Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDestination Resort Mapping OptionsDeschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board Business Meeting of January 5, 2009 Please see directions for completing this document on the next page. DATE: December 17, 2008 FROM: Terri Hansen Payne CDD 385-1404 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Discussion on destination resort mapping options. PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? No BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Deschutes County is updating the comprehensive plan, the document that provides land use policies for the unincorporated areas of the county. As part of that update, the county is considering amending the destination resort overlay map. This discussion outlines what has been heard from the public regarding destination resorts and suggests possible remapping alternatives and alternatives for assessing properties that want to be mapped. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Discuss and provide input on the destination resort mapping process. ATTENDANCE: Terri Hansen Payne DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS: N/A Community Development Department Planning Division Building Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Bend, Oregon 97701-1925 (541) 388-6575 FAX (541) 385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us\cdd Memorandum # 3 TO: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners FROM: Terri Hansen Payne, Senior Planner and Staff DATE: Decemberl7, 2008 MEETING: January 5, 2009 SUBJECT: Destination Resort Discussion COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Deschutes County has initiated an update of the adopted comprehensive plan, the set of goals and policies that guide land conservation and development. As part of that update, the destination resort overlay map is being reconsidered. The two questions being discussed are 1) whether to initiate amending the resort overlay map and 2) what process to use to determine how to evaluate properties proposed to be added or removed from the map. STATE DESTINATION RESORT MAPPING REQUIREMENTS In 1984 Statewide Planning Goal 8: Recreation, added language that made it easier to site destination resorts and set specific standards for their development. The intent behind allowing resorts on rural lands was to promote tourism, create jobs and contribute to rural economic development. "To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts." The resort mapping regulations allow for the siting of resorts on rural lands without having to go through the extensive state goal exception process. The mapping and other regulations can be found both in Goal 8 and in state statute and identify six specific areas where resorts can not be sited. Within those guidelines counties are able to create destination resort overlay maps. Originally, an acknowledged destination resort map could only be amended during a state periodic review process. That changed when the Oregon Legislature amended state statute exempting counties from periodic review. New language was added to Goal 8/statute in 2005 allowing counties to remap not more than every 30 months. Remapping is dependent on creating a process for collecting and processing all map amendments made within a 30 -month planning period. Comprehensive Plan Update Memo # 3 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAPPING The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan added a chapter on destination resorts in 1992 at the request of Eagle Crest. The goal below was paired with policies based on statute and county decisions. "To provide for development of destination resorts in the County consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 8 in a manner that will be compatible with farm and forest uses, existing rural development, and in a manner that will maintain important natural features, such as habitat of threatened or endangered species, streams, rivers and significant wetlands." In mapping for resorts, the county supplemented the state's criteria by excluding certain Targe agricultural and forest parcels, resource lands within one mile of an urban growth boundary and federal lands. The mapping was done in a phased sequence, based on pending farm and forest studies. Additionally, as a result of a court case, lands within three miles of the county border were also excluded since most of the lands in Jefferson and Crook counties had not been evaluated and thus it could not be demonstrated they were not high value crop areas excluded by Goal 8 and state statute. If a property was not excluded from the map by state and county criteria, it was automatically mapped on the destination resort overlay. The county did not identify where resorts would provide major benefits with minimal impacts. In Deschutes County there are currently 112,448 acres mapped for destination resorts of which the vast majority are unsuitable for resort development because they are platted subdivisions, rural residential and/or small lots. There were only 39 sites identified by county GIS as containing the minimum required 160 contiguous acres of land. Even at 160 acres, a parcel may be too small to allow a resort development to be economically feasible. In Deschutes County destination resorts tend to be larger, with the smallest one being Caldera Springs at 320 acres. In 2005 the county considered amending the destination resort map, but declined. The original intent was to clean up the destination resort map by removing properties that realistically would not develop as a resort due to their small size or isolation. Action was postponed because Ballot Measure 37 was being implemented, raising the possibility that unmapping could trigger claims of loss of property value. Measure 37 has subsequently been amended by the adoption of Measure 49. While Measure 49 could potentially be triggered by un -mapping lands, what is not known is whether small parcels could claim property loss when they are unlikely to ever develop as resorts. It should be noted that in 2001 the county added language to the zoning code prohibiting resorts in areas mapped as Deer Migration Priority Areas on a 1999 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife map. These areas are in south County and were not removed from the destination resort map and yet they would not be allowed to develop as resorts. CURRENT CONDITIONS AND TRENDS The Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) is currently considering a 2009 legislative concept that would remove some of the destination resort language from stater statute so that potential amendments to Goal 8 could occur through the Oregon Administrative Rule process, without having to return to the legislature. As part of this concept, the legislature pg 2 Comprehensive Plan Update Memo # 3 would direct LCDC to evaluate the destination resort program and report back to the legislature in 2011 with potential resort amendments. DESTINATION RESORT DISCUSSIONS AND COMMENTS Staff held a meeting with stakeholders to discuss possible mapping options. Additionally, staff has heard from the public on destination resorts. On October 23, 2008 the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee held a discussion on destination resort remapping. In late October and early November staff held listening sessions around the county to discuss how the comprehensive plan was working and what policy areas needed attention. At each of these listening sessions residents raised the issue of destination resorts. Additionally, other written comments regarding resorts have been submitted. With a few exceptions, what staff heard from the public is that Deschutes County has enough destination resorts. Concerns were expressed that resorts are primarily exclusive subdivisions, which have impacts on traffic, water availability, natural resources and rural character. A moratorium, similar to the one adopted for Crook County, was recommended by a number of listening session participants. Attachment 1 contains the minutes and written public comments from the Steering Committee meeting. The listening session summary and written public comments can be found in Attachment 2. Attachment 3 contains other written materials submitted. ALTERNATIVES Getting back to the two questions, 1) whether to initiate updating the map and 2) what process to use to determine how to evaluate properties proposed to be added or removed from the map, staff has created some alternatives. Remember that by State Statute, resort remapping can only be done every 30 months. Question 1: Remapping Alternative 1: Do not remap without a request from a specific property owner, except for mapped wildlife areas prohibited from resort development by DCC 18.88.040(D). Pros: Easy; much of the property mapped is not suitable so will likely never get developed with a resort Cons: Allows room for an indefinite number of new resorts; does not address community concerns about resort's impacts to traffic, water, wildlife etc. Alternative 2: Remove all parcels without 160 contiguous acres from the map (required minimum size) Pros: Eliminates properties unlikely to ever develop as resorts Cons: May leave larger properties that due to other factors are still not likely to develop as resorts; may not address community concerns about resort's impacts to traffic, water, wildlife etc. Alternative 3: Send Measure 56 notices and un -map all properties where there is not an objection to being removed. Pros: Allows property owners that are currently mapped to have a say; will likely clean up the map considerably Cons: Unsuitable properties could remain mapped; may not address community concerns about resort's impacts to traffic, water, wildlife etc. pg 3 Comprehensive Plan Update Memo # 3 Alternative 4: Delete entire destination resort map, except for already approved resorts. Pros: Allows the county to start over with a mapping process; addresses community concerns Cons: More likely to be controversial; may trigger Measure 49 claims Question 2: Process Alternative A: Require that a request to be added to the map be combined with a conceptual master plan application. Set fees to be paid by the developer that would allow the county to hire independent water, traffic, wildlife and economic experts to evaluate the benefits and impacts of the proposed resort and potentially the cumulative impacts of the proposed resort with existing resorts. Pros: Provides neutral benefit and impact studies; allows looking at the details of what is planned at the same time as we look at remapping; process clear to developers Cons: May be a financial burden; is reactive not proactive Alternative B: Require a request to be added to the map be evaluated based on a checklist and point system. The County would create a checklist that identifies benefits and impacts and sets a point system that adds points for each benefit and subtracts points for each impact, with a set number of points required to allow remapping. Pros: Allows the county to proactively guide resort development to obtain minimum impacts and maximum benefits; provides clarity but also flexibility to the developer in determining how to achieve the needed points Cons: Creating the checklist and point system may be controversial Alternative C: Review the list of areas excluded from the destination resort map and adjust those exclusions to ensure that resorts are located in areas compatible for resort development. Pros: Similar to current mapping process; clear approval process Cons: Might need a consultant to determine areas to exclude NEXT STEPS Staff is looking for direction on how the Board of County Commissioners would like to see this process go forward. Staff recommends that two stakeholder meetings be scheduled early in 2009 to evaluate these or other alternatives, followed by two public meetings. The results of those meetings would then be discussed with the Board. Using Board input, a new comprehensive plan chapter with goals and policies could be drafted and if remapping is preferred, a rezoning process initiated. Attachments: 1. Minutes for the October 23, 2008 Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee and written comments 2. Listening session summary and written comments 3. Other written comments on destination resorts 4. Destination resort fact sheet pg 4 Community Development Department Planning Division Building Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Bend, Oregon 97701-1925 (541) 388-6575 FAX (541) 385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us\cdd Deschutes County Destination Resort Fact Sheet 2008 • 112,448 acres mapped as eligible for destination resorts ■ — 39 blocks of parcels may have the potential for destination resort development (9 of those blocks are in public ownership) Comvrehensive Plan and Zoning designations for lands ma ed for resorts COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING PERCENT OF MAPPED ACRES Rural Residential RR -10, MUA-10 58.77% Agriculture All EFU subzones 30.74% Forest F-2 4.40% Other Various _ 6.09% Destination resorts in Deschutes Count RESORT DATE APPROVED 1981, 1993, 2001 # ACRES 1,772 Eagle Crest I, II, III Pronghorn 2001 640 Tetherow 2004 706 Caldera Springs 2005 390 Thornburgh Pending 1,970 Other resorts in Deschutes Count RESORT DATE APPROVED # ACRES Sunriver/Crosswater Late 1960s, 1990 3,310 Black Butte Ranch Early 1970s _ 1,833 Inn of the 71h Mountain/Wid•i Creek Earl 1970s 310 Destination resorts in Crook and Klamath Counties RESORT DATE APPROVED # ACRES` Running Y Ranch (Klamath) 1996 3,520 Brasada (Crook) 2004 1,800 Remington Ranch (Crook) 2007 2,000 Hidden Canyon (Crook) 2007 3,600 Crossin • Trails Crook rPendin • 586 Community Development Department Planning Division Building Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Bend, Oregon 97701-1925 (541) 388-6575 FAX (541) 385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us\cdd Management Area Listening Sessions Summary Six listening sessions were held in October and November of 2008 to allow the public to discuss how well Deschutes County land use policies are working and what needs attention. Staff divided the county into seven Management Areas (MAs), two of which are primarily public lands, where the only houses are a handful of cabins. For the other five Management Areas a listening session was held in a central location. There was an additional meeting scheduled in Terrebonne for the Northeast Management Area because the first meeting for that area was scheduled on election evening. All meetings went from 6-8 p.m. Date • 10-28 • 10-30 • 11-4 • 11-6 • 11-12 • 11-13 Management Area Northwest Central Northeast South East Northeast Location Sisters City Hall Deschutes Services Center Redmond School District Offices La Pine Senior Center Brothers School Terrebonne Community School Attendees 23 people 2 people 2 people 20 people 23 people 12 people Exercise At each listening session community members were invited to participate in an exercise. Six goals from our current comprehensive plan were set around the room on large sheets of paper and the audience was asked to place a purple dot on the sheet with their most favorite goal and a blue dot on the sheet with their least favorite goal. Results of Listening Session Exercise "To preserve and enhance rural character, scenic values and natural resources of the county." 29 FAVORI'I 1 "To maintain existing water supplies at present quantity and quality." 8 1 "To preserve and maintain agriculture land." 6 5 "To allow flexibility of housing location, type and density in Deschutes County." 3 11 "To conserve forest lands for forest uses." 2 0 "To provide for the development of destination resorts in Deschutes County." 1 48 Management Area Listening Sessions Meeting Notes At each meeting staff briefly discussed the comprehensive plan update process, then listened to the community. Notes were taken on large pads to assure the correct capture of ideas. At the Northwest Management Area meeting six written comments were handed to staff on the topic of destination resorts. These written comments as well as detailed notes from each session can be found at our website www.deschutes.org/cdd under comprehensive plan update. This is a brief rundown of the main issues discussed. Overall The issue of destination resorts was raised and discussed at every session. The overall consensus (with a few exceptions) was that we don't understand the impacts of resorts, can't enforce the resort regulations and should not allow more resorts. Another common theme was the need to protect water and other natural resources. A final common theme was mistrust and frustration with county land use and with county government in general. Northwest MA This discussion focused primarily on destination resorts and with one exception there was support for a moratorium on resorts and/or repealing the overlay map. Primary concerns included effects on water quantity/quality and fish/wildlife; the lack of understanding of the cumulative impacts of many resorts; the need for workforce housing; traffic; mitigations across jurisdictions and the inability of the county to enforce existing regulations. Suggestions • Enact a moratorium on destination resorts • Have resort applications address cumulative impacts from area resorts • Have applicants provide funding for the county to hire independent experts for impact analysis • Use bond money for funding studies on resorts, for land preservation or for mitigation and monitoring Central MA Concerns were noted over destination resorts, traffic congestion and crime. The county was urged to maintain rural areas and natural resources and to address fire hazards. Suggestion ■ Repeal the destination resort map ■ Create policies for addressing fire hazards ■ Trade county lands to obtain and preserve land along the rivers Northeast MA Water quality and quantity were a concern as were destination resorts, which use water and city services. It was noted that canals should not be piped as they are an historic resource and add moisture to the air and support wildlife, vegetation and quality of life. Suggestions • Balance individual and community rights and support agriculture • Create an internet site to match people wanting to farm with people who have land that could be farmed Pg 2 December 2, 2008 Management Area Listening Sessions South MA Concern was expressed over the south county position on the Planning Commission being held by someone not from south county. It was noted that the county should do a better job of enforcing dock requirements, since illegal docks affect water quality. A moratorium on destination resorts was recommended and various negative impacts from resorts were noted by many of the participants. A number of residents noted that south county residents feel like they have no control and are treated differently than residents in other parts of the county. It was stated that there are many problems in La Pine but also many involved and active residents. The negative impacts of resorts came up again. Comments were made on the importance of promoting local businesses. The local rule was discussed. Suggestions • Send out a questionnaire to understand community opinions on destination resorts • Enact a moratorium on destination resorts • Develop a code to encourage the use of graywater East MA Concern was expressed over the restrictiveness of the farm zoning in east county. It was noted that the overlay for wildlife is too restrictive and the required fencing does not work. Concern was expressed over the lack of respect for farmers shown by recreational hunters, hikers and motorcycle riders. The large size of the parcels makes it harder to watch over your property and posting doesn't help. Some noted that allowing more homes and a community would help wildlife and the additional children would allow the school to operate. Others objected to additional development. There were mixed opinions over whether to protect large ranches or allow them to subdivide. It was noted that the county needs better light requirements and enforcement to allow the observatory to operate. There were objections to the county land use processes and comments that the community does not trust the county. Suggestions • Amend fencing and wildlife overlay requirements • Require and enforce cut-off lights Northeast MA #2 It was noted that much EFU land is hard to farm. The importance to the community of natural resources was discussed. Concern was expressed because access to the river at Eagle Rock swimming hole has been closed. A discussion was held over water tables and the impacts of destination resorts. Various traffic concerns were noted, including the lack of enforcement of speed laws and no -parking