes
County Code regarding a multi -year option for dog licenses and an
exemption from license fees for assistance animals, and consideration of
Board action to conduct first and second reading and emergency adoption
of Ordinance No. 2023-008 to effect these changes
David Doyle, County Counsel, summarized the proposed changes to Deschutes
County Code to offer dog owners the option of purchasing multi -year licenses
and exempt assistance animals from being subject to a license fee. Doyle
explained the ordinance is being brought forward for emergency adoption to
enable an effective date of July 1 It for these revisions, in accordance with the
effective date of other proposed changes to the County's fee schedule to align
with the new fiscal year.
Chief Financial Officer Robert Tintle and Judi Hasse, Deputy Tax Collector, said the
changes would offer options for a one-, two- or three-year dog license. The
ordinance would also update the definition of a service animal.
The public hearing was opened at 10:20. Seeing no one wished to speak, Chair DeBone
closed the public hearing at 10:20.
CHANG: Move approval of first and second reading of Ordinance No. 2023-008
by title only
ADAIR: Second
BOCC MEETING MAY 10, 2023 PAGE 4 OF 9
VOTE:
ADAI R:
ADAI R:
Yes
CHANG:
Yes
DEBONE:
Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
Chair DeBone read the title of the ordinance two times into the record.
CHANG:
VOTE:
Move emergency adoption of Ordinance No. 2023-008 to amend
Title 6.04, Dog Licenses, of the Deschutes County Code
Second
ADAIR:
Yes
CHANG:
Yes
DEBONE:
Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
Chair DeBone acknowledged the declaration of an emergency to enable the
changes to take effect on July 1 sc
7. Intergovernmental Agreement with the US Forest Service to fund the
Oregon Living With Fire Program
Joe Stutler, Senior Advisor, reported that this agreement is undergoing further
negotiation with the Forest Service; staff will bring it forward when it is ready for
consideration by the Board. This item was removed from the agenda.
8. Amendment to Memorandum of Understanding with Oregon Living With
Fire
Joe Stutler, Senior Advisor, said the counties of Crook, Deschutes, Jefferson, and
Klamath have collaborated on the Oregon Living With Fire (OLWF) program since
2018. The original Memorandum of Understanding expires on June 30, 2023, and
the proposed amendment would extend the agreement for an additional five
years.
Stutler said due to an increased fiscal contribution from the Forest Service, the
cost to Deschutes and other participating counties will not change. Noting that
the Natural Resources Conservation Service may contribute funding as well,
Stutler said the proposed budget impact to Deschutes County remains $33,750
per year.
Discussion ensued regarding funding awarded to numerous organizations by the
Oregon Fire Marshal's Office in accordance with Senate Bill 762 which provides
for greater wildfire response, preparedness, and resiliency. Jodie Barram, OLWF
BOCC MEETING MAY 10, 2023 PAGE 5 OF 9
9.
Co -Coordinator, said grants awarded to support community risk reduction
projects in Deschutes County total $1.9 million. These funds will be used to
educate and assist property owners in establishing and maintaining defensible
spaces to deter the spread of fire.
CHANG: Move approval of an amendment to the Memorandum of
Understanding with Oregon Living With Fire
ADAIR: Second
VOTE: ADAIR: Yes
CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
Consideration of request to rename Pronghorn Club Drive as juniper
Preserve Drive
Audrey Stuart, Associate Planner, summarized the request to change the name of a
road which extends for approximately 4.1 miles to the north of Powell Butte Highway.
This private road is currently named Pronghorn Club Drive; an abutting property owner
has submitted a request to change the name to juniper Preserve Drive.
Commissioner Adair asked how many notices were sent out to neighboring properties.
Stuart said notices were sent to the owners of all property which abuts the road as well
as to various agencies and service providers such as the school district.
Stuart said staff will bring this back for consideration of Board action on May 171n
10. Resolution No. 2023-023, allocating $36,675 of contingency within video
lottery to grant programs
Stephanie Robinson, Grants and Operations Specialist, explained the need to
increase appropriations in the Video Lottery Fund by $36,675 and decrease the
contingency by the same amount to accommodate allocations made to additional
projects in FY 2023.
Robinson acknowledged direction from Commissioner Chang that the remaining
$2,000 in his discretionary grant balance be allocated to Neighborlmpact's Housing
Stabilization Barrier Busters program.
CHANG:
Move approval of Resolution No. 2023-023, allocating $36,675 of
contingency within video lottery to grant programs
Second
BOCC MEETING MAY 10, 2023 PAGE 6 OF 9
VOTE: ADAI R: Yes
CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
11. Deliberations: Plan Amendment and Zone Change to approximately 93
Acres located east of Bend between Neff Road and Highway 20
Nathaniel Miller, Associate Planner, distributed a decision matrix containing four
key issues to be decided by the Board. Commissioner DeBone said while he was
not present at the public hearing on April 5th, he watched the video in
preparation to participate in the deliberations and decisions. DeBone confirmed
he had nothing to disclose in terms of a conflict of interest in this matter.
1. Does the subject property constitute agricultural land under OAR 660-033-
00200)(a)?
A majority of the Board was in agreement that the subject property does not
constitute agricultural land under OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a).
Commissioner Chang said while soil can be amended with compost, he accepted
the findings of the soil survey. He added that this property is an area subject to
intense urbanization pressure.
2. Does the site -specific soil study show the property is predominantly Class VII-VIII
soils?
A majority of the Board was in agreement that the site -specific soil study show
the property is predominantly Class VII-VIII soils.
3. Is there an approval criterion which requires the Board to analyze the proximity
of the proposed PA/ZC with respect to the UGB and future UGB expansions?
A majority of the Board was in agreement that there is no approval criterion
which requires the Board to analyze the proximity of the proposed PA/ZC with
respect to the UGB and future UGB expansions.
4. Is there an approval criterion which requires the Board to analyze housing
affordability for the subject plan amendment and zone change?
A majority of the Board was in agreement that there is no approval criterion
which requires the Board to analyze housing affordability for the subject plan
amendment and zone change.
BOCC MEETING MAY 10, 2023 PAGE 7 OF 9
Commissioner Chang added that developing these properties at a density of
MUA-10 would not result in affordable housing. He reiterated his support for the
findings of the Hearings Officer.
ADAIR: Move approval of the request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
and Zone Change (File nos. 247-22-000313-ZC, 314-PA) for properties
addressed as 62385 Hamby Road and 21480 Highway 20
CHANG: Second
VOTE: ADAIR: Yes
CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
In response to Commissioner Chang, Will Groves, Planning Manager, said staff has
had no further discussions with the City of Bend regardingjoint coordination of
potential future development outside of Bend's UGB. Commissioner DeBone
suggested that the Board may want to hold a joint meeting with the city.
OTHER ITEMS:
Jen Patterson, Strategic Initiatives Manager, invited the Board to determine
which of the Commissioners will be appointed to serve on the Wolf
Depredation and Compensation Advisory Committee.
Commissioners Adair and Chang both expressed interest in this
appointment. A coin was flipped and Commissioner Chang was thus selected
to represent the Board on the Wolf Depredation and Compensation Advisory
Committee.
• Commissioner Adair attended the Fair Association meeting.
• Commissioner DeBone announced that Denise Lee, Juvenile Department, will
appear in the "Solis Baking Competition" show on the Magnolia Network in
June.
• Commissioner Chang reported on Monday's meeting of AOC's Legislative
Committee.
• Commissioner DeBone reported on the COIC board meeting last Thursday
and the Health Services Budget Committee meeting. He said on Monday, he
traveled to Salem to meet with the Eastern Oregon Counties Association.
While there, he lunched with the Governor, distributed copies of letters from
the Board asking that the State allow safe parking programs on rural lands to
Deputy Chief of Staff for Public Administration Chris Warner and connected
with Housing and Homelessness Initiative Director Taylor Smiley Wolfe on
issues related to homelessness and possible land use changes to
accommodate supportive camping and safe parking.
BOCC MEETING MAY 10, 2023 PAGE 8 OF 9
Commissioner DeBone attended the State's Interoperability quarterly
meeting where communications for public safety needs and personnel were
discussed.
Commissioner DeBone announced he will attend the National Association of
Counties 2023 Western Interstate Region conference next week. He will
attend Monday's Board meeting remotely and likely Wednesday's as well.
CITIZEN INPUT:
Karrie Newman opposed the AID canal piping project and was upset that although
she understood she must grant 25 feet of easement, the district now claims twice
that amount. She also addressed an alleged mistake on the County's assessment
map and property taxes that she should not have been charged.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
At 11:36 a.m., the Board recessed into Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real
Property Negotiations.
The Board moved out of executive session at 11:47 a.m. to direct staff to proceed as directed.
ADJOURN:
Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:47 a.m.
DATED this I day of � UA`P,. 2023 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
ATTEST:
RECORDING SECRETARY
ANTHONY DEBONE, CHAIR
PATTI ADAIR, VICE CHAIR
PHIL CHANG, COMMISSIONER
BOCC MEETING MAY 10, 2023 PAGE 9 OF 9
J���1 E S COG��
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING
9:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, MAY 10, 2023
Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Bldg
(541) 388-6570 1 www.deschutes.org
AGENDA
MEETING FORMAT: In accordance with Oregon state law, this meeting is open to the public and
can be accessed and attended in person or remotely, with the exception of any executive session.
Members of the public may view the meeting in real time via YouTube using this link:
http://bit.ly/3mminzy. To view the meeting via Zoom, see below.
Citizen Input: The public may comment on any topic that is not on the current agenda.
Alternatively, comments may be submitted on any topic at any time by emailing
citizeninput@deschutes.org or leaving a voice message at 541-385-1734.
When in -person comment from the public is allowed at the meeting, public comment will also be
allowed via computer, phone or other virtual means.
Zoom Meeting Information: This meeting may be accessed via Zoom using a phone or computer.
• To join the meeting from a computer, copy and paste this link: bit.ly/3h3ogdD.
• To join by phone, call 253-215-8782 and enter webinar ID # 899 4635 9970 followed by the
passcode 013510.
• If joining by a browser, use the raise hand icon to indicate you would like to provide public
comment, if and when allowed. If using a phone, press *6 to indicate you would like to speak and
*9 to unmute yourself when you are called on.
Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all
programs and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities.
If you need accommodations to make participation possible, call (541) 388-6572 or
email brenda.fritsvold@deschutes.org.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CITIZEN INPUT: Citizen Input may be provided as comment on any topic that is not on the
agenda.
Note: In addition to the option of providing in -person comments at the meeting, citizen input comments
may be emailed to citizeninput@deschutes.org or you may leave a brief voicemail at 541.385.1734.
CONSENT AGENDA
Approval to authorize the County Administrator to sign a Notice of Intent to Award a
contract for electronic monitoring services
2. Approval of Minutes of the April 28, 2023 BOCC Legislative Update Meeting
3. Approval of April 3, 5 and 12, 2023 BOCC meeting minutes
ACTION ITEMS
4. 9:10 AM Letter of Support for the Deschutes County Justice Reinvestment Preliminary
Formula Grant Application for the 23-25 Biennium
5. 9:20 AM Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Annual Report
6. 9:45 AM Public Hearing to take testimony on proposed amendments to Deschutes
County Code regarding a multi -year option for dog licenses and an
exemption from license fees for assistance animals, and consideration of
Board action to conduct first and second reading and emergency adoption of
Ordinance No. 2023-008 to effect these changes
7. 10:05 AM Intergovernmental Agreement with the US Forest Service to fund the Oregon
Living With Fire Program
8. 10:15 AM Amendment to Memorandum of Understanding with Oregon Living With Fire
9. 10:25 AM Consideration of request to rename Pronghorn Club Drive as Juniper
Preserve Drive
10. 10:35 AM Resolution No. 2023-023, allocating $36,675 of contingency within video
lottery to grant programs
May 10, 2023 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 2 of 3
11. 10:40 AM Deliberations: Plan Amendment and Zone Change to approximately 93 acres
located east of Bend between Neff Road and Highway 20
OTHER ITEMS
These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of
the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
At any time during the meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS
192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations, ORS 192.660(2)(h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor
negotiations, ORS 192.660(2)(b), personnel issues; or other executive session categories.
Executive sessions are closed to the public, however, with few exceptions and under specific guidelines,
are open to the media.
12. Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property Negotiations
ADJOURN
May 10, 2023 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 3 of 3
TES C
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject:m �' Date. r
Name
Address 1 '`
Phone #s {
E-mail address C411A`62
In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed
k"� %I
Submitting written documents as part of testimony., H Yes No
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
�J ces c
?a BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
a <
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
5 D Z, -3
Subject:�; f7 t 1/� Date:
)
Name J I vl
Address 19 1 3 Svc
Phone #s
E-mail address - l C D BS I 00, ("q k'-)
In Favor Neutral/Undecided 12� Opposed
art of testimony? No
Submitting written documents as p, y Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
o
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
a {
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
m
w�
Subject:
�` �� E�2 Date
NameL.
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
David Zimmerman
140 SE Rice Way
Bend OR, 97702
541 408-4837
Sir:
Regarding your article "Tangle Over Who Speaks for the Trees": Whenever an authority
makes such a fantastical claim as "Piping, the district says, could have kept irrigation
water flowing until September this year," I lose any confidence in that authority being
forthright or telling the truth. If piping the canal can double the length of time to deliver
a finite allotment of water, it requires the current canal loss be more than half again that
finite allotment. I now doubt Arnold Irrigation has measured the actual loss in the
current canal and therefore have not done a cost benefit analysis or have looked for the
lowest cost/benefit ratio. If your deed shows a 25' canal maintenance easement, can
Arnold irrigation sieze 50' for construction as they claim? Is Arnold prepared to
compensate property owners to move structures, for damage from blasting to trees
and structures, for trees removed to facilitate construction and to rehabilitate the
construction area? Also, any water "saved" by piping will not be left in the Deschutes
unless the allotment is reduced in perpetuity. Water not used by senior rights will flow
to junior rights. Therefore for the public to be compensated for the expenditure of
public funds to construct a private pipeline, the allotment should be reduced by some
amount, that reduction returned to the public, and it left in the Deschutes and kept safe
from water users downstream for all time. There's more here than meets the eye.
Signed,
DAVID ZIMMERMAN
244 Words
v-cEs c
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
0 {
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject:. � r'� d % � ��Date:
Name r f
Address - .i J
7 7
Phone #s
E-mail address
submitting written aocuments as part of testimony i es; INO
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
J-res c
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject: < Date:t
Name zzza!`
Address'
Phone #s�-
E-mail address �l ✓ ��r l (.� - -�
T_ r------ TAT --- ....,.1 /T T_ A--: A -a.
lI so, please glve a copy Lu L11C 1%XCO1U11g acUlcLaly 101 LIX ICUOIU.
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
�JTES C
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
a {
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
-Q5�
Subject Date:
Name ROW
Address
Phone #s >
E-mail address
In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed
written documents as art of testimony? Yes No
Submitting p y
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
Subject: Al 12 P l / 0 L Date:
Name .. ` C" `..../U S
Address U 20 % /LL_,A 1 e
Phone #s_�
E-mail address e, t1 C 7C JLUI e
In Favor Neutral/Undecided l Opposed
r
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
1`J-tes C
av ?{ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject: � C-4 //[ C-,-_; Date:
Name -c44 I
Address
Phone #s
E-mail address--
111 1 (4V V1
Juomiwng written UOWHICIILS US PU L 01LCSL1111Ui1y ' I cJ 1V V
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
TES C
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
3
Subject:
� � _ lit✓ ,��i Date:
Name - �✓,✓Zw
Address
Phone #s�
E-mail address ��'�����✓�%✓; `�,��
In Favor Neutral/Undecided ❑ Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes �No
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
E-mail address A IJ re
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
Ruby Swanson
May 23, 2021 at 11:11 AM
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN,
I HAVE BEEN A RESIDENT OF BEND SINCE 1990. IN ADDITION i HAVE BEEN A EXPERT WHITEWATER
RAFTER/KAYAKER AND HAVE A STRONG RELATIONSHIP WITH THE RIVER SINCE 1972. 1 BELIEVE THE
PRESERVATION OF THE RIVER, TREES AND WILDLIFE IS VERY IMPORTANT AS WELL. I HAVE SEEN TO
DAMAGE FROM THE CANALS AND HAVE RESEARCHED THE EFFICACY. PIPING IS NOT A GOOD IDEA. THE
DESTRUCTION OF TREES AND LOSS OF WILDLIFE WOULD BE DEVASTATING, WATER THAT IS PIPPED WILL
HAVE A GRAVE EFFECT ON THE AQUIFER AND AFFECTING THE CLEAN RIVER WATER. USING THE
PRECIOUS TAXPAYER DOLLARS WOULD BE A WASTE WHEN THERE ARE BETTER METHODS. THE
SHOTGUN REACTION TO THE DROUGHT WOULD ONLY CAUSE MORE DAMAGE AND MORE MONEY IN THE
LONG RUN. THERE IS EVIDENCE SHOWING THE PROBLEMS AND BETTER SOLUTIONS AVAILABLE. HISTORY
SHOWS MANY, MANY EXAMPLES OF SHOTGUN APPROACH FAILURES. PLEASE BE MINDFUL OF THE LONG
TERM EFFECTS OF THIS DECISION.
OUR COMMUNITY, INCLUDING NURSES, DOCTORS, LAWYERS, PARENTS, CHILDREN, TEACHERS ETC USE
THE WATERWAY PATHS FOR SPIRITUAL ENLIGHTENMENT FOR OVER A HUNDREDS OF YEARS. THESE
RELIGIOUS WALKS HAVE BEEN INFLUENTIAL IN MAKING PEACE IN THE HOMES AND IN THE WORKPLACES
AND SHOULD STAY THAT WAY FOR MANY YEARS TO COME, THIS IS SO ESSENTIAL FOR US HUMANS. I AM
ADVOCATING A MORE MEASURED APPROACH TO PRESERVING OUR RIVERS THAT INCLUDE ALL
STAKEHOLDERS CONTRIBUTING. THE PARK'S DEPARTMENT OVERWATERS AND FLOOD VAST LAWNS
ALONG THE RIVERFRONT, COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES WATER ADJACENT STREETS, LANDOWNERS ARE
FORCED TO WATER KNAPP WEEDS AND DESERT SHRUBS IN ORDER TO PRESERVE WATER RIGHTS. WE
CAN DO MUCH MORE.
I AM NOT COMPLETELY AGAINST ALL PIPING. I THINK THERE ARE MANY AREAS THAT CAN BE PIPPED
WITHOUT THE IiE-qTRI IC:TION OF IMPORTANT CARRON PROCESSING TREE CANOPY LOSS OF WiLDLiFF
HABITAT. WELLS GOING DRY, PROPERTY VALUE DEPRECIATION ETC. AND PRESERVE OUR WATER. AGAIN,
PLEASE BE MINDFUL OF THE LONG TERM EFFECTS OF THIS DECISION AND SEEK SCIENTIFIC SOLUTIONS
THAT WORK.
SINCERELY,
RUBY SWANSON
DENTAL HYGIENIST (you may want Poe to be at peace when in YOUR mouth)
Dave Zimmerman- CA
-Z�' t c �C�i • AA 0
Cresta '!<"� ® %$ � � ! i! e
�da�I*. 5 �=�
Wendee DAIJaL-c-5� — '`per
Jerry Baez-60493 Umatilla Cir. Bend, OR 9770�"
Lou V2&C�d,4•0 -- j -P (4d P ! 9 � 7 ikM 5 r
�I�� ���LL- gad®���
Ruby Swanson
canal
January 9, 2021 at 9:41 AM
mike brogan
to whom it may concern,
My name is Mike Brogan. Im a retired plumber and I live in Deschutes River Woods on the
Arnold Irrigation Canal. I have lived here for 20 years and purchased my property with a hefty
waterway value price tag. Myself and others have concerns about pipping the canal due to'loss
of our property values of about $30,000 to each property owner. Then you factor in the loss of
trees from pipping and the property value decreases even more. These trees are somewhere
around 100 years old.
Furthermore, by pipping the canal there will be the precious loss of wildlife habitat to deer,
beaver, birds, ducks and geese. We even have bald eagles nesting nearby and they are
protected under multiple federal laws and regulations. Myself and others have witnessed them
hunting on our canal waterways. Specifically, on our property.
As a retired plumber I understand about the loss of water. and there is no guarantee that the
pipping will not leak. I ought to know. Seams do leak and with earth shifts they will separate
sooner than you think. Therefore, spending more money, time and damage to our properties to
dig up and repair. The pipping of canals is just too much money and a complete waste of
taxpayers money. There are companies in Bend, OR that make this product called BTL liners,
geomembrane systems. I have seen it installed and it last 40-50,tyears. The canals only are
open about 6 months of the year. When they are empty, liners are very easy to check, repair
and more cost effective. As a plumber I know this also. For the amount of time the canal is
open and the cost of pipping, repairs and property damaged and devalued it just doesn't pencil
out. More discussion, bids and options need to be seriously considered. It's a waste of our
taxpayer dollars! And that chaps my hide! If you really want to save water, produce electricity
and save lives, you may as well pipe and cover the whole damn river downtown Bend from Bill
Healy bridge to Newport Ave
Mike Brogan -- c vtt3c/ • P6)c.A2.t5 � L Oar • c d^ UA+t ILsi C I k—1
i�loM�S i3CNN�i`; T-rV6^14S13�,u&J �GmatL • cvrAl
�,
'7 ? 0 _1-.:-.
W
I would like to be involved anyway I can Bell). Our property was so devalued by the piping. We are
just sick about the way they came onto our property & did whatever they wanted to, pushed over
whichever trees they wanted to & knocked branches off others. I have so many things I would like to
say about how they treated our property, like we as the owners had absolutely no say in what they
did. We had a very amazing piece of property & now it looks like a war ,zone. The whole time Zach
was telling us that they were going to leave it looking better than it did before. What a lie, they just
told us what we wanted to hear. They made us f eel like there wasn't anything we could do. They said
they had more power than the railroad company has. They even told us that we may as well have all
of our big Ponderosa trees cut down because they are going to just die anyway and then we would
have to pay someone else to come in and cut these trees down later. That is just not right. It literally
looks they built a highway right through our property and then back fulled it with a very low quality
of fill. It has a lot of pumice & rock in it. Nothing will grow in it except weeds & lots of them. If I
knew then what I know now I would have tried to prevent them from corning onto my property. This
letter is just a veq small part of how sad we are about the devastation to our property but the way it
left us feeling during & after the work was done, like we had just gorse through a war. If there is
anything that I can do to help prevent this from happening to other homes & property I'm happy to
do it.
Jim Burkendorf
Bend Oregon
July 23, 2021
Filed via email: anold. id commentskgmail. com
Arnold Irrigation District
c/o Farmers Conservation Alliance
AID Watershed Plan
102 State St
Hood River, OR 97031
Re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment for the Arnold Irrigation
District Irrigation Modernization Project
To Whom It Concerns:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Assessment ("EA") for
the Arnold Oregon Irrigation District Irrigation Modernization Project ("Project"). Central
Oregon LandWatch ("LandWatch") is a conservation organization which has advocated for
preservation of natural resources in Central Oregon for over 30 years. With over 400 members
in Central Oregon, LandWatch has worked on water resource issues in the Deschutes River
Basin and in gaining special protection for Whychus Creek and the Metolius River and spring
systems. LandWatch has lately been particularly concerned about flows in the Upper Deschutes
River, the impacts of the management of the irrigation diversions from the River, and
maintenance of flows in the River's key tributaries. We continue to be interested in supporting
an efficient irrigation -based farming community throughout Central Oregon.