zones. Suggestions • Protect natural resources and promote growth in urban areas • Before selling County -owned lands, engage in public outreach • Create water management plans • Coordinate with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Oregon Department of Forestry to protect natural resources and ensure logging of downed timber Pg 3 December 2, 2008 Robert W. Corrigan 69225 Hawsflight Drive rob@bendcable.com Sisters, OR 97759 28 October 2008 Planning Department Deschutes County 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97701 RE: Update to Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan To the Deschutes County Planning Department: My thanks to each of you for taking your time to come to Sisters to listen to local inputs on the subject of Deschutes County's Comprehensive Plan. I very much appreciate your public service, and am sorry that I am unable to be at this evening's meeting in person. I therefore respectfully request that you will consider my comments in this written form. As part of the Comprehensive Plan update, I hope that you will consider amendments to the destination resort mapping and county guidelines that will better support and enforce the original intent of the state's destination resort laws. In particular, I propose that you please consider updating the Destination Resort map to exclude from consideration areas that are within 10 miles of an existing Urban Growth Boundary or within 10 miles of another approved Destination Resort. I believe that the original intent of Oregon's Destination Resort legislation was to incentivize and enable new opportunities for economic growth in areas that were otherwise underutilized and underserved by visitor amenities. The record and original language of the legislation seem rather clear on this point. Destination Resorts were to be an exception to the state's land use policies that otherwise more strictly curtailed dense development outside urban growth boundaries. Destination Resorts were specifically not intended to be used as an alternative path to dense, upscale suburbia. History now shows that several of the initial Destination Resorts in Deschutes County successfully served this original economic development purpose. Black Butte Ranch, Sunriver, and Eagle Crest, as examples (three existing Destinations Resorts that are 47, 34 and 27 miles apart from one another respectively), each clearly function as unique and separate tourist draws to Central Oregon. Because of the diverse recreational opportunities they offer and the critical mass of rental lodging they make available, many families choose to come here and spend vacation time in Central Oregon, thereby enhancing the retail economies and economic growth of the nearby communities of Sisters, Bend and Redmond. At the same time, it seems equally clear that at too great a density, additional destination resorts cease to create a "new" marketing draw for visitors to the area. Instead, clustered destination resorts or destination resorts that are located just outside constrained urban growth boundaries simply draw demand and visitors away from existing facilities. If hotels and restaurants already exist or can otherwise be legally built in areas already frequented by tourists, the addition of an adjacent destination resort does not promote the original purpose of stimulating new regional economic development it only draws tourism away from other legitimate facilities in a zero-sum trade-off. This type of parasitic development actually harms the economic interests of those who first pioneered and initially invested in creating the growth and attraction of the region. The prospect of followers setting up camp nearby to draw off visitors actually undermines the economic incentives that were meant to stimulate investment in underserved areas in the first place. Without the addition of substantial new amenities that actually create a draw to the region, additional destination resorts do not create additional spill-over economic benefit; they simply become "sagebrush subdivisions" that effectively circumvent the more conventional and restrictive state planning guidelines. While not contributing new economic growth, they undermine the intent of the state's land policies by promoting rural sprawl that benefits few. As an example: the city of Sisters is a popular tourist destination. We have many festivals and events sponsored locally that are specifically intended to promote local shopping and overnight tourism. Nearby visitor amenities include access to gorgeous wilderness and trails systems that offer opportunities for hunting, fishing, skiing, horseback riding, cycling and other recreational activities. We have two nearby public golf courses. We have a number of wonderful restaurants and overnight facilities, both within the UGB and within a short drive. Our local chamber of commerce and independent businesses now collectively refer to our community — an area that extends several miles around the Sisters UGB — as "Sisters Country" for purposes of branding and marketing to tourists. Golf courses and restaurants that are outside the city's UGB currently contribute to the Sisters Country branding and promotion campaigns, thereby identifying themselves as within the existing area of economic draw for the region. With this as background, please consider: • Without adding any new recreational opportunities, would the addition of a hotel and rental cabins a short drive from the city induce more visitors to want to come to visit the area than if an equal number of hotel rooms and cabins were built within the UGB? No. • If additional overnight accommodations were to be added just outside the city's boundaries and if the new capacity were to roughly double the city's current lodging capacity without adding any new recreational opportunities to draw tourism, would such addition have a negative impact on the existing overnight facilities that are currently located within the UGB? Yes. • Would such an addition reduce the economic incentive for entrepreneurs to build additional capacity for overnight accommodations withiri the UGB? Yes. • If there was a need for additional hotel or rental cabin capacity to serve the number of visitors that otherwise want to come to the area to play golf or hike in the outdoors, could these be built inside the city's UGB without resort to Destination Resort mapping? Yes. • If, for instance, a nearby golf course wanted to host major tournaments and therefore could economically justify the expansion of overnight lodging facilities, could such expansion also be built within the city's UGB? Yes. • Would the addition of several hundred new private residence homes just outside the city limits create any more jobs in the area or otherwise promote any additional economic development in the region than an equal number of homes built inside the UGB, assuming market forces called for either? No. Robert W. Corrigan Comprehensive Plan Update Comments, 28 October 2008 Page -2- • Would the impacts on septic, groundwater, wildlife, transportation, rural values and the myriad other considerations that have lead to the development of Oregon's current planning guidelines be better served by adding hotels, rental cabins, and dense private housing within the city's UGB rather than in a rural area just outside the UGB? Yes. Visitors to Central OR typically arrive by car and all but of a few of those who travel by air rent a car during their visit. Many visitors to Central OR frequently drive relatively long distances during their stay — from Sunriver to Sisters, or from Sisters to Hoodoo or Smith Rocks as examples. So while a greater distance would be defensible, I suggest that a distance of ten miles is a good working definition of "nearby" for the large majority visitors who may want to experience different activities, restaurants, or amenities during their stay in Central Oregon. Based on the logic above, I suggest that you take off the map all areas that are within 10 miles of an existing UGB or approved destination resort. Doing so will not diminish the potential economic benefits of destination resorts to areas that are truly underutilized and underserved by visitor amenities, per the intent of the original legislation. Approval of such new Destination Resorts that are greater than 10 miles from existing approved area for urban growth could actually build the long-term tax base for the region, instead of simply crippling the interests of current taxpayers. At the same time, a ten -mile radius will help to preserve the core values underlying Oregon's land use laws, and enhance the economic incentives for the "first movers" who are willing to take the bold step — as Black Butte, Sunriver and Eagle Crest did — and develop truly new tourism and economic development for our beautiful part of the state. I sincere thank you your consideration, Robert . orrigan 69225 Hawksflight Drive Sisters, OR 97759-9684 rob@bendcable.com 541-549-6006 Robert W. Corrigan Comprehensive Plan Update Comments, 28 October 2008 Page -3- Statement of Tom Davis, volunteer Upper Deschutes River Steward for the Native Fish Society I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the issue of destination resorts. I11 be brief, and with my written statement I've induded two attachments: • My testimony before LCDC in Prineville • Article by me on the lack of protection Oregon fish receive from nonpoint sources of water quality and erosion -sedimentation problems. Destination resorts, a new form of urban sprawl, no longer have benefits that outweigh the market and non - market costs, if they ever did. From the perspective of the Native Fish Society the problems boil down to: • Our special places, or Critical Areas of State Concern, for fish, must receive maximum protection and in most cases this means no destination resorts. • Over 1000 miles of streams are listed by DEQ for violating one or more pollutant standards in the upper Deschutes, including many miles that will be affected by destination resorts. Most of the problems originate from nonpoint sources, i.e. land development, uses and management practices. DEQ needs county, city and LCDC help in getting the water quality job done. This cooperative approach should include statewide enforceable requirements by DEQ LCDC and local govemments. • Throughout Oregon and especially in Deschutes County effective protection of fish spawning and rearing habitat is essential. It can only be achieved through statewide controls on construction and all soil disturbances to prevent damage to eggs and alevins from eroded sediment. Eggs and alevins are in spawning gravel from two to eight months and are very vulnerable to sedimentation. • Deschutes County's groundwater aquifers and flows in all stream reaches must be protected from additional tosses. Destination resorts are major problems for stream flow. • The protection and restoration of riparian cover along streams is essential. Such protection and restoration should be conditions for all properties where land development is proposed. • If any more destination resorts are justified in Deschutes County they should be in urban growth areas, preferably as part of existing cities that are accountable for the impacts of development. This is the time to `just say no" to destination resorts. Thank you, Tom Davis, PE 69217 Tapidero. Sisters Oregon, 97759 Statement of Tom Davis*, Upper Deschutes River Steward for the Native Fish Society TO LCDC Regarding Destination Resorts — Prineville, October 15, 2008 Summary and Presentation Our most prized and vulnerable icons — Oregon's native salmon, trout and steelhead, particularly in the badly abused Upper Deschutes watershed, experience the most serious destination resort problems. The good news is that over $300 million is being invested, or planned, for anadromous and resident fish reintroduction and restoration in the Upper Deschutes. But if. we continue with our ill-conceived notion of jobs and money from destination resorts much of this investment will be lost. By definition destination resorts bring the impacts of urbanization to our most sensitive and valuable places, i.e. our most prized destinations. The "good sense" answer.r is no. Oregon must recognize that destination resorts are a high-risk type of urban sprawl, which: is as damaging today as when Governor Tom McCall led the effort to eliminate sprawl in the '70's. The problems include 1) no protection of Oregon's special places for fish, such as the Metolius Watershed and stream -lake system; 2) inadequate protection of water quality from land uses; 3) ineffective soil disturbance controis;.4) depletion of groundwater and surface water; and 5) elimination of riparian cover. 1. We must protect our special places, or Critical Areas of State Concern, for fish. For example the entire Metolius Watershed and impact zone should be designated as a Critical Area of State Concern - under ORS 197, and not open to destination resorts or similar development. 2. Enforceable, statewide water quality requirements directed at land practices and urban/suburban development are essential. Ash threatened or affected by nonpoint sources such as urban/suburban stormwater or onsite wastewater systems must be protected. The US EPA recently stated, "regulatory programs in Oregon do not adequatety protect water quality and associated beneficial uses (e.g., salmonid spawning and rearing, public water supp/y). " There are 14,905 miles of Oregon streams listed by DEQ for violating one or more pollutant standards. Over 1000 miles are in the upper Deschutes, including many miles that will be affected by destination resorts. Most of the problems originate from nonpoint sources, i.e. land development, uses and management practices. DEQ needs LCDC help in getting the water quality job done. This cooperative approach should include statewide enforceable requirements by DEQ and LCDC. 3. Oregon needs effective protection of fish spawning and rearing habitat through statewide controls On construction and all soil disturbances to prevent damage to eggs -and alevins from eroded sediment' 4. Oregon's groundwater aquifers and flows in all stream reaches must be protected from additional losses..Destination resorts are major problems for stream flow. 5. The protection and restoration of riparian cover along streams is essential. The Metolius Watershed and impact zone should be immediately exempted from destination resort development; then designated with other watersheds and streams important to salmonids, as Critical Areas of State Concern. The study recommended by DLCD staff should be implemented. Destination resort applications should be held pending completion of the study. The destination resort law should be repealed. Destination resorts are small, sprawl -type cities. If they are essential they should be within the urban growth boundary of an incorporated, accountable city, preferably one that already exists. More on the five topics above follow. NFS Testimony to DLCD — Prineville, 10/15/08 Additional Background 1. Areas of state concern - ORS 197.040(g) states in regard to the duties of the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC): "(g) Review and recommend to the Legislative Assembly the designation of areas ofcritical state concern; "It does not appear that the LCDC has designated any areas of state concern under ORS 197.040(g) since the 70's. Agricultural land, forestland, Willamette River Greenway, ocean resources and estuaries were all recognized as areas of "state concern", and provided with goals and administrative rules.But our fish, rivers and other water resources have been sorely neglected by LCDC and other state agencies in providing adequate protection for salmon, trout and steelhead from inappropriate development such as destination resorts. Oregon's salmonids are declining in many areas, and much of the dedine is caused by land developments with little accountability thathave been poorlylocated, designed or Maintained. At a minimum the special waters and watersheds that provide our last, best nurseries for these exceptional fish should be off-limits for more abuse. The Metolius is an excellent example of a watershed and its waters that need such protection. 2. Water Quality - Water temperatures in excess of salmonid requirements and Oregon standards occur during. certain periods in over 1000 miles of streams in the upper Deschutes. Statewide there are 1,117 water bodies (streams or lakes) on DEQ's 2004/2006-303(d) list for not meeting one or more Oregon pollutant standards. There are 14,905 miles listed statewide for violating one or more pollutant standards. A December 14, 2005 letter from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ODFW on the Coastal Coho, Plan (CCP); and letters from DEQ and ODFW in 2007 to Governor Kulongoski regarding the suffidency of Oregon's programs for protecting the world-class Metolius River from destination resorts; surfaced Oregon's water quality problems. The EPA letter summarizes the insuffidendes for Oregon's water quality programs. ':.. continued imp/ementatron of the existing regulatory framework in Oregon does not adequately address widespread water quality problems and will not meet the goals in the CCP"... "there is a significant body of science demonstrating that regulatory programs In Oregon do notadequately protect water quality and assodatedbenefidal uses (eg., salmonid spawning and rearing, public water supply)." ODFW had this to say about groundwater discharges and the impact on surface water quality in the Metolius. "If the development relies on septic systems there would likely be an impact to groundwater quality which in tum could affectsurface water qua/ity through groundwater discharge to surface water". DEQ's November 2, 2007 letter to the Governor about the Metolius stated the following. • "Subsurface discharge to shallow soils or land application to the surface of soils maybe a//owed, Even with substantia/ removal of nutrients and other constituents from this wastewater prior to discharge, small amounts of nutrients may reach the Metolius River or its tributaries through runoff or seepage to groundwater that flows into the Metolius The river is sensitive to nubients, and small increases in nutrients could resultin some degradaton of water qualify, such as decreased dissolved oxygen, increased aquatic plant growth, and changes in pH, among others" 'For post construction the letter continues, In general, DEQ does not have a regulatory framework for conbo/iing stormwater from these developments once they are wnstructec Local governmeats may exercise control' Stormwater runoff has a devastating effect on salmonids as Washington is finding out. Washington is far ahead of Oregon in dealing with urban/suburban stormwater quality problems: htto://seatttetimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004405985 growth stormwater20m0.html .In closing, DEQ makes an accurate and candid statement: "... there are significant sources ofpo//ulants that are comparatively uncontrolled, and the potentia/ eflecs.of these discharges, along with potential decreases in instream flow from development could have.a measurable impact on an outstanding water such as the Metol/us Riven Because DEQ. does not have a. regulatory `. 2 NFS Testimony to DLCD Prineville, 10/15/08 framework for stormwater management after construction, we believe these developments could pose a, significant risk to water quality" . . For 35 years the fish related goals of the Federal Clean Water Act have not been met because the nonpoint provisions related to land development, uses and management practices have not been adequately implemented. Real money is at stake here. For example, Whychus Creek is one of the prime destinations for the steelhead reintroduced to the Deschutes system above the Pelton — Round Butte complex at a high cost. The 18° COregon temperature standard was consistently met at only two of the Creek's monitoring stations in July 2007. Steelhead spawning is believed to require 13° C water temperature and all stations failed to meet that criterion during the likely spawning season through May at the 20 cfs low flow target. 3. Construction and soil disturbance controls — Regarding construction and land disturbances DEQ states that its permits require "practices and control technologiesbut that these not always tesultin complote contra' • Erosion, or the detachment of disturbed soil by, water; is followed by the transport (routing)d1 the eroded soil through the watershed, sometimes over very long time periods. Erosion has three basic components,.mass (e.g. lands.ldes), channel and surface/sheet. The first two are easily observed, but surface erosion, which usually begins with raindrop splash or water flow, is difficult to see and understandi:The resulting rivulets, rills and gullies are more easily observed. Surface or Sheet Erosion A January 20, 2008 article in "The Oregonian" (quotes below) summarized the property damage aspect of the mass erosion problem, but stream sedimentation damage from such erosion is also usually severe. • "State geologists predicted the landslide that crushed homes and severed U.S. 30 west ofClatskanie, but the state shelved the information partly because of concems it would interfere with land development • All types of accelerated, or human -caused, erosion cause the spawning gravel impacts from sediment.:Primarily '-""bedload" movement of sediment causes the damage: It's difficult to see, monitor Or fit within an elementary, water quality "regulatory framework", but it is a major threat to healthy salmonid populations The water may be very clear while bedload damage is occurring. Bedload movement is represented below. Bedload 3 NFS Testimony to DLCD = Prinevine,10/15/08 Salmonid eggs and alevins are in the gravel for two to eight months, depending on the species and stream conditions. The graphic below is taken from a USF&WS publication and shows the dependence of alevins and eggs on stable gravel with many interstices. Sediment destroys such "nursery" conditions. Alevins and eggs in spawning gravel 4. Groundwater aquifers and flows in all stream reaches -.In OWRD's letter to the Govemor regarding the providing of adequate protection against flow depletion forthe Metolius, three options were described. Two would : have provided the needed protection against the Metolius springs and river flows being depleted from groundwater pumping at the proposed destination resorts. OWRD rejected all threei It's obvious that LCDC; in conjunction with OWRD, should have enforceable requirements that protect alt reaches of our streams from groundwater withdrawals that deplete streamflow. 5. Riparian cover — There are thousands of stream miles in Oregon that are in violation of Oregon water quality standards. The loss of riparian cover that results in stream temperature increases is the reason for much of the problem. New land development should be required to preserve the existing riparian cover along streams and lakes, and restore the riparian cover that has been lost on the property. Tom Davis*, PE Native Fish Society Volunteer River Steward 69217 Tapidero Upper Deschutes Sisters, OR 97759 *Related Experience - 35 years experience as an Environmental/Water Resources Engineer - 20 years as a consultant with. consulting firms; 15 years in staff positions with local, state, federal and regional agencies. Now retired. MSCE degree Water Resources Engineering — University of Idaho, 1967 (Thesis - surface water — groundwater relationships); Registered Civil and. Environmental Engineer in Oregon; 30 -year Oregon resident. • Soil disturbance, erosion, stream -sedimentation and forest practices, projects for DEQ, US EPA, Pacific Northwest Regional Council, the City of Ashland, Oregon and the Flathead 208 Council. • Seven stormwater management plans for five Willamette Valley local jurisdictions including Salem and Portland. • Project manager of numerous stormwater and flood control designs; and the combined sewer overflow study of the Columbia Slough; as the Stormwater Design Section Supervisor and Environmental Planning Division Manager forthe Portland Bureau of Environmental Services ('83 t0'89). • Project Manager for studies and policy actions regarding on-site wastewater systems, nitrate, groundwater and surface water at Boise, Idaho and Washoe County, Nevada • Management of the engineering facilities and cost analyses subconsultant team for three Portland Metro Area Urban Growth Boundary studies (Metro and City of Hillsboro). • Staff manager for the Idaho Water Resources Board of statewide studies by three Idaho agencies.of streamflow needs for a) fish, b) recreation and c) water quality in all major Idaho Rivers. • Consultant arid staff management of flood plain hydrology -hydraulic studies in Oregon, Washington and Idaho. • Watershed, forest management and erosion analysis of the Ashland Municipal Watershed as a consultant to the City of Ashland, Oregon. • Water availability evaluation of four potential water sources (Columbia, Clackamas, Willamette and Trask Rivers) as the Project Manager for a consultant project for the Portland Water Bureau. • Idaho Coordinator of Federal -State Wild & Scenic Rivers Studies —1970 —1975. • Construction management and inspection at a large federal water project in Montana. • Consultant and staff manager of numerous municipal drinking water and wastewater planning studies in Oregon, Idaho and Nevada. 4 Oregon Fish Not Protected - Native Fish Society — article for "Strong Runs" 8/9/2008 — FINAL By Tom Davis, PE;: River Steward for the Upper Deschutes It may come as no surprise that Oregon's native fish are inadequately protected. But the nature, extent and seriousness of the problem may come as a surprise. It was to me. For many of us the decisive fish issues have revolved around hatchery versus wild -native fish, commercial fishing and kill or release of the sport fishing catch. The current..collapse of some of our west coast salmon populations has justifiably heightened our concern about what our state and federal .fish management agencies are doing in or along the river. However, the problems often, if not usually, originate in the watersheds, and ourattention to thoseaspects of comprehensive aquatic -health must be significantly increased. Our insufficient interest in watershed and instream protection and recovery issues originates in the illusion that Oregon is a "green" state and that we have strong fish protection laws regarding water quality, forest and agricultural practices, land use, instream flows and threatened or endangered species. The laws may be strong, but the truth about implementation is quite different, as interagency revelations that have received little public attention point out. This article explains the problems and suggests solutions. It also provides quotes from official and expert sources that may come as surprises when placed into a comprehensive context focusing on fish. The bottom line is that while the laws per se may be adequate if applied in ways that protect and restore aquatic ecosystems, the implementation programs have been anemic. The primary causes are political intimidation, timid public agencies that often depend on those they regulate for funding, and insufficient political backbone. The programs involve water quality related to numerous nonpoint pollution threats, soil exposure and damage. at construction or other disturbance sites, forest practices, agricultural practices, aquatic and riparian habitat protection and restoration, instream .flows and species needing special protection. The Oregon Departments of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Water Resources (OWRD), Agriculture (DOA), Forestry (ODF), and Fish' and Wildlife (ODFW) administer the programs. Administrative oversight of our land use laws is by the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). The implementation is by cities, counties and special districts and is insufficient for aquatic life protection throughout most of the State. One underlying weakness is the inability of Oregon's agencies to "jut say no" to obvious threats. Another is the unwillingness to take action on obvious threats until the cause -effect relationships are undeniable. Forth types of out -of -sight, out -of -mind problems usually involved, that means waiting until the damage has occurred, i.e. after it's too late or too expensive to prevent or restore. The problems were brought to the surface by letters from DEQ, ODFW and OWRD to Governor Kulongoski regarding. Oregon's program sufficiency for protecting the world-class Metolius River from destination resorts; a December 14, 2005 letter from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ODFW on the Coastal Coho Plan (CCP); and recent news coverage of landslide problems. Let's takea look. Water Quality The EPA letter summarizes the insufficiencies for Oregon's water quality programs. "continued implementation of the existing regulatory framework in Oregon does not adequately address widespread water quality problems and will not meet the goals in the CCP'... "there is a significant body Oregon. Fish Not Protected of science demonstrating that regulatory programs in Oregon do not adequately protect water quality and associated beneficial uses (e.g., salmonid spawning and rearing, public water supply)." WOW! Thanks EPA. ODFW had this to say about groundwater discharges and the impact on surface water quality in the Metolius. "If the development relies on septic systems there would likely be an impact to groundwater quality which in tum could affect surface water quality through groundwater discharge to surface water': The USGS figures below illustrate a typical groundwater -surface water flow system contaminated with nitrate from septic tanks. The example is in Maryland, but the flow process is universal except as influenced by geologic variables. Without advanced, removal processes, wastewater treatment plants can have similar effects. Recharge Zane Natural Groundwater -Surface Water Flow MAME IN0y W MIItaRNApIRUMASN Gemerrent96.0 am) letamna ae.r(a"dnt 110,-• tea mmryn»pe Kot ibetr¢ NOf.6K 10tO6p.eper lam6"Npga1.tn6pc Cno.aWW Barer 110i,9b90n<6pranper I. 6"0.1N0p..l0 Spam a^enan .N6r .cher.) E"Weuvr� apa.Y Nitrate Contamination Example DEQ's November. 2, 2007 letter, to the Govemor about the Metolius stated the following. "Subsurface discharge to shallow soils or land application to the surface of soils may be allowed. Even with substantial removal ofnulrients and other constituents from this wastewater prior to discharge, small amounts ofnulrienis may reach the Metolius River or its tributaries through runoff or seepage to groundwater that flows into the Metolius. The river is sensitive to nublents, and small increases in nutrients could result in some degradation of water quality, such as decreased dissolved oxygen, increased aquatic plant growth, and changes in pH, among others" As DEQ acknowledges, even small concentrations of nitrate can cause serious problems in small streams like the Metolius tributaries, and possibly the Metolius itself, so this level of protection is inadequate. The Oregon standard for drinking water is 10: mg/L,, but the EPAguidance for total nitrogen in freshwater ecosystems is much lower at 0.12 mg/L (1/80th). Thisis critical for salmon, trout and steelhead streams. DEQ points out that estimating the potential water quality effects from developments before the specifics are proposed, 'is very difficult; and that the implementation of the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) program may impose more effective controls. But DEQ also points out that the TMDL program formany of Oregon's watersheds are on hold, including for the_Deschutes, which has been on hold for about five years. DEQ states "we do not anticipate returning to work on these TMDLs in this bienniunf. In dosing, DEQ makes an accurate and candid statement: "... there are significant sources of pollutants that are comparativety uncontrolled, and the potentia/ effects of these discharges, along with potential decreases in insbeam flow from development could have a measurable impact on an outstanding water such as the Metolius River. Because DEQ does not 2. Oregon Fish Not Protected have a regulatory framework for stormwater management after construction, we -believe these developments could pose a significant risk to water quality." Note the term "regulatory framework". The federal and state laws are in place, but not the "regulatory framework". This means for 35 years the fish related goals of the Federal Clean Water Act have not been met because the nonpoint provisions have not been adequately implemented. How long can this dodge go on? Stormwater Management Runoff from urban construction and post -development urban areas can have severe impacts on stream habitat and fish. The following photographs were taken by the author and illustrate the problems. The runoff in the street was from construction for housing development in Washington County; the urban street/gutter runoff with an oil sheen and street debris was in Portland; and the Balch Creek urbanized watershed was in the Portland West Hills. The phenomena are universal. Construction Runoff Urban Street Runoff Soil Disturbance Balch Watershed Landslide Regarding construction and land disturbances DEQ states that its permits require 'practices and control technologies"but that these "do not always result in complete control. "For post construction the letter continues, 'In general, DEQ does not have a regulatory framework for controlling stormwater from these developments once they are constructed. Local governments may exercise control': How do your local governments perform on such control? Erosion, or the detachment of soil by water, is followed by the transport (routing) ofthe eroded soil through the watershed, sometimes over long time periods. Erosion has three basic components, mass_ (e.g. landslides), channel and surface/sheet. The first two are easily observed, but surface erosion, which usually begins with raindrop splash (see graphic below), is difficult to see and understand. The resulting rivulets and rills are more easily observed (see graphic below). 3 Raindrop Splash (Montcalm County Michigan graphic) Oregon Fish Not Protected Surface/Sheet Erosion (Sierra College Graphic) Even forest professionals seem to. forget the large body of research on surface erosion done by the US Forest Service (FS). Surface erosion can result in. more sedimentation problems than mass or channel depending on conditions, but since it's easily dismissed or overlooked it is seldom dealt with. A good example of Deschutes watershed surface erosion occurs. from a trail at Three Creek Meadow as shown below (photos by author). Little Three Creek Natural Channel — 2' to 3' Wide Rill From Trail Surface Erosion Sediment Deposition to. Little Three Creek From Rill A January 20, 2008 article in "The Oregonian" (quotes below) summarized the property damage aspect of the mass erosion problem, but stream sedimentation damage from such erosion is also usually severe. 'State geologists predicted the landslide that crushed homes and severed U.S. 30 west of Clatskanie, but the state shelved the information partly because of concerns it wou/d interfere with land development. The prediction was spelled out in the form 'of landslide hazard maps that state geologists drew up for all of western Oregon alter landslides killed flue people in 1996. The Maps labeled most of the area involved in last months U.S. 30 slide as posing "very high"or "extreme"lands/ide hazard -- the highest possible . categories of risk. They showed the danger extending firm Oregon State University clear -cuts where the destructive chain of events began, downhill to an old earthen rai/road crossing that allowed mud and debris to collect for more than a week, forming a lake. The debris finally broke loose Dec: 11, releasing a muddy torrent into homes that sat in the danger zone. Oregon Fish Not Protected But people living in those homes never knew the maps existed -- even though the state spent nearly $250,000 developing them to he/p protect life and property. State foresters who reviewed logging more than a mile above the homes knew about the maps but did not refer to them, they said." The spawning gravel impacts are usually severe from sediment caused by all types of accelerated, or human - caused, erosion. Primarily "bedload" movement of sediment causes the damage. Such movement and damage is difficult to see, monitor or fit within an elementary water quality "regulatory framework", but it is a major threat to healthy salmonid populations. The water may be very clear while bedload damage is occurring.-: Bedload movement is represented in the following graphic. Bedload (UCSB graphic).. The following is a photo by the author of bedload movement from sediment originating from surface erosion at a FS road construction project in a small, Idaho trout stream. 5 Oregon Fish Not Protected Some professionals believe that for erosion to result in stream sedimentation problems the erosion has to be relatively dose to the stream, but such problems originate in erosion throughout the watershed. Eroded soil particles move beyond the initial erosion plume. Only the time needed for the soil particles to arrive, or routing time, is affected by location. One of the FS's top erosion specialists stated in email correspondence that: 'When we have a large risk of erosion in a watershed, like a wildfire or logging practices 100 years ago, • massive amounts ofsedimentget deposited in the watershed. Caspar Creek in N. C4 is a forest examp/e of this when they first removed the redwoods a century ago. Itis still delivering unusually large amounts of sediment even though the forest is now regrown." Forest Practices The EPA letter on the CCP summarizes Oregon's forest practice rules succinctly: "EPA does not believe the CCP's use of the existing Oregon Forest Practice Act regulations (FPA) will achieve the desired status goal for the Coastal Coho ESU/' there is a substantia/body of science demonstrating that Oregon s existing forest practice rules and best management practices do not consistently meet water quality standards or fu//y provide riparian functions important to water qua/ity, public water supplies and fish. Expert reviews and research have identified the need for increased protection of riparian management areas and landslide prone slopes in Oregon for both fish and non fish streams to provide functions important fix- fish and water quality. additional revisions to the rules are needed to ensure water quality standards will be met and that beneficial uses such as salmonid spawning and rearing will be fully protected. "EPA believes the existing FPA and SB 1010 plans do not adequately support the desired CCP goals for Coastal Coho habitat' The following photographs, taken by the author, illustrate mass and surface erosion that resulted from logging activities and logging road construction. Ashland Watershed Mass Erosion From Logging and Logging Roads 6 Surface Erosion from Logging Road Winchuck Area, Oregon South Coast Oregon Fish Not Protected Ashland Watershed, Surface and Mass Erosion on a Road Cut As planned, the FS's "Glaze Forest" project near Black Butte Ranch promises to set some good precedents for forest thinning linked to protection/enhancement of stream and riparian conditions. The area is treated as an integrated land and water ecosystem targeted for improvement. It ties forest operations in the area to the stream system receiving its runoff. Agricultural Practices Senate Bill 1010, enacted in 1993, provides for local water quality planning for agriculture that is updated periodically. The basic SB 1010 planning has been done but according to EPA effective implementation for stream and fish recovery has not been accomplished. EPA said this about the program: "The agricultural water quality management plans and associated ru/es prepared pursuant to SB 1010 are not /inked to salmonid conservation and restoration. ... we have not seen an established, clear commitment to salmonid recovery or meeting TMDL targets on agricultural /ands." "We are a/so concemed that SB 1010 plans fa// short of Coastal Coho conservation and recovery." Spawning and Alevin Habitat Natural amounts of fresh gravel moving in a stream can benefit spawning and alevin-rearing beds, but accelerated soil erosion supplies excessivevolumes of damaging sediment to streams. Fine silt and sand -sized sediment are particularly damaging. Much of the damage occurs to eggs and alevin through bedload movement, i.e. the sliding and bouncing of soil particles along the gravel substrate. Oregon Fish Not Protected The following description and illustration regarding alevins are taken from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service brochure: "Salmon of the Pacific Coast': "The eggs lie in the gravel through the winter, as the embryos within develop. In early spring, yolk -sac fry, or alevins, hatch. The tiny fish carry a food supply (a sac of egg yolk) attached to their bellies They will not leave the protect -on of the gravel until the yolk is used up, 12 weeks or more. At that time,: the young salmon, now called fry, swim up to the surface, gu/p air to fill their swim bladders, and begin to feed" Alevins - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Photo Feld personnel doing fish surveys and redd counts in Oregon coastal streams have explained the problem to me this way (paraphrasing). It's all about the habitat upstream. The fish don't have a chance with most of the logging operations. At low water you observe sediment that has filled in the gravel beds, choking eggs and alevins. The rains come, and because there is no retention ability in the forest floor due to logging and logging roads, the water rushes down so fast that scouring occurs and more sediment is loaded into the stream covering and moving along the redds, spawning gravel, eggs and alevin habitat. Instream Flows Inadequate flows are among the most serious problems for many Oregon fisheries. This is particularly acute for the Deschutes below Wickiup Dam where, before Wickiup, natural, spring -fed flows in an alluvial channel varied from 700 to 900 cfs and created a native fish Nirvana. Low flows are very important and the Wickiup releases are often 20 to 30 cfs in the winter. Flow has been essentially zero when repairs were being made. In addition to dams and diversions, groundwater pumping can also significantly reduce flows. 