This EA for Arnold Irrigation District's ("AID" or the "District") proposal to spend $43mi1 of
public money to pipe 13.2 miles of canals, benefitting only 149 patrons at a cost of over
$220,000 per patron, falls short of meeting the requirements that NRCS projects receiving public
funding benefit the public. 7 CFR § 650.4, 622.2(c). This is especially true considering that the
District historically diverts only 92 cfs of water, the Project proposes to conserve 32 cfs of water,
yet proposes to reduce the District's diversion to only 88 cfs. For $43mil the EA proposes to
reduce AID's actual diversion by only 4 cfs. This result is entirely inadequate and irresponsible
considering the dire needs in the Deschutes River basin for water conservation.
2
1. Purpose and need of Project
The EA states the purpose of this project is to improve water conservation in District -owned
infrastructure, improve water delivery reliability to District patrons, and improve public safety
on up to approximately 13.2 miles of District -owned canals and flume. EA at page 9. Public
Law 83-566 authorizes federal assistance for only Projects that fit at least one of eight listed
purposes: Flood Prevention, Watershed Protection, Public Recreation, Public Fish and Wildlife,
Agricultural Water Management, Municipal and Industrial Water Supply, Water Quality
Management, and Watershed Structure Rehabilitation. National Watershed Program Manual
Title 390, Part 500, Section 500.3(B). The EA proposes only Agricultural Water Management as
its purpose.
This stated purpose is overly narrow in scope when the purpose and need for water conservation
extend well beyond district owned infrastructure. The overarching purpose of water conservation
in the Deschutes River basin is to improve streamflows and aquatic habitat for fish and wildlife.
We encourage the District to include Public Fish and Wildlife as a purpose of the Project.
Improved streamflows for the benefit of fish and wildlife are widely understood to be the
primary motivating factor for water conservation Projects in Central Oregon. Our state's
congressional delegation agrees.' Senator Merkley, in his position on the Senate Appropriations
Committee, found a funding mechanism that would help irrigation districts in Central Oregon
upgrade their infrastructure and improve their water management practices in order to handle the
new needs for water in the basin for listed species under the ESA. The purposes and needs
should be listed in rank order of priority and weighted in the subsequent analysis of alternatives.
Eliminating water loss and increasing instream flows for the benefit of fish and wildlife should
be the primary purpose and need of this EA.
2. Project Scope.
a. Selection of Project area.
The EA proposes one small 13.2 mile section of canals to spend a proposed $42 million. Aside
from the proposed alternative (canal piping) being a relatively inefficient method of conserving
water (discussed further below), the EA lacks any sort of analysis that explains why improving
these 13.2 miles of canal best serve the Project purpose and need. Were other sections of
district -owned canal examined? What makes the proposed section of canals the best option for
accomplishing the Project purpose and need? How much water could be conserved, and how
many patrons could have their deliveries improved, on other sections of District -owned canals or
on patron -owned canals?
b. Cost/benefit assessment.
' https://www.merkley.senate.gov/news/press-releases/merkley-wyden-announce-investments-in-
rural-oregon-as-key-bill-passes-full-senate
The Project cost/benefit assessment (pg xiii) is based largely on spurious claims that the project
will reduce NUID agricultural damage by $1,489,000 per year. Despite its claim to the contrary,
the project does not provide a new water source for NUID. The water that is conserved through
canal piping will be left instream for NUID, but since AID's diversion will not be reduced much
below its actual historical diversion, there will be a negligible amount new water instream.
NUID will only have access to water that has always been instream and traditionally been
available to them. AID can generate better water availability for NUID only to the extent that
the district reduces its diversion below its historic diversion.
The primary beneficiaries of this project are 149 district patrons. To pipe a mere 13.2 miles of
canals in AID, the Project proposes to spend $42 million, a direct public subsidy of $282,000 per
patron. Also, the project proposes to conserve 10,526 acre-feet of water each year at the
unrealistically high price of $4,062 per acre foot of water conserved.
On these numbers, the Project proposes significant financial costs but delivers benefits only to
149 private water patrons and, critically, only de minimis benefits to fish or NUID water
supplies. Without actually reducing AID's historic diversion and leaving that water instream for
fish and/or NUID, the Project does not benefit the public and is not worth its exorbitant costs.
3. Alternatives
The EA fails to consider a reasonable range of alternatives, violating NEPA as well as the NRCS
Watershed Program Manual, Water Resources Development Act of 2UU"/, the Principles,
Requirements, and Guidelines for Water and Land Related Resources Implementation Studies
and Federal Water Resource Investments ("PR&G"). The final EA should consider an alternative
that meets the Project purpose and need for less cost to the public, using nonstructural measures,
and providing greater public benefit, as proposed below.
a. Unreasonable range of alternatives
The EA only considers two alternatives: the no action alternative and the preferred alternative.
National Watershed Program Manual Title 390, Part 500, Section 501.12(A)(1) requires that
" [a]ll reasonable alternatives that address the purpose and need for action must be presented in
the watershed Project plan, including those not within the program authorities of the NRCS and
those not preferred by sponsors." The EA only considers the alternative preferred by the
sponsor.
The EA further only considers a structural alternative and fails to seriously consider
nonstructural alternatives that could achieve the Project purpose and need with greater efficiency
and at less cost to the public. NRCS has a legal duty to consider nonstructural alternatives. 7
CFR § 622.2(b).
n
W
Further, the Project must comply with the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 and the
principles and guidelines that the Act requires be used in the formulation, evaluation, and
implementation of water resources projects. EA at page 9; Water Resources Development Act
of 2007 at Section 203 1 (b)(2)-(3). The PR&G require that nonstructural alternatives must be
fully considered and carried forward to the final array of alternatives, and that project evaluation
ensures that water resources projects are justified by public benefits. PR&G at page 12.
Examples of nonstructural alternatives include modifications to public policy, regulatory policy
and pricing policy, as well as management practices, including green infrastructure. PR&G at
page 11.
The PR&G also requires that alternatives must also be evaluated to ensure public benefits and
that any recommendation for federal investment "must be justified by the public benefits when
compared to costs." PR&G at 6, 13.
Th EA's limited consideration of alternatives assumes that piping 13.2 miles of District canals is
the only reasonable method for achieving the Project's purpose and need. Several other
alternatives, including nonstructural alternatives like regulatory or pricing policy, would achieve
that Project's goal, and would do so more efficiently, conserving more water and providing
greater irrigation water reliability for less cost to the public. A basic requirement of NEPA is
that a project such as this considers a reasonable range of alternatives.
The results from the recently completed Deschutes Basin Study show that the most cost-effective
way for irrigation districts to conserve water is through on -farm efficiencies, piping of private
laterals, voluntary duty reductions, and market -based water leasing and transfers. See Exhibits
B-E (Selected Basin Study Work Group technical reports).
The reasons given by the EA for excluding from consideration these types of alternatives are
inadequate. The EA must give a rationale for eliminating alternatives from detailed study ("For
alternatives that were eliminated from detailed study, the rationale for this elimination will be
provided.") National Watershed Program Manual Title 390, Part 500, Section 501.12(A)(2).
The alternative to pipe private laterals would conserve water and greatly improve deliveries to
patrons. If the purpose and needs of the Project had been ranked and weighted properly,
conserving water lost in the system and improving flows for ESA -listed species should have
dominated the priorities. When factoring in cost, piping private laterals would generate far more
water at a much lower cost.
ORS 545.287 specifically allows an irrigation district to upgrade private laterals:
"When improvements for the distribution or delivery of water to any tract of land are not
owned by the district and the owner or person in control of the improvement fails to
maintain, repair or replace the improvement as required for the proper and efficient
distribution or delivery of water to any tract.
When the interest or convenience of such tracts requires the construction, repair or
maintenance of any ditch, flume, dike, aqueduct or other improvement, the board may
construct, repair or maintain the improvement."
A Project that proposes benefiting private patrons by improving water deliveries should not
exclude alternatives that would conserve water through upgrades to private patrons'
infrastructure.
b. Recommended project alternative
To remedy the EA's failure to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives, including its failure to
consider nonstructural alternatives, we recommend the final EA/EIS consider a project
alternative that uses nonstructural market incentives combined smaller investment in structural
measures. Full consideration of this approach is called for in the PR&G:
"A nonstructural measure or measures may in some cases offer a more effective alternative to a
traditional structural measure. In other cases, nonstructural measures may be combined with
fewer or smaller traditional structural measures to produce a complete alternative plan. Full
consideration and reporting on nonstructural alternative actions or plans should be an integral
part in the evaluation of Federal investments in water resources." (PR&G at page 11)
The purpose and need of the Project are to maximize water conservation in AID for the benefit
of both public fish and wildlife and junior water rights holders in NUID whose patrons produce
far more agricultural products than All) patrons. These purposes and needs can be best
accomplished by an alternative primarily based around nonstructural regulatory and pricing
policy. This would take the form of a water bank, wherein money is used to incentivize AID
patrons to temporarily lease their water to instream uses and/or to NUID.
This nonstructural project expenditure would be accompanied by funding on -farm efficiency
upgrades for those patrons who continue using their water, piping and other structural
conservation work on smaller private laterals, and, if funding is available, some repair and lining
of AID's main canal system.
As discussed above, the results of the multi -year, multi -stakeholder Deschutes River Basin Study
Work Group show that this approach is the most cost-effective means of improving water
conservation and improving water delivery reliability in the DBBC districts.
4. Environmental baseline
As discussed in greater detail below, the Project fails to establish an accurate environmental
baseline condition concerning the amount of water that AID currently diverts from the Deschutes
River. Provision of accurate baseline environmental information is a basic prerequisite for
determining the environmental effects of a federal action. See Oregon Nat. Desert Assn v.
Jewell, 840 F.3d 562, 568 (9th Cir. 2016). The EA fails to present accurate baseline information
about AID's actual, historic water use, and instead uses an unsubstantiated, arbitrary figure. EA
at page 66. Accurate baseline information is necessary for determining the environmental effects
of the Project. Water conserved from the project can only be analyzed for its environmental
effects if it is compared to accurate baseline information about existing water use by the District.
This EA fails to disclose that information, resulting in a faulty analysis that violates NEPA.
5. Protection of instream water
The EA, at page 66, describes how AID plans to conserve water, make this water available to
NUID, and how NUID will protect an equal volume instream:
"AID's water right currently allows it to divert up to 150 cfs, and this rate exceeds AID's
historical diversion rates. To reduce effects on junior water right holders, AID would
voluntarily reduce this maximum rate and identify 120 cfs as the District's pre -project
diversion rate for the purposes of any water rights administrative processes.
Following construction of each phase, AID would reduce its diversion by the amount of
water saved (up to 10,526 acre-feet per year). AID would bypass this water in the Deschutes
River for diversion by NUID. Due to seepage losses in the Deschutes River between AID
and NUID's diversions, there would be 10,123 acre-feet of water available for NUID to
divert annually. This additional water would assist NUID in fulfilling its patrons' existing
water rights throughout the irrigation season. No effect would occur to AID patrons'
certificated rate and duty. This alternative would reduce NUID patron's dependence on water
stored in Wickiup Reservoir to fulfill their water rights. Following the completion of each
phase, AID would work with OWRD and its partners to verify and measure all water savings
prior to creating any instream water leases.
Based on AID's historical practices, AID only diverts the water that patrons need. Following
project implementation, the District's conveyance system would be more efficient and they
would decrease their diversion rate proportionally to the amount of water being saved;
therefore, any water that the District does not divert would remain in the Deschutes River
and would be available for junior water right holders, including the Deschutes River itself.
Protecting Water Released by NUID to the Deschutes River
Following the completion of each phase, NUID would legally protect the water released from
Wickiup Reservoir through an instream lease under Oregon water law (ORS 537.348 [2] and
OAR 690-077). The water leased instream would retain the same priority date as the
originating water right (Certificate 51229). The instream lease would protect water in the
Deschutes River downstream from Wickiup Reservoir during the non -irrigation season (i.e.,
in the late fall, winter, and early spring). Once an instream lease was approved by OWRD,
7
the leased portion of NUID's water right would be unavailable for use by NUID or its
patrons.
Oregon statute allows for NUID's storage water rights to be permanently transferred
instream (ORS 537.348). However, OARs need further clarity to allow these storage water
rights to be permanently transferred instream. An agreement would be established specifying
that these instream leases would be renewed in perpetuity or until the State of Oregon
provided the clarity needed for a permanent change.
Water released by NUID during the non -irrigation season would be in addition to the HCP
minimum winter flow target of 100 cfs in the Deschutes River downstream from Wickiup
Reservoir. This additional flow would be beneficial to the Deschutes River until Year 8 of
the HCP (January 2028) when the minimum winter flow target is increased to 300 cfs."
The EA proposes a new disposition of water that violates basic tenets of Oregon water law and court
decrees in a couple of ways.
First, the Project fails to recognize that water conserved through prevention of seepage losses must
be left instream under long-standing caselaw. The project proposes to conserve water at a rate of 32
cfs through the irrigation season, but as described in the EA, there is no assurance that the saved
water will be left instream. The EA says that as AID becomes more efficient, their demand would
decrease and "any water that the district does not divert would remain in the river." It does not say,
on the other hand, that all the seepage losses recovered by the project must be left instream. The
canal's seepage losses are not owned by the district and are not part of AID's certificated water
rights. A series of circuit court decisions in the 1920s and 30s (known as the Duffey decrees)
authorized irrigation districts in Central Oregon to divert more water from the river than is contained
in their water rights so that water deliveries to patrons could be assured. By piping the canal, AID
loses the right to divert this water and must leave it instream.
Second, the Project fails to propose a transfer of actual "wet" water rights to instream and/or to
NUID, and instead only proposes to transfer dry "paper" water rights that AID has not historically
diverted and are already instream. Leaving water conserved by the Project instream does not
generate the alternative water source for NUID claimed in the EA. The EA claims it will generate
10,123 acre-feet of new water for NUID by piping 13.2 miles of AID's canals. The project can only
generate an additional water source for NUID, however, if AID reduces its diversion below its real
historical diversion rate. Over the last ten years, the average of AID's mean daily diversion rate was
92 cfs during peak summer months, June 15 September 15 (Oregon Water Resources Department
Near Real -Time diversion gauge data 2011-2020). Exhibit A.2 AID proposes to reduce its maximum
diversion rate of 150 cfs to 120 cfs to establish a pre -project diversion rate for water rights
2 Exhibit A is daily median diversion data for OWRD gauge 14065500 downloaded from OWRD's
website. The 92 cfs daily average diversion rate was calculated by taking the average of daily
median flows for each year 2011-2020. Then, all ten years' average flows were averaged, yielding a
daily average diversion rate for the 10-year period of 92 cfs.
administration purposes. This voluntary reduction, however, is not sufficient to generate new water
supply for NUID because such a large portion of AID's water right is a "paper right," a water right
on paper but not actually diverted. The project will conserve 32 cfs. Subtracting this amount from
AID's diversion rate of 120 cfs yields 88 cfs. Compared to AID's actual average of mean daily
diversion rates over the past 10 years of 92 cfs, the water potentially available to NUID under this
project is only approximately 4 cfs. The remaining 28 cfs has not been diverted by AID historically,
and thus, has traditionally been instream and available to NUID already. To generate the full 10,123
acre-foot benefit for NUID, AID would have to reduce its post -project diversion below its actual
historical diversion rate of 92 cfs by 32 cfs, which calculates to be 60 cfs.
The EA is vague on how exactly AID will reduce its certificated water rights. This sentence in
particular appears to indicate that AID will forfeit 30 cfs of its water rights before any conserved
water transfer is pursued: To reduce effects on junior water right holders, AID would voluntarily
reduce this maximum rate and identify 120 cfs as the District's pre -project diversion rate for the
purposes of any water rights administrative processes." EA at page 66. A careful reading of the EA
however indicates that it is silent on what is intended by this language. To "identify" a pre -project
diversion rate is not the same as formally canceling through OWRD administrative processes a
portion of AID's water right that it has not historically put to beneficial use. LandWatch is
concerned that with construction of a new flume and main canal as proposed in this Project, AID
could increase their diversion from the historic actual average diversion of 92 cfs. The final EA/EIS
must clarify this point.
As LandWatch pointed out in our scoping comments, any portion of AID's certificated water rights
that it has not historically used is already forfeit and cannot be now relied on as a baseline "pre -
project diversion rate." We fully incorporate by reference LandWatch's scoping comments dated
May 15, 2019 into these comments on the draft EA. The EA should use the District's actual
historical average diversion rate of 92 cfs as its baseline from which water conserved through this
Project is subtracted for the purposes of any water rights administrative process.
The fact that so little new water (4 cfs) will be available to NUID under this project casts significant
doubt about NUID's ability to release water below Wickiup Dam in the non -irrigation season. In the
Piping Alternative analysis on page 50 of the EA, the project is justified as meeting its purpose and
need as follows, among others:
"Enhance streamflow and habitat conditions for fish and aquatic species: Following the
completion of the project and verification and measurement of the total water savings, AID
would pass up to 10,526 acre-feet/year to NUID through the Deschutes River during the
irrigation season. In return, NUID would release an equal volume of water minus losses in
the Deschutes River between the AID and NUID diversions, up to 10,123 acre-feet/year.
from Wickiup Reservoir into the Deschutes River during the non -irrigation season (see
Section 6.8). Streamflow and habitat conditions along the Deschutes River would benefit
from this protected water."
M
As proposed the project cannot meet this significant purpose and need. It would generate practically
no improvement to habitat conditions for fish and aquatic species anywhere in the Deschutes River.
The project would offer no protection of streamflow in the Upper Deschutes below Wickiup, nor
would it protect streamflow in the middle reach of the river. We recommend that the project be
revised to generate real, demonstrable benefits for the Deschutes River
As it now stands, $42 million of public funds are proposed to implement a project that direct benefits
to only 142 private landowners and provides no real public benefit. Water conserved through the
project must be subtracted from AID's actual average historic use of 92 cfs. Otherwise, the project
proposes to transfer paper water rights that are already instream, and it achieves virtually no benefit
for fish, wildlife, or NUID.
6. Failure to Take a Hard Look; EIS required
NCRS has no basis by which to conclude that this project will not have a significant effect on the
human environment. Due to the focus on "paper" water rights rather than actual diversion rates, the
agency's analysis of the environmental effects is inadequate and fails to take a hard look at the
environmental effects of the project. The project is also highly controversial by stating that its intents
are to restore instream flows to the Deschutes River and provide agricultural water supply to the
North Unit Irrigation District, yet it fails to propose a transfer of actual "wet" water rights and
instead only transfer dry "paper" water rights. To adequately and accurately disclose the
environmental and other effects of the project, the agency either should prepare a revised draft EA
that provides a full and fair accounting of the project's impacts, or a formal EIS for this project.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Please keep us updated as to all future Project
matters, and inform us of any further opportunities for comment and appeal at rory@colw.org.
Sincerely,
/s/ Rory Isbell
Rory Isbell
Staff Attorney
Central Oregon LandWatch
rory@colw.org
/s/ Tod Heisler
Tod Heisler
Rivers Program Director
Central Oregon LandWatch
tod@colw.org
10
Attachments:
Exhibit A OWRD data for gauge 14065500, 2011-2020
Exhibit B Multi -Criteria Evaluation of Alternatives and Scenarios
Exhibit C Market -Based Approaches as a Water Supply Alternative
Exhibit D Water Conservation Assessment
Exhibit E Water Right, Legal and Policy Opportunities and Impediments Associated with
Options for Water Movement
https://www.bend bulietin.com/opinion/guest-column-protect-central-oregon-s-historic-canal-
system/article_30303ed1-97a7-5d46-b95c-a9285a8520b5.htm)
Guest column
Guest column: Protect Central Oregon's historic canal system
By Mike Za
Apr 30, 2019
(Andy Tullis/Bulletin photo)
Within the city limits of Bend, we are blessed to have inherited the iconic
Deschutes River, which snakes gracefully through our town. In addition, canal
water is diverted from the Deschutes River for irrigation, creating more scenic
waterways, wildlife habitats and serene hiking trails. Visitors marvel at our
abundant water resources and are surprised by all the waterways our city has
enjoyed for over loo years.
Bend's history and development is based upon its water resources. Other cities
around the country have spent millions trying to creating what Bend already
has. Waterways attract wildlife, and wildlife attracts people. All life is attracted
to water. It's the water that creates an amazing feeling of tranquility and
harmony. Even in winter when our canals stop flowing, we are left with
hundreds of ponds, or as I like to say high desert lagoons that team with life.
These ponds sustain life through the winter and support many creatures,
maintaining the food chain all the way up to golden eagles and human fly
casters. Yes, there are fish in our canals!
Why on Earth does someone want to cover up our canals? They say we have a
seepage and evaporation problem, and they claim the only way to fix this
problem is to enclose the canal water in a pipe. They have chosen the most
expensive and most damaging option. The seepage issue can be fixed without
expensive pipes and heavy construction. Other options surely exist, like
waterproofing and sealing the canals where leakage is excessive with wildlife -
safe liquid rubber or waterproof concrete sealant.
We should focus on those canals within our city limits that have maintained
walkways or trails next to or within sight of these canals. I believe our city
should put a piping moratorium on all existing canals with these specific traits.
False comparisons, misleading assumptions and fear tactics have been created
to push through the piping agenda. By assuming that piping and covering up the
canals is the only solution, we will destroy century -old habitats and trails.
Sealing and protecting these canals preserves habitats, home values and
increases water conservation all at the same time.
There are inherent risks around all open water. However, our canals have a
better safety record than our own Deschutes River. Education, signage and
supervision are the practical solution towards zero injuries.
I've been researching our canal system for years. Bend's canals, ponds and river -
walks are unique and unmatchable. That's because it would cost billions to re-
create this paradise in any other well -established city as ours. Our canals were
built over loo years ago, before almost loo,000 people lived here. Homes and
trails have naturally developed around most of these canals. Again, that's
because people like to be around water. After a century, our canals have become
much more than just a water source for farmers.
Another fear is water loss through evaporation. Evaporation within city limits is
insignificant and a small price to pay for water's ability to soothe our senses and
enrich our community. Utilizing new irrigation technologies would allow
farmers to use a fraction of their present water requirements. Moreover, old
water laws such as "use it or lose it," which encourage water waste, should be
updated. Fixing old water laws, implementing new irrigation technologies and
sealing the seepage is not only sensible, it's cheaper and less destructive.
Seal the leaks, stop the cover-up!
— Mike Zapp is a retired forest ranger and lives in Bend.
18209 Couch Market Rd
Bend, OR 97703
Mr. Tom Makowski
Assistant State Conservationist for Watershed Resources and Planning
Natural Resources Conservation Service
1201 NE Lloyd Blvd, Suite 900
Portland, OR 97232
October 31, 2018
Final Environmental Assessment ('Final EA') and Finding of No Significant Impact (`FONSi') for Tumalo Irrigation
District Modernization Project
Dear Mr. Makowski,
Thank you for your time during our telephone conversation on September 20, 2018.1 appreciate your openness and
that of your colleague, Mr. Greg Diridoni, and I look forward to working with you. As discussed on that call, I am
detailing below certain deficiencies of the Final EA, including with regard to its consideration of Comments made in
response to the Draft Environmental Assessment ('Draft EA'). When reproducing excerpts from the Final EA or other
third party sources, all emboldening is my own.
1. The purpose of the project and the need for action — questions of fact
The Final EA uses factually incorrect assumptions to justify the breadth of the project. Per the Final EA:
"The purpose of this project is to improve water conservation, water delivery reliability, and public safety on 58.8
miles of District -owned canals and laterals... Federal action is needed to address the following watershed problems
and resource concerns: water loss in District conveyance systems, water delivery and operations inefficiencies,
instream flow for fish and aquatic habitat, and risks to public safety from open irrigation canals. Implementation of
the proposed action would ensure agricultural production Is maintained in an area undergoing rapid urbanization
where public safety and environmental concerns necessitate federal action. The proposed action addresses seepage
and evaporation loss and provides better -managed water diversions for farm use, increased agricultural production,
improved streamflow forfish, aquatic, and riparian habitat, and increased public safety."
Rapid urbanization? Given the planning and land use restrictions under the Deschutes County Code, is it correct to
refer to rapid urbanization as necessitating federal action? This statement appears to be entirely groundless with
regard to certain areas through which the laterals run. There is no urbanization to date in such areas, nor can there
be. Homes in Tumalo on acreage with no farming value or irrigation rights change hands for $1 million and more,
with no possible means of building more homes on such parcels under existing regulations and no prospect of
acquiring new water rights. It is the planning regulations that prevent urbanization, not the profit to be made from
agricultural production. For example, in support of their statement, would the TID be willing to clarify what
percentage of their patrons rely on farming their land as their primary source of income? At one point in the early
20th century it may have been close to 100%; in modern times I surmise that it is a much lower figure. It is a
fundamental data point.
Public safety risk? A number of comments (Comments 12.03, 19.03, 26.31) highlight that neither experience nor
statistics hidden away in the Appendices provide any support whatsoever for the Draft EA's repeated justification of
the piping project as an important improvement to public safety — I make this point with specific regard to laterals,
which must be distinguished from deeper, wider, faster -flowing main canals. Public safety is mentioned four times
in the above passage alone, which is remarkable given that laterals account for 97% of the project, canals a mere
3%. The response to Comment 12.03 makes a half-hearted admission of the exaggerations contained in the Draft
EA, but they remain prominent in the Final EA just the same. I'm afraid that it is simply nonsense to state, as the
Final EA does, that public safety necessitates federal action for all project groups.
Agricultural sustainability? The Office of Management and Budget Fact Sheet goes on to state that "the proposed
action will encourage and promote agricultural sustainability in the watershed through improved irrigation water
reliability", but this statement is only true insofar as patrons cultivate land as their primary source of income and
would be unable or would cease to do so without the increased reliability promised by the Preferred Alternative.
There is no evidence to support this contention, in fact the declining role of agriculture and the overarching effect
of restrictive zoning to prevent urbanization suggests the contrary to be true. With regard to the future of land use
under the no action alternative, the Final EA has no evidence to support its claim in Section 6.4.1 that "compounded
with anticipated population increases and associated developmental pressures, agricultural lands would continue to
be increasingly vulnerable to transitioning to a different land use." In reality, land use will not change under the no
action alternative because to my knowledge very few TID patrons run professional, profitable farms.
These assertions, sufficiently important to be included in the Office of Management and Budget Fact Sheet at the
opening of the Final EA, are not credible. Unfounded claims masquerade as self-evident truths. Of course, no one
disputes that taking less water from nature is the right goal, and a laudable public purpose. But the question of how
best to meet that goal of water conservation is unbalanced by the inclusion of phantom dangers and baseless
assumptions which suit the private agenda of the sponsors. For this reason, the entire framing of the Final EA by the
above quoted paragraph must be revisited, since any determination based on untested assumptions can never be
anything other than arbitrary.
2. The purpose of the proiect and the need for action - Questions of law
Were rapid urbanization, public safety and agricultural sustainability genuinely at risk, one could see how improving
reliability of water supply might fall within the ambit of Public Law 83-566. However, as explained above, for certain
proiect groups these threats are imaginary rather than real. Accordingly, whilst the reliability of water delivery is
stated to improve following construction of the project, its connection to the purpose of Public Law 83-566 is not
immediately apparent. I appreciate that the works of improvement sanctioned by the Act do include "the
conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water" and "the conservation and proper utilization of land"
but given the declaration of policy that opens the Act' I did not discern how, for purposes of the Act, water delivery
reliability offered anything other than an exclusive private benefit in this case. Other than flowing through a pipe
instead of a canal, water will be utilized and disposed of just as it is today. As to proper utilization of land, it appears
that no land use will change as a result of the implementation of the project — the Final EA itself acknowledges at
page xxiv that "the Preferred Alternative would have a negligible effect on land use, as property ownership and
existing use of land would not change". This project is a far cry from flood prevention or erosion control, nor is it
even about assisting a local sponsor to irrigate for the first time (to compare it to the current MRCS project in
Alabama, for example). idor does the project relate to the grant of a permit or license for commercial operation, in
which case the statement of purpose may include private goals (but even then subservient to the statutory goal, per
Protect our Communities Foundation v. Jewell). The Final EA offers no hard evidence that current levels of water
delivery reliability have caused or would cause land use to change within the TID's area of operations, and therefore
its assertion that the no action alternative will have a negative effect on land use is just another self-serving, untested
assumption. This being so, is the mere ability to increase private profit or convenience a factor which Congress
intended to be relied upon when it passed this Act? I submit that it is not, in which case the only legitimate public
'Section 1 of the Act: "Erosion, floodwater, and sediment damages in the watersheds of the rivers and streams of the United States, causing loss
of life and damage to property, constitute a menace to the national welfare, and it is the sense of Congress that the Federal Government should
cooperate with States and their political subdivisions, soil or water conservation districts, flood prevention or control districts, and other local
public agencies for the purpose of preventing such damages, of furthering the conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water, and
the conservation and utilization of land and thereby of preserving, protecting, and improving the Nation's land and water resources and the quality
of the environment"
purpose of the project under Public Law 83-566 would be water conservation, and the entire analysis required to be
performed would bear no resemblance to the Final EA.
With regard to Federal agency action under the National Environmental Policy Act ('NEPA'), the very case cited by
the Final EA itself (Protect our Communities Foundation v. Jewell) held that (i) a statement of purpose and need will
fail if it unreasonably narrows the agency's consideration of alternatives so that the outcome is preordained, and (ii)
it is the statutory goal that will serve as a guide by which to determine the reasonableness of the objectives outlined.
Given the factual observations set out above, this appears to be an area which, as a matter of law, the NRCS must
re-evaluate. The precise extent to which private sponsors are permitted to influence or draft the definition of the
purpose and need of a federally financed project is clearly an area of contention.
3. Insufficient consideration of other viable options
Many respondents (for example, Comments 2.06, 19.02, 26.24, 26.25, 26.26, 26.27, 26.30, 34.01, 35.02) identified
the failure of the Draft EA to investigate fully all viable options. Beyond the formal response process, a guest column
in the Bend Bulletin on May 16, 2018 referred to cheaper alternatives developed by the Basin Study Work Group,
such as charges based on water use, and queried the cost of the Preferred Alternative relative to the profitability of
the farming operations of TID patrons and the minimal contribution agriculture now makes to the GDP of Deschutes
County when compared to its central role when the relevant easement legislation was passed in the 191h century.
This theme is also highlighted in the Comments (for example Comment 19.04).
The response of the Final EA to these Comments does not pass muster because, firstly, it relies on an incorrect
reading of the relevant statute to justify its position, and secondly, it does not address the substance of the
Comments but simply refers back to the cursory paragraphs of the Draft EA which triggered the critical responses in
the first place. This tokenism does not meet the procedural requirements under NEPA, as refined by the courts.
Public Law 83-566: the response to Comment 2.06, to which cross reference is made in many other responses, is
predicated on a misplaced analysis of Public Law 83-5662. The Final EA explains the provisions of the statute thus:
"Project sponsors must have the legal authority and resources to carry out, operate, and maintain works of
improvement (Public Law 83-566 Section 2 and Section 4(3)). Because PL 83-566 is a public law, rather than a policy,
this consideration is a legal requirement and cannot be arbitrarily applied. Because TID lacks the statutory authority
or responsibility to carry out, operate, and maintain on farm Infrastructure owned by TID patrons, on farm
efficiency upgrades are not within the scope of actions that TID can entertain as the Project Sponsor. Improving
on farm efficiency is, therefore, not consistent with PL 83-566 authorities under which this plan is being prepared as
either a standalone alternative or as an additional measure added to an alternative under consideration."
This is not the import of Public Law 83-566. Section 2 defines works of improvement as "any undertaking for (1)flood
prevention (including structural and land treatment measures), (2) the conservation, development utilization, and
disposal of water, or (3) the conservation and proper utilization of land." I see nothing in this definition that outlaws
the suggestions made in Comment 2.06 and by other respondents.
Section 2 defines local organizations as "any State, political subdivision thereof, soil or water conservation district
flood prevention or control district, or combinations thereof, or any other agency having authority under State law
to carry out, maintain and operate the works of improvement; or any irrigation or reservoir company, water users'
association, or similar organization having such authority and not being operated for profit that may be approved by
the Secretary, • or any Indian tribe or tribal organization, as defined in section 450b of title 25, having authority under
Federal, State, or Indian tribal law to carry out, maintain, and operate the works of improvement."
2 1 proceed on the basis that the Final EA's reference to Section 4(3) should be to Section 4(1), since Section 4(3) simply refers to defraying
expenses and seems irrelevant to legal rights.
Section 4(1) states as follows:
"The Secretary shall require as a condition to providing Federal assistance for the installation of works of
improvement that local organizations shall (1) acquire, or with respect to interests in land to be acquired by
condemnation provide assurances satisfactory to the Secretary that they will acquire, without cost to the Federal
Government from funds appropriated for the purposes of this chapter, such land, easements, or rights -of -way as
will be needed in connection with works of improvement installed with Federal assistance. "
The Final EA has a very strange interpretation of Public Law 83-566. The reference in the Final EA's response to
statutory authority is mistaken because the statute itself does not grant authority. Whilst the consent of TID patrons
may be required for certain on -farm upgrades, this does not compromise the fact that under ORS 545 TID has the
authority under State law to carry out, maintain and operate works of improvement per the Act's definition of 'local
organization'. TID either is, or isn't, a 'local organization'. It would be absurd, and cannot have been the intention of
Congress, that the eligibility of a work of improvement be sabotaged by the narrow technicalities of a separate
definition. The key question here is whether the alternatives meet the definition of a 'work of improvement' under
the Act, and the answer is clearly yes. The question of legal rights necessary to implement the work of improvement
is fully addressed in Section 4(1). Only an irrigation district rigidly intent on eliminating certain alternatives could
have conflated the provisions and devised such a perverse extension of the straightforward definition of 'local
organization'. This reading also appears at odds with the NRCS' own Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention
Program, which expressly refers to project sponsors helping landowners install treatment measures. Administrative
decisions regarding the definition of 'local organization' similarly provide no support forthe Final EA's interpretation.
I concede that patrons may refuse permission, but this is a matter properly to be considered under Section 4(1), not
the definition of 'local organization', and it is certainly not an excuse for not canvassing the opinion of the patrons
in this regard. It is quite conceivable that a majority of TID patrons would prefer such an option to the Preferred
Alternative. If such permission were received, it is quite certain that no one could challenge the implementation of
such a project by claiming that TID fails to meet the definition of 'local organization', and thus it is equally certain
that the Final EA should not have dismissed such an option by reference to that definition.
Thus the objection raised by Comment 2.06 and similar Comments remains to be answered. As a matter of common
sense and fair process, surely an option which asks private citizens if they would accept public funds to accrue to
themselves a benefit must be fully investigated — or even attempted — before resorting to more costly, non -voluntary
alternatives which adversely affect those who reap no benefit whatsoever? I would respectfully ask the NRCS to
confirm whether it has ever funded projects under Public Law 83-566 which involve the type of on -farm upgrades
by local organizations which the Final EA dismisses as a statutory impossibility.
NEPA: The response to Comment 2.06 goes on to cite Protect our Communities Foundation v Jewell as judicial
precedent for the dismissal of options which an agency appropriately deems remote and speculative. The citation is
correct but the facts at hand are very different. In Protect our Communities Foundation vlewell the Bureau of Land
Management fully reviewed five affirmative action alternatives and two no action alternatives — seven in total,
compared to three in the Final EA. The element of private installation is common to both scenarios, but the question
of 100,000 random residents and businesses agreeing to install solar panels is not at all comparable to the consent
of a proportion of a special limited class of a few hundred existing irrigation patrons. A carrot and stick approach
seems entirely feasible, or at least worth proper consideration, as does the idea of private citizens agreeing to
subsidized operational improvements on their own lands when such improvements deliver personal benefit to those
citizens — particularly since to judge from Comments such as 13.01 and 15.01 TID patrons may not favour the
Preferred Alternative at all (the Final EA appears to have conspicuously avoided giving patrons any direct voice in
the crafting of the document). Thus perhaps the lesson of Protect our Communities Foundation v Jewell is nothing
more than common sense — we all agree that the Government ought not to waste its resources evaluating remote
and speculative alternatives. But the judgement goes further, and unfortunately the response to Comment 2.06
omitted its most relevant part — that an alternative must be "ascertainable and reasonably within reach". I submit
that in our scenario there are a number of alternatives which are neither remote nor speculative but both
ascertainable and reasonably within reach — but they were discarded nonetheless. The FONSI acquiesces to the
elimination of these alternatives because the Final EA on which it relies has failed to present a reasonable, balanced
analysis, has failed to take into proper account all possible approaches to the project, and failed to correct the
shortcomings pointed out by various Comments.
Failure to address substance: it appears that no changes to Section 5 were made in response to the Comments other
than adding a new section on the rejection of voluntary reductions at Section 5.2.4, and no further evaluation
performed. Rather than engaging in a constructive response, the Comments were in effect ignored (perhaps in
misplaced reliance on the response to Comment 2.06) or a superficial rebuttal attempted — and thus the Draft EA
was rubber-stamped into final form. We already knew, from the Draft EA, that pursuant to USDA guidance,
"alternatives that become "unreasonable due to cost, logistics, existing technology, social or environmental reasons,"
or general inability to address the purpose and need for action, may be removed from consideration." What we did
not know, and what we still don't know, is why certain options were deemed thus unreasonable at a preliminary
stage when a $43 million project which will have significant local adverse effects for some whilst benefitting a small
private group of others was advanced.
In the context of the facts supplied by the Bend Bulletin article noted above, the dismissal of the fallow field
alternative by reference to public policy is not defensible. Many TID patrons appear to be hobby farmers and it
appears that some irrigated fields are not cultivated per se but simply watered in order to maintain water rights. I
would welcome clarity from the TID on the nature of the operations of their patrons in response to the points made
in the Bend Bulletin article. Those patrons who did not wish to fallow farm could be given the option of investing
some of their own funds (in combination with grants) to increase on -farm efficiency. Fallow farming is admitted to
improve water conservation but not improve delivery reliability or public safety. The appeal to public safety defies
all common sense, and delivery reliability does not constitute a valid independent purpose in evaluating alternatives
under Public Law 83-566. Both seem at best tangential to the primary goal of conservation.
We are not told or the nature or the logistical duncurdes whrcn urucrc cdururnauUri ur vuruntary reductions and on -
farm upgrades. Difficulty "to encourage adoption" is not a logistical challenge when it would be simple to devise
programs to incentivize participation. Any project requires effort and the TO has (according to the Bend Bulletin
article) 667 patrons, an eminently manageable number. it is arbitrary to cite phrases such as 'logistical challenges'
from the USDA guidance without explaining precisely what they are or what has been attempted in the past (if
anything), and without undertaking reasonable due diligence. There appears to have been no genuine attempt to
consider community -based solutions. Potential limited participation is indeed a factor to be considered in assessing
voluntary options, but it is not a logistical challenge that automatically renders the option unreasonable when there
exist means to compel or reward participation — all that is required is a modicum of practical, commercial thinking.
As discussed above, in adducing Protect our Communities Foundation v Jewell to support its dismissal of these
alternatives, the Final EA has only demonstrated its own arbitrary course of action — the remoteness, or logistical
difficulty, of compelling 100,000 unrelated strangers, so to speak, to install solar panels only goes to demonstrate
the relative ease of engaging a customer base a mere few hundred strong, a customer base with which the TID
already has an existing relationship and over which it has power to assess charges. As to the Final EA's conclusion
that these options fail to meet the stated purpose, the significance of that improperly constituted 'purpose and
need' is now revealed in its use as a device to reject options which would ably and more cheaply meet the single
legitimate goal of water conservation.
These procedural flaws in the Draft EA were highlighted in the Comments but not addressed in the Final EA. The
Multi -Criteria Evaluation of the Upper Deschutes Basin Study Work Group sponsored by the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, as quoted by Comment 26.30, states that on -farm upgrades "offer greater flexibility and are rarely
opposed by community members." In its response to Comment 26.30, the Final EA notes that the Deschutes Basin
Study reports are preliminary and therefore not "ripe" for consideration in the Final EA. The Final EA once again has
5
no substantive response but simply directs the by -now perplexed reader back to the same unrevised sections (the
inadequacies of which prompted the comment in the first place), and cites the same statutory restriction which, as
explained above, would in fact appear to be no restriction whatsoever. Rather than take time to analyze
substantively the view of the Upper Deschutes Basin Study Work Group on private solutions, the Final EA parrots it
familiar empty reference to logistical challenges associated with private ownership. After a century of open canal
irrigation this haste to action is bizarre. It is clearly in the interests of all parties to complete these studies. In the
same response to Comment 26.30 the Final EA shies away from actions on private lands, perhaps not realizing that
the Preferred Alternative involves a major construction project on private lands (the easement of the TID conveying
no ownership). The contradictions of the Final EA on this issue begin to become implausible and the veil of the whole
exercise beings to fall away and reveal that the selection of the Preferred Alternative was predetermined.
The consistent theme in the Final EA's framing of its purpose and the measurement of alternatives against that
purpose reveals the significant moral hazard innate in empowering parties with vested interests to determine the
'unreasonableness' of available options. One ought not to be surprised when the sponsors select a self-serving
alternative that best meets their private interests and then produce a document weighted to justify that selection.
The Final EA stands a propaganda proposal which fails to supply the NRCS with the necessary facts.
All we have so far, therefore, is a preliminary determination, a mere prelude to a genuine assessment of all possible
practical solutions. The Preferred Alternative is not necessarily the best of all options, but thus far only the best of a
severely limited class of options. The field was peremptorily reduced to just one other affirmative alternative, which
was really no alternative at all since it fails the statutory cost/benefit ratio test (and given the local ubiquity of
proposed canal to pipeline conversions was in all probability likely to have been known in advance to fail this test,
given the results of similar assessments). This is the consequence of permitting private interests to define the
purposes against which the alternatives were tested. The question asked by Comment 2.06 was not whether the
sponsors had already obtained all legal permissions required to execute other options, but why they had refused to
evaluate them in the first place. The answer provided to that Comment and to Comment 26.30 is not defensible.
Comment 26.24 summarized it most aptly by calling the analysis "myopic". The sponsors were free to assess these
options, unfettered by Public Law 83-566, indeed they were obliged to do so. The full comprehensive assessment
remains to be performed.
4. Failure to investieate local adverse social and environmental imoacts
The biases, unconscious or otherwise, of the authors of the Final EA emerge in the lack of attention given to negative
consequences of the Preferred Alternative. Lacking the advantage of the editorial hand wielded by the supporters
of the project and erstwhile authors of the Final EA, local residents did comment extensively on these adverse
impacts. The final EA does mention them, and it does after its own fashion respond to the Comments, but it does
so mechanically, in form only — it appears that no further analysis or due diligence was performed, with the result
that the Final EA fails to compare evenly the positive and adverse impacts of the Preferred Alternative.
Examples abound:
(i) property value: the Preferred Alternative is admitted to be likely to have a negative effect on property values
but no attempt to quantify that devaluation is undertaken.
(ii) public recreational experience: similarly, the loss of recreational benefits where the canals cross public land
is noted but unexplored. This appears to be inconsistent with the express requirements of NEPA, which
mandates at Section 102(2)(B) that agencies of the Federal Government must develop procedures which "will
insure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may be given appropriate
consideration in decisionmaking along with economic and technical considerations." The Final EA's assertion
that the proposed action "would not change the quality of the recreational experience in a quantifiable way"
is completely at odds with the reality of the loss of highly scenic meandering canals, the death of dependent
vegetation, including large pine trees, and the loss of dependent wildlife. Recreational walking and hiking in
6
the ROW will be much the poorer if the Preferred Alternative is implemented. In fact, the Final EA is at odds
with itself, since Appendix D explicitly acknowledges this negative effect in the excerpt quoted below in
paragraph 7. Section 6.6.3 of the Final EA admits that the "effect is considered in the NED but does not have a
monetized value". Once again this seems most convenient to the sponsors of the Preferred Alternative and
their determination to ensure a positive cost/benefit ratio. There appear to be detailed Federal guidelines to
monetize recreational benefit or cost in relation to National Economic Development and water projects but
we are not told of the detailed calculation which somehow produced a zero value for it here.
(iii) wetlands: wetland features exist but have not been field verified — determinations will be made on the hoof
(Final EA, Section 4.11). This appears to be inconsistent with Protect our Communities Foundation vJewell
which approvingly quotes preceding case law to the effect that "NEPA favours 'coherent and comprehensive
up front environmental analysis to ensure... that the agency will not act on incomplete information, only to
regret its decision after it is too late to correct." I gather that the law of wetlands is a complex area and there
seems to be no good reason to put field visits after rather than before MRCS approval. By way of example,
there is a fine public wetland feature in Tillicum Park which abuts a lateral, and 1 have no idea how the
Preferred Alternative will affect this area — nor do the project sponsors, according to their own document.
(iv) loss of trees: the death of hundreds, if not thousands, of large pine trees appears likely, Comments 54.00 and
57.01 providing personal testimony in this regard. Whilst ponderosa pines may be found naturally in this part
of Oregon, on my property - and presumably on that of the landowner who provided Comment 54.00 - they
grow only on the banks, or within the seepage area, of the lateral. With respect to my property, the Wildlife
Habitat Conservation and Management Plan (a matter of public record) states that seasonal water seepage
from the canal has caused the vegetation to change to a thick growth of pine. In its response to these
Comments the Final EA directs us to Sections 6.8.3 and 6.8.4. These Sections do acknowledge the dependence
of certain trees upon the canals but were not revised between the Draft EA and Final EA. The Final EA
estimates that with irrigation by the owner 70-80% of canal -dependent trees will survive piping. There are
two initial problems with this statement: (1) it places the burden upon landowners to fund and install the
necessary irrigation (for example, I personally have no water rights and no means to irrigate the affected
area), and (2) its prior experience of survival rates may be entirely irrelevant to the precise local topography
and trees at risk in the Tumalo area. We don't know because the Final EA is reluctant to diligence fully or
describe the extent of the adverse impacts of the Preferred Alternative. These initial flaws in the approach
create irreconcilable problems in the statutory cost/benefit analysis. The cost of landowner irrigation is not
included, so the claimed 70-80% tree survival rate is irrelevant — but even the hypothetical 20-30% death rate
is not included either. Absent expenditure by the landowner for new irrigation systems, one can reasonably
expect close to 100% loss, since the Final EA itself states that "vegetation within the ROW would return to the
historic upland habitat." One might add that local volcanic rock strata have enabled the canal seepage to
nurture trees and assorted flora well beyond the ROW. The loss of trees is an item eligible for inclusion in the
cost/benefit ratio - in Burkev v Ellis the Court rightly censured the Soil Conservation Service for its failure to
disclose fully and incorporate this factor. The Final EA is responsible for an identical failure, given that it has
completely ignored this aspect in its cost/benefit calculation. The Final EA does pledge that the District will
remove trees that do not survive but the cost of this removal is not included within the project costs either.
It is all mere guesswork. Proper field visits in light of the Comments received were necessary to assess the
actual extent of the issue — both the burden upon the landowners and the cost to the District of alleviating
that burden.
(v) wildlife and private quality of life: as various Comments and numerous real estate listings make clear, the
wildlife engendered by the flora dependent upon the canal, and the flora itself, is very much appreciated by
local residents. I am sure that the Final EA's conclusion that no threatened or endangered species will suffer
from implementation of the Preferred Alternative is justified — but that is not the Point. Settion5 4.12 and
6.11.3 of the Final EA provide a false impression of the effect that the laterals have had over the decades on
7
certain servient properties. The Final EA's somewhat disparaging description of urban adapters and lesser
diversity of species bears no resemblance to the lateral as it crosses my property or those of my neighbours.
It does not mention the pleasure afforded to landowners by the bees, butterflies, songbirds, ducks, kestrels,
owls, herons, eagles, deer, elk and wild turkeys, nor the majesty of the towering pines. I trust the conclusion
of the wildlife experts that these creatures will find sustenance elsewhere, but nevertheless they will no
longer be enjoyed on the affected properties. As Mr. Diridoni explained on the call, as a biologist he sees little
or no value in natural habitat created by unnatural means. That is his prerogative of course, but his distinction
is irrelevant both to the wildlife and the residents who take pleasure in such wildlife. By analogy, visitors to
downtown Bend do not enjoy the ducks on Mirror Pond any the less for the fact that the pond owes its
existence to a man-made dam. The riparian habitat and its wildlife enhance the human experience of the local
area. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has seen fit to enrol certain affected properties in the
Wildlife Habitat Management Program, with express reference to the seasonal wetlands created by the canal,
but that passes unmentioned by the Final EA. I appreciate that on a macro level the ODFW does support the
Preferred Alternative, but that in no way excuses the Final EA's failure to examine more localized impacts.
Also, to categorize an effect as minor because it affects a small percentage of acreage is naive — for example,
the enjoyment of a 20 acre property of desert scrub and juniper may be greatly improved by the meandering
lateral and its vegetation and trees, even if they occupy only a very small percentage of that acreage.
NEPA by its terms (and as interpreted by the courts in cases such as Nanly v Mitchell and First National Bank
of Chicano v Richardson) is extremely broad in its definition of the environment, whereas the Final EA is
wilfully narrow. The effect of the Preferred Alternative upon the quality of the human environment may not
necessarily require an EIS, but the failure to assess properly that effect does constitute a procedural failure to
comply with NEPA. its mere mention would not suffice - no one has taken the requisite "hard look". The FONSI
errs in concluding that there are no impacts that would be considered controversial --the Comments plainly
show the opposite on a human local level. The numbers may not seem significant on a State-wide level but
nevertheless they may not be ignored. At times the Final EA and FONSI seem to forget that much of this
eianifirant rnnetrurtinn nrniart will taka nlara nn nrivata land and Thai coma of thnca lanrinwnare aro vary
.'.0. .......... Mist. ,.. _,.._. ..... _.-.. ,...__e .-. I... a__ ._..,.., _.._. _.._._ __..._ _. _... ..- ,
much opposed to it. The Final EA often refers to landowners 'adjacent' to the ROW, a revealing slip —there is
no legal concept of adjacency, the land over which the ROW runs is owned by the relevant landowner and TID
'owns' nothing but the rights appurtenant to the easement. In other words, the TID has a limited right of use
only and the landowner is free to enjoy the land subject to the easement in any manner he so chooses,
provided only that he not unreasonably interfere with the use of the easement. The TID's self-proclaimed
rules for the ROW are quaintly irrelevant — the law of the land will set the respective limits, not the holder of
the easement. This project is unlike many NRCS projects in that it will not occur exclusively on Federal or
sponsor -owned land, nor will it condemn with compensation, nor exercise rights of eminent domain. This
distinction ought to have been borne in mind in assessing whether the Preferred Alternative will lessen the
quality of life for burdened landowners, particularly those who have no TID water rights.
(vi) groundwater: there is evidently a degree of expert debate around the precise effects of canal piping on
groundwater levels (per Comments 26.33 and 26.34, and the responses thereto). 1 am not in a position to
opine on the relative merits of the competing methodologies, but it seems to be agreed that the Preferred
Alternative will have a negative effect upon groundwater levels — canal seepage is not waste, but instead has
played an important role in recharging aquifers and providing a bulwark against other factors reducing
groundwater levels. Those other factors causing groundwater level to drop are irrelevant in considering the
impact of the Preferred Alternative, since the effects of the various factors are cumulative — the Preferred
Alternative simply makes a bad situation worse. If the Final EA is correct that piping will be responsible for
only 10% of the estimated overall reduction in groundwater level, then that still represents another cost that
appears to have been omitted from the statutory calculation (beyond increased pumping costs, which are
included). If one can quantify with a dollar amount the benefit of reduced carbon footprint and increased
instream flow, one can quantify the dollar cost of the broader detriment of reduced groundwater levels.
i,
The spatial variation in groundwater effects also means that the implementation of the Preferred Alternative
could have severe localized effects on groundwater, and wells which would otherwise have remained
operable may run dry. In an area without public water and sewage, this has the potential to have a significant
impact on the quality of life of local residents and force them to spend significant sums on deepening wells.
This alone would seem to merit a full environmental impact study.
(vii) fire risk: I do note the TID's commitment to cut down dead trees, referenced above, but the scale of tree loss
and the cost of their removal in the absence of new irrigation has not been assessed by the TID. If their
commitment is not met, or if they refuse to address tree loss outside the ROW, large dead trees combined
with loss of other vegetation will burden landowners with considerably increased fire risk. Landowners are
burdened either way — increased fire risk or the eye sore of hundreds of large tree stumps.
(viii) social division: the socially divisive aspect of the Preferred Alternative is not investigated at all in the Final EA.
This is odd because Comment 19.01 had queried the double standards of the Draft EA on this point - with
respect to a pipeline realignment the Draft EA had stated that "easements would be a contentious and
divisive issue within the surrounding community" but in championing the Preferred Alternative it had failed
to acknowledge that the conversion of the existing easement's method of use from canal to pipeline would
be similarly divisive. The authors of the Draft EA ought to have known this to be so since the Swalley Irrigation
District pipeline conversion a decade or so back had generated such resentment that over 160 affected
landowners joined suit against the sponsor. As far back as the 1890's landowners successfully sought judicial
redress to prevent conversion of open canals to pipelines, in cases such as Allen v San Lose Land & Water Co
and Oliver vAaosse. If they didn't know beforehand they certainly did once Comments to the Draft EA were
received (Comment 13.01 offers another example).
However, the Final EA not only failed to explain this inconsistency but did something more culpable by wilfully
removing the original reference — a comparison of Draft EA to Final EA changes is set out below:
"New easements would disrupt prime _farmland and residential living areas, and the easements would be a
cult to secure from enough landowners
to be feasible."
Of course, the new wording is accurate and I agree that pipeline realignment is not viable. But the original
wording was accurate too and the only plausible explanation for its removal is that the authors of the Final
EA did not wish to rectify the failure highlighted by Comment 19.01 but instead knowingly contrived to erase
a reference which could lead readers (including the MRCS) to identify a negative consequence of the Preferred
Alternative.
Taken alone this clumsy revision might be forgivable but unfortunately it is just one particularly egregious
example of the unbalanced approach that permeates the Final EA. The benefits of the Preferred Alternative
are fully described, its negative effects mentioned only in passing, if at all, and underestimated or
unquantified. The authors were expressly alerted to this imbalance and had an opportunity to correct it. They
failed to take it, but not before deleting a reference inconvenient to their preordained goal of advancing the
Preferred Alternative.
All this demonstrates why the Final EA cannot be the legitimate basis for any determination for the MRCS. The
adverse environmental impacts of the pipeline are real and must be weighed appropriately. The fact that the
project's primary goal of water conservation is environmentally positive in no way exculpates a failure to evaluate
attendant environmentally negative effects. Montgomery v Ellis quoted the then applicable Council on
Environmental Quality guidelines to support the principle that "a rigorous explanation and objective evaluation of
alternative actions that might avoid some or all of the adverse environmental effects is essential. Sufficient
analysis of such alternatives and their costs and impact on the environment should accompany the proposed
M
action through the agency review process in order not to foreclose prematurely options which might have less
detrimental effects". The weight of evidence indicates that just such a premature foreclosure has taken place here.
Montgomery v Ellis relied upon an earlier case, Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee, Inc. v United States Atomic
Energy Commission. The latter stated that the requirement in NEPA Section 102(2)(D) "seeks to ensure that each
agency decision maker has before him and takes into proper account all possible approaches to a particular project
(including total abandonment of the project) which would alter the environmental impact and cost -benefit balance.
Only in that fashion is it likely that the most intelligent, optimally beneficial decision will ultimately be made." It
continued that "NEPA requires that an agency must — to the fullest extent possible under its other statutory
obligations — consider alternatives to its actions which would reduce environmental damage," and concluded that
this principle "establishes that consideration of environmental matters must be more than pro forma ritual. Clearly
it is pointless to 'consider' environmental costs without also seriously considering action to avoid them."
The effects upon local residents clearly constitute a human environmental cost under NEPA (note that NEPA's aim
under Section 101(a) is "to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which
man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present
and future generations of Americans"), and clearly the Final EA's consideration of them is mere pro forma.
Furthermore, NEPA Section 101(b)(3) sets out the goal that the Nation may "attain the widest range of beneficial
uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended
consequences" - with all this in mind the undisputed purpose of returning water instream could be achieved at lesser
cost and without all the undesirable and unintended consequences which NEPA expressly seeks to avoid.
S. Cost/benefit ratio under Public. Law83-566
Adverse impacts. Paragraph 4 noted that various negative impacts have not been included in the Final EA's statutory
cost/benefit calculation. It is not acceptable to pretend they do not exist or may be excluded because they defy quick
and easy nnantifiratinn if they arp nrnnncpd to hp pxrhiried� their pxchi-inn mist he fully justified - ner Rurke_y v
Ellis it is incumbent on the relevant agency to explicate fully its course of inquiry, analysis and reasoning in
determining the cost/benefit ratio under Public Law 83-566. One might consider the exclusion of certain private
detriments from the calculation were the methodology consistent in excluding private benefits, but it is not.
Private benefit. The public benefit of water conservation and reduced carbon emissions are self-evident and rightly
included. However, the inclusion of power cost savings for private entrepreneurs seems irrelevant for the purposes
of Public Law 83-566. Congress cannot have intended that this private windfall be included as part of the cost/benefit
ratio condition which it imposed in Section 5 of the Act. NEPA decisions such as Montgomery v Ellis, which also
relates to Public Law 83-566, indicate that private benefits ought not to be included. There, the forerunner of the
NRCS had argued that a recreational benefit accruing only to a private landowner and not available to the general
public should be counted in the cost/benefit analysis. The Court was not swayed: "no authority is cited for that
proposition, and the Court knows of none." Even as the current Final EA stands, there seems to be an element of
double counting in itemizing both the private benefit of the reduced power costs and the carbon saving public social
value of the unused power. I note that Appendix D cross refers to NRCS guidelines for evaluating National Economic
Development benefits as outlined in the NRCS Natural Resources Economics Handbook and the Economic and
Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies, but since
the application of that lengthy document to the specifics of the Preferred Alternative is not summarized in the Final
EA I would appreciate a simple elucidation of the agency's rationale here. In this context I also note that adherence
to internal guidelines or rules does not automatically result in compliance with all applicable statutes.
Carbon inconsistency. The Final EA has already betrayed its predetermined motive by systematically excluding
private costs but including private benefits. It displays a similar hypocrisy in its failure to balance the positive and
negative effects around carbon. The Final EA fails to set the value of reduced emissions against the loss of carbon
10
dioxide absorbing vegetation. The response to Comment 8.01 on this issue completely fails to answer the question.
It would be mere hypothesis to claim that increased stream flow would create new vegetation equivalent to existing
riparian vegetation to offset this loss. If Project Group 1 has zero carbon value because it is the only project group
which will lead to a net increase in groundwater energy use, how can it generate an annual power cost saving of
$700 (per Table 8-6, Footnote 3 to Table 8-4 and Table 8-5)? The Final EA and its Appendices do not appear to contain
a clear itemized exposition of the gross and net amounts for energy costs and carbon emissions.
River discharge. The response to Comment 26.33 cites the Gannett study and notes that "seepage from TID`s canals
most likely percolates to shallow aquifers, where it is extracted for groundwater consumption or ultimately
discharges into Deschutes River." Since some of the canal water already returns to the river, the Preferred Alternative
is not actually returning as much water as it claims. The estimated amount that already returns to the Deschutes
River must be subtracted from the increased instream flow benefit claimed. The response to Comment 16.04 ('710
will coordinate with partners to verify water losses and water savings associated with projects receiving funding
through PL 83-566.") suggests that the analysis is not complete in any case, which casts further doubt upon the
validity of the claimed cost/benefit ratio.
Cost of funding. The Preferred Alternative requires funding of approximately $13.4 million in addition to the public
subsidy proposed by the MRCS under Public Law 83-566. According to the Final EA this funding has yet to be secured:
"According to TiD District Manager (Rieck, Tumalo District Manager, 2017), nearly all funding is expected to be
provided through grants. If necessary, approximately 31 percent of the project may be financed. If financing is
required, TID expects to apply for funding through the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Clean Water
State Revolving Fund. TID expects that funding from this source would be at an interest rate of 2.5 percent with a
0.5 percent annual fee paid on the remaining loan balance. These financing costs are not included in the NED
analysis. All funding sources other than PL 83-566 are from non federal funds." (Appendix D, Section 1.1.1)
One man's expectation of receipt of grants is all well and good, but an informal personal representation from a
member of an organization with no history of undertaking a project of this size, with no details whatsoever, is no
reasonable basis whatsoever upon which to assume that such grants will materialize in the full amount required.
The cost of financing the $13.4 million must therefore, on any reasonably prudent basis, be included in the project
costs until such time as alternative funding without any financing cost has been secured on a legally binding basis.
6. Conflicts of interest
At various stages of this letter I have ascribed certain imbalances in the Final EA to the fact that its primary authors
are private entities with vested interests in seeing the Preferred Alternative move forward. There is a fundamental
conflict of interest. MRCS as the responsible Federal agency cannot abdicate its statutory duty to assess the
environmental impact of the Preferred Alternative by relying on what is essentially a pitch document. There has
been a succession of canal to pipeline conversion projects in the Central Oregon area involving all the same entities
or their sister irrigation districts, and this Final EA appears to be just another document off the conveyor belt — it
does not represent an even-handed inductive investigation into the relevant benefits and costs of this specific
project, or the alternatives thereto.
7. Failure to define correctly the legal easement
The Final EA's response to Comment 19.01 is indeed correct in citing the 2009 Swalley Irrigation District v Alvis
judgement by the Ninth Circuit as a precedent for the construction of a buried pressurized pipeline pursuant to the
right of way granted by the 1891 statute 3. But there is more to it.
3 There maybe grounds to contest certain aspects of the judgement, but the construction of the 1891 Act is beyond the scope of this letter.
11
The Swalley decision in favour of the irrigation district is not an unconditional license for all future canal conversions.
Firstly, the hydroelectric power component to the Swalley project could not be realized without a buried pressurized
pipeline. In the absence of a hydroelectric power component, there is a question of fact as to whether conversion
to a buried pressurized pipeline is reasonably necessary to accomplish the purpose of the easement (reasonable
necessity being the applicable standard established by judicial precedent). In determining that question, a court
could not avail itself of the Final EA's luxury of arbitrarily discarding valid, cost effective alternatives. This provides a
separate reason, and a different benchmark, for fully investigating all available options. More vitally, the judgement
states as follows:
"The conversion of the existing canal into a pressurized pipeline is permissible so long as it does not increase the
burden on the landowners' property. Here, the landowners have not presented evidence establishing that their
property will be devalued by the proposed conversion... Removal of any aesthetic benefits provided by the open canal
merely eliminates an incidental benefit provided by Swalley's use of the easement; such action does not place an
additional burden on the landowners' property."
I will now quote from the Final EA, Appendix D:
"A potential direct cost is that some local residents may experience adverse effects on property values and quality of
life due to the change in aesthetics from piping the canals (as many people enjoy the aesthetics of the open canals).
According to real estate agents in the area, many people interested in purchasing property in the area are willing
to pay more for properties that have a canal view. On the other hand, some property owners or potential property
owners may not want to have a canal adjacent to their property because of the safety hazard an open canal poses,
potentially limiting the effect on property values.
In addition to property owners, there may be potential adverse effects on recreators that walk along the canals. The
public can legally access and walk along canals on public lands or where TiD has agreements with landowners (Bieck,
Tumalo Irrigation District Manager, 2017). The quality and associated value of this recreation would likely decrease
once the canals or-_ ninof4 nc nnon WntPr ilipwc nno nftpn cmight hu trnil ijcPrz ThP numhPr of nMortPd rprrPntinnkt'z
and the potential change in value of recreating on trails adjacent to the canals is not known. The potential aesthetic
cost to residential landowners and recreationists is not quantified due to a lack of available data. Interviewed real
estate agents were not able to quantify the potential effect of a view of the canal. Furthermore, quantification is
difficult due to scarce information in the economic literature. While the economic value of many natural views has
been studied (such as for ocean front property, or of otherscenic natural areas), the value of Irrigation canals has
been studied little, if at all. As such, while this effect is recognized as a likely cost, this analysis does not quantify
the potential change in aesthetic values of the proposed project."
The standard of proof in civil proceedings such as the Swalley case is the balance of probabilities. In Swalley the
irrigation district vigorously denied that devaluation would occur, and the landowners did not adduce third party
evidence from realtors —accordingly their protestations of devaluation were (correctly) dismissed as conclusory self-
serving statements. Here the facts are different. The rural areas through which the laterals run are to be
distinguished from the suburban subdivisions at issue in the Swalley case. The authors of the Final EA conferred with
local realtors and they acknowledge that, beyond mere loss of aesthetic amenity, actual devaluation is likely. Even
with their ignorance of the fact that the laterals have in many places taken on, without any additional landowner
action, an entirely natural, picturesque appearance and thus that their loss may be analogized to the loss of seasonal
natural waterways and quantified accordingly, the key conclusion from the authors of the Final EA is that a
devaluation of affected properties will be a "likely cost" of the Preferred Alternative.
Thus within the four corners of the Final EA and its Appendices lies the crux of the matter. Swalley Irrigation District
vAlvis establishes a bar to piping the canal —such conversion may not proceed if it will devalue landowners' property.
Appendix D clearly and explicitly acknowledges this devaluation to be likely. By its own hand the Final EA thereby
12
admits that the conversion of the canal to the pipeline is an impermissible alteration of the easement. The Preferred
Alternative is hoist with its own petard.
In addition, whilst mere loss of aesthetic views of the canal are not actionable according to the Swalley decision,
there are judicial precedents confirming that the loss of riparian vegetation pursuant to the lining or piping of an
open canal can increase the burden on the servient estate. older case law suggesting otherwise was superseded by
the judgements in Papa v Flake' and most pointedly in Krieger v Pacific Gas & Electric Co. In that latter case the
appellate Court ruled that seepage water ought not to be considered waste where it nurtured riparian vegetation,
and that the loss of such vegetation that would arise from the lining of a canal by the easement holder constituted
a legally recognizable detriment and an impermissible increase in the burden upon the servient landowners. It may
be a moot point given the issue of devaluation discussed above, and it always a question of fact in the individual
case, but decades of seepage from the canals have had a very significant positive local effect on vegetation and
wildlife. It is not a case of an occasional hydrophytic plant parasitically popping up along an otherwise linear, barren
channel, but one of dense mature vegetation, flowers and tall pine trees, which provide privacy, shade and habitat.
in addition, landowners such as myself will be further burdened by at least one of (i) the cost of new irrigation to
keep trees alive, (ii) the increased fire risk of dead trees, (iii) the cost of removing dead trees if the TID does not
remove them (it allocates no funds to such end in the project budget) or (iv) the view of multiple tree stumps where
ponderosa pines once stood.
8. Failure to meet necessary conditions under Public law 83-566
Section 4(1) of Public Law 83-566 has already been reproduced in paragraph 3 above. It states that Federal assistance
is conditional upon acquisition by the local organization of the easements necessary for the works of improvement.
Given the legal consequences of the Final EA's findings on devaluation of affected properties set out in paragraph 7
above, this condition has manifestly not been satisfied.
Conclusions
1 have reached the following conclusions with regard to the Final EA and the FONSI which relies upon it:
(A) No rapid urbanization or public safety threat. There is no evidence to support the claim that agricultural
production is required to prevent "rapid urbanization" in EFU zones and there are no statistics to prove that
current public safety risk presented by laterals is any greater than de minimis.
(B) No relevance of agricultural sustainability. The promotion of agricultural sustainability claimed by the Final EA
in consequence of improved irrigation water reliability is simply irrelevant to this part of Deschutes County in
2018. Lacking any broader purpose within Public Law 83-566, this reliability of water supply for exclusively
private beneficiaries is not a permitted purpose under that Act.
(C) Exceeding the bounds of Public Law 83-566. Conservation of water is the only purpose and need which requires
action under Public Law 83-566, and against which alternatives ought to have been measured. The Final EA has
sought to attach illusory purposes to a water conservation project in order to justify the primacy of the Preferred
Alternative. These purposes are extraneous to the statutory goals of Public Law 83-566 and their impermissible
breadth is utilized to ensure speedy rejection of alternatives which would require full analysis for a correctly
defined project. Per Protect our Communities Foundation v. Jewell a statement of purpose and need will fail if
it unreasonably narrows an agency's consideration of alternatives so that the outcome is preordained.
" In this case the Court did permit the easement holder to line an irrigation ditch but noted that whilst it was a reasonable change in a sand dune
area which was relatively worthless for vegetation and where the canal seepage benefitted nobody, such a conversion may not be the proper
thing to do in other irrigation easement situations.
e The Court saw no significant difference between canal piping and canal lining projects, since their effect on riparian vegetation Is the same.
13
(D) Unwarranted rejection of other alternatives. (1) The Final EA discarded viable options by reference to the
failure of such options to satisfy the irrelevant or non-existent factors described in conclusions (A) — (C) above.
(2) The Final EA refused to consider a number of project options by reference to an incorrect interpretation of
the definition of a'local organization' under Public Law 83-566. (3) The facts of the two scenarios are so different
that the citation of Protect our Communities Foundation v. Jewell to justify the dismissal of certain options as
"remote and speculative" must be rejected outright (it is a question of fact, not a question of law, and there is
no factual equivalence between 100,000 unrelated private individuals or entities installing solar power and a
few hundred existing patrons of the TID participating in upgrades to existing infrastructure).
In light of these conclusions, it is incumbent upon the NRCS as a matter of responsible government to compare
its Preferred Alternative which the hitherto unassessed viable alternatives. (I distinguish the MRCS from the
sponsors, who are of course free to spend their private funds as they choose, within the bounds of the law.)
(E) Coslbenefit ratio— illegitimate inclusions. The inclusion of reduced electricity bills for a limited class of private
citizen (as opposed to the general population of the affected area) is not a legitimate item in the calculation of
the cost/benefit ratio under Section 5 of Public Law 83-566, given the overall goal of the statute (and intention
of Congress) as embodied in Section 1 thereof.
(F) Cost/benefit ratio — illegitimate exclusions. Property devaluation, loss of public recreational benefit, loss of
trees, effect on groundwater, increased fire risk, other detriments affecting the general local populace, the
carbon cost of lost vegetation and the cost of unsecured funding should not have been excluded from the
cost/benefit calculation under Section 5 of Public Law 83-566.
(G) Cost/benefit ratio for Protect Group 1. In light of conclusions (E) and (F), the cost benefit for Project Group 1
requires urgent re-evaluation. In the Final EA the average annual benefit exceeds the cost by a mere $600 - the
irregularities in the analysis become increasingly conspicuous when they contrive to produce a ratio of 1.0000
to 1.0029. Per Appendix D, Section 2.1, the 8% technical assistance cost for Project Groups 2 —1 is replaced for
Project Group 1 with a flat fee of $200,000. The reason for this is not provided. Presumably with the standard
8% technical assistance charge Project Group 1 would fail the cost/benefit test.
(H) Conflicts of interest. Each officer of the Tumalo Irrigation District, the Deschutes Basin Board of Control and the
Farmers Conservation Alliance must disclose any financial interest, direct or indirect, such officer or any family
member of such officer may have in the implementation of the Preferred Alternative.
(1) Preordained conclusion. The Final EA represents one project within a glut of Central Oregon irrigation district
pipeline conversion proposals. To my knowledge, each one off the production line reaches the same conclusion.
One is reminded of the reference in Montgomery v Ellis to 'pro forma rituar. The Final EA and FONSI have
adhered to the form of NEPA but have neglected the substance. They took the required "hard look" at the
benefits but not the adverse impacts. The central resolution of the Final EA was arrived at by its sponsors long
ago, and the pertinent facts were handled to fit that resolution rather than vice versa.
(1) Limits of TID legal easement. Per the full ratio decidendi of Swalley irrigation District v Alvis, an irrigation
district's easement does not permit an alteration of use that would devalue the property of the servient
landowner. The Final EA's statement regarding property devaluation in Appendix D therefore serves as a bar to
the implementation of the Preferred Alternative.
(K) Condition under Public Law 83-566 as to required easements not met. in light of Conclusion (1), the condition
in Section 4(1) of Public Law 83-566 as to acquisition of required easements has not been met.
14
I would be grateful if you could let me know whether you concur with each of these conclusions, or alternatively let
me know the legal and factual basis for reaching a contrary conclusion.
I would also be grateful if you could let me know the current status of the notification to Congress pursuant to
Section 5 of Public Law 83-566.
The unevenness of the Final EA (which is amply proven to any reasonable person) must render it incapable of
furnishing you with all the information required to reach a reasonable determination. Proper local due diligence is
lacking. The Final EA is unacceptable to be relied upon by a Federal agency.
The authors of the Final EA represent the types of organizations known generally to be proponents of piping canals.
This leaves those who may not favour the piping of canals without a neutral arbiter to assess the relative equities of
competing solutions — and this neutrality is required where public funds are at stake. The Final EA operates as a
campaign manifesto for its authors, and with this in mind it is no surprise to find that they failed to remedy the lack
of balance observed in the Draft EA. The selective and misleading appeal to judicial precedents in the Final EA's
response to certain Comments is particularly troubling. I trust that you will discharge your duties in your public office
in more even-handed fashion.
Mr. Makowski, I fully realize that NEPA does not impose a particular result upon an agency but it does require a
number of procedural steps, a rule of reason and a "hard look". The deficiencies of the Final EA preclude compliance
with these requirements. It is increasingly apparent that the course of action thus far has failed to comply with
various provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act and
the Administrative Procedure Act. 1 would not presume to question your expertise in assessing the evidence put
before you, but I do not believe that your office has been furnished with all the necessary data over which to wield
that expertise.
1 note that per Section 10 of the Watershed Agreement contained in the Final EA, "this agreement is not a fund -
obligating document. Financial and other assistance to be furnished by NRCS in carrying out the plan is contingent
upon the fulfillment of applicable laws and regulations and the availability of appropriations for this purpose."
submit that, based on the observations set out in this letter, the implementation of the Preferred Alternative ought
to be suspended while the NRCS as the responsible Federal agency perform additional review and diligence.
I extend to you the same invitation I extended to the authors of the Draft EA. You would be a welcome guest at my
home to observe at first hand the precise nature of the issues.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely,
Matt Smith
15
From: riverrubyjoy riverrubyjoy@gmail.com GP
Subject:
Date: May 6, 2023 at 2:39 PM
To: riverrubyjoy@gmail.com
�� /-�ZD
1-te
lop
After piping Costs to Retrofit
'S3 9,426 over a period OA'
November to Apd,"
0 6 -
piping to retrofit a totalll� new
,�vstem in order to make it work
z�°`�
with the pipe.
s
Ali
because thep*)e of ered too low
ofpressure to operate cr
0
sprinkler. They did not ,zeerl a
pond before. The pond over flows
� -& ey
constant�v because there is 110
flow back to the ditch like before
when M4�v were not irrigating,
*S80,000 to retrqflt th4
it ivith
We' 'If wemW 0a�, .vWWAUW
the pipe plies a new ond
Patron 4
Ourproj*ect e
tttS y tItSj Ftpt 'Sl f Vtf vJ tt vJ v"I
pump house; new pumps, a new
irrigation tinier;
new sprinkler heads and valves.
The trenching and amount of pipe
was tremendous, guessing 1000 ft
���
From: ADKINS Kalysta 1 * ODFW kalysta.i.adkins@odfw.oregon.gov
Subject: RE: Deschutes County Wildlife Inventory Update
Date: May 5, 2023 at 10:42 AM
To: Ruby Swanson riverrubyjoy@gmail.com
Here's some snippets of information on White -headed woodpecker to include in
discussion:
In Oregon, White -headed Woodpeckers inhabit the northeastern, central, and southern
regions of the state, including the East Cascades, Klamath Mountains, Blue Mountains,
and some patches of the Northern Basin and Range and West Cascades ecoregions
(Gilligan et al. 1994, Marshall 1999, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2016, eBird
2020). In the Cascades range of Oregon, White -headed Woodpeckers are found
primarily on dry eastern slopes, but occur very locally on western slopes near Crater
Lake and in the eastern Siskiyou Mountains (Gilligan et al. 1994).
White -headed Woodpeckers are restricted to mixed -coniferous forest habitat dominated
by pines, usually ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), but may also inhabit sugar pine
(Pinus lambertiana), white fir (Abies concolor), incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens),
and Douglas -fir (Pseudotsuga menziesh) (Short 1982) as well as lodgepole pine (Pinus
contorta) and western white pine (Pinus monticola) (Kozma and Kroll 2012), and grand fir
(Abies grandis) or western larch forests (Larix occidentalis) (Lorenz et al. 2015b). In
central Oregon, common shrub species found within woodpecker territories include
snowbrush (Ceanothus velutinus), manzanita (Archtosaphylos spp.), and bitterbrush
(Purshia tridentata) (Marshall 1999).
In central Oregon, the species inhabits multi -storied old -growth ponderosa pine forests
with canopy cover <51 %°, more than 12 m2/ha basal area of live trees which are >53 cm
diameter at breast height (DBH), more than 32 m maximum canopy height, and shrub
cover exceeding 30% (Dixon 1995a). Trees used by woodpeckers average 73.7 (± 0.63)
cm DBH in contiguous stands and 61.3 (± 0.59) cm DBH in fragmented habitat (Dixon
1995b). In central Oregon, White -headed Woodpeckers used large -diameter snags (� 53
cm DBH) for nesting and roosting in greater proportion than was available (Dixon 1995b).
Across its range, habitat degradation has been targeted as a primary cause of population
decline due to the species' association with large -diameter trees prized for their
commercial value (NatureServe 2021). White -headed Woodpeckers in Oregon are at risk
from extensive loss of large diameter ponderosa pine trees to timber harvest as well as a
lack of recruitment of pine due to fire suppression (Altman 2000). In Interior Great Basin,
including Oregon, Idaho, and Washington, Dixon modeled a 56% risk of falling below a
metapopulation threshold of 500 individuals by 2110 due to habitat loss (Dixon 2010).
Additionally, models suggested that the Interior Great Basin metapopulation has a 100%
risk of experiencing a 99% decline in the next 100 years without dispersal, or 39% risk
with dispersal, suggesting that maintaining connections between populations will be
important for the species' persistence in the Interior Great Basin (Dixon 2010).
In Deschutes National Forest, occupancy of known territories in 1998-2002 diminished by
4.3-12.2% each year (Freznel 2002).
Oregon ®apartment of Fish & Wildlife
Hopefully this helps! East Region Conservation Wildlife Biologist
61374 Parreil Road
Kaly Adkins (she/her/hers) Bend, Oregon 97702
Office: 541-633-1116
Cell; 541-993-4628
Fax: 541-388-6049
5/6/23, 12:04 PM
White -headed Woodpecker —Oregon Conservation Strategy
OVERVIEW
Species Common Name
White -headed Woodpecker
Federal Listing Status
Species of Concern
ECOREGIONS
Blue Mountains
(/ecoregion/blue-mountains/)
SPECIAL NEEDS
Species Scientific Name
Picoides alboiarvatus
State Listing Status
Sensitive
East Cascades
(/ecoregionleast-cascades/)
Klamath Mountains
(/ecoregion/Idamath-mountains/)
https://www.oregonconservationstrategy.org/strategy-species/white-headed-woodpecker/ 1 /2
5/6/23, 12:04 PM
White -headed Woodpecker — Oregon Conservation Strategy
White -headed Woodpeckers are found in large tracts of open ponderosa pine woodlands. They require mature
trees for foraging and snags for nesting.
IMMU'1 (* 1
White -headed Woodpeckers have experienced declines and local extirpations. Loss of mature ponderosa pine
trees and snags, habitat degradation from encroaching trees and shrubs, and lack of recruitment of young
ponderosa pine into larger size classes have adversely affected this species. Egg predation in areas of high
predator (most likely chipmunks and golden -mantled ground squirrels, Callospermophilus lateralis) densities is
associated with shrubs and downed wood.
111.111XU0
Assess distribution. Evaluate impacts of forest management practices on woodpeckers and habitat suitability of
managed forests. Quantify predation rates by individual predator species, and describe habitat relationships of
rodent egg predators.
CONSERVATION ACTIONS
Retain existing (or manage to create) large tracts of open, mature woodland. Retain snags and high cut stumps.
Eliminate or restrict fuelwood cutting of stumps and snags in suitable habitat.
KEY REFERENCE OR PLAN
A Conservation Assessment for the White -headed Woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus)
(http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnwrissssp/documents2/ca-bi-picoldes-albolarvatus-2013-08-07.pc f)
https://www.oregonconservatiionstrategy.org/strategy-species/white-headed-woodpecker/ 2/2
off limits to any piping. But because they are man made they still have all the same
qualities as riparian areas. Ducks, beaver, deer, song birds, spotted frogs, hawks,
bald eagles -the list goes on. Unfortunately we have already lost thousands of tress
due to piping. I know this because I am a certified arborist with a tree service
company and called out all the time for dying trees on peoples property where the
canals have been piped. Then of course there is the aesthetic value that brings up
the property values and the overall livability of Central Oregon. I know, I'm a native
Bendite I remember being a young child, as well as many of my adult years, I love
being around the canals. Its like open space that adults and children need. They
have been in our community for over a 100 years. But you can't get open space like
that in a man made park. I addition, only a few people have canals going through
their property is not considered a large public problem. These right of ways for
canals were given under the pretense that they would be open and not piped and
put underground. I don't think its right that these easements allow for piping without
homeowners consideration. Where does it say they can change it to pipe? The
waterway is a big part of our property value. Our property was purchased and
valued because of the water. We will financially suffer greatly when out property is
devalued. I don't think this is legal without our consent. There are plenty of open
canals that could be piped without harming .our properties. You know where those
are. We all do. Thanks you for your time in reading this letter. I hope some of these
thoughts will be given some consideration
Wade Fagen- I o koiAej - caws
�vSES CO
o`'� G2� BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
MEETING DATE: May 10, 2023
SUBJECT: BOCC Letter of Support for the Deschutes County Justice Reinvestment
Preliminary Formula Grant Application for the 23-25 Biennium
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move approval of Chair signature on a letter communicating the Board's support for the
Oregon justice Reinvestment Program preliminary formula grant application.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
House Bill 3194 was passed by the Oregon Legislature as a means to control ever
increasing prison growth by investing in local criminal justice systems. The funding started
in the 13-15 biennium and the Oregon Legislature has continued to fund this grant
r -rnm r)ncrhi itnc rn, int%/ thrni iah rnllahnratinn with I PSCC agencies has aoolied for and
Nl %Jb1 U111. VI. ICJ ��...i ---11IJ u... v...0.. __.._ _ _. _._. _.. - - - - V -
received the grant funds every application cycle and is applying for funds for the 23-25
biennium. The grant this year consists of a preliminary grant application for formula funds
and will follow with a secondary application process that includes victim's services, a
program budget and the competitive grant funding application.
justice Reinvestment has focused on two major goals. First, safe prison bed reduction for
individuals with prison eligible drug, property and driving crimes. Second, reduction in
recidivism for clients on supervision for JRP eligible crimes. While doing this the focus has
also been on ensuring public safety and holding clients accountable. Funding requested for
the 23-25 biennium will be used to sustain the work we have been doing which has shown
some impacts for both prison utilization and recidivism reduction. Deschutes County
justice Reinvestment Program is designed for clients who receive a Downward Departure
sentence in lieu of prison or who release from prison early on Sort -Term Transitional Leave
(STTL) or Alternative to Incarceration Program (AIP). The JRP program aims to safely and
effectively supervise clients in the community based on their criminogenic risk and needs.
In addition to supervision, clients receive risk and needs assessments, case management
with an emphasis on structured skill building and support for cognitive -based therapy. We
also work to connect clients to treatment based on their risk needs profile and help reduce
basic needs barriers such as housing and transportation. Our program has been working
closely with the District Attorney's office over the years and more recently we have worked
with the Sheriffs office on a pre-trial component.
We are requesting authorization for chair signature on a letter of support from the Board
for the preliminary grant application. The application is attached and has been reviewed
and approved by LPSCC.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
A budget has not been released in terms of the amount of funds available for Deschutes
County. This will be available once the legislative session has concluded. We are
anticipating a similar allocation as last biennium. For the 2021-2023 biennium we received
$1,563,762 for FTE and services connected to formula funding. This did not include
supplemental and other competitive funds.
ATTENDANCE:
Trevor Stephens, Business Manager (Community Justice)
May 10t", 2023
Oregon Criminal Justice Commission
885 Summer St. NE
Salem, OR 97301
Oregon Criminal Justice Commission,
On behalf of the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners, I would like to convey our support for
the FY 23-25 Justice Reinvestment Preliminary Formula Grant Application submitted by Deschutes County
Community Justice. We are excited that Deschutes County is part of the efforts to meet the goals of Justice
Reinvestment and understand the collective effort that is required by our community partners and local
agencies.
We are happy with the current progress that has been made. We support the efforts to sustain and
build on the JRP program model.
Anthony DeBone
Chair
Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners
1300 NW Wall Street Bend, Oregon 97703
A, (541) 388-6572 board@deschutes.org @www.deschutes.org
Deschutes County Justice Reinvestment
Grant Application
Formula Grant
Due May 251h, 2023
1. Cover Sheet
a. LPSCC Chair Contact Information
b. Applicant Contact Information
c. Fiscal Contact Information
2. Consultation of Data Dashboards
a. If your county has seen an increase in prison usage over the past 12 months or if
your prison usage is above your historic baseline, please identify local factors that
may be contributing to the rise in prison usage.
i. Link to CJC
ii. Over the past 12 months, Deschutes County prison usage has leveled out
after a slight increase for JRP eligible crimes. As of March 2022, we were
at 1185 months, reached the high point in October 2022 at 1499 and are
currently at 1439 months as of the most recent data available in March
2023. Over the past year, many pandemic -related impacts and backlogs to
the Court and District Attorney have begun a return to pre -pandemic
operations, likely affecting the increase in prison usage. However, overall
we remain 17% below our three-year baseline of 1722 month.
b.If your county has seen an increase in recidivism (incarceration) during the last
year of available data or if recidivism has risen since 2013, please identify local
factors that may be contributing to the rise in recidivism.
i. Link to CJC
ii. Deschutes County's most recent cohort recidivism rate in terms of
incarceration is less than pre-JRP rates from 2014. We continue to watch
our recidivism rates and have been working to implement supervision
techniques and skills that research shows directly affects a client's
likelihood to recidivate. We continue to use Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
(CBT) in the form of MRT with our male clients and we are finishing a
technical assistance grant that specifically looks at our female clients and
the types of CBT services we can offer. Our Parole and Probation Officers
(PPOs) also utilize core correction practices, Carey guides, and other skills
based intervention in order to address specific criminogenic risks and
needs of our clients.
Page 1 of 11
c. How does your entire Justice Reinvestment Grant Program contribute to the
reduction of racial disparities (see dashboard), or disparities affecting other
historically underserved communities?
i. Link to CJC
ii. Our JRP program contributes to the reduction of racial disparities or
disparities affecting other historically underserved communities by its
emphasis on effective and balanced supervision, adherence to the risk,
needs, responsivity principles, and maintaining manageable caseload sizes
for quick, consistent and fair responses to client behaviors and needs. First
among these is supervision based on validated risk and needs assessment.
During this assessment and the first few office visits the goal is to build
rapport and trust so clients are willing to share who they are, what is
important to them, and their frame of reference including lived experience
within as people with racial, ethnic and gender identities. This allows us to
identify and connect them with potential services that may be able to meet
some of their responsivity needs for their personal identity. Since 2020,
we have utilized a community -based advisory committee to help inform
and provide feedback on different process and services that we are able to
offer. Out of this committee, we have connected with a community -based
organization known as the Father's Group to start the Bridge program and
are currently creating a pilot partnership with another community -based
organization First Light to provide culturally responsive substance use
rt i
1llVV.ry support. Both „ these programeU aim to provide culturally
responsive support services for our clients based on their individual
identity and community needs. We have also recently collaborated with
the District Attorney to utilize JRI capacity grant funding to build an
equity plan for our departments, starting from needs and priorities
identified in our community advisory committee, which will have a direct
impact on the JRP program as a whole.
3. Proposed Grant Program
a. Program Name: Deschutes County Justice Reinvestment Program (JRP)
b. Was this program a part of 21-23 Justice Reinvestment funded program?
i. Yes
c. What type of program is this?
i. Downward Departure
d. Briefly describe the purposed program and its purpose (in three lines or less).
i. Deschutes County Justice Reinvestment Program is a collaboration
between the Circuit Court, District Attorney's office, Parole & Probation
and the state of Oregon to reduce prison utilization and recidivism while
maintaining accountability and public safety with prison -eligible
individuals who are supervised in the community in lieu of prison. We
utilize treatment, housing, cognitive behavioral therapy, reduction of
Page 2 of 11
barriers, targeted interventions and sanction in order to accomplish this
purpose. Program areas include identifying eligible candidates, conducting
high quality assessments, and providing effective community supervision
in accordance with core correctional practices that incorporate the
principles of risk, needs, responsivity and fidelity.
Which of the goals of the Justice Reinvestment Grant Program does this program
meet?
i. Reduce prison usage while protecting public safety and holding
individuals accountable.
• If it reduces prison usage, briefly; describe how below.
a. Deschutes County created JRP to address the major goals
of the Justice Reinvestment Initiative. Our prison usage
based on the Criminal Justice Commission's JRI dashboard
for property, drug, and driving clients demonstrates success
in meeting the some of the prison reduction goals. In FY23-
25, we propose to continue the activities that have thus far
served the county successfully and we will look at
modifications/refinements that will help ensure continued
success.
b. JRP will continue using the defendant assessment report to
screen prison eligible defendants and will coordinate with
the Downward Departure DA to assess client's viability for
U1G tJlogr.C1111. 111G1G is llo s1JGGll1G Jcore or cr 1111111A1 111J1V1 y
factor that automatically eliminates someone -- our goal is
to take a broad look at each defendant's individual situation
and provide that to the Court which makes the final
decision. The defendant assessment reports looks at
criminogenic risk, needs, and responsivity. It also take into
account the client's stage of change and supervision
history.
c. Once in JRP clients receive supervision based on their
criminogenic risk and needs, which can include intensive
supervision, increased office and home visits, specialized
parenting, employment, housing and/or culturally specific
needs and cognitive interventions with PPOs. PPG's
provide creative and consistent responses to violations
including effective use of disapproval, verbal/written
reprimands, community services, increased reporting,
electronic monitoring, work crew, increased UA's, and jail.
PPOs can also access a small, but flexible funding resource
to provide basic needs assistance such as bus passes, DMV
identification help, or other resources that will help the
client in meeting their case plan and behavioral change plan
Page 3 of 11
goals. Finally, medium or high -risk JRP clients based on
the LS/CMI are enrolled in in-house cognitive behavioral
treatment (CBT) services. These programs are evidence -
based and require a minimum of 16 weeks to complete.
d. In addition, PPOs also utilize motivational interviewing,
core correctional CBT tools such as Behavior Chains and
Problem Solving, Carey Guides, and other evidence -based
techniques during office visits. PPOs have been trained by
the University of Cincinnati (UCI) in the use of Core
Correction Practices (CCP) and have been undergoing
technical assistance from UCI with the implementation of
CCP into case planning and office visits. The Parole &
Probation department created a new Core Correctional
Practices instructor team specifically to provide ongoing
coaching and support to raise the level of competency and
use of such practices across caseloads. PPOs use a
continuum of sanctions such as effective use of
disapproval, work crew, written reprimand, verbal
reprimand, increased urine analysis requirements, increased
reporting and jail. They also provide transportation
assistance, treatment referrals, treatment funding, sober
housing, transitional housing, mental health referrals, and
other &ervices to address Iniiblic safety and client
accountability. The goal is to maintain a high level of
contact frequency, which has proven to help to reduce
recidivism.
e. JRP supervision differs from traditional supervision, as
there is more oversight due to smaller caseloads as well as
specific funding and support of programs through the JRI
formula grant that provide for basic needs assistance and
critical resources and support.
ii. Reduce recidivism while protecting public safety and holding individuals
accountable
• If it reduces recidivism, briefly describe how below.
a. Deschutes JRP will supervise clients based on their risk and
needs level, and from there will provide core correctional
practices, which includes structured skill building. JRP will
continue to refer to outside providers for treatment. We will
continue basic need supports and barrier reduction
resources such as housing, DMV Ids, transportation, and
more. We plan to continue the success of our cognitive -
based programing and we will continue to look at options
Page 4 of 11
which will include treatment readiness for pre -
contemplative individuals, and gender -specific criminal
thinking, risk reduction and criminogenic needs curricula.
b. We will continue to invest in small caseloads for those
high -risk downward departure clients, which may include
intensive supervision, sober housing, transitional housing,
substance use disorder treatment support, and
transportation assistance when applicable.
c. We will continue to support local treatment providers to
ensure their service offerings are evidence based and
directly work to help reduce recidivism.
d. The JRP will continue to address public safety concerns
inherent in early release or downward departure
supervision by emphasizing accurate and early assessment,
ensuring basic needs are met, case management based on
risk and needs, frequent contact to monitor for compliance
and safety concerns, random urine analysis testing, and
access to cognitive -based and other treatment needs.
f. Target Population
i. Gender Identity
• Men, Women, Non -binary._
ii. Race%Enthnicity
• All
iii. Other Historically Underserved Community's
• All
iv. Risk Level
• Medium and High
v. Which crime types does this program serve?
• Driving Offenses (generally ORS chapters 811, 813)
• Property Offenses (generally ORS chapters 164, 165)
• Drug Offenses (generally ORS chapters 471, 475)
• Other: We take a look at all STTL and AIP candidates and if we
can safely place them in the community, we will accept them
regardless of crime type.
g. Which, if any assessment does this program use?
i. PSC
ii. LS/CMI
iii. WRNA
iv. TCU
v. URICA
h. Briefly describe how the above assessments are used in your program.
Page 5 of 11
i. If the client starts in our pre-trial program, they will have a VPRAI
assessment and likely a Defendant Assessment Report, which includes
PSC, LSCMIIWRNA, URICA, and TCU. Assessors will also provide
narratives about past supervision and other criminal history information.
ii. Once clients enter supervision we utilize PSC and LSCMI/WRNA to
determine caseload placement and level of supervision, as well as top
criminogenic needs on which to focus case management
i. Has this program received a Corrections Program Checklist or the George Mason
University Risk-Need-Responsivity Evaluation in the last 10 years?
i. The entire program has not, but specific aspects of the program have.
ii. Most recently, our internal MRT program underwent the George Mason
review in December of 2022. We received a score indicating high
adherence to evidence based practices, with no major structural changes
recommended.
iii. In addition, one of our main contracted treatment providers has passed a
CPC assessment in the last five year.
j. Does this program provide culturally responsive services as defined in SB 1510
(2022)?
i. Yes.
rr t ..,
11. 11 'yub, a lull '., uescriuc Delo W .
• Deschutes County envisions a future where all individuals on
community supervision have access to culturally responsive
supervision, treatment and resources in a manner that, based on
self -defined racial and ethnic identity, supports each person's
resilience, integrity, wellness and success. Like all people,
individuals on community supervision perceive their own identity
in a variety of ways; those identities are also perceived by others
and influence the quality of individuals' lives. In the criminal
justice system, racial and ethnic identity is key to acknowledge and
address. Oregon, like all states, struggles to accurately collect
racial and ethnic identity data and has an overrepresentation in its
criminal justice system of individuals from our Black, Native
American, and Hispanic communities. We see this disparity in
Deschutes County in recent data (2015-2019): Black men,
Hispanic men and Native American men (and Native American
women in some areas) make up a higher percentage of those on
supervision compared to the general demographic profile of
Deschutes County. Currently approximately 10% of individuals on
community supervision are identified within information systems
as Black, Indigenous, Latinx and Asian. We are cognizant that
Page 6 of 11
even more individuals may self -identify as such, as illustrated by
the Criminal Justice Commission's 2015 analysis that 15% of
DOC adults in custody were erroneously identified as white using
observed instead of self -identified racial and ethnic identity
designation. While numbers can fluctuate from year to year due to
smaller statistical samples, a six year data set (2014-2020)
provided by the Department of Corrections identified the following
disparities in the Deschutes County supervised population:
individuals identified as Black are slightly more likely than those
identified as white to receive a jail sanction once on community
supervision. Those identified as Native American are significantly
more likely than those identified as white are. Those identified as
Asian/Pacific Islander and Latinx are slightly or significantly less
likely than white counterparts. Individuals identified as Black and
Latinx appear to be supervised more intensively due to either
overrides or remaining at original risk levels than their
counterparts. Those initially assessed as low risk are more likely to
be overridden to a higher supervision level than their counterparts
are, and those initially assessed as high risk are more likely to stay
supervised at high -risk level than others are.
• Further, the relative small number of Black, Native American,
TT • A .:: ;.� /1l._:.:.C: `. T_1__. 1:,.«a,. :« ♦,....., .A....., ....4
Hispanic and tisian racific, Mall our system
p..---- der c11G111,J 111 VIAL Jy J1.G111 UVGJ llv�
diminish our obligation and desire to address disparity in treatment
or outcomes. Disparity can happen to individuals no matter how
large their number of a specific population - for example, failing to
provide information or communication in the language a person
understands, or providing treatment to a person without knowledge
or sensitivity to their cultural orientation and frame of reference.
Deschutes County strives to understand and interrupt racial and
ethnic disparity where it occurs and within our scope of control.
One of the biggest tools in our toolbox for this work includes
culturally responsive services and supports.
• We do this in several ways. First, is our commitment to thorough
risk and needs assessment within the first days and weeks of
probation or STTL supervision using tools validated in the state of
Oregon and conducted in a manner that fosters trust and a
collaborative professional relationship with justice -involved
individuals. This supports justice -involved individuals to share
who they are, including cultural or linguistic backgrounds and
needs, and lived experience within and related to their individual
social identities. Once we begin working with individuals, their
Page 7 of 11
responsivity needs become clearer, including whether culturally
specific treatment, services or supports would be an appropriate
step to meet the needs of supervision plans and life goals.
Currently we operate several JRP-supported culturally specific
programs through collaborative partnerships and agreements.
These include the Bridge Program, a partnership with a community
based organization The Father's Group, a Black -led, collaborative
and cross-cultural group working in various community spaces
such as education, business and social services to support
community connection and wellness for all who call Central
Oregon home. The Bridge Program is offered currently to men
who identify as Black, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian and people of
color to provide sponsorship, mentorship, community -based
services and supports. Another culturally responsive service area is
a pilot project with First Light Peer Support Services to provide
culturally appropriate peer support to individuals and families who
are transforming their lives and relationships within recovery using
a community -focused framework. Using three "poles of support" —
culture, community and connection, First Light centers the lived
experience, community and identity of men and women from
marginalized cultural communities and creates connection and
supports grounded in community. This project is filling an exciting
A r ,. ,� n, o . ,,, r11
anu necessary service gap in. Central O—re-go . — one di"M
understands individual substance use recovery and sobriety require
individuals to connect with community and purpose larger than
one's self; and understands that men and women from
marginalized communities require culturally specific support and
belonging to thrive. Both the Bridge Program and First Light work
with clients on downward departure and short-term transitional
leave for JRP- and other crime types.
4. Eligibility Requirements
a. Does the county consider and accept short-term transitional leave candidates as
appropriate?
i. Yes
b. Does the county or county partners provide assistance to clients enrolling in the
Oregon Health Plan?
i. Yes
5. Planning and Implementation
a. Describe the collaborative partnerships in place that will support the county's
performance and progress toward the goals of Justice Reinvestment.
Page 8 of 11
i. Deschutes County's JRP program is built on the foundation of multiple
collaborative partnerships that support the work at individual, community,
organizational and systemic levels. Individually, staff, supervisors and
justice -involved individuals on the front lines do the work. Staff build
professional relationships, provide opportunities to learn and change
behaviors alongside individuals on supervision, and not just hold
individuals accountable but teach individuals what personal accountability
can mean for their success and wellness. Together, every new job obtained
and kept, each day of sobriety maintained or every setback experienced
tell the story of how we are doing. This becomes known at the community
level. Families, friends and employers share what is happening when their
loved one returns from prison, or stays in the community. The Parole &
Probation division continues its two-year long Community Conversation
(see below), checking in monthly with community members from different
sectors and sharing experiences of the justice system within marginalized
communities. At the organizational level, Parole & Probation, the District
Attorney's Office, and the Deschutes County Jail are in routine contact on
JRP programming whether through specific cases, or administrative and
project -level coordination and collaboration (for example pretrial
coordination or Defendant Assessment process, or Equity Planning). Our
mutual successes rely on the strengths of this partnership. At the systemic
level, the Local Public Safety Coordinating Council provides oversight
and parameters to our program by rVW1lreviewing apprvviigpiaiis anu
program reporting, understanding the impact on recidivism, prison
utilization, public safety and behavior change that JRP has had, and
keeping abreast of changes in laws, regulations and trends that impact our
work.
6. Input of Historically Underserved Communities and Partners
a. Yes
b. How does the county include the input of historically underserved communities
and community partners in the operation and/or periodic review of the programs
proposed for Justice Reinvestment funding?
i. Deschutes County has facilitated a dynamic and committed community -
based partnership and advisory committee called the Community
Conversation group for the past two years. The group is comprised of six
community members who come from and advocate for marginalized
cultural, racial, and ethnic identity communities, as well as four county
staff members. Using a semi -structured facilitation model called a
restorative practice circle, the group meets monthly to build relationships
and trust between community and justice system; reach common
understanding about current JRP and other community justice
programming and outcomes; share known racial and ethnic disparities for
Page 9 of 11
Deschutes County residents in key criminal justice areas; and identify
needs and gaps preventing success in order to inform future strategies and
resource investment. The culturally responsive services and support
program The Bridge Program described above was created through
conversation, collaboration and identification of needs that occurred in this
space. Likewise the pilot program for First Light described above, resulted
from work and support we created together with community members in
the group. Currently the group is shepherding the creation of an Equity
Plan funded by the JRI Capacity Grant. That plan, starting from the work
of the Community Conversation, will assist us to collectively create the
next needed steps to interrupt and eradicate racial and ethnic disparities in
our county's justice system. Fundamentally, the Community Conversation
has become a space for justice professionals to listen and learn what the
justice system "is" and how it is experienced by those most affected. It has
increased trust, innovation, equity and effectiveness at policy, program
and individual case levels and we will continue to meet, grow and meet
new challenges as they emerge.
7. Victim Service Providers Selection
a. How does the County intend to select which victim service providers in the
community to award funds?
b. Will the county run a competitive process?
vo
1. 1 La
c. If the county will run a competitive process, please briefly describe the process
below.
i. We will release a request for grant proposals. A committee from LPSCC
will be formed. This committee will review these grant proposals and
make a recommendation to LPSCC on how to split the award based on
percentages of the 10%. We will utilize the framework released by CJC in
terms of what they will want for the Victim's Services Providers for the
request for grant proposals.
8. Evaluation Plan
a. Indicate how your LPSCC intends to meet the evaluation portion of your
proposal.
b. Note: the application for the Evaluation Plan will be due in September.
i. Remit 3% of awarded funds to the CJC's statewide evaluation budget.
ii. Do you have a suggested research topic for the CJC to study? (Optional)
• Ask LPSCC
9. 2023-25 Competitive Grant
Page 10 of 11
a. In 2017, House Bill 3078 created a competitive grant to support downward
departure prison diversion programs. Funding figures for this grant will be
released at a future date once the legislature has appropriated funding. At this
stage in the process, we just need to know if you intend to apply for this grant.
b. Note: The application for the Competitive Grant will be due in September.
c. Would you like to apply for this optional grant?
i. Yes
10. Letter of Support from LPSCC
11. Letter of Support from BOCC
12. Statement of Commitment from District Attorney
13. Statement of Commitment from Presiding Judge
14. Statement of Commitment from Community Corrections
Page 11 of 11
Wells Ashby, Chair
Presidin; judge
Nick Lelack, Vice Chair
County Administrator
,Janice Garceau
County Health Services Director
Thomas Spear
Attorney at Law
Anthony Broadrnan
Bend City Council
Sara crosswhite
911 Service District Director
Christopher Seber
OSP Area Commander
Roger Olsen
NAM[ Central Oregon
Phil Chang
County Commissioner
Deevy Holcomb
Community justice Director
Angle Curtis
Trial Court Administrator
Stephen Gunnels
District Attorney
Joseph Mabonga
Oregon Youth Authority
Shane Nelson
Deschutes County Sheriff
Mike Krantz
Bend Police Chief
Devin Leuvis
Redmond Police Chief
Keith Witcosky
Redmond City Manager
Gil Levy
Citizen Member
Donna Mills
Citizen Member
Erin Taylor
Citizen Member
Mike Womer
Sunriver Police Chief
Jason van Meter
Black Butte Police Chief
May 2, 2023
Oregon Criminal Justice Commission
885 Summer St. NE
Salem, OR 97301
Oregon Criminal Justice Commission,
On behalf of the Deschutes County Local Public Safety Coordinating
Council, I would like to convey our approval and support for the FY 23-25
Justice Reinvestment Grant Application submitted by Deschutes County
Community Justice. The grant is the efforts of a close partnership between
our stakeholders and we are excited to continue with our program that has
helped us meet the goals of Justice Reinvestment.
Sincerely,
The Honorable Wells Ashby,
Chair Local Public Safety Coordinating Council
1300 NVV Wall Street Bend, Oregon 97703
VT E S COG2,A
G G
MEETING DATE: May 10, 2023
SUBJECT: Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Annual Report
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The mission of the Deschutes County Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee (BPAC) is to
promote and encourage safe bicycling and walking as a significant means of
transportation in Deschutes County. The committee serves to advise Deschutes County
and the cities of Bend, LaPine, Redmond, and Sisters, as well as the Oregon
Department of Transportation.
This presentation will provide an overview of BPAC's activities during 2022 and will
present the Safe Sidewalk Awards.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None
ATTENDANCE:
Tanya Saltzman, Senior Planner
Dave Thomson, BPAC Chair
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC)
DATE: May 10, 2023
SUBJECT: BPAC Annual Report
I. Overview
The mission of Deschutes County Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee (BPAC) is to promote
and encourage safe bicycling and walking as a significant means of transportation in
Deschutes County. The committee serves to advise Deschutes County, the cities of Bend,
LaPine, Redmond, and Sisters, as well as the Oregon Department of Transportation.
BPAC is comprised of 13 volunteer citizen members with regional representation from across
Deschutes County. The committee holds monthly meetings to discuss current bicycle and
pedestrian projects and programs, provide input, and advise local agencies concerning
bicycling and walking interests and priorities. BPAC meetings are open to the public and
include agency representatives as non -voting participants.
II. Safe Sidewalk Awards
BPAC created the Safe Sidewalks Awards in 2006 to recognize those businesses and property
owners who go beyond the legal requirements to remove snow, ice and debris from sidewalks.
This year we received numerous submissions in response to our call for nominations and are
honored to present Safe Sidewalks Awards to the following individuals and organizations:
• Owen Brand, Bend
• Newport Ave Market, Bend
• Brian See, Bend
• Stahancyk, Kent & Hook Family Law, Bend
• Joseph Therrien, Bend
• Technology Design Associates, Bend
• Nate Lund, Bend
• Thomas Stewart, Redmond
• Joanne Bulley, Bend
117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
(541) 388-65@ bpac@deschutes .org ® www.deschutes.org/bpac
III. Committee Focus Areas
DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN (TSP) UPDATE
Our TSP subcommittee has been working with county staff and their TSP update consultant
since the project started in 2021. Our goal is for the revised TSP to adopt a strategic vision for
the future of active transportation in the county, including a significant focus on bicycling and
walking as key transportation options as well as recreational activities.
A prioritized list of over 20 regional connections and recreational connections was included in
the county's online TSP open house last December. The core of these projects is to connect
all the cities and smaller communities in the county with paths that allow people to bike safely
between them. Locations like state parks and other recreation areas would also be connected
in this network.
We hope the commissioners will adopt a transportation system plan in 2023 that highlights
strong goals for walking and bicycling elements in the plan overview and includes the
prioritized list of regional and recreational connections. We believe federal and state
greenhouse gas reduction goals will continue to drive additional funding for active
transportation projects and having these connections identified and prioritized in the
transportation plan will position the county to leverage that funding.
CENTRAL OREGON BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN SUMMIT
Last September BPAC held our first Bicycle and Pedestrian Summit since 2019. The event in
Redmond drew over 30 attendees from around the region as well as members of the Oregon
State Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee and media representatives.
Topics discussed included Active Transportation and Health, e-Bikes: Opportunities and
Challenges, Safe Routes to Schools, Equity in Transportation, and Active Transportation
Planning. We also had a roundtable with representatives from Central Oregon communities
sharing information on bicycle and pedestrian improvements in their areas.
We plan to present the 10th edition of the Summit in September.
E-BIKE OPPORTUNITIES AND ISSUES
The rules and laws for a -bikes are confusing: Thirty-seven states and the federal government
have adopted a 3-class system for e-bikes while Oregon has not. E-bikes can be ridden
anywhere on Oregon's roads, streets, and paths that a bike can be ridden except sidewalks
but riders must be 16 years old. Every land management agency in our area has different
rules for where a -bikes can be ridden.
So even though there is no agreement about exactly what e-bikes are, who can ride them,
and where they can be ridden, the use of a -bikes is exploding and the state and some cities
are providing rebates to encourage their use. At the same time, they provide a new and
exciting form of inexpensive and low -impact transportation. We can expect growing use and
continued confusion.
Page 2
TRANSIT HUBS AND MULTI -MODAL CONNECTIVITY
Cascades East Transit (CET) is the regional public transportation provider for Crook,
Deschutes, and Jefferson counties as well as the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs.
Services include fixed routes within the City of Bend, Community Connector routes with
connect cities throughout the service area, and Dial -A -Ride services throughout six cities.
These services allow riders to easily transition between bicycling and walking to utilizing transit
in order to make those longer trips. Over the past year, CET has focused on making new and
improved connections as well as planning for multi -modal mobility hubs.
One such connection was the addition of a new route, Route 25, which connects residents of
Crooked River Ranch to medical, shopping, and employment opportunities in Redmond. This
route has proven to be crucial to many senior residents who rely on the service to do their
shopping and get to medical appointments. Another improved connection was the relocation of
the Deschutes River Woods stop to a more centralized and safer location that has seen higher
ridership and satisfaction with the stop.
Mobility hubs will be strategically planned locations where all modes of transportation can
come together to ensure individuals traveling without a car have a means of completing their
trips. These hubs would include bus stops for multiple routes, shared and public bike parking,
ride share parking, and wayfinding as well as other amenities. These hubs will facilitate
connections for transit riders to other modes of transportation for their first or last mile and
serve as centers for mobility.
BIKE SHARE
Bend began an a -bike share agreement with Bird Bikes in 2022. They have 250 bikes in the
program with about 150 bikes in operation on any given day. With almost 26,000 trips
averaging 1.34 miles, this program has avoided the release of 3.6 tons of CO2. Bike rental
cost is about $27/hour which makes it much more expensive than bike rentals at local bike
shops so it serves a different type of customer. About 11 % of rides are daily commutes —people
who ride every day, at the same time, using the same route. Discounts are given to people
with low incomes and that program is growing. The Bird Bikes will be back on the street on
May 12 this spring.
Bend is working with local businesses to identify the best bike parking areas and ;has installed
120 public bike racks. In 2023 credits for parking bikes in designated areas should help keep
bikes corralled. For 2024, they are applying for a carbon reduction grant which will be used to
add Mobility Points/Hubs close to affordable housing and to add city -owned a -cargo bikes.
Redmond is starting discussions with Bird Bikes about an e-scooter share program. It is still
too early to tell if they will start such a program.
ODOT US97 NORTH CORRIDOR PROJECT
BPAC has been engaged with ODOT and the city of Bend since this project was kicked off in
2019 with receipt of a $60 million federal INFRA grant. Unfortunately the scope of the project
was constrained by the 2014 Environmental Impact Statement that did not adequately
Page 3
anticipate bicycle and pedestrian connectivity requirements. ODOT and the city have worked
within those constraints to improve the bike/ped components where feasible but there are still
significant gaps in direct connections from the project area to the surrounding community. The
city explored the possibility of a connection across the new section of parkway and the railroad
but decided it was not viable.
BPAC will continue to engage as the project moves through the design/build stages this year
and next.
ODOT US20 TUMALO - OLD BEND REDMOND PROJECT
BPAC has also been engaged on this project since the original stakeholders meetings that
recommended a roundabout at US20 & Cook / O.B. Riley coupled with a grade -separated
bike/ped crossing. This became part of the U.S. 20: Tumalo-Cooley Road project which also
includes a multi -use path on U.S. 20 between Cooley Road and Old Bend -Redmond Highway.
While the original budget did not include the under crossing ODOT and the county eventually
identified funds to include it. This project is under construction and will greatly improve safety
and connectivity for all modes.
BEND - LAVA BUTTE AND SUNRIVER - LA PINE TRAIL PROJECTS
ODOT received a Federal Land Access Program (FLAP) grant to construct a multi -use path
from the Baker / Knott Road interchange to the Lava Butte visitor center, connecting to the
High Desert Museum. ODOT and the USFS selected a preferred route over a year ago, but
from BPAC's perspective the protect schedule seems to be slipping due to zoning challenges.
The ODOT project page currently shows construction not starting until Fall 2024.
This is a key project and part of the connectivity plan BPAC is supporting in the county TSP
update. We hope the issues can be resolved quickly so this connection can be completed in a
timely fashion.
ODOT has also received a FLAP grant to develop a plan to extend the multi -use path from
Lava Butte to La Pine. This project kicked off recently and BPAC has a representative on the
stakeholder committee.
LETTERS OF SUPPORT FOR GRANT APPLICATIONS
In 2022 BPAC provided letters of support for these grant applications:
• The City of Sisters applied for a grant from the Oregon State Parks Local Government Grant
program to build a multi -use path from Village Green park to the Peterson Ridge trailhead.
This project was not selected for funding.
• The City of Sisters applied for a grant from US 20/1-ocust Ave roundabout from the FY23
Congressionally Directed Spending program to fund the US20 / Locust Avenue roundabout.
This project was funded from the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program instead.
• Bend Parks and Recreation Department applied for a FLAP grant to build a trailhead at the
north end of the to -be -built Baker / Knott to Lava Butte multi -use path. This project was not
selected for funding.
Attachments
1. BPAC 2022 Annual Report
Deschutes County
Bicycle Pedestrian
Advisory Committee
BPAC
Report to the Board of County Commissioners
January 2022 — December 2022
Page left blank intentionally
BPAC Activities Report
February 2023
BPAC Mission
The mission of Deschutes County Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee (BPAC) is to
promote and encourage safe bicycling and walking as a significant means of
transportation in Deschutes County.
The Committee serves to advise Deschutes County, the Cities of Bend, Redmond and
Sisters, and ODOT in bicycle and pedestrian transportation, and matters pertaining to
existing and proposed road construction and signing. The Committee is a source of
current information relating to the use of bicycle and walking as a means of
transportation and strives to support them as a viable means of transportation in
Deschutes County. Its recently updated goals include:
• Engage in ongoing conversations about a -bike rules and use
• Participate in planning transportation infrastructure projects
• Community outreach
• Support any efforts to develop bike share programs in the county or any of the
county's cities
The Committee serves to advise Deschutes County, the Cities of Bend, Redmond and
Sisters, and ODOT in bicycle and pedestrian transportation, and matters pertaining to
existing and proposed road construction and signing. The Committee is a source of
current information relating to the use of bicycle and walking as a means of
transportation and strives to support them as a viable means of transportation in
Deschutes County.
BPAC Membership & Meetings
BPAC is comprised of 13 volunteer county resident voting members (appointed by the
BOCC) with regional representation from all parts of Deschutes County. BPAC holds
monthly meetings to discuss and provide input and advise local agencies concerning
bicycling and walking interests and priorities. BPAC meetings are open to the public and
include government agency representatives as non -voting participants. Generally, most
meetings are held in person in Bend although effort is made to also schedule at least
three BPAC meetings in other county cities (on a rotating basis). However, due to the
ongoing concerns with in -person meetings, BPAC held January through March
meetings via Zoom and alternated every other meeting between in person and Zoom for
the rest of the 2022 meetings.
BPAC held regional meetings throughout the county as it usually did pre-COVID. The
purpose of these meetings is to highlight bicycle and pedestrian triumphs and
challenges for each area and share any plans for improvements or enhancements.
Regional meetings were held in Redmond (virtually) and Sisters.
The officers for 2022-2023 were selected by the committee in September as follows:
• Chair: Dave Thomson
• Vice Chair: David Green
• Secretary: Rachel Zakem
Starting in May of 2020, all BPAC meetings went virtual. Meeting remained virtual
through March of 2022, when BPAC voted to switch to alternating between meetings in
person one month and virtual the next.
Central Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Summit
For the first time since before the onset of COVID19, BPAC was able to present its 9t"
annual, yearly `Central Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Summit.' The summit is held in
Crook, Deschutes and Jefferson counties on a rotating basis to ensure wider Central
Oregon region involvement, input and participation in bicycling and walking issues. This
year's Summit was held in Redmond. The summit was held in conjunction with the
Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee's annual Central Oregon meeting
enabling OBPAC members to hear from Central Oregon residents about our
bicycle and pedestrian successes, challenges, and aspirations.
BPAC Activities
Summary Period: January 2022 thru December 2022
BPAC Subcommittees
BPAC had an ad hoc subcommittees to provide community recognition, support and
input for more focused discussion on bike and pedestrian (B/P) issues.
o Transportation System Plan (TSP):
■ Purpose: To provide the project consultants with information and
messaging regarding bicycle and pedestrian access in
unincorporated Deschutes County. Specifically:
• Bicycle -pedestrian goals
• A Matrix of desired routes
• A detailed description of those routes
• Reasons for utilizing shared use separated paths, not just
shoulders
4
• Advocacy for bicycling as a legitimate transportation mode,
not just a recreational hobby
• Examples of how bicycle and pedestrian facilities help with
respect to overall resiliency
The Subcommittee consisted of Mason Lacy, David Green, Chris
Cassard, and Wendy Holzman.
The subcommittee met with Kittelson and Chris Doty after
reviewing and providing feedback of the project list that was
distributed.
BPAC received the draft final TSP project list. It provides a list of
community connections. The near term largest projects are Hunnell
Rd (not really a bike-ped project) and Lower Bridge Way. There is
lots of work proposed on Cascade Lakes Hwy via federal lands
grants. Public input on the project list was solicited during the first
part of November.
BPAC External Committees
BPAC members participate in many external committees across the county in order to
provide relevant information to the committees in regards to bicycle and pedestrian
access. There are also several transportation related standing Advisory Committees
that have BPAC representation, including the Central Oregon Area Commission on
Transportation (ODOT), Cascades East Transit (CET), and the Bend Metropolitan
Planning Organization. BPAC members have volunteered for duty on these
supplementary subcommittees, as well:
o Baker Road Interchange:
■ The project is moving toward Alternative 1, with potential phasing
towards parts of Alternative 3.
■ BPAC committee members were Dave Roth and Rachel Zakem.
o Bend Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Technical Advisory
Committee JAC):
■ Developed policies regarding what to do with awarded but unused
funds.
❖ Final decisions will be made by Policy Board.
■ BPAC committee members were Dave Thomson and Wendy
Holzman.
■ Voted on how to allocate additional money coming to the MPO for
the 2021-24 period. Currently 60% of funds go to Bend for street
preservation; the remainder goes to MPO for planning activities and
grants for small projects. There was a strong feeling in the
committee that the city's amount of funding should be reduced. The
next round is 2024-2027. The recommendation is to continue to
freeze the city's funding proportion and give more funding to the
MPO.
■ Had a presentation on mobility hubs. The city has been involved in
a mobility hub feasibility study with CET.
■ Finalized recommendations to the MPO Executive Committee on
STBG grants and the Bend Transportation Bond Oversight
Committee.
■ City gave the bond committee a progress update on the initial
bond -funded projects (Wilson Corridor etc.)
■ Presented a public -facing dashboard for information such as miles
of bike lanes versus money spent.
• There may be some upcoming open positions on the committee.
■ Presentations for grant proposals for 2023-2025 STIF grant cycle
were presented.
❖ One project idea: Columbia Park pedestrian bridge, which
would coincide with embankment restoration.
❖ The City presented 4-5 other proposals generally focused on
the expansion of existing projects or expansion of the reach
of low -stress networks (Wilson corridor N-S intersections for
example).
❖ Other proposals include adding funds to the Neighborhood
Greenways project, which is in Phase 4, to combat price
escalation; grade separated DIRT crossing at Archie Briggs;
and modernizing downtown traffic signals.
o Bend Transportation Bond Oversight Committee:
■ TBOC had a presentation from LCDC on their rulemaking for
Climate -Friendly and Equitable Communities. It focused on
compact development and reducing greenhouse gases.
■ The BPAC committee member was Mason Lacy.
■ Butler Market and Boyd Acres RFP for design was released. This is
one of the largest key route projects stemming from this bond.
■ The roundabout at 9t" and Wilson was completed. Construction is
continuing eastward on Wilson.
■ Construction began on the first round of small projects in the
Neighborhood Street Safety Program.
■ The Olney undercrossing project is moving forward; issued RFP for
design.
■ Preparing recommendations to Council on midtown crossings. All
members were supportive of all three crossings but the question is
how to prioritize them; TBOC recommends prioritizing Greenwood
undercrossing first; then Franklin, and use leftover funds (if any) for
Hawthorne. Hopefully there could be additional federal money
available for the remaining projects. CAAB prioritizes the Franklin
corridor. There is lots of potential for larger development there
compared with Greenwood. Franklin is currently the most utilized
so if it is closed for construction, Greenwood isn't a great place for
a detour in its current condition. Both options could utilize a road
diet —one travel lane in each direction with one center turning lane.
o Central Oregon Area Commission on Transportation (COACT):
■ BPAC committee member was Dave Thompson
o Sisters Rural Trail Stakeholders:
■ BPAC committee member was Anne Marland
■ Put out a survey regarding what trails people would like to see.
■ A trail from Sisters to Black Butte Ranch was emphasized as a
priority as well as discussions on potential trail surfaces.
■ A draft plan was made available to the public.
o Tumalo Community Plan Active Transportation stakeholders
■ The BPAC committee members were Dave Thomson and Rachel
Zakem
■ Held walking tour of Tumalo. At the next meeting the group
reviewed issues brought up in the walking tour and discussed
priorities. There was an online survey for community members to
also contribute their opinions.
■ An open house was held on August 22; approximately 50 people
were in attendance.
■ In the dot exercise, the concept of making Tumalo a destination for
cycling was voted against by many people. Having a transit stop
there was also down voted. This is presumably about desires for
the community to remain small/quiet.
Local Updates
BPAC is a county -wide organization with committee members representing all areas of
Deschutes County. Members provide updates on Bend, Redmond, Sisters, South
County, and Sunriver as well as Deschutes County at every meeting:
o City of Bend
■ MPO kicked off the mobility hub feasibility study, the MPO is
serving as project manager.
■ Council approved $500,000 feasibility study for Midtown Crossings.
■ Tobi Marx provided an update on the Bend Bird Bike Share
program which began operating in June:
❖ 140-170 bikes in daily operation
❖ 18-year-old minimum age (but this can't really be enforced)
❖ $1 to unlock; 45 cents per minute
❖ 13,000 rides from June 3-July 14
❖ About 5000 unique riders
❖ Approximately 4500 car trips avoided
7
❖ 2 fleet managers
❖ 479 daily commuters — exact same trip at same time every
day (and this number has increased)
❖ 56 low income accounts
❖ Bird monitors each bike via GPS (separate from main battery
so it won't lose charge).
❖ This is a dockless system, but they're exploring geofencing
to direct users to preferred parking; will be working with
Google to use Street View to help verify.
■ The city applied for a grant for lower income children to receive
funding to buy electric bikes.
■ A feasibility study for new north Bend US97 alignment and railroad
underpass/Overpass is underway. The city had hoped it would be
simple to put an undercrossing culvert under highway, but it's
actually much more complicated, resulting in a very long bending
tunnel. Therefore, the study is looking at underpasses and
overpasses. The cost is between $12-20 million, and that funding
isn't available at this time. The overcrossing would have to be 23.5
feet above the tracks. The railroad has a wide right of way for future
tracks, so crossing would have to be very wide in anticipation of
that. The city would have to acquire ROW east of crossing; they
have not begun these conversations yet, and the railroad is difficult
to communicate with. The city's conclusion was that this was an
unfeasible extension of the project.
■ Wilson Ave east of 9th should be completed soon. it is currently at
75% design for the portion between 2nd and 9th Streets. The City
anticipates bidding in the spring.
■ The Design team is on board for Butler and Boyd Acres key route
implementation.
■ The City is working on getting a designer on board for Olney from
Wall St to 2nd (shared use path/separated bike lane); they
anticipate the design team will be on board within the near future
with open houses occurring in the spring.
■ The City is considering applying for the Bloomberg Initiative for
Cycling Infrastructure. Similar to the Innovative Mobility Program in
that they want to encourage innovative solutions; 10 cities across
the world would be awarded this.
■ Several Old Mill/Deschutes River overflow parking lots are going
away in the future; there is a possible chance for opportunity to
rethink some sort of shuttle/cargo bike situation —possibility for
innovative grant (ODOT)
■ Robin Lewis and Chris Cheng organized an event about
roundabout design, including a tour. There was a survey and Chris
will provide further details on those results.
U
o City of Redmond
■ City of Redmond hired a new engineer.
■ The City began restarting some events post-COVID. The Open
Streets event occurred on June 18.
• The city also returned to conducting its annual bike-ped count in
September. It was done two times:
❖ First to capture children going to school
❖ Second to capture weekend traffic
Applying for Community Paths grant: connecting Wickiup Ave to
Ridgeview High School via a 10-ft multi -use path (about $500k).
o City of Sisters
■ TSP is complete, with a robust bike-ped component
■ Pine Street will have a multi -use trail, from the south part of Sisters
to connect with some of the Sisters trails
■ Designing a trail from the Village Green to the end of Pine St. to
connect to the Peterson Ridge trailhead.
■ For BPAC's annual Sisters -focused meeting, Paul Bertagna
provided an overview of Sisters -area bike-ped projects, including a
bike master plan and a pedestrian master plan. Projects include the
following:
❖ North Pine Street multi -use path: this path travels from W.
Cascade Ave to approximately W. Lundgren Mill Drive.
❖ W. Barclay Drive multi -use path from roundabout at Hwy 20
to N. Pine Street.
❖ S. Elm Street multi -use path from E. Jefferson Ave to E.
Tyee Dr., which will include a bridge.
■ Adams Ave streetscape project — 100% design
■ The team is also looking at north -south connection to Sisters Trail
Alliance trails in county.
■ The city is close to purchasing the east portal property on west side
of downtown. The goal for the property has always been a mobility
hub; currently working on RFP for design.
■ The City is launching a new destination management organization
(previously the Chamber of Commerce). The organization could
take on bigger picture issues, including sustainable tourism. They
will hire an executive director and then will eventually launch as its
own entity.
■ The City is working on safety issues, building a multi -use path from
Hwy 242 along Brooks Camp Rd to Railway.
■ The Sisters Folk Festival has many people riding bikes between
venues and the festival has lots of bike parking to accommodate
that.
■ The roundabout at Locust and 20 has been funded.
■ Working on connections from downtown; will put multi -use path
from Hwy 242 to Railway Ave.
o Deschutes County
■ The County requested BPAC representatives for both components
of the TGM grant (Sisters Trails and Tumalo Community Plan).
Annie Marland will be the representative for Sisters Trails and Dave
Thomson will be the representative for the Tumalo Community
Plan.
■ The Road Department is moving forward with Hunnell Road
extension north to Tumalo Road, which will be a good route for
cyclists/pedestrians to utilize to avoid Highway 97 when going
to/from the mall and rural residential neighborhoods in the
Deschutes Junction area. The project has been in the TSP since
1998.
■ The Board of County Commissioners feels there are a lot of
bike/ped issues happening and would like to coordinate more often
with BPAC on these matters.
■ KAI/County staff hosted a walking tour of Tumalo as part of the
TGM grant.
■ Recap of Tumalo Community Plan Open House #2, lots of
feedback about draft goals and policies. Those that pertain to
bike/ped/transit showed a mixed response to making/keeping
Tumalo a biking destination. In discussions at Transportation table,
it appears this was more of an anti -tourism response than anti -bike.
Tweaking the policy to make it more inclusive of bike/ped traffic
both internal (Tumalo only) and external (riders passing through on
Twin Bridges State Scenic Bikeway).
■ Throughout the month of December, the Deschutes County Road
Department invited the public to review and provide feedback on
their draft Transportation System Plan project list containing
planned projects scheduled through the year 2040.
■ Upon receipt and incorporation of public feedback, the project list
will be finalized and presented for adoption within the
Transportation System Plan Update to the Planning Commission
and Board of County Commissioners in 2023.
■ North Corridor construction began and US 20 will start in 2023 after
Old Bend Redmond and Cook Ave roundabouts are completed.
■ Consultants prepared a draft version of the TSP and is
disseminated a public review draft that was accessible online.
■ Peter Russell delivered a TSP recap to a joint Board/La Pine City
Council session in Oct. that featured several bike/ped aspects in
the La Pine area. These were improvements to County roads that
included wider shoulders and/or paving. They met to review how
various parties scored grant applications to the Deschutes Trail
Coalition, which received about $500,000 from the County to fund
projects. DTC received 10 grant applications totaling around
$840,000.
10
o South County
■ The Sunriver pathway Master Plan was officially presented and
approved by the Board.
■ A parks master plan in Sunriver is underway.
■ Sunriver completed a new tunnel and have one or two slated for
next year.
• Agency Coordination
o Bend Parks and Recreation Department
■ Completed two safety improvements to crossing along COID canal
at Blakely and Brosterhaus.
■ Repaved Haul Road Trail.
■ Teamed with ODOT to apply for a FLAP grant for a new trailhead
adjacent to Baker/Knott interchange, which would access the Bend
Lava trail.
■ BPRD reached an agreement with the North Unit Canal District to
build a path on Canal Row Park out to Deschutes Market Road.
This has been informally used but the agreement will formalize the
allowable use.
■ Began final phase of Drake Park trail improvements project,
including the underpass at Newport.
■ Progress was made at Big Sky on the pump track and bike skills
areas plus a gravel path. The work will be completed by early
spring.
■ Also making progress on design/permit for the trail along North Unit
Canal, along Butler Mkt. The first phase from Canal Row Park past
Pine Nursery, will connect into Petrosa.
o CET/COIC
■ Collaborated with the City to update the inclement weather plan.
■ CET had to cut their Community Connector Routes Saturday
service due to the ongoing driver shortage.
■ Moved the Deschutes Riverwoods bus stop from Riverwoods
Outreach Church to the Riverwoods Country Store. This move
allows the stop to have posted signage, a maintained parking lot
and road, as well as lighting. Any Baker Road improvements from
the Baker Road TAMP will improve the bus route too.
■ CET increased driver wages twice in one year.
■ Route 31 between La Pine and Sunriver was cancelled after two
weeks of service due to low ridership and the driver shortage.
■ On August 1, CET moved to new schedules again with the main
goal being to improve on -time performance. The new schedule
brought all 45-minute routes back out to 45-minute routes (from 30
minutes) due to weekday traffic.
11
CET staff participated in many outreach efforts for the Bend
Mobility Hub Feasibility Study. Events were held in both English
and Spanish.
Started a new route between Crooked River Ranch and Redmond.
Part of the route is a call -ahead service for medical appointments
(3x/day). CET held an informational event at one of the bus stops in
Crooked River Ranch with 25-30 people in attendance. The first 19
days of service had 72 rides. Riders are primarily from the senior
population who likely should not be driving to medical
appointments.
Finalizing switchover to new CAD/AVL platform for scheduling,
ridership, and on board tech.
CET has hired a new Strategy and Program Manager as well as a
RARE service member to assist in transportation funding and
projects.
STF/STIF committees were integrated into one committee.
o Commute Options
■ Held their May Walk and Roll Anywhere event, through Safe
Routes to School and the Get There Challenge. There were over
115 adult participants and 3,000 miles logged.
■ Commute Options was awarded ODOT Safe Routes to School
Innovation Grant which will fund an education program for walking
school buses in areas identified as not very safe currently.
■ CO Hired a new vanpool coordinator and started a new vanpool
with Nosler.
■ New vanpools were established from Redmond to Sisters as well
as Brasada Ranch.
■ CO is working on a few regional programs; School Pool (closed
shared ride network on the Get There site); and paid walking school
bus leader.
■ CO received some funding to assist with construction/detours
during the Neff -Purcell project.
o ODOT
The US 20 Mervin Sampels-Greenwood project is underway, but
the timeline is being extended to mid-2024, due to many
complications. Included in the delay is the crossing at 6th and
Greenwood.
McKenzie Pass construction will be bumped to 2024, largely due to
the need for matching funds.
The research project conducted by Chris Cheng regarding small
sections of auxiliary bike lanes was accepted and will likely be
integrated into the McKenzie Pass project.
12
■ US 20 Ward -Hamby roundabout was completed and is very
successful.
• ODOT has results of the study examining the dynamic bike warning
system on McKenzie Pass. In the study, speed was used as a
proxy for "safety." Very small reductions in speed were observed
(43 mph vs 41 mph) in some cases.
■ The multiuse path on US 97 will keep the same cross section but
will change land width to widen for bike/ped comfort/safety.
■ ODOT is enhancing the crossing by 97 and Cooley, although it is
limited by right of way issues.
■ Crossings will be at all roundabouts plus certain locations on 97
between Cooley and Robal, with RFBs.
■ Roundabouts are designed a bit smaller than usual to address
climate change goals and thus will not build to 2040 standards.
■ The 6t" St. crossing on Greenwood was completed.
■ Construction on the Old Bend Redmond roundabout and the
Tumalo roundabout began in December.
■ Lava Butte to La Pine trail planning will kick off soon.
■ ODOT has provided letters of support for a lot of federal funding
opportunities for Bend.
■ The North Corridor project kicked off and the Roundabout at Old
Bend Redmond Highway construction has begun.
■ Tumalo construction will begin soon.
■ The Bend -Lava Butte trail is moving forward but they are still trying
to resolve issues, may go to LUBA.
■ Reed Market interchange planning is kicking off
■ A $5,000 mini grant for Innovative Mobility Program is available:
ODOT is looking for exciting new ideas about things like (but not
limited to) equity, any interesting ideas for nonprofits, or other
organizations.
o Redmond BPAC
■ BPAC has two new members.
■ Redmond BPAC looked at a specific crosswalk in Redmond that is
used by students by elementary schools. The engineering
department will do a count of user once weather improves and go
from there.
■ City of Redmond is working on bicycle connectivity and utilizing
Quiet Streets to make needed connections. Signage such as
wayfinding, sharrows and crossbikes are a major part of this effort.
Another project they completed was NW 10t" Street sidewalk. This
added a new sidewalk on the side of the street where it was lacking
on this busy collector street.
13
■ Redmond BPAC restarted Open Streets on June 18. Due to limited
staff, it was part of the Redmond Street Fair but not as a separate
event. They had a presence but it was mainly a booth.
■ Dry Canyon trail signage went in, primarily on -trail.
■ BPAC participated in National Night Out, put on by the Redmond
Police Department to foster a good relationship between PD and
the community and promote public safety.
■ Redmond BPAC wants to improve education about shared path
use in Dry Canyon. They plan to put down more pavement
markings to share the trail.
■ Robin Lewis was the featured speaker at the November meeting,
presenting on protected bike lanes.
❖ There is a lot of interest in providing a safer experience for
cyclists
❖ Discussed retrofitting options (metal versus rubber)
❖ The City expressed interest in any feedback from BPAC
■ Other Updates
■ BPAC sent two letters of support: 1) On behalf of the City of Sisters to
Oregon Parks and Rec Department for a grant to build a multi -se path
connecting Village Green Park to the Peterson Ridge trailhead; and 2) On
behalf of the City of Sisters to Oregon Department of Transportation for a
federal grant to construct the new roundabout at HWY 20 and Locust
Street.
■ Sidewalk snow removal messaging was broadcast on social media
channels as the first snowfall approached.
■ Robin Lewis provided a Trip Report on her participation in the SCAN
Design Professionals Trip to Denmark and the Netherlands.
The overall research questions were how can you make your city a
sustainable, livable, people -friendly place? And, how can walking and
bicycling bring a community together?
■ FLAP Needs Assessment Discussion: A Needs Assessment meeting was
held in November. The FHWA Western Federal Lands Highway Division
initiated a statewide planning effort to identify and prioritize unmet Federal
lands transportation access needs in Oregon. The findings from this
planning process will inform future funding decisions, with a focus on the
Federal Lands Access Program FLAP). Over the past few months, the
project team has been busy gathering initial feedback from local, state,
and federal partners on existing unmet access needs and mapping those
needs across the state. The FHWA invited key stakeholders to the
Regional Needs Identification Workshops to review what has been learned
so far and solicit input on any access needs that were not identified during
preliminary research. In the past, the process had each ODOT region
submit proposals for grants to the FLAP program, and BPAC often wrote
14
letters of support. The new method is more of a coordinated statewide
process with respect to prioritization.
15
����JIE S cOG�A
BOAR® OF
COMMISSIONERS
MEETING DATE: May 10, 2023
SUBJECT: Intergovernmental Agreement with the US Forest
Living With Fire Program
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move approval to authorize the County Admi
Intergovernmental Agreement with the USIFt
ice to fund the Oregon
)jsfrator to sign Document No. 2023-402, an
rest Service.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The current Intergovernmental A ement (IGA) with the US Forest Service to fund the
Oregon Living With Fire (OLWF) rogram expires May 31, 2023. Anew proposed IGA will
increase OLWF's funding fro $33,750 to $60,000 per year and extend the funding for this
r,rnaram an arlriitinnal fiv iaarc
BUDGET IMPACTS:
Revenue of $60,00 per year for five years, totaling $300,000. A match requirement of
approximately 4 /o which will be accomplished using the funding from the related four -
county Memo ndum of Understanding which will provide for $72,750 per year.
Joe Stutler, Jodie Barram and Dr. Jennifer Fenton
BOARD R
MEETING DATE: May 10, 2023
SUBIECT: Consideration of request to rename Pronghorn Club Drive as Juniper Preserve
Drive
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
No Board action needed at this time.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The road proposed to be renamed extends for approximately 4.1 miles to the north of
Powell Butte Highway. This private road is currently named Pronghorn Club Drive; an
abutting property owner has submitted a request to change the name to Juniper Preserve
Drive. On May17th, the Board is scheduled to consider Board Order 2023-019 to approve
the rpni IP[tPri rnarl name rhan¢a
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None.
ATTENDANCE:
Audrey Stuart, Associate Planner
�01 ES
4
4 ,� ,
cd
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Audrey Stuart, Associate Planner
DATE: May 2, 2023
SUBJECT: May 10t" Work Session for the Road Name Assignment of Juniper Preserve Drive
(CDD File No. 247-23-000110-RN)
Background
A representative of an abutting property owner, Pronghorn Holdings LLC, initiated this road naming
request as a land use application for a road naming change. No new development is proposed as
part of this road naming application.
The existing private road extends for approximately 4.1 miles to the North of Powell Butte Highway
and terminates at 65765 Pronghorn Club Drive. Thirteen properties have frontage on the subject
road and these properties include undeveloped residential lots, common areas for Pronghorn
Destination Resort, and roads segments that were platted as separate lots.
Staff Decision
The Community Development Department (CDD) reviewed the requested road name assignment
under file no. 247-23-000110-RN. In consultation with the Deschutes County Property Address
Coordinator, staff reviewed the proposed name of juniper Preserve Drive. Staff found this proposed
name complied with the standards of DCC 16.16.030(E)(1) and (2).
Under DCC 16.16.030(B), public comments on the proposed road name are limited to those parties
owning property abutting the affected road or having an address on the affected road. Staff mailed
notice of the application to these parties on February 24, 2023, and a notice of the staff decision
was mailed on May 3, 2023.
The staff decision will become final, absent an appeal, at the end of the 10-day appeal period on
May 15, 2023.
1 1 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
Q1 (541) 388-6575 @cdd@deschutes.org ®www.deschutes.org/cd
As of this writing, staff has not received any questions, written opposition, or appeals on the
proposed name.
Next Steps
DCC 16.16.030(I) requires the Board to sign an order approving the name within 10 days of the staff
decision becoming final. Assuming the Board supports approving the proposed road name, the
Board must sign the corresponding order, Board Order 2023-019, no later than May 25, 2023.
Approving this order at the meeting scheduled on May 17, 2023 will ensure this timeline is met.
If staff receives any submittals prior to the May 10, 2023 meeting, staff will bring the materials to
the Board's attention and enter them into the record.
Staff is available for any questions.
Enclosures: CDD Staff Findings and Decision (247-23-000110-RN)
Board Order 2021-030
Road Location Map
Page 2 of 2
FINDINGS AND DECISION
FILE NUMBER: 247-23-00110-RN
APPLICANT: Ralph Giffin
REQUEST: The applicant requests to rename an existing local access road from
Pronghorn Club Drive to Juniper Preserve Drive.
STAFF CONTACT: Audrey Stuart, Associate Planner
I. APPLICABLE CRITERIA:
Deschutes County Code (DCC)
Title 16, Addresses and Road Names
Chapter 16.16, Road Naming
Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance
II. BASIC FINDINGS:
LOCATION: The subject area is a local access road which extends north from Powell Butte
Highway, and is approximately four miles long. The subject local access road passes through
public land owned by Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for approximately 3.5 miles before
terminating within the core area of Pronghorn Destination Resort. The properties with
frontage along the subject road are all either owned by BLM or located within Pronghorn
Destination Resort. The road is further described as being located on Tax Maps 16-13-00, 16-
13-16, and 17-13-00.
1 1 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
AZi (541) 388-6575 @cdd9deschutes.org ®www.deschutes.org/cd
Figure 1: Map of Subject Area
Pursuant to Deschutes County Code (DCC)16.16.030, the applicant, Ralph Giffin, initiated the
application to establish the new name for the local access road on February 17, 2023.
AFFECTED PROPERTIES: The following properties have frontage on, and take access from, this
road'.
ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION
1 Staff notes that within Pronghorn Destination Resort, the road right-of-way for Pronghorn Club Drive is platted as separate
parcels, including Tax Lot 600 on Assessor's Map 16-13-16D and Tax Lot 200 on Assessor's Map 16-13-16C.
247-23-000110-RN Page 2 of 12
No assigned address
17-13-00, Tax Lot 100
No assigned address
16-13-00, Tax Lot 100
No assigned address
16-13-16D, Tax Lot 101
65595 Pronghorn Club Dr
16-13-16D, Tax Lot 300
No assigned address
16-13-16DC, Tax Lot 100
65700 Pronghorn Club Dr
16-13-16D, Tax Lot 800
No assigned address
16-13-16DC, Tax Lot 2400
No assigned address
16-13-16DC, Tax Lot 2600
65651 Pronghorn Club Dr
16-13-16DC, Tax Lot 2700
65661 Pronghorn Club Dr
16-13-16DC, Tax Lot 2800
65671 Pronghorn Club Dr
16-13-16CD, Tax Lot 2800
65681 Pronghorn Club Dr
16-13-16CD, Tax Lot 2900
23000 Ghost Tree Ln
16-13-16CA, Tax Lot 90000
REVIEW PERIOD: The subject application was submitted on February 17, 2023, and remaining
application materials were submitted on March 2, 2023. This application will be reviewed in
accordance with DCC 16.16 and requires final approval by the Board of County Commissioners
(BOCC) per DCC 16.16.030(I).
PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice on February 24, 2023 to several
public agencies and received the following comments:
Deschutes County Address Coordinator, Tracy Griffin
9-1-1 has no concern for confusion for this road name change proposal to change Pronghorn
Club Drive to Juniper Preserve Drive. There are two structures, the clubhouse and the pool
complex; four undeveloped residential properties and the Jack Nicklaus Signature Golf
Course (including structures) with addresses that will need to be changed. Once the road
dedication is complete I will determine new addresses and submit address change letters to
the property owners.
Deschutes County Senior Transportation Planner, Peter Russell:
have reviewed the transmittal materials for 247-23-000110-RN to rename Pronghorn Club
Drive to Juniper Preserve Drive; this private road is found on County Assessor's Tax Map 16-
13-00, 16-13-16, and 17-13-00. This private road extends approximately four miles between
Powell Butte Highway and the former Pronghorn destination resort which has since been
renamed Juniper Preserve. Staff is agnostic on the renaming of this existing private road,
but notes in the Road Department database there are already seven roads containing the
name Juniper and only three with Pronghorn. Staff will defer to the Property Address
Coordinator if this may proposed renaming may cause confusion to 9-1-1 or other first
responders.
The following agencies did not respond to the notice: 911, Deschutes County Road Department,
Deschutes County Sheriffs Office, Deschutes County Surveyor, Redmond Area Parks and Recreation
247-23-000110-RN Page 3 of 12
District, Redmond Fire and Rescue, Redmond School District 2J, State Wastermater's Office,
Pronghorn Estates LLC, and Bureau of Land Management.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Notice was mailed to the affected properties on February 24, 2023, per DCC
16.16.030(B). The affected properties are all owned by four property owners, which include BLM
and three organizations affiliated with Pronghorn. The applicant also posted a proposed road name
sign. No public comments were received.
Ill. CONCLUSIONARY FINDINGS:
CHAPTER 16.16, ROAD NAMING
Section 16.16.010 Road Naming Authority.
A. Deschutes County, through the Community Development Department, shall have
the authority to and shall assign road names to roads requiring names as provided
in DCC 16.16.
FINDING: The subject road naming application is being reviewed by the Deschutes County
Community Development Department. This criterion is met.
Section 16.16.020, Unnamed Roads.
All unnamed public and private roads and other roadways which provide access to three or
more tax lots, or which are more than 1,320 feet in length, shall be assigned a name in
accordance with the procedures in DCC 16.16.030.
FINDING: The subject local access road provides access to 13 tax lots. The name Pronghorn Club
Drive was previously assigned to this road and the original name was assigned in accordance with the
procedures in DCC 16.16.030. Based on the length of the subject road and the number of lots served,
staff finds the subject access road is required to be assigned a name. This criterion will be met.
Section 16.16.030, Procedures for Naming New Roads.
A. Application.
1. The naming of a road may be initiated by the Community Development
Department, Planning Commission, the Board, or by application of adjacent
property owners, developers, or public agencies which may be affected by
road names.
FINDING: Staff notes the subject local access road was previously assigned the name Pronghorn
Club Drive and is therefore not a new road. However, pursuant to DCC 16.16.040(C), road name
changes are subject to the standards and procedures in DCC 16.16.030. Therefore, staff addresses
applicable standards below even though the subject road is an existing road to be renamed.
247-23-000110-RN Page 4 of 12
This application was initiated by Ralph Giffin on behalf of Pronghorn Holdings LLC, the property
owner of Tax Lot 101 on Assessor's Map 16-13-16D. A Road Naming application was filed with
Deschutes County on February 17, 2023. This criterion is met.
2. An application to name a road shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department and shall include, at a minimum, the following.
a. Name of applicant;
b. Location of road by description and or map,
C. Legal status of road, if known;
d. Proposed road name, with two alternate proposed names,
e. Reason for name request,
f. Petition(s) attached, if any, and
g. Fee, if any, as established by the Board.
FINDING: The applicant submitted application materials and the required fee on February 17, 2023.
The application materials indicated the preferred road name of juniper Preserve Drive. Staff
requested two alternative names per DCC 16.16.030(2)(D), as well as clarification of the extent and
location of the road to be renamed. The applicant responded in an email dated March 2, 2023, and
all other information was provided or gathered through staff research. Staff therefore finds these
criteria are met.
B. Notice of a proposed name assignment shall be sent to all persons owning property
abutting the affected road or having an addrecc nn the nfferted rnrid Such nntires
shall be sent within 10 days of the receipt of an application, if any, or other action
initiating the proposed road name assignment.
C. Persons receiving notice under DCC 16.16.030(B) shall promptly notify any tenants
or other occupants of the affected property of the proposed road name assignment.
D. Any person receiving notice under DCC 16.16.030(B) above may comment in writing
on the proposed name within 10 days from the date of notice.
FINDING: On February 24, 2023, staff mailed notice of this pending application to all property
owners abutting the subject road to be named. The mailed notice included a statement requiring
the recipient to notify any tenants or other occupants of the affected properties of the proposed
road name assignment. No public comments were received. These criteria are met.
E. Standards
1. General. The proposed road name shall.
a. Be limited to a maximum of two words.
b. Not duplicate existing road names, except for continuations of
existing roads.
C. Not sound so similar to other roads as to be confusing.
d. Not use compass directions such as North, East, South, etc., as part of
the road name.
e. Not use designations such as Loop, Way, Place, etc., as part of the road
247-23-000110-RN Page 5 of 12
name.
f. Improve or clarify the identification of the area.
g. Use historical names, when possible.
h. Reflect a consensus of sentiment of affected property owners and
occupants, when possible, subject to the other standards contained in
DCC 16.16.030.
FINDING: The applicant submitted three proposed names and indicated thatJuniper Preserve Drive
was the preferred name. The two alternative names that were provided are Huntington Drive and
Troon Drive.
There is currently one road in Deschutes County with an assigned name of Huntington Road. Staff
finds this alterative name does not meet the criteria of DCC 16.16.030(E)(1)(b) and is therefore not
a valid option. Despite the slight difference between Huntington Road and Huntington Drive, staff
finds this proposed road name to be a duplicate.
Similarly, there is currently a road in Deschutes County with an assigned name of Troon Avenue.
Staff therefore finds the proposed alternative name of Troon Drive duplicates an existing road
name, and does not comply with DCC 16.16.030(E)(1)(b).
Juniper Preserve Drive does not duplicate an existing road name in Deschutes County and nor does
it sound similar enough to other road names to be confusing. Staff notes the word 'juniper' is used
in other road names within Deschutes County, but Juniper Preserve is distinct enough that staff
Lt .. .J .- :� ..1:...- .,,,�rh I'l /'!' 9 F 9 r- nQn/C\/9 Vr1 Ctoff finrlc Chic nrnnncnrl rnarl nama rinac not I Ica
III IUs it complies plies it 1 uL` I U. I v.v.w\�-/\ ' /\�/• ...i�ul I I n — a — N. v�.. v...+....w . v.. — ..u. — . --- ---
compass directions, or use designations as part of the road name.
The application form indicates the reason for the proposed name change is that the name of the
resort is changing. The subject local access road provides the only point of access into Pronghorn
Destination Resort, and staff finds updating the road name to match the future name of the
destination resort will aid in navigation. As noted above, staff mailed notice of the proposed road
name change to impacted property owners on February 24, 2023, and no comments were received
in opposition.
2. Particular Roads. The proposed road name shall also conform to the
following standards:
a. North/South roads shall be called "roads" or "streets."
b. East/West roads shall be called "avenues."
C. Roads dead -ending in a turnaround 1,000 feet or less from their
beginning points shall be called "courts."
d. Roads of reduced right-of-way or curving roads of less than 1,000 feet
shall be called "lanes" or "terraces."
e. Curving roads longer than 1,000 feet shall be called "drives" or "trails."
f. Roads that deviate slightly from the main course of a road with the
same name, are less than 1,000 feet in length, shall be called "places."
g. Roads that are four lanes or more shall be called "boulevards."
247-23-000110-RN Page 6 of 12
h. Historical roads shall be called "market roads."
i. Roads running at oblique angles to the four points of the compass,
less than 1,000 feet in length, shall be called "ways." (See Appendix
"D," attached hereto.)
j. Roads that begin at and circle back onto the same road, or that are
circular or semicircular, shall be called "circles" or "loops."
FINDING: The subject local access road runs roughly from north to south, but follows a meandering
path with a significant number of curves. Within Pronghorn Destination Resort, the subject road
curves around a golf course and several common space lots. The road extends for approximately
21,000 feet, and is therefore greater than 1,000 feet in length. Staff finds the description under DCC
16.16.030(E)(2)(e), above, best matches the subject road. Therefore, the proposed suffix of "drive" is
appropriate for the proposal.
F. Staff Review and Road Name Assignment: The Community Development Department
shall review road name applications and shall assign road names under the
following procedure:
1. Verify legal status of road with the County Clerk's office and Road
Department.
FINDING: The subject road is a private road and therefore was not created through a deed of
dedication. Comments provided by Deschutes County Senior Transportation Planner dated April 3,
2023, verify the legal status of the road based on available records from the Deschutes County Road
4- -tic of tho rnnrl hnc hann %larifiarl and Chic rritarinn is matneparLme +. Staff i .Jrhoea— i- i iu-- v�......n .w.w �. ,,., ...........v.. .... .........
2. Check proposed road name(s) to avoid duplication or confusing similarity
with other existing road names, with those on approved preliminary land
divisions and with those approved for future use.
FINDING: Staff has verified that the proposed name does not duplicate or sound confusingly similar
to an existing road name. Comments from the Deschutes County Property Address Coordinator did
not identify any issues with the proposed road name, including any conflicts with existing or
proposed road names. Staff finds this criterion is met.
3. Perform afield check, when necessary.
4. Assist the applicant or other affected persons) to find alternate names when
required.
FINDING: Staff determined a field check was not necessary, based on the availability of Deschutes
County records and information provided by the applicant. The application materials submitted on
February 17, 2023, only included one proposed road name. The applicant then provided two
alternate road names in an email dated March 2, 2023. Therefore, no assistance was required to
help the applicant or other affected persons identify alternate names.
5. Notify appropriate persons, departments and agencies of the road name
247-23-000110-RN Page 7 of 12
application, and request comments.
6. Review and consider all comments submitted.
7. Assign a road name in accordance with the standards set forth in DCC
16.16.030(E) above.
FINDING: A Notice of Application was sent to impacted property owners, and all appropriate
departments and agencies. This Notice of Application requested that interested parties submit
comments to the record, and no public comments were received. Comments from agency staff were
reviewed and considered, and those comments are included in the Basic Findings, above. The
assigned name, Juniper Preserve Drive, meets the standards of DCC 16.16.030(E). These criteria are
met.
G. Notice of Staff Decision. Following assignment of a road name by the Community
Development Department, notice of the road name assignment shall be sent to all
persons entitled to notice under DCC 16.16.030(B).
H. Appeal. Affected property owners and occupants shall have the right to appeal the
assignment of a road name by the Community Development Department. Such
appeals shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Deschutes
County Development Procedures Ordinance, except where the provisions of DCC
16.16.030 conflict with the procedures ordinance, in which case the provisions of
DCC 16.16.030 shall apply. Affected property owners and occupants shall have 10
days from the date of the staff decision in which to file an appeal. Issues on appeal
shall be limited to whether the Community Development Department correctly
applied the iter is Jet f yr th her
FINDING: A Notice of Staff Decision will be mailed in accordance with the requirements of DCC
16.16.030(B). Affected property owners and occupants shall have 10 days from the date of the staff
decision to file an appeal. These criteria will be met.
1. A road name assignment becomes final when no further right of appeal established
herein is possible. Within 10 days of the road name assignment becoming final, the
Board shall sign an order establishing the road name as assigned by the Community
Development Department.
FINDING: Within ten (10) days of this decision becoming final and absent an appeal, the proposed
road name assignment of Juniper Preserve Drive will become final under Board Order 2023-019.
This criterion will be met.
J. The affected property owners and occupants shall have 180 days from the date of
the Board order of road name assignment to begin using the road name.
FINDING: To ensure compliance, a condition of approval has been added. This criterion will be met.
K. Notice of Decision. Following the order of the Board naming a road, the Community
Development Department shall:
247-23-000110-RN Page 8 of 12
1. Notify the applicant requesting the road name of the action
2. Send copies of the order naming the road to the following:
a. Road Department
b. Assessor's Office and Tax Office
C. Postmaster
d. Planning Department
e. County Clerk's office
f. Affected telephone and other utilities
g. Affected fire department(s)
h. Local school district(s)
i. Emergency services, i.e., police, fire, 911, etc.
3. File the original order naming a new road with County Clerk
4. On a monthly basis, the Community Development Department shall publish
a list of changed road names in a newspaper of general circulation
designated for the purpose of the Board.
FINDING: A Notice of Decision will be sent out following action by the Board to approve the assigned
road name. Notice will be sent to the applicant as well as the agencies listed in DCC
16.16.030(K)(2)(a-i). The original order by the Board will be recorded with the County Clerk. Within
one month of final approval by the Board, the road name change will be published in a newspaper
of general circulation. These criteria will be met.
Section 16 16 040 Procedures And Standards For Changing Existing Road Names
The following procedures and standards shall apply to the changing of existing road names:
A. An existing road name may be changed by the Community Development Department
if the existing name:
1. Duplicates a pre-existing road name within the same postal zip code or
geographic area;
2. Sounds like or is spelled so similarly to a pre-existing road name in the same
postal zip code or geographic area as to cause confusion between the two
roads;
3. Is known by more than one name,
4. Is different than the name of the road of which it is a continuation, or
5. Is not consistent with County road naming standards set forth in DCC 16.16.
FINDING: The application materials indicate the name of the resort is changing and staff finds the
name of the resort is closely related to the name of the subject road. The subject road extends off
of Powell Butte Highway and provides the only access point to the resort. All of the properties served
by the subject road are either located within the resort or are vacant, publically-owned surrounding
parcels. Staff finds the subject road meets the standard of DCC 16.16.040(A)(3), above, because
directional signage is already utilizing the new resort name, and the road is therefore known by
both Pronghorn and juniper Preserve.
247-23-000110-RN Page 9 of 12
B. In choosing which road name to change as between two or more roads with the
same or similar names (affected roads), the department shall consider the following
factors:
1. The number of properties, developed and undeveloped, abutting each
affected road,
2. The length of time a name has been in use to designate each affected road
and whether the name used to designate each road has any historic
significance,
3. Whether one affected road as named is relatively better known by the
general public than the other affected road or roads as named,
4. Any showing that a proposed road name change would be relatively more
burdensome to abutting property owners than if another affected road name
were changed.
FINDING: The subject road is not being renamed on the basis that two or more roads have the
same or similar names. Staff therefore finds the criteria above do not apply to the subject
application.
C. Proposed name changes shall proceed under the process specified under DCC
16.16.030.
FINDING: The subject application is being processed pursuant to the process specified under DCC
16.16.030. The standards of DCC 16.16.030 are addressed above, and staff finds this criterion is
n iet.
IV. CONCLUSION:
Based on the foregoing findings, staff concludes that the proposed road name can comply with the
applicable standards and criteria of the Deschutes County Road Naming Ordinance if conditions of
approval are met.
Other permits may be required. The applicants are responsible for obtaining any necessary permits
from the Deschutes Road Department as well as any required state and federal permits.
The Deschutes County Road Department will coordinate the posting of a new road sign with the
Property Address Coordinator. Please coordinate with the Deschutes County Road Department
regarding fees related to the creation and installation of the new road sign.
247-23-000110-RN Page 10 of 12
V. DECISION:
APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions of approval.
VI. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
A. The affected property owners and occupants shall have 180 days from the date of the Board
Order of road name assignment to begin using the road name.
B. Applicant shall cause for the installation of new road name signage in accordance with
applicable Deschutes County Road Department standards. Applicant may either engage a
contractor to furnish and install new road name signage, which will be subject to the
applicant or their contractor obtaining a right of way activity permit from the Road
Department, or pay the applicable fee to have the Road Department furnish and install new
road name signage.
VII. DURATION OF APPROVAL:
This decision becomes final ten (10) days after the date mailed, unless appealed by a party of
interest. Issues on appeal shall be limited to whether the Community Development Department
correctly applied the criteria set forth herein. To appeal, it is necessary to submit a Notice of Appeal,
the appeal fee of $250.00 and a statement raising any issue relied upon for appeal with sufficient
specificity to afford the Hearings Body an adequate opportunity to respond to and resolve each
issue.
Within ten (10) days of this decision becoming final and absent an appeal, the Board of County
Commissioners shall approve the subject road name assignment pursuant to Board Order 2021-
030.
Copies of the application, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant
and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost. Copies can be purchased for 25 cents
per page.
NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIEN HOLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER: ORS CHAPTER 215 REQUIRES THAT
IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT MUST BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER.
DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION
247-23-000110-RN Page 11 of 12
Written by: Audrey Stuart, Assistant Planner
f4 Aito
Reviewed by: Will Groves, Planning Manager
247-23-000110-RN Page 12 of 12
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
For Recording Stamp Only
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Order Assigning the Name of Juniper Preserve
Drive to a Private Road Which Extends North * ORDER NO. 2023-019
From Powell Butte Highway, Approximately 2.3
Miles Northeast of McGrath Road.
WHEREAS, Pronghorn Holdings LLC applied to assign a road naive pursuant to Deschutes County
Code, Title 16, Addresses and Road Names, to assign the name of Juniper Preserve Drive to a private road
currently named Pronghorn Club Drive, located in Township 17 South, Range 13 East, Sections 3 and 4, and
Township 16 South, Range 13 East, Sections 34, 27, 28, 21, and 16 W.M.; and
WHEREAS, all public notices required to be given under DCC 16.16.030(B) regarding the proposed
name have been given; and
WHEREAS, the appeal period for appealing the Community Development Department's approval
expired; and
WHEREAS, DCC 16.16.030(I) requires the road names be assigned by order of the Board of County
Commissioners; now, therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY
ORDERS as follows:
Section 1. That the name of Juniper Preserve Drive be assigned to a private road to provide access
to the properties at Township 17 South, Range 13 East, Sections 3 and 4, and Township 16 South, Range 13
East, Sections 34, 27, 28, 21, and 16, as set forth in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein.
Dated this of , 20
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
PAGE 1 OF 1- ORDER No. 2023-019
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
ANTHONY DEBONE, CHAIR
PATTI ADAIR, VICE CHAIR
PHIL CHANG, COMMISSIONER
Exhibit A
Board Order 2023-019
N
0 2,500 5,000 10,000
ft
1 i.h = 6,019 feet
�v-TES CO
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
MEETING DATE: May 10, 2023
SUBJECT: Deliberations: Plan Amendment and Zone Change to approximately 93 acres
located east of Bend between Neff Road and Highway 20
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The Board of Commissioners will conduct deliberations regarding a request for a Plan
Amendment and Zone Change (file nos. 247-22-000313-ZC, 314-PA) for approximately 93
acres, located east of Bend between Neff Road and Highway 20.
Additional background is included in the staff memorandum.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
�1o
IV IIe.
ATTENDANCE:
Nathaniel Miller, Associate Planner
Jacob Ripper, Principal Planner
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Nathaniel Miller, AICP, Associate Planner
DATE: May 10, 2023
SUBJECT: Deliberations: A Plan Amendment and Zone Change (File nos. 247-22-000313-ZC,
314-PA).
The Board of County Commissioners ("Board") will conduct deliberations on May 10, 2023, to
consider a request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change (File nos. 247-22-
000313-ZC, 314-PA). The subject properties are located east of, and adjacent to, the City of Bend
Urban Growth Boundary. Tax Lot 1200 and Tax Lot 1201 contain a combined area of approximately
93 acres. The properties are addressed as 62385 Hamby Road and 21480 Highway 20. A location
map is included as Attachment A.
I. BACKGROUND
A public hearing was conducted by a Hearings Officer on November 15, 2022. On December 15,
2022, the Hearings Officer issued a recommendation of approval for the proposed Plan Amendment
and Zone Change. On April 5, 2023, the Board held a public hearing to hear additional testimony on
the applications. The applicant agreed to an Open Record Period of a 7-day New Evidence and
Testimony phase and 7-day Rebuttal phase. The applicant agreed to waive the Applicant's Final Legal
Argument phase. The Open Record period closed at 4:00pm on April 19, 2022.
The attached Decision Matrix (Attachment B) is designed to assist the Board in their deliberations.
It focuses on the contested aspects of the application and that require Board determinations or
interpretations. There are four key issues identified in testimony and materials that are related to
approval criteria for the subject application.
11. SUMMARY
Please see the Decision Matrix for Issue items and summaries.
117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
(541) 388-6575 @cdd@deschutes.org ®www.deschutes.org/cd
III. RECORD
At the hearing, the applicant submitted written testimony and provided oral testimony, but did not
raise new issues. A new letter of objection from an opponent was also submitted prior to the
hearing. These submittals can be accessed on the project website and record located at the link
below.
The record for file nos. 247-22-000313-ZC, 314-PA is as presented at the following Deschutes County
Community Development Department website:
https://www https://www deschutes org/cd/page/247-22-000313-zc-247-22-000314-pa-to-amo-
despacio-llc-cth-investments-llc-properties org/cd/page/247-22-000313-zc-247-22-000314-pa-te-
amo-despacio-llc-cth-investments-llc-properties
Attachment A: Location Map
Attachment B: Decision Matrix
Page 2 of 2