8 Oregon Fish Not Protected In OWRD's letter to the Governor regarding the providing of adequate protection against flow depletion for the Metolius; three options were described. Two wouldhave provided .the needed protection against: the Metolius springs and river flows being depleted from groundwater pumping at the proposed destination resorts. OWRD rejected all three and stated: "Itis the department's view that the Deschutes Mitigation. Program has been successful at balancing streamflow protection with economic development in the Deschutes Basin. For this reason, we recommend this program continue as it is currently administered." . Species Requiring Special Protection The federal -state maze of process and regulations is very complex .for protecting species that are of special concem, threatened or endangered. The net result is: that if the species isn't listed by the feds as "Endangered" not much protection is provided. And by that time: it's often too latewith. too little. A few .quotes from ODFW's letter to the Governor about the Metolius follow. "Even with the bestmitigation actions' there will be loss of fish and Wildlife habitat through habitat fragmentation; incremental reductions in stream -flow, increased human interaction, road development, etc. ".. 'Groundwater extraction for development use would likely have some effect oninstream flows and fish habitat, which could affect bull trout (a listed species), -redband trout, kokanee salmon- and other aquatic life':.. 'ODFW has tracked fish spawning throughgood and bad water years and has observed that reductions in spring flows brought on by dry climatic conditions have translated into reduced spawning rates ODFW. would expect that reductionsin streamflows from springs through groundwater withdrawal would have similar effects onspawning .and fish populations only it would be a more permanent reduction because of the continuing nature of the groundwater withdrawals.":„ "There have been a number of problems with implementation of mitigation requirements for destination resorts :These issues include lack of follow through by developers to implement agreed-upon rnitigation. actions; lack of county oversight to ensure agreed-upon mitigation measures are implemented; wildlife. impacts are on/y assessed on site (adjacent off-site impacts are not. included. in any wi/dlife habitat impact analysis); and lack ofcumulative impact assessment. The result has been.a net foss offish and;wi/dlife- habitat from all destination resorts in the state.''.. "One of the unintended consequences of destination resorts is that the area around them is managed substantially differently by federal land management agencies. For example, federal land managers are.ii� the process of significantly altering wildlife habitat adjacent to destination resorts to protect them from wildfire. This dramatically increases the effective footprint of the destination resort" Land Use Law and Implementation Special watersheds and rivers like the Metolius should be designated as critical areas of state concern under ORS 197. ORS 197.040(g) states in regard to the duties of the Land Conservation and Development Commission,,(LCDC): (g) Review and recommend to the Legislative Assembly the designation of areas of critical state concern; 9 Oregon Fish Not Protected It does not appear that LCDC has designated any areas of state concern under this section of the ORS since the '70's. Agricultural land, forestland (primarily fortimber), WillametteRiver Greenway, ocean resources and`` estuaries were all recognized'as areas of "state concern", and provided with'goals and administrative rules. But our rivers and other water resources have been neglected by LCDC and other state agencies in terms of providing adequate protection from land use and development that damages fisheries: Many Oregon watersheds and rivers should be established as areas of critical concern as soon as possible. If LCDC is unable or unwilling to=take up such designations, the Legislature should do it.. Without doubt, the. legislative authority under ORS 197 is there to make the designation. Condusions The implementation of state and federal water quality, laws leaves most nonpoint sources inadequately controlled. This indudes wastewater systems that discharge high nitrate loads to the groundwater, and eventually the streams and lakes. It also`ineludes forest, •agricultural and construction activities,: which cause erosion and the sedimentation of spawning and alevin habitat. High pollutant loads are discharged by runoff from streets, parking areas and buildings, and these sources are poorly controlled, if at all. The state and local land use rules should protect the public's water and fish,but are inadequate to prevent habitat damage and loss. EPA states that. Oregon's forest practice requirements are inadequate for protecting salmonids. Riparian cover that maintains the cool water needed by salmonids is poorly protected and seldom restored. This is the major cause for thousands of miles of Oregon streams being .inviolation oftemperaturestandards under federal and Oregon water quality laws. ODWR's top priorities for water and water rights appear to be economic development and more municipal and agricultural water use. Currently, the remaining: top quality streams and watersheds that Oregon's fish depend on are not adequately protected. Numerous changes to state and federal implementation of fish, flow, water quality and land use laws, and possibly to the laws themselves, are essential on many' fronts. Statements from EPA, DEQ ODFG, ODWR and recent newspaper articlesmake this dear: Good will, weak regulations and voluntary: efforts have failed to protect fish for decades. It's time for enforceable requirements and the public agencies. to "just say no". Such changes take time and our fish'should not continue to assume the risk during the -interim period. New land disturbances and water uses that have the potential to negatively impact aquatic resources should be put on hold until changes are made that adequately protect fish and aquatic habitat. ODFW, in concert with DEQ, should be given the authority 'to stop proposals that have such potential. As it now stands; ODFW is left ' holding the bag for fish and wildlife losses that are caused by numerous federal, state, local and private activities ODFW has no control over. ODWR requirements should be changed to always protect fish. Habitat restoration, native -wild versus hatchery fish policies and removing or mitigating barriers such as dams are essential. And if the watershed activity regulations -that are possible under existing laws aren't implemented well shamefully continue to lose our native salmon, trout and steelhead. 10 C MO NT 64.4.1. The current destination resort map is so far out of line with the County's needs that it should be repealed. The current map has far too many properties in the destination resort zones. In the new map, we should be far more prudent about classifying areas as appropriate for potential development as destination resorts. But we should not revise the map until two things have happened: First, the State should finish with the Big Look and its legislative aftermath. We don't want to waste our efforts in redoing the map while State law is in flux. And the State regulations need to help us deal with cross-County impacts, such as what happens to Sisters when Jefferson County approves Metolius resorts. Second, before we remap, there is considerable work that needs to be done as the foundation for a map that can serve Deschutes County into the future. For example, • We need a scientific water survey to determine how many resorts could be supported and where. This survey should be done by independent experts and should include some forecasts for the change in water supply due to climate change. Y inc-0) • The new map must be based on an accurate mapping of territory for threatened and endangered species, as well as on analyses of where a development would diminish wildlife or their habitat. • The new map must work in concert with the important effort to reintroduce endangered fish in the upper Deschutes Basin—this means understanding that relationship and how far from the stream it prevails. &A 1 • We also need serious study of resort impacts overall and some way of limiting the overall acreage in such developments. Right now, each resort proposal is evaluated separately, without any attention to the collective impacts that a number of resorts can pose in an area. The County needs to look at the big picture to preserve our resources and way of life. We can't just designate a whole lot of land on a map as eligible for this type of development, when the sum total of developments will have negative impacts. Equally important to the remapping process, the County needs to better define what we mean by a destination resort. Many developments that bear this name actually do not primarily attract and serve tourists. Builders are using the resort designation to give them latitude to put subdivisions in locations that would not otherwise allow them. Instead of tourist facilities, we end up with exclusive subdivisions for the wealthy, effectively exempting this type of housing from our other land use laws. So when we do revise the destination resort map, we must at the same time be sure to revise the regulations so we can prevent abuses such as we have seen in recent years. Most important, the County needs to require destination resorts to build their amenities before selling any units. Then, at least, they will actually be configured as resorts. Given the current economic climate and slump in the housing industry, we have a terrific opportunity to conduct our studies and revise our regulations without holding up any viable developments of the quality we want to see here in Central Oregon. Let's take advantage of the current downturn by taking the time to get it right this time. ��6 c 2 Let's repeal the destination resort map, put a moratorium on resorts, conduct the needed studies, revise our regulations, and wait for the results of the State planning process. Only then should we revise the map, based on our new knowledge and experience. EVA ZA L'L 13-21 L S 1.5 riA5/ 64L `n -?-n �.�G Lt 3 October 28, 2008 Terri Payne Deschutes County Planning Department 117 NW Lafayette Ave Bend, OR 97701 RE: Comments on Comprehensive Plan Update Dear Ms. Payne: Thank you for including these comments in your consideration of reforms to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. In my opinion, the current county planning process is giving away the store --the natural resources and landscape that draw people to live here—in exchange for unrealistic promises from builders of long-term, family -wage jobs, overnight lodging, a new boon in tourism, and hefty tax revenue. Central Oregon has reached an oversaturation point on resorts. I urge the County to include specific reforms to the Comprehensive Plan to address this problem(elucidated later in these comments). I also urge Deschutes County to enact an immediate and permanent moratorium on new resorts, and repeal and remove the existing destination resort overlay map, for three primary reasons. 1) The type and sites of resorts being planned cannot be adequately mitigated. 2) Rules and statutes for resorts have been shown to be unenforceable. 3) The costs to Central Oregonians outweigh the benefits. They cannot be adequately mitigated. D Deschutes County's destination resort code states as an approval criterion that "Any negative impact on fish and wildlife resources will be completely mitigated so that there is no net loss or net degradation of the resource."1 But ODFW has experienced problems in getting resorts to follow through with wildlife mitigation plans. The department has further stated that current resort mitigation plans don't address cumulative impacts, and that there "has been a net loss of fish and wildlife habitat from all destination resorts in the state." Also, an OWRD report2 this year states it will be difficult to mitigate groundwater withdrawals near Whychus Creek. Data from the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council show that Whychus' instream flow is ALREADY depleted and may not be sufficient to sustain reintroduced threatened fish populations even in its current state.3 ' Stream Deschutes County Code 18.113.070 section D http://www. co. deschutes. or.us/dccode/titlel8/docs/chapter%2018.113. doc 2 Deschutes Ground Water Mitigation Program, Five -Year Program Evaluation Report (February 29, 2008) 3 Whychus Creek Watershed Project Temperature Monitoring Summary 2007 http://www.restorethedeschutes.org/CEDocuments/Downloads GetFile.aspx?id=250491&fd� temperatures are also outside state standards. And the opinion of one legal authority is that under OWRD mitigation rules, cold springs that feed waterways could actually legally be dried up." Clearly this is a "net loss or net degradation" of a resource. Rules and statutes for resorts have been shown to be unenforceable. > Resorts are skirting Oregon's UGB approach to development, and are resulting in sprawl. Deschutes County Code 18.113.010 section E states, "It is not the intent of DCC 18.113 to site developments that are in effect rural subdivisions, whose primary purpose is to serve full-time residents of the area." Yet that is precisely what new Central Oregon resorts are. > County rules state that ALL phases of the building process must comply with destination resort standards. Deschutes County Code Title 18 requires overnight lodging to be built "prior to closure of sales, rental or lease of any residential dwellings or lots." Developers are therefore required to start on bare ground, with strict agreements on overnight accommodations and wildlife mitigation in place before construction begins. But multiple resorts have failed to build the required overnight lodging first, and have repeatedly lobbied the state or county to loosen the requirements on the lodging -to -housing -unit ratio, reduce the bonds held by local government for overnight lodging construction, or grant extensions to their timetables. To date, all of these requests have been granted by Deschutes County or the State. For example, the proposed Aspen Lakes resort under consideration by the County—a subdivision which wants to convert to a resort --has already sold far in excess of 100 lots, houses have been built, and no overnight lodging has been constructed. Bottom line: the financial and legal consequences for developers who have not abided by agreements to build required overnight lodging units first are not being enforced, nor are they severe enough to motivate compliance. ➢ Goal 8 of Oregon's statewide planning guidelines states, "Plans that provide for satisfying the recreation needs of persons in the planning area should consider as a major determinant, the carrying capacity of the air, land and water resources of the planning area. The land conservation and development actions provided for by such plans should not exceed the carrying capacity of such resources." But many observers believe Deschutes County's water resources have already been exceeded by the land rush of resort development. At recent hearings on resorts, residents from Tumalo to Crook County are reporting wells that have had to be deepened, or are providing intermittent flow. Thornburgh resort in Tumalo is expected to use 1 million gallons of water per day. The U. S. G. S. is currently doing a study of dropping well levels in the Deschutes Basin, and OWRD and USGS are studying the risks to cold water springs that keep our rivers cool and recharged. > Water consumption by resorts could violate the Endangered Species Act, and state law. State statute says, "A county shall insure that a destination resort is compatible with the site and adjacent land uses through the following measures: (1)Important natural features, including habitat of threatened or endangered Merry Ann Moore comments on Deschutes County Comp Plan Review 10/28/2008 — p. 2 species, streams, rivers and significant wetlands shall be retained."4 In other words, enough cold water in these waterways must be maintained at all times to meet threatened fishes' spawning, rearing and survival requirements. Spring steelhead which have been reintroduced in the Deschutes Basin are a federally - listed threatened species. Bull trout which inhabit the Whychus/Deschutes confluence are also federally -listed as threatened. D State law says resorts may not be built within three miles of a "high value crop area." The definition of "high value" is in dispute. It is defined by ORS 197.435 as "capable of producing crops or products with a minimum gross value of $1,000. per acre per year." At current prices for beef or hay, livestock and hay production could fall under this definition under ORS 197.4355. With the globalization of farm product markets and greater interest in "eating local," it is all the more essential to protect Oregon's agricultural land. The costs to Central Oregonians outweigh the benefits. Infrastructure costs. Far from being a fair deal for the public, Central Oregon destination resorts are costing taypayers who must subsidize infrastructure for developments in remote areas. Resorts shift substantial costs to the public and municipalities by being sited outside urban growth boundaries, or causing impacts across county lines. For example, the city of Redmond has no recourse with Crook County to get help with road improvements related to the added traffic the city expects once four new resorts near Powell Butte are built. So these costs will fall on Deschutes County taxpayers. ODOT acknowledges that the approach used to calculate resorts' share of the cost of providing needed highway facilities is outmoded and needs to be updated. (November 2007, letter from ODOT Region 4 Manager, Bob Bryant, to LandWatch). Quality of life costs. The quality of life issues of many rural Central Oregonians have been ignored or illegitimized during the current resort land rush. Residents from Tumalo to Sisters to Powell Butte are finding that their wells, their road capacity, or even their livelihoods as ranchers or farmers are at risk from the huge -scale resorts that are proposed or already approved. In Crook County, lands zoned Exclusive Farm Use are being converted to resorts. The resort map and pro -development zoning should not take precedence over existing agricultural zoning. Loss of revenue from other recreation. There has been no objective economic analysis of the revenue losses and costs counties and cities will bear as over one dozen planned Central Oregon resorts come on line. How much revenue does road cycling tourism on rural roads brings to the county? Will cyclists stay away if these roadways become high- speed, congested throughways? Will there be revenue losses from reduced fishing, hunting and birding tourism? What are the added pollution control costs of managing 4 ORS 197.460 5 July 2, 2008 prices for hay in classified ads of the Bend Bulletin indicate $260 per ton for Timothy Hay. OSU, 1977. Principles of Alfalfa Production in Central Oregon. OSU Special report 483. 17 pp, page 1: "Studies done at the Central Oregon Experiment Station, Redmond, have clearly shown that more than 8 tons of hay per acre can be produced." Merry Ann Moore comments on Deschutes County Comp Plan Review 10/28/2008 — p. 3 storm -water runoff in such widely dispersed population centers? What are the additional public health costs we can expect as a result of air pollution from sprawl development? Transient tax money exaggerated? Tax revenue from resort overnight lodging is not meeting predictions. This is in part because not all overnight units built by destination resorts are truly made available. They are required to be available for rent 38 weeks/year, but anecdotal evidence suggests many homeowners are pricing their rental fees so high they don't draw renters. A destination resort is rumored to have counted a cottage as four units by using lockboxes and a timeshare scheme. Pollution control costs. Plans to protect resources from the added pollution that comes with large developments are woefully inadequate. Storm -water runoff from more streets, parking lots, rooftops, lawns and golf course acreage will result in pollutants such as oil and grease, sediment, pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers, bacteria and heavy metals fmding their way into our waterways. Erosion from construction activity will result in sedimentation of fish habitat. More controls to prevent this pollution are needed. Suggested Reforms & Initiatives to Incorporate in Comp Plan Revision ➢ Conduct a scientifically -valid study on the cumulative economic and environmental impacts of currently approved Central Oregon resorts. ➢ Conduct a scientifically -valid water survey, to determine the actual availability of water resources in all areas of the county. The uncertainties of climate change make this all the more imperative. ➢ Conduct impartial, scientifically -valid studies and develop maps of sensitive wildlife and habitat (including migration corridors) and put those areas off limits to development. Focus especially on places with limited or uncertain water supplies, and where federally -listed threatened or endangered species live. ➢ Put areas where federally -listed threatened or endangered species live off limits to any development, and include a buffer area. D. Revise the winter range big game map, including a scientifically -valid buffer area around this range that will result in real wildlife protection, and prohibit any development there. ➢ Put wildlife migration corridors and a scientifically -valid buffer area around them off limits to development. ➢ Require developers of any new project outside UGBs to evaluate cumulative effects in assessments of impacts on wildlife, habitat and fish. • Formally recommend that the state set a statutory limit on the concentration of resorts in a region (defining the cap by region, not county). ➢ Institute punitive enforcement and remediation actions when overnight resort housing requirements aren't met. Expand the uses allowed for the bond money resorts put down towards overnight lodging, if developers do not fulfill the terms of their permits. Cities and counties should be able to take the money that was supposed to be used for hotels and use it to repurchase the land where the overnight lodging would have been for the public, to pay for restoring impacted wildlife and fish, or to fund studies on resort impacts (water, wildlife, habitat). Merry Ann Moore comments on Deschutes County Comp Plan Review 10/28/200.8 — p. 4 Levy a daily fine when a construction deadline is not met, and use this fund to purchase land to be preserved for the public. > Require mitigation plans for any development to be completed within three years, and failing that, stipulate seizure of funds from the developer to restore the public resources that have been damaged. > Require that developers pay for on-going monitoring of mitigation by independent scientists, to determine if it is really succeeding. Require developers to maintain a mitigation fund to be used in the event that impacts are not properly offset and need to be improved. Establish and enforce fines on developments whose mitigation plans fail. > Require developers to pay mitigation fees for road improvements to cross -county - line municipalities. ➢ Require that road improvements be made before roads fail, i.e., before building of resorts or large developments begins. Developers should pay a large percentage of the true cost of road mitigation plans, not a flat sum, to cover any cost overruns—and to be fair to taxpayers. > Recognize that some development—due to its site or scale—cannot be adequately mitigated and should be denied. Conclusions I have heard it said that "it would be only fair to add land to the resort map if the County Comprehensive Plan revision now in progress ends up removing some land." I think a better definition of fairness is a Comp Plan that 1) Conforms with the principles of urban growth boundaries, 2) Is based on uniform rules and standards such as the carrying capacity of the land, no net loss of wildlife or habitat, the proximity to high-value crop land, etc., and 3) Assures that developers pay for all infrastructure improvements necessitated by new building. To my mind, the logical and fair approach is to repeal the map entirely and close the door on any new resorts in Central Oregon. The new Central Oregon destination resorts are not primarily visitor -serving. They are high-end, gated sagebrush subdivisions, not places oriented to attracting tourists. At a time when our country is beginning to recognize the need to live more sustainably, drive less, eat local foods, restore endangered fish; protect habitat, and plan for expected global warming impacts such as water shortages, the last thing we need is more far-flung gated golf course communities using scarce water resources in and Central Oregon. Cities and counties will no doubt be required in the not -distant future to consider the carbon footprint of their projects and planning policies, and Deschutes County should not ignore such impacts. And Central Oregonians shouldn't be burdened with the costs of new infrastructure that resorts bring. Oregon waterways and landscapes are what draw thousands of visitors, stimulate local economies, provide limitless enjoyment for residents, provide critical wildlife habitat, and serve as vital fish nurseries for fishing industries. The County Comprehensive Plan Merry Ann Moore comments on Deschutes County Comp Plan Review 10/28/2008 — p. 5 revision should be reoriented to preservation and restoration of our rivers and surroundings. Please get back to promoting and requiring infill development within Urban Growth Boundaries. Thank you for considering my views. Sincerely, Merry AnhjMoore 69225 Hawksflight Dr. Sisters, OR 97559 merrvann@bendcable.com ATTACHED ADDENDUM --CASE EXAMPLE Merry Ann Moore comments on Deschutes County Comp Plan Review 10/28/2008 — p. 6 ADDENDUM — Moore Comments on Comp Plan Aspen Lakes Proposed Resort: Impacts, Costs & the Case for a Moratorium on New Resorts An overwhelming amount of time, energy and money have been consumed by counties and citizen groups in evaluating, commenting on and fighting resort proposals that are considered by Central Oregon residents to be far out of scale, or in violation of county or state rules. The proposed conversion of a housing subdivision to a resort a few miles outside Sisters' UGB is informative, and provides a powerful example of why a moratorium is needed. A county code change (Text Amendment TA -07-7) proposed by a developer has resulted in half a dozen public hearings and meetings of elected officials, thousands of dollars in attorney's fees for proponents and opponents, and untold hours of county staff time. Based on provisional data provided by a professional engineering consultant, it is estimated that the Aspen Lakes resort would add about 1600 people during "normal" use and about 2200 people during "peak" summer use. This would double the current Sisters population of 1706. Here are the various costs and problems anticipated if this resort gets the go-ahead. TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS. As it is located outside the city urban growth boundaries, no System Development Charges within city limits will be paid to Sisters to cope with the extra stresses on city infrastructure. The single county road in Sisters that would serve the proposed Aspen Lakes Golf Estates resort is Camp Polk Road, which would need costly improvements to its sharp curves, narrow bridge over Whychus Creek and steep grades to safely accommodate the traffic of a new "city" only a few miles outside of Sisters. This road would likely require large- scale construction to achieve adequate traffic capacity. The cost of these road improvements will be multiplied since they will need to include measures to prevent sedimentation from construction and long- term pollution from road surfaces from flowing into the creek. Merry Ann Moore comments on Deschutes County Comp Plan Review 10/28/2008 — p. 7 The proposed resort would also have traffic impacts within Sisters city limits—but the city will have no way to collect traffic SDCs from the developer to address them. (Although county road improvements could be partially funded by transportation SDCs at the county level.) The large population increase at such a resort would significantly worsen Sister's already -strained traffic system. It would be especially troublesome at the Locust Street/ Cascade intersection and the Hwy 126/ Hwy 20 fork on the east side of town. With such a large increase in local population, the north -south crossing of Cascade would become even more difficult in the summer months. EMERGENCY SERVICES COSTS. There could be added costs for Sisters' fire services, if the Cloverdale volunteer fire -fighting corps needed assistance from Sisters/Camp Sherman Fire District. (Emergency calls in destination resorts sometimes take fire agencies out of their home zones. And even if a resort has only 20 percent of calls from non -permanent residents in a resort, the cost per call is often greater than the cost per call from residents living within urban growth boundaries, closer to fire/emergency stations.) NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON FISH & HABITAT. Native fish reintroduction and preservation of Camp Polk Meadow, adjacent to the proposed resort housing and lodging, represent a public and private investment between $120 and $300 million. The stretch of Whychus through Camp Polk Meadow is considered the most critical site in Central Oregon for reintroduced ocean-going steelhead spawning. The meadow is also designated by the county as a Goal 5 historic site, containing the oldest structure in Deschutes County, and is a prehistoric native American cultural site. Thousands of hours have been donated to restore the meadow and creek from hundreds of volunteers. According to the Native Trout Society, the likely negative impacts from a resort situated .16 miles from the Creek at Camp Polk Meadow would include: > Erosion, sedimentation from construction. > Flow depletion & higher temperature in the creek. The Oregon Water Resources Department's Deschutes Ground Water Mitigation Program, Five -Year Program Evaluation Report (February 29, 2008) states it will be difficult to mitigate groundwater withdrawals near Whychus Creek. "There may be fewer opportunities to generate mitigation water in this zone of impact and continued increase in Merry Ann Moore comments on Deschutes County Comp Plan Review 10/28/2008 — p. 8 supply of mitigation water is less certain than in the Middle Deschutes and General Zones of Impact. Land use in the Whychus Creek Zone of Impact tends to be more agricultural based and there is less urbanization." > Pollution of the Creek from stormwater runoff. > An expanded Aspen Lakes would also mean increased access to Camp Polk Meadow's fragile riparian areas by new residents, anglers and recreational visitors. AFFORDABLE HOUSING. Sisters is struggling with a severe shortage of housing for its workforce. Many of the jobs created by resorts are temporary (construction) or low-wage. Local residents find it difficult to make a living at many types of resort jobs when commute and housing costs are factored in. The Inn of the Seventh Mountain, for example, imports overseas employees because they cannot find local workers to work at the wages offered. WILDLIFE & HABITAT LOSS. Wildlife is supposed to be protected from any impacts of resort development. Yet, the proposed Aspen Lakes resort, for example, would be sited on and adjacent to big game habitat, including winter range for mule deer. Elk, mountain lions and coyotes are known to inhabit the area, and many animals cross Camp Polk Road land where resort housing would go. Bald and golden eagles have nested within 1.5 miles of the planned resort. LOSS OF CYCLING OPPORTUNITIES. Full-time residents, visitors to existing vacation homes, and the thousands of cyclists who participate in Cycle Oregon and the Cascade Cycling Classic will be negatively impacted. The Sisters Country is targeted for up to three more resorts: the Metolian (by the Metolius River), the Ponderosa Cattle & Land Co. (on Green Ridge Road) and a potential Skyline Forest resort (Three Creeks Road). All four of these resorts are located on rural roads considered a prime draw for cyclists across the country. The Sisters City Council passed a resolution expressing concern about the Aspen Lakes resort. All these concerns and several years of legal wrangling will soon be deliberated by the county commissioners. But an appeal is expected no matter what the outcome. Meny Ann Moore comments on Deschutes County Comp Plan Review 10/28/2008 — p. 9 This is surely not what the Oregon legislature intended when it looked to destination resorts as an avenue for economic development for Oregon. Instead, what we have is a pitched battle between developers and their teams of lawyers, expert witnesses and consultants and citizen/neighborhood/ environmental groups who wish to protect the rural way of life, fragile natural resources, and taxpayer exposure to the infrastructure costs that resorts bring. Merry Ann Moore comments on Deschutes County Comp Plan Review 10/28/2008 — p. 10 October 28, 2008 To: The County Planning Department Re: Resort Development There are many reasons we are concemed about the future of resort development in Central Oregon. The following points are some of the most important to us. 1. Modem Central Oregon resorts are not primarily visitor -serving. They are high-end, gated subdivisions, not places oriented to attracting tourists. 2. A need for newer, stricter mitigation rules to oblige resorts to protect reintroduced endangered fish. 3. Local and state govemment need to show more compassion for people who treasure the rural lifestyle, which can be very negatively impacted when resorts are built. 4. Deschutes County needs a comprehensive, OBJECTIVE, SCIENTIFICALLY -VALID water survey, to determine the actual availability of water resources in all areas of the county. The uncertainties of climate change make this all the more imperative. Thank you hard and Zeta Seipl orz Groundwater & Environmental Consultants Mark Yinger Associates 69860 Camp Polk Road, Sisters, OR 97759 — 541-549-3030 October 28, 2008 Deschutes County Planning Department Written comment submitted at "Listening Session", Sisters City Hall Dear Planner: I would like to express my concerns regarding the destination resort planning and approval. 1. The County needs to supplement the criteria for excluding lands from the destination resort map that if developed would have negative impacts on surface and ground water resources and related fish and wildlife habitat that cannot reasonably be mitigated. There are defmable areas in which new ground water development cannot be mitigated on a bucket for bucket basis. There are areas where there are no ground water rights to be transferred or surface water rights to be converted to instream flow to mitigate the impacts of new ground pumping on aquifer water levels, stream flow and water quality. Reasonably straight forward guidelines can be developed to identify these areas and exclude them from the destination resort map. One example of an area that would very likely be excluded is the Metolius River basin. 2. Under the current OWRD mitigation rule for new groundwater pumping the impact on surface water flows must be mitigated. The mitigation rule does not consider impacts to water quality, particularly water temperature. The resort applicants are wrong to presume that meeting OWRD mitigation requirements addresses all impact to streams and fish habitat. The County should expressly require a thorough evaluation of water quality impacts and mitigation. 3. The County should require that applicants for new resorts provide funds to the County that would be use to hire independent experts to evaluated potential negative impacts to water resources and fish and wildlife. This would assure that the experts are independent of the applicant and accountable to the public interest. This is done in other jurisdictions; it should be done here. Unfortunately all too many consultants simply become advocates for their client's project. 4. The approval process for new destination resorts should consider the cumulative impacts of all resorts in the planning process. Evaluation of cumulative impacts should be done by an expert hired by the County and funded by the applicant. 5. The County should put a three year moratorium on approval of new destination resorts. This would allow time for the development of new mapping criteria and new standards 1 for evaluation of impacts and mitigation. It would also allow time to develop a water resource management plan for the County. Thank you for considering my concerns. Mark Yinger, RG Hydrogeologist 2 Page 1 of 3 Terri Hansen Payne From: Tom Anderson Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 9:08 AM To: 'J Powell' Cc: Terri Hansen Payne Subject: RE: Destination Resorts Thanks Jim. As you may know, as part of the DC comprehensive plan update which we are currently undertaking, we had our own public meeting recently on destination resorts. I'm happy to add your thoughtful comments to the public testimony assoc ated with that process. There will be more meetings next year where the Planning Commission and the Board of Commissioners will discuss destination resorts further. We'd love to have you participate in those meetings if you're able. I've attached a link below to our website page that outliners the comp plan update process, including a schedule of upcoming meetings. http://lava5.deschutes.org/cdd/compplan/index.cfm Thanks again for your interest! Tom Tom Anderson Director Deschutes County Community Development 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, OR. 97701 541/385-1704 541/385-1764 (fax) toma@co.deschutes.or.us From: 3 Powell [mailto:jhp@bendbroadband.com] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 7:33 PM To: Tom Anderson Subject: Fwd: Destination Resorts I sent this to Doug White after the Prineville meeting. Know that the county is reviewing its plan. If you need a dinosaur from Woodisde for the Planning Commission, let me know. Begin forwarded message: From: Doug White <Doug.White@state_or.us> Date: October 20, 2008 8:54:40 AM PDT To: J Powell <Jhp@bendbroadband.com> Subject: Re: Destination Resorts thank you for your comments. I found them informative. We will include your e-mail with the others and add your name to a list of interested persons. Please keep tabs of this issue by checking DLCD website for up -date. Doug White DLCD 888 NW Hill Street, Suite 2 12/9/2008 Page 2 of 3 Bend, OR 97701 Ph. (541) 318-8193 FAX. (541) 318-8361 doug.white©state.or. us >» ] Powell <jhp@bendbroadband.com> 10/17/2008 4:49 PM »> Mr. White LCD held hearings on destination resorts this past Wednesday in Prineville. I am sorry I could not attend. I was involved on the Citizens Overall Advisory Committee and later on the Planning Commission in Deschutes County when the comprehensive plans were formulated. "Destination Resorts" arose as a means to codify Sunriver, Black Butte Ranch and Eagle Crest. The designation was never envisioned to spawn what has occurred more recently. One aspect of the planning process that appeared in the Deschutes County plan in the early 80's was the push by citizens and planners - and acceptance, in theory, by commissioners - of actually balancing goals and resources. There were policy provisions that required the consideration of, and existence of developer support for, infrastructure - be it roads, services, schools, utilities, adequate water resources, etc - before significant development projects proceeded. In a similar vein, there were policies addressing mitigating impacts on existing land uses, either in proximity to or along roadways serving, new development. There were also policies about city/town concentric development density and the inter- relationship of open spaces and rural development. And there were policies about the accountability of development to existing entities, be they property owners, users or government entities. It was this inter -relationship of policies that formed a framework to allow growth considerations with the chance for mitigations and long term consequences. Unfortunately, politics being what they are, many of these policies were never enacted in ordinance form, nor were they tied to ordinances created to address issues like destination resorts. Current land use philosophies of highest and best use promote the use of economic return as the measurement standard - investment income opportunities and the increase in tax bases. Both of these practices are not in keeping with the original intent of balancing resources and goals through planning. The current approach to destination resorts does not seem to serve the larger picture or public. Nor does it serve the resorts themselves. How many resorts - with their "required" golf courses - can Central Oregon support economically or natural resource wise ? Outside money or developers usually do not hold a long term investment in Oregon as of prime importance. Pronghorn, for example, drove at least four long time Central Oregon construction -related businesses into bankruptcy because of the development's business tactics. Water tables allegedly are dropping in wells adjacent to some of the resorts and town expansions - though I have not confirmed that information with the Watermaster. And people are concerned about impacts on adjacent land use, traffic, services and recreational sites. I am certain much of this information is not new. Perhaps there should be some type of density standard for resorts - not within the development itself, but rather within a region. At least it might conserve resources and enhance economic viability of the resort. And perhaps, consideration of integration of impacts on a larger frame 12/9/2008 Page 3 of 3 relative to infrastructure and resources would be in order since counties seem to have neglected that overview in some of their deliberations. The trick will be the balancing - allowing development without being excessively cumbersome but with accountability to the larger community. Thank you for your efforts for all of us calling Oregon home. Jim Powell Bend, OR 12/9/2008 Page 1 of 1 Terri Hansen Payne Subject: FW: Nov 24 Commissioner meeting From: Derek & Rachel Cornforth [mailto:dhcgrc@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 12:12 PM To: Tammy Baney Subject: Fw: Nov 24 Commissioner meeting Dear Tammy, On behalf of The Rim owners, I want to thank you for not allowing Text Amendment 07-7 to become part of the county land use code. It would have set a very bad precedent for the code to be changed for the sole benefit of one applicant. I also want tc thank you for taking the time to meet with Merry Ann, myself, and our neighbors Dennis McGregor and Frank Deggendorfer to discuss this issue before the Nov. 24 meeting. We were very impressed by your diligence and friendly approach. As Commissioner Luke mentioned at the Commissioners' meeting, the Cyrus family had the opportunity to start a destination resort in the early 1990s but chose instead to develop a clustered subdivision. Those of us who bought into The Rim, and understood that the adjoining Open Space was protected by county law, are very relieved that this Text Amendment failed. I might add that our time and expenses in opposing this Text Amendment have been significant. It has involved many hundreds of hours of personal time for myself and others, and legal costs of around $ 20,000. The destination resort code (Chapter 18.113) states under "Purpose" quote...."It is not the intent of DCC 18.113 to site developments that are in effect rural subdivisions, whose primary purpose is to serve full-time residents of the area". We would like to see a statement in the county code that prohibits conversion of a clustered development into a destination resort - they are practically opposites in their goals. Derek Cornforth President, The Rim at Aspen Lakes Association, Inc. 12/9/2008 Central Oregon Cities Organization Bend, Culver, La Pine, Madras, Maupin Metolius, Prineville, Redmond, Sisters November 21, 2008 TO: Tem Hansen Payne Deschutes County Planning Department RE: Draft Comments for Comprehensive Plan Update on Destination Resort Impacts related to Regional Water Planning Dear Terri: The Cities of Bend, Culver, La Pine, Madras, Maupin, Metolius, Prineville, Redmond and Sisters formally make up the Central Oregon Cities Organization (COCO). Our purpose is to effectively and efficiently promote the common interests of the cities in Central Oregon on issues such as water, transportation, economic development, school funding and tax reform. Collectively, as a region, our members are working collaboratively on a number of regional water issues. In support of these efforts, we offer the following comments on Statewide Planning Goal 8 destination resorts and potential impacts to established cities in the Deschutes Basin in terms of water appropriations and the need for more comprehensive basin wide water planning. Facts There are "no new surface water rights" available in the basin. This reality requires new land uses in the basin to look to groundwater. Due to the connection between surface water and groundwater established by a United States Geological Survey Report, all new groundwater uses must provide mitigation for every gallon consumed to prevent the potential diminishment of flows in the Lower Deschutes River. When new destination resorts are sited within the upper Deschutes Basin Groundwater Study Area, any new groundwater use must provide mitigation (OAR Chapter 690, Division 505). This reality leads to direct competition for scarce water resources. Competition alone is not bad, but un -informed competition has created speculation and dramatic price increases in other basins, a side effect we hope to avoid. In addition, the groundwater mitigation rules are complex, and there are many associated issues and Mike Wendel, Chair Central Oregon Cities Organization (541) 390-6823 mtckwendel@cresty i ewca b le. com Doug Riggs; Lobbyist • NW Grassroots & Communications (503) 702-5120 doug@ngrc.com much potential for unintended consequences which can result from narrowly planned water and related mitigation projects when done in isolation. Current Process The current process of individual project -by -project water planning, permitting and related mitigation acquisition and water rights transfers that go along with those activities, have the potential to negatively impact existing cities as they struggle to meet new water demands and demands for mitigation. COCO cities are already required to develop comprehensive land use plans for a 20 year period, including supplies of land for housing and employment, and public facility plans for water. The cities are also required to serve water to new residents as this water use is already documented in permit applications and have already established their need for new qualified water . uses. In addition, certain zones -of -impact areas as outlined in the state mitigation program are even more critical as some have no currently identifiable water sources that can provide mitigation water to those trying to develop within that zone. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Modifications COCO is requesting modification and update to the existing comprehensive plan to include an additional policy or goal that supports and protects the existing Cities with established UGB's and urban reserve areas so that they can receive priority water allocations ahead of, or in conjunction with, any new developments occurring outside these boundaries. We believe these amendments will support and allow cities to meet their requirements for providing public facilities within urban growth boundaries as required by law and the water to go with them. Key Pieces of Existing Water Management Framework COCO would like to offer its expertise along with other partner organizations to assist in creating policy ideas that could result in creating protective priority water supply areas. There may also be associated benefits such as prevention of water speculation and related high water costs, elimination of competition for scarce water and the reduction of associated "unintended consequences" of un -coordinated water transactions. It may also give the County findings to create more defensible land use decisions. We would also offer to the County that many COCO members are also partners in a very proactive coordinated approach to planning for future water needs throughout the basin through the Deschutes Water Alliance (DWA). The DWA completed many studies as part of a 2004 Department of interior Grant. The DWA Water Bank has been effectively meeting the needs of willing buyers, willing sellers by matching up the buyers and sellers, allocating and reallocating limited water within the basin using clear guidelines and transparent processes. The water bank has been creating both temporary and permanent mitigation credits as well as meets regularly with the Oregon Water Resources Department and is the only state approved water bank currently working in the Deschutes Basin. With the start of related planning for meeting the regions regulatory obligations within the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, COCO supports a close look at water within the Comprehensive Plan Update. Creation of a DWA Task force, may be a logical first step. Sincerely A71 40, Mike Wendel Chair, Central Oregon Cities Organization Attachment: DWA Fact Sheet Deschutes Water Alliance Balancing Water Uses for Agriculture, Cities and Rivers in the Deschutes Basin Formation In 2004, the Deschutes Water Alliance (DWA) was formed to plan for the future water management of the Deschutes River Basin. The Alliance firmly believes that it is possible to simultaneously meet new and existing demands for water in the Basin whether they are for agriculture, cities, or rivers. This will happen through cooperation and voluntary participation of the key water suppliers and users in the basin. The Deschutes Water Alliance is comprised of the following stakeholders: • The Deschutes Basin Board of Control (DBBC), an association of irrigation districts: North Unit, Central Oregon, Swalley, Tumalo, Three Sisters, Arnold, Ochoco • The Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs (CTWS): Manage resources as sustainable assets available for cultural, subsistence, economic and social purposes • Deschutes River Conservancy (DRC): with a mission to restore streamflow and improve water quality in the Deschutes Basin • Central Oregon Cities Organzation (COCO): Bend, Culver, Madras, Maupin, Metolius, Prineville, Redmond, Sisters Vision The vision of the DWA is simple. • The uses of water resources in the Deschutes Basin are balanced to serve and sustain agriculture, urban and ecosystem needs. Page 1 of 6 Mission Our mission has three elements. • Move stream flows toward a more natural hydrograph while securing and maintaining improved instream flows and water quality to support fish and wildlife • Secure and maintain a reliable and affordable supply of water to sustain agriculture • Secure a safe, affordable, and high quality water supply for urban communities Current Challenges Like the Klamath Basin, the Deschutes River Basin faces numerous challenges that create high potential for conflict over water. The DWA embraces the recommendations of the Department of Interior's Water 2025 Report, understanding that foresight, strong leadership, and cooperation wilt, prevent water crises. The River Long stretches of the Deschutes River and its tributaries suffer from low streamflow and degraded water quality due to numerous irrigation diversions in Bend that for decades have supported a rich tradition of family farming. Between Bend and Lake Billy Chinook near Madras, the Deschutes River runs at only 5% of its natural flow from May to September. Squaw Creek through Sisters, Tumalo Creek below Shevlin Park and the Crooked River below Prineville Reservoir also have reduced flows from diversions. In addition, the Upper Deschutes River experiences abnormally low stream flows in the winter as water is being stored in Wickiup and Crane Prairie Reservoirs. Furthermore, sections of the Deschutes River and its tributaries fail to meet water quality standards set by the Clean Water Act through Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality. These human altered stream conditions present significant threats to fish and wildlife and pose potential liabilities for irrigators. The Blue Whale. Average30. year August Flow of the Deschutes The Blue Whale: Average 3o Year December flow of the Deschutes The recent settlement agreement negotiated as part of the relicensing of the Pelton Round Butte Hydroelectric Project will provide for fish passage past the dams near Warm Springs, Culver and Madras. For the first time in more than fifty years, steelhead and salmon will be spawning in the Page 2of6 upper reaches of the Deschutes Basin. Restoring flows in the Middle Deschutes is of paramount importance to the survival of these fish and will improve water quality at the same time. While the problems of the river are significant, they are not insurmountable. In the Deschutes River only about 5 -10% of its annual flow is consumed. The problems of the Deschutes are not so much of a basic water deficiency as they are localized distribution problems with serious stream flow degradation at certain times of thc year. The solution in many respects is a reallocation of the water to bring the Deschutes back to something approaching the natural hydrograph. It is clear there is enough water in the Basin to meet environmental, agricultural and municipal needs if we use our water wisely, reduce waste, and emphasize stream restoration. The Irrigators Water use for irrigation has declined over the last 30 years, but remains the largest single use of water in the Deschutes Basin. On average, over 660,000 acre feet have been diverted in each of the last 6 years, down from historic levels. Original water rights issued in the early 1900's still allow over half of what is diverted from the Deschutes near Bend, to be lost before it ever reaches the fields due to antiquated, leaky delivery systems. Stream flows and water use aside, challenging agricultural economics, rapid population growth and demographic change are altering the character of farming and irrigation in much of the Deschutes Basin. Particularly in Deschutes County, large acreage commercial farms have given way to smaller farms established for lifestyle rather than crop production. Today, in the Central Oregon Irrigation District 87% of the farms are 20 acres or less. This farm fragmentation has increased the number and cost of water deliveries in the district. In addition, the irrigation districts are challenged by urbanization. Some farmers are converting their farms to urban development, a trend that could erode assessment revenue and threaten the financial sustainability of thc districts. Furthermore, urbanization jeopardizes water deliveries to those customers that remain in the district. 1,000,000 ,., 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 C 400,000 300,000 200,000 0 SOQ000 Deschutes Basin Irrigation and Municipal Diversions Annual totals in Acre Feet 1966-2002 to O1 O1 Qi Qf 01 Of rl r1 H rl r1 rl '4 Page 3 of 6 The Cities Central Oregon cities are the fastest growing in the State. Currently, all the cities combined divert about 30,000 acre feet of water per year. This amounts to slightly more than 4% of all current irrigation diversions. Some cities have implemented water conservation measures and the results are beginning to take hold. For example, Bend has reduced residential per capita water use by 10%. New groundwater supplies will be required to meet new peak demands, because conservation alone, will not be sufficient. Even using the highest growth projections, water use by cities will remain a small fraction of overall water use in the basin. Concern about the connection between surface and groundwater throughout the basin are adding new challenges to securing new groundwater permits. In 2002 the Deschutes Groundwater Mitigation rules were issued and new groundwater permits are now allowed if mitigation is provided. Mitigation requires the transfer of surface water back to the stream, a very important means of restoring streamflow in several reaches of the Deschutes Basin. Tribal The Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs (CTWS), through its Natural Resource Branch, manage resources as sustainable assets available for cultural, subsistence, economic and social purposes or opportunities in perpetuity consistent with the Confederated Tribes sovereign and treaty status. Their treaty, sovereign status and land and water rights ownership put them in a unique position to take a long term view of the Deschutes River Basin. With co -ownership of the Pelton Hydro Project with PGE, they are cooperatively working to fulfill new FERC license obligations and see how they can enhance other related efforts throughout the basin. The CTWS also hold significant tribal water rights in the basin, both for on and off reservation use. Harbingers of Success In many western water basins the battle lines have been drawn in their wars over water. The dynamic in the Deschutes Basin has been different for decades. Cooperative efforts abound to protect and restore the environment that make the Basin such an attraction to those who live in it. Traditional adversaries in other basins, such as irrigators and environmentalists, have joined in the Deschutes River Conservancy and other organizations to make a positive difference. A number of factors are at work in the Basin that make significant restoration achievable. . • The groundwater mitigation program will protect existing rights, allow for new groundwater uses and create new opportunities for stream flow restoration throughout the Deschutes Basin. • Irrigators understand the potential liabilities associated with Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act and are motivated to prevent conflict and litigation. • Significant mitigation and restoration capital exists to invest in instream restoration, mitigation and efficiency projects. Near Term Strategy Our near term strategy is to carry out projects that are achievable now and will show concrete results to residents in the basin. At the same time, we will conduct the Water Supply and Demand Study and develop the institutional framework that will enable us to understand the effects of large scale projects and give us the means to carry them out. Page 4 of 6 The Deschutes Water Alliance will conduct the following study in order to more clearly understand the cumulative impact of a series of potential water management alternatives that would satisfy this diverse group's common objectives. Each water management scenario will be evaluated on their efficiency and cost effectiveness as well as on their overall impact and benefit to the entire Deschutes River. DWA Planning Study Synthesis of Water Supply & Demand: this report comprised of the sections listed below, will summarize and prioritize data to create a template for future water management. A. Irrigation District Water Conservation Analysis: how much water can be conserved at what cost within each district B. Impacts of Urbanization on Irrigable Lands: what planning strategies will assist districts in dealing with the effects of urbanization and changing patron demand for smaller faun sizes. C. Reservoir Optimization & Water Quality Analysis: identify the opportunities to optimize and manage water rights that currently require the use of water stored in reservoirs. D. Municipal Water Supply & Demand to 2055: provide a cumulative future municipal water demand forecast with supply alternatives. E. Measurement, Monitoring and Evaluation: what are the methodologies that will best measure restoration and reallocation for all water users. Pilot Proiects 1. Deschutes River Water Bank: create one institution where water users can find available water for restoration, irrigation, groundwater mitigation and municipal uses. The bank will comprise a set of services to efficiently move water from one purpose to another purpose in a voluntary, non -regulatory manner. 2. Deschutes On -Farm Conservation Program: eliminating flood irrigation and improving on-farm efficiencies can bring significant water savings for the basin 3. Other Pilots: Additional pilot projects may be identified and implemented during the study period Long Term Strategy As the DWA proceeds forward it will grow, adding like-minded organizations that share our vision of a sustainable future. Our successes will demonstrate to all in the Basin that we can make significant improvements. It will encourage the community to support the even greater efforts that it will take to achieve our vision. We invite you to join us. For more information contact: Steve Johnson — Central Oregon Irrigation District (DWA Chair) 541-548-6047 Bobby Brunoe — Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 541-553-2015 Tod Heisler — Deschutes River Conservancy 541-382-4077 Patrick Griffiths — Water Resource Coordinator 541-317-3008 Page 5 of 6 Water 2025: Fact Sheet Summary Preventing Crises and Conflict in the West Water is the lifeblood of the American West and the foundation of its economy. It is also the scarcest resource in some of the fastest growing areas of the country. Water 2025 is intended to focus attention on the reality that explosive population growth in western urban areas, the emerging need for water for environmental and recreational uses, and the national importance of the domestic production of food and fiber from western farms and ranches is driving major conflicts between these competing uses of water. In some areas of the West, existing water supplies are, or will be, inadequate to meet the demands for water for people, cities, farms, and the environment even under normal water supply conditions. Water 2025 recognizes that states, tribes, and local governments should have a leading role in meeting these challenges, and that the Department of the Interior should focus its attention and resources on areas where scarce federal dollars can provide the greatest benefits to the West and the rest of the Nation. Water 2025 provides the basis for a public discussion in advance of water crises and sets forth a framework to focus on meeting water supply challenges in the future. This framework includes: Six Principles • Recognize and respect state, tribal, and federal water rights, contracts, and interstate compacts or decrees of the United States Supreme Court that allocate the right to use water. • Maintain and modernize existing water facilities so they will continue to provide water and power. • Enhance water conservation, use efficiency, and resource monitoring to allow existing water supplies to be used more effectively. • Use collaborative approaches and market based transfers to minimize conflicts. • Improve water treatment technology, such as desalination, to help increase water supply. • Existing water supply infrastructure can provide additional benefits for existing and emerging needs for water. Five Realities • Explosive population growth in areas of the West where water is already scarce. • Water shortages occur frequently in the West. • Over -allocated watersheds can cause crisis and conflict. • Water facilities are aging. • Crisis management is not effective in dealing with water conflicts. Four Key Tools • Conservation, Efficiency, and Markets • Collaboration • Technology • Remove Institutional Barriers and Increase Interagency Cooperation Water. 2025 will: • Facilitate a more forward-looking focus on water -starved areas of the country; • Help to stretch or increase water supplies to satisfy the demands of growing populations, protect environmental needs, and strengthen regional, tribal and local economies; • Provide added environmental benefits to many watersheds, rivers, and streams; • Minimize water crises in critical watersheds by improving the environment and addressing the effects of drought on important economies; and, • Provide a balanced, practical approach to water management for the next century. Page 6 of 6 TES w 0 I. CALL TO ORDER Community Development Department { Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/aId/ DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 23, 2008 Keith Cyrus, Chair, called the meeting to order. Members present were — Keith Cyrus, Todd Turner, Susan Quatre, Christen Brown, Richard Klyce, Brenda Pace, and Merle Irvine. Staff present were Tom Anderson, CDD Director, Terri Payne, Senior Planner, Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner, and Sandy Ringer, Administrative Secretary. Minutes of October 9. 2008: Commissioner Turner made a motion to approve the October 9, 2008 minutes as written. Commissioner Quatre seconded the motion. The minutes were approved unanimously. II. DISCUSSION REGARDING RURAL RESERVES: Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner Peter Gutowsky gave an overview of Rural Reserves (See Memo in packet). The City of Redmond does have Urban Reserves. Once the City of Bend is finished with the Urban Growth Boundary expansion, they will work on adopting some Urban Reserves. Commissioner Quatre wondered if geophysical features could be considered in Bend's reserves. Peter noted that the City of Bend would have to determine how it ties in with the Rural Reserve definition. Rural Reserves are to recognize these parcels as urbanization is pressing and to help offset the urbanization. Commissioner Brown noted that he felt that the reserve is almost a duplication of the process of UGB expansion and wondered if this is a mandate. Peter noted that it is not a mandate and staff is not recommending that this must be used. It is a new tool that is being applied in the Northern Metro Valley. Peter also stated that it is conceivable we may get feedback from residents of certain areas we should stay away from with Destination Resorts. It may not be applicable to Deschutes County. Staff does, however, have an obligation to tell you what's out there. This could be a potential tool to provide some certainty for agricultural land in the urban areas. Commissioner Cyrus expressed concerns about a potential for having water issues. Commissioner Pace asked if Rural Reserves could include breaking agricultural lands into 5 -acre hobby farms. It must be demonstrated that the area is subject to urbanization with a 30 -year period. Peter noted that this is one of the tools that might be used to screen lands for Rural Reserves. Quality Services Performed with Pride Commissioner Cyrus clarified that the Urban Reserve for the City of Redmond goes out to the year 2050. Commissioner Quatre noted that she believes there might be land that could be used for wind energy or solar energy that is not suitable for anything else. Commissioner Klyce asked if Rural Reserve would diminish the ability to use the land. Would this not decrease the property value? Peter noted that staff would need to have strong community dialogue to see if there is general interest. If someone was interested, it would be subject to the particular zoning of a particular parcel. It would basically hold their existing zoning in place for a period of time. Commissioner Klyce noted that it sounds like it would last for a lifetime. Peter stated that you couldn't go to a zone that had more intensive uses. Metro is going through the process of UGB Expansion. Then they are going through the process of Urban Reserves. They are simultaneously doing Rural Reserves. Commissioner Irvine asked if once a parcel is put into the Urban Reserve, can it be taken back out? Peter replied that you would have to make findings demonstrating why the previous findings are no longer valid. Peter then stated that the effects of Urban Reserves has been demonstrated very well in Redmond. David Ogden — Commissioner for Road District #1 at Sunriver stated that he has been dealing with the Local Rule issues recently. He is also dealing with a feasibility study for a Sanitation District. Many people do not want to see development on every lot. He was wondering if there could be some open space designations and parks. Peter replied that staff will be convening a technical committee regarding high groundwater lots. We will be going out to the community in early 2009. Jim Larson — stated that the Rural Reserve -concept is worth considering. There are some large forest tracts in his area and landowners might be interested in promoting that concept. Carol MacBeth — 1000 Friends of Oregon is very involved in the Metro Rural Reserves project. There might be, for unwilling landowners, a transfer of development rights concept. She encouraged the Planning Commission to explore it further. III. DISCUSSION REGARDING DESTINATION RESORT MAPPING: Terri Hansen Payne, Senior Planner Terri Payne gave a Power Point presentation. Commissioner Quatre noted that small landowners may not be able to get 160 acres together. They might be dropped off the map. If at sometime later, they absolutely decide that they want to do a destination resort; can they go ahead and still apply? Terri Payne noted that they can absolutely do so. ()CPC Minutes 2 10/23/08 Commissioner Brown noted that he has a problem with just taking parcels off the map just because they are not 160 acre parcels or larger. Commissioner Turner asked about the 20 -acre parcel provision. Terri noted that this is not in our Code at all. Commissioner Cyrus asked how we protect those that are currently mapped. Bill Robie, 2788 NW Colter Avenue, Bend, Oregon — Central Oregon Association of Realtors — stated that the Association of Realtors supports destination resorts and encourages their development. He also stated that he hopes there remains sufficient parcels to develop resorts that provide additional monies for our local economy. Benefits still exceed costs. The recently enacted Road SDC will only account for about 1/3 of the funds needed for road maintenance issues. Commissioner Cyrus asked if there were any recommendations on how to trim the 112,000 acres back? Mr. Robie replied that the realtors do not have a problem with a more accurate map showing realistic parcels that would qualify for a destination resort. Andrea Blum, 18076 4th Avenue, Bend, Oregon — lives on Fryrear Road — believes it is a very good idea to do the re -mapping. She agreed with Mr. Robie from COAR. She felt that once the map is pared down to likely areas, it would be beneficial to have public input on each possible area and each site on its own merits. There are many benefits to destination resorts in Deschutes County. She also posed some questions regarding destination resorts - Do they actually meet the goal for which they were intended? Do we really need that additional engine? If there is not a market for the ovemight lodging, then do we really need to have more resorts? Commissioner Cyrus noted that location plays a large part in the success of a destination resort. Glenna Larson, 16439 Stage Stop, Bend, Oregon — encourages staff to take off the map those parcels which are 20 -acre parcels that in no way would qualify for a resort. Frank Deggendorfer, 70300 Camp Polk Road, Sisters, Oregon — noted that there are small landowners wanting to be taken off the Destination Resort mapping. He asked that staff not forget to have some form of application for landowners who wish to be included in the destination resort re -mapping to be included. Steve Hultberg, 15 SW Columbia, Suite 3, Bend, Oregon — noted that the question is really mapping — where should it be and where should it not be. He recommended looking at properties that are simply not suitable for resorts and take them off the maps. That should be the first step while, of course, asking for public input. We should look at parcels that would be appropriate and add those. Carol MacBeth, 1000 Friends of Oregon — noted that there significant benefits to keeping rural lands looking rural. What are the impacts of traffic, wildlife, etc. when these resorts are all built out? Nunzie Gould, 19845 J W Brown Road, Bend, Oregon — asked the Planning Commissioners several questions. Is this a Periodic Review Process? Terri replied that it is not a formal process of Periodic Review. Since this was begun in 2005 and 2006, should we not build on what was done at that time? She would like that Targe map that was used before to be used as part of this discussion. Terri — noted that the Board of County Commissioners had stopped our process previously. DCPC Minutes 3 10/23/08 Ms. Gould — asked if an economic analysis had been done for what the cost would be if all these people filed Measure 49 claims. Tem — We are just in preliminary stages trying to get public input. Ms. Gould noted that she had issues with the Thornburgh mapping showing up as already approved. She had issues with the impacts on transportation, water, impacts on wildlife, traffic, etc. She was not so sure that destination resorts would be a good economic advantage in Deschutes County. No money has been put into the intersection in Tumalo for Eagle Crest II or Eagle Crest III. She does not believe the resorts meet the intent of the law with the ovemight lodging. Commissioner Cyrus asked for clarification of overnight lodging. Tem replied that Tetherow and Caldera Springs do not have their overnight lodging built yet. Ms. Gould had issues with the fact that the Transportation System Plan is being updated at the same time. She felt this process should come after the TSP is completed. She also expressed concerns about the fact that Thornburgh has not had to pay for any road improvements to Cline Falls Highway. Then Deschutes County paid lots of money to improve Cline Falls Highway. She asked the Planning Commission to look at lands that the Board of Commissioners might be in favor of. She also suggested putting a soils overlay on the maps and using more GIS technology in this process. She felt some parcels have prime soils for farming on them. Ultimately, she encouraged the County to slow down this process. Terri replied that this is a throw -it -on -the -table -and -see -what -we -want -to-do process. We must have a fair and equitable process. It must be long-term and useful. Commissioner Brown felt it would be appropriate to ask each landowner whether or not they would want to be in the mapping. Terri noted that we would be required to send out Measure 56 Notice if we were to question each landowner. A Measure 56 Notice mandates that we send notice out to each property owner that is already mapped. Commissioner Pace had a suggestion of producing information for the public that would provide documentation such as "these are the best places with the fewest impacts" type of. She did not think that staff had exercised all of the mitigation to make that true. Commissioner Quatre liked the idea of setting up the criteria first and then ranking the parcels depending on the criteria. Commissioner Irvine noted that it seems like it is throwing a dart at the map. We need clear criteria. What's the liability of the County if we do take people off and we have numerous Measure 49 Claims. Discussion continued. Commissioner Brown noted that we need to be aware of the fact that there are federal land trades going on all the time, and these federal lands may become eligible for destination resorts. Commissioner Tumer stated that maps are not a requirement. If the County did not have a map, why would the process not be the same with or without a map? If there is no map, you have to go through the Goal 8 process. Terri replied yes. With a map, you can avoid going through the Goal 8 process. Tem replied yes again. DCPC Minutes 4 10/23/08 IV. OTHER ITEMS OF CONCERN: Peter Gutowsky explained the process for the joint hearing on Monday 10/27/08 and 10/28/08. Measure 56 Notice was mailed out on 10/7/08. The City of Bend also submitted a modified Notice of Proposed Amendment on 10/8/08. Planning Commission may hear concern and testimony about the proper procedures. He noted that the Planning Commission is having a hearing on 10/27/08 and it will be extended to Tuesday, 10/28/08. Peter has scheduled the Planning Commission's 11/13/08 meeting to digest and discuss the issues. He suggested focusing in on what means the most to the County. We have to amend our Plan to bring them into consistency with the City of Bend Code. We are in the process of amending our Plan One strategy is to focus on Title 19. We can put a "punch list" together for the Board for their hearing on 11/24/08. Commissioner Tumer asked what is this Planning Commission's role? Peter replied that this Commission makes a recommendation to the Board. The Bend Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council. The Board and the City Council have to agree on a recommendation. Peter then discussed the UAR10 property (Tetherow/Highlands at Broken Top) parcels. There will be a public hearing to address the UAR10 property Comp Plan Map Amendment. Peter also stated that the City of Bend is postponing their Goal 5 analysis. There will be testimony as to whether or not the City can do that. They are also deferring the Transportation Planning Analysis. There will be a memo that Peter will introduce into the record that explains why we have to make revisions to Title 19 and what will take place on 11/13/08. The City of Bend is leading this effort, and as the County, we are responsible for coordinating the efforts. There is a 10/7/08 and 10/21/08 memo that will, hopefully, explain the issues for the Monday public hearing. The City bears the burden of proving that their endeavors meet the State of Oregon rules. Commissioner Brown then asked about someone who applies for land use with current rules. Peter replied that staff is obligated to review the application with current rules. Amendments get forwarded to DLCD. They will either acknowledge it, or not. We have a Joint Management Agreement — which will have to be rewritten upon adoption and acknowledgement from the State. Previously, the Agreement has stipulated that the City handles the land use applications on UAR10 zoning. Several PC members had concems about being able to give their blessing to the UGB Expansion for Bend. Peter suggested that they not necessarily recommend approval of the expansion, but that they recommend the Board look at of this proposal. Peter noted that this Planning Commission can let the public know on 10/28/08 that they will deliberate at the 11/13/08 meeting. DCPC Minutes 5 10/23/08 VII. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned to meet again on Thursday, November 13, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. in the Barnes -Sawyer Room of the Deschutes Services Center, located at 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon 97701. Respectfully submitted, Sandy Ringer, Administrative Secretary /SLR DCPC Minutes 6 10/23/08 Written Statement of the Central Oregon Association of REALTORS® on the Subject of Destination Resorts before the Deschutes County Planning Commission October 23, 2008 The Central Oregon Association of REALTORS® thanks the Planning Commission for the opportunity to present our views on Destination Resorts. COAR is the trade association for Central Oregon's real estate industry. We are the second largest REALTOR® association in Oregon and represent more than 1,800 real estate professionals. Our members are engaged daily in residential and commercial transactions providing essential services to their clients and adding value to their communities. Our position on this issue reflects COAR's fundamental advocacy platform of ensuring and enhancing the quality of life of Central Oregon, which includes promoting economic vitality, protecting the rights of private property owners, providing homeownership opportunities, arid preserving our natural environment. I have attached to this testimony a policy statement on the subject of destination resorts that I request be made part of the record. COAR supports destination resorts and encourages their creation as essential components of the regional economy. We view them as particularly important in rural areas that have few options for job creation and tax revenue generation. As you proceed with revising the comprehensive plan over the next two years we hope you will ensure that there is sufficient land in Deschutes County eligible for destination resorts. We think it is appropriate and necessary for the county to review the lands mapped for resorts to provide a more thorough consideration than was done in the 1990's when the maps were created. We now have more than a decade of experience with resorts. It is vital that that experience be put to good use in revisiting this contentious issue. Central Oregon's experience with destination resorts has demonstrated unequivocally the benefits of this land use. It is difficult to imagine how different our region would be without their contribution to the economy. Resorts provide vital tax revenue that supports essential county services. They provide good paying jobs in development, construction, real estate sales, and in ongoing resort operations. They provide lifestyle and recreational amenities that attract a disproportionate share of high income customers that spend money at local businesses and support local charities. Most importantly, they provide all of these assets and more and place only a minimal strain on local infrastructure. The resorts are mostly self-sufficient and require little in the way of emergency services. Their impact on traffic is marginal because they generate few, if any, peak hour trips, and can be mitigated easily by development exactions in the planning phase, as well as their payment of the county's new road SDC. It is clear from Deschutes County's history with resorts that their benefits exceed their costs. Black Butte Ranch, Eagle Crest and Sunriver enhance Central Oregon not only by providing tax revenue, but recreational, cultural and business amenities as well. Pronghorn, Eagle Crest and Sunriver are three of the county's top ten taxpayers in 2008. Sunriver generates approximately $1,975 in property tax revenue per full-time resident. In comparison Bend generates only $238 for each resident. Proposed uses at the Hidden Canyon resort in Crook County show nine different tax revenue generating opportunities. By its tenth year of operation Hidden Canyon is projected to generate more than $10 million a year in property tax revenue for Crooke County. Property, taxes paid by destination resorts area vital source of revenue for schools and emergency services. Visitors to Sunriver pay more than $2 million each year in transient room tax revenue. Based on PGA Tour estimates, the Jeld-Wen Tradition golf tournament contributes between $7 - $9 million a year to Central Oregon's economy. That tournament, and others like the Pacific Amateur, would not be possible without the nationally recognized facilities that are part of destination resorts. The federal timber payments program was recently revived for four more years, but with a declining series of payments. The county and other local governments are slashing jobs because ofthe, economic slowdown, which is driven entirely by the decline in real estate development and construction.. How bad would the budget situation be without the tax revenue provided by the resorts? Destination resorts could potentially play an important role in helping the county meet the challenge of funding road maintenance, in particular. The recently enacted road SDC will only cover about a third of the county's projected road costs in the transportation plan. If destination resorts are removed from the county's economic, development options a substantial source of new revenue will go -with them. COAR PUBLIC POLICIES Category: Land Use Subject: Destination Resorts Date: January 1, 2008 Destination resorts are a vital component of Central Oregon's economy. They contribute to a diverse residential real estate market, provide valuable recreational amenities, represent an important revenue source for counties, and impose a relatively small burden on local infrastructure. Destination resorts were authorized in Oregon statutes as a conditional use in an exclusive farm zone precisely because they offered an economic development opportunity for rural land that might otherwise be economically unviable. Because of poor soils and a short growing season most farmland in Central Oregon cannot support profitable farming operations. Resource land in Central Oregon is an ideal location for destination resorts. Destination resorts contribute to a vibrant and diverse housing marketplace. They provide housing opportunities that are limited in Central Oregon because of state land use restrictions. The resorts allow for limited rural housing opportunities in largely self- contained developments that provide recreational amenities and abundant open space. They serve a customer base that seeks a rural western lifestyle complimented by modern conveniences. These customers may not wish to live in a typical residential neighborhood or densely populated urban.area. While destination resorts occupy what may have been rangeland, farmland or simply open space, they are developed in such a way that respects the land and preserves the environment. The provision of open space, trails and scenic vistas and the protection of wildlife habitat are considered assets and demanded by the consumers of these products. Destination resorts contribute to the economic vitality of our region from their development and construction phases, real estate sales, and ongoing resort operations. The resorts attract guests and homeowners that generate revenue for many local businesses, including small airports. These visitors and permanent residents often have the financial means to support and create local businesses. Through their overnight lodging facilities destination resorts provide high-end accommodations for tourists year- round. Residents of destination resorts place far less demands on public infrastructure than residents of surrounding communities. Most residents do not commute to town for an 8 to 5 job. They are unlikely to have school aged children. Fewer than 25% are full-time residents. COAR supports policies that encourage the creation of additional destination resorts and preserves the financial viability of all resorts. We oppose policies that discourage additional resorts or that impose substantial additional costs on their operations. COAR supports the efforts of counties to include destination resorts in their economic development plans. We also encourage counties to provide sufficient buildable land for the creation of destination resorts. To: Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee On Destination Resorts Regarding: Recommendations The Destination Resort Map should be amended to eliminate the construction of additional resorts for at least three years until the impact of the resorts can be adequately studied. Deschutes County has numerous resorts which are not classified as Destination Resorts. The collective impact of all types of resorts must be studied. The original land use laws adopted in .the 1970's intended to preserve rural open space by concentrating high density growth within Urban Growth Boundaries. Deschutes County has so many resorts with high concentrations of traffic that we are rapidly developing classic suburban sprawl. It is my view that Deschutes County Commissioners place little value on preserving rural open space. The temptation of short term economic gains is allowing long term degradation of the environment. Resorts provide tax benefits, but I do not believe that Deschutes County has a realistic view of the negative impacts. Most or all of the studies on water, traffic and wildlife impact are provided by developers. State agencies provide some imput, but they are underfunded and their studies . have been subject to much public criticism.(Wildlife and ODOT) Job benefits are exaggerated by proponents of resorts. In a Bend City Club Forum, an Eagle Crest representative admitted that Eagle Crest normal starting pay is $10 per hour. Most workers probably work for less than $14 per hour and many do not get a forty hour week This is not a living wage in Central Oregon. The attached. traffic report illustrates a good example of a negative impact of Destination Resorts in Deschutes County. Deschutes County Commissioners have approved both Eagle Crest and Thornburgh Resorts which will generate 10,000 to 12,000 vehicles daily, mainly on Cline Falls Highway. About 30% of that traffic will travel south and much of it will reach Tumalo and the Cook Ave intersection, which as been declared unsafe(LOS F) since the 1990's. The county blames ODOT, ODOT blames the county and the result is that Tumalo citizens will be exposed • to a very unsafe intersection for at least 7 more years. There is no excuse for this. Traffic generated by resorts is bad enough, but I believe water use by resorts is an issue that will grow with time. Deschutes County is ignoring the warnings about the impacts of Global Warning on the Northwest. A hydrologist has testified that Thornburgh will have significant impact on ground water in the region, but Deschutes County has chosen to ignore the data. In summary, we need to have a moratorium on resorts. Failing this, any new proposals should be judged, in part, on how close they are to other resorts and their collective impact on traffic, water wildlife and neighbors. I hate to be cynical, but if the present Deschutes County Commissioners have anything to say about the resort map, they will do little, if anything, to impede the development of additional resorts. Local control means control by the wealthy and well connected. Respectfully submitted, ei ctiafeA iedzilos October 22, , 2008 Dear Steering Committee, Destination Resorts in Deschutes County Find attached a study of the traffic generated by two Destination Resorts, Eagle Crest and Thornburgh. The report is divided into two parts. Part one analyzes the impact of the resorts on the Cook Ave./Highway 20 intersection in Tumalo, Oregon and government's inability to mitigate the impact. Part two summarizes the results of traffic counts obtained at Eagle Crest Resort. I-ilghlights follow: 1. The intersection of Cook Ave/Hlghway 20 in Tumalo, Oregon has been assigned a LOS F (The lowest rating.) since the early 1990's with no major improvement possible before 2013. 2. The traffic generated by Eagle Crest and Thornburgh Resorts will eventually total over 12,000 vehicles daily and is centered. outside Urban Growth Boundaries.. Is this what the planners of Oregon's land .use laws envisioned for rural areas? 3. The volume of traffic generated by Eagle Crest appears to have been underestimated and the percentage of Eagle Crest generated vehicles traveling south and north on Cline Falls Highway may be considerably higher than predicted. Deschutes County may be relying too heavily on data submitted by developers. 4. The percentage of resort generated traffic using the Cook Ave/Highway 20 intersection may be higher than predicted. 5. Although a relatively high proportion of resort generated vehicles use the Cook Ave/Highway 20 intersection, Deschutes County has yet to recognize the "significance" of their impact. 6. Improvements to the intersection may cost considerably more than $2,200,000. If so, the destination resorts are not contributing their fair share. 7. High traffic impact Destination Resorts are allowed to develop before needed infrastructure is in place. 8. Destination Resorts may be a classic example of governments embracing short-term economic gains while allowing the environment, in this case the road system, to degrade in the long-term. Impact of Resorts On Cook Avenue and Highway 20 - A Failare Of Government ' - Part One This intersection in Tumalo, Oregon has been a major focal point for discussions involving the siting of destination resorts in the region. The issues include the level of traffic impact generated by Eagle Crest and Thornburgh Resort and the mitigation necessary to correct the problem. A summary of the discourse follows: Eagle Crest 2 On November 17,1997, Christopher Eck, Deschutes County Hearings Officer, wrote "the intersection operates at LOS F now, so technically more traffic(from Eagle Crest 2) will not make the intersection worse. The intersection was operating at LOS P four years ago, operates at LOS F today and will operate at LOS F with the projected increase of traffic. In short, the current proposal is un -related to the LOS problems of the intersection.(1:2) (LOS is a measurement used for intersections in the county which, among other things, determines the waiting period for individual vehicles. On a scale of A -F, F is the lowest level) On December 1,1997, Peter Russell, then of O.D.O.T., wrote "increased traffic from Eagle Crest 2 will impact the Cook/Highway. 20 intersection and will result in an increase in accident rate."(9) In December of 1997, a letter from Kathryn Lincoln of The Department of Justice to the Deschutes County Commissioners states "Eck's finding that additional traffic added to a failing facility is `not significant" is an absurb conclusion. Eagle Crest 2 will have a significant impact on the intersection of Highway 20 and the Cline Falls Highway."(2) On January 6, 1998, The Deschutes County Commissioners in their Findings concluded "The board understands O.D.O.T.'s concerns; however, the record is clear that the 350 unit Eagle Crest expansion does not significantly impact this transportation facility. The vast majority of traffic entering the intersection is being generated by development other than Eagle Crest.(3:6) (O.D.O.T maintained that Eagle Crest 2 would increase traffic at the Cook/Highway 20 intersection by 5.8% while Eagle Crest was able to convince the Board the increase would be less than 2%.) Eagle Crest contributed $28,000 towards the development of a traffic light.(6:28) Eagle Crest 3 A year later, Eagle Crest applied for a third expansion of the resort which, according to the Kittelson Report,. would add 3660 daily vehicle trips.(11) According to the applicant's traffic studies. Eagle Crest 3 is expected to generate 3% of the total traffic at the Cook Ave/Highway intersection.(11) At full build- out, Eagle Crest 1, 2 and 3 would generate a total of 7875 vehicles daily.(6:26) In December of 1999, in response to this proposal, the hearing officer wrote "I find that because the Cline Falls/Highway 20 intersection already operates below the minimum acceptable LOS and WC ratio, traffic generated by the development of Eagle Crest will not reduce its level of function below the minimum level of service and will not significantly affect the intersection." No mitigation is required.(6:27) However, the hearings officer then goes on to say that in order to comply with an earlier MOU with O.D.O.T. a contribution from the resort would be required in the amount of $1A0,000. At that time, the estimated cost of an interchange would be at least $2,000,000.(6:28). Thornburgh Resort The Thornburgh Resort, proposed in 2004, would be located southwest of Eagle Crest and involve the construction of approximately 950 housing units. According to the applicant, the resort would generate about 5000 vehicles per day.(5:3) A report by Ferguson and Associates states the applicants number is a "best case scenario" and believes the actual number of vehicles could be much higher.(421X5:3) The applicant argued that about 20% of its traffic would be generated south of the resort, Ferguson replied by saying the number would be closer to 30%.(4:3) The board sided with the applicant's numbers, saying they found them "to be more credible".(7:67) The board of Commissioners also stated in now familiar language "The US20/Cline Falls highway intersection currently operates over applicable capacity requirements and would continue to do so upon the development of the resort. The county transportation plan identified this intersection as the site of a future overpass interchange that it deems necessary to accomplish current and future traffic at this intersection."(7:37) The board also adopted the following: "as the phrase significant effect is defined, in the rule, the proposed development will not significantly affect a transportation facility, although it will have some affect on the facility."(7:37) A letter from attorney Paul Dewey to O.D.O.T. mentions a total vehicle impact by Thornburgh of 4% on the Tumalo intersection and a tentative agreement fora payment of $500,135.(12 ) The cost of an interchange was estimated in 2005. to be $2,200,000.(7:67) Today. 2007 • Citizens who use the Tumalo/Highway 20 intersections are confronted with the fact that Thornburgh and Eagle Crest will eventually contribute over twelve thousand additional vehicles daily to Deschutes County roads. Many will use the intersections in Tumalo. Although a traffic engineer for Thornburgh wrote " the proposed development is anticipated to significantly impact the US/Cook Avenue intersection"(13), Deschutes County officials, using a variety of legal and policy interpretations, choose not to recognize the incremental growth of resorts as "significant impact" Collectively these two resorts will have significant impact and additional resorts may follow. According to Deschutes County and O.D.O.T. officials, there is little or no chance of an interchange before 2013. The reason is lack of fiinds.(10 ) Safety is a major concern. Over 350 residents signed petitions calling for the installation of a traffic signal.. Many drivers avoid the Cook/Highway 20 intersection and use 5'b or 7th streets instead. This may be reflected in the accident rate. According to O.D.O.T., between 2003 and 2006, there were 5 accidents at Cook Ave, 9 at 7a Ave and none at 5e Ave.( 8) If the total rate of 14 accidents in the three intersections was considered as a whole, the intersections would be considered unsafe by O.D.O.T. standards. Xavier Falconi, a private traffic engineer states "If the current trend continues, the transportation conditions and safety within Tumalo will continue to deteriorate".(14) It will be interesting to see what happens to the accident rate as Eagle Crest builds out and Thornburgh begins development. Critics argue that the intersection will cost considerably more than $2,200.000, perhaps as much as $10,000,000, if you factor in all the costs including engineering and land aoquisition(12).(4:29) This brings into question whether the resorts are, considering their impact, paying a fair share. Deschutes County should review its methodology for measuring vehicle impact on intersections and consider whether it has been too reliant on data submitted by developers. A review of County Decisions reveals a pattern of acceptance of the applicants data and a persistent rejection of the opponents. The county should also work more closely with 0.1).O.T to ensure that needed infrastructure can be developed before the resorts are approved. Deschutes County's continued support of new resorts may be a classic example of embracing short term economic gains while allowing the environment to degrade in the long A Study of The Traffic Impact Of Eagle Crest Resort - Part Two Introduction. This study has emerged as a result of my use of intersections in Tumalo, Oregon which provide access to Highway 20 and the concerns that I have that expanding traffic from Eagle Crest and the proposed Thornburgh Resorts will make the intersections increasingly unsafe. On a broader note, I question whether locating large traffic generating resorts in rural areas is in keeping with the original intent of Oregon State's land use goals. Goals 1. To determine the maximum number of vehicles generated(enter and exit) per hour by Eagle Crest Resort. 2. To determine the percentage of traffic traveling south from Eagle Crest on Cline Falls Road that is generated by Eagle Crest Resort. 3. To determine the percentage of traffic traveling north on Cline Falls Road that will enter Eagle Crest Resort. 4. To compare the percentage of traffic that travels south from Eagle Crest Resort with the percentage that travels north. Background Eagle Crest is a Destination Resort located a few miles east of Redmond, Oregon. It encompasses 1772 acres and, according to The Bend Sulletin(Sept., 2007), has 891 homes and 585 overnight units. Procedure It was decided to sample three different one hour time periods by visual means: Saturday mornings, 8:30PM - 9:30AM, Wednesday afternoons, 12:30PM - 1:30PM and Friday afternoons, 4:30PM-5:30PM. Since Eagle Crest has three entrances, it was necessary to collect data at three different sites, designated A, B and C on the attached map.(Appendix A) Most of the traffic is generated at the main entrance(C), so most of the data was collected at this site. Cross traffic at site C was counted, but since it was considered "internal," the numbers were not included in the totals. The data were collected during February - March, 2007 and August - September, 2007 Cars, trucks and motorcycles were counted, bicycles and golf carts were not. Winter traffic was used as an opportunity to gather baseline data. Most interpretations will be based upon summer data. Interaretations J., The Maximum Number Of Vehicles Generated By Eagle Crest.(Appendix B) The summer data shows 241 vehicles per hour(VPH) on Saturday 8:30AM 9:30AM, 492 VPH Wednesday 12:30PM-1:30PM and 567 VPH on Friday 430PM 5:30PM. This data can be compared with a study by Kittelson and Associates(Appendix C) conducted at Eagle Crest in the summer of 2006. According to that study, peak traffic is generated between the hours of 3:OOPM and 6:OOPM and resort traffic remains high between 10:00 AM and 6:00 PM. The weekday 12:00 PM - 2:OOPM VPH was 526(compared to 492 VPH noted by this observer for Wednesday 12:30PM- 1:30PM). Kittelson's 4:OOPM - 6:OOPM average per hour was 481(compared to this observer's total of 567 for Friday, 4:30PM - 5:30PM.). The main reason for this latter discrepancy may be due to the fact that the Kittelson study . was done Tuesday - Thursday, thus missing the higher count associated with Friday traffic. 2. Percentage Of South Bound Traffic On Cline Fabs Highwav Generated By Eagle Crest(Appendix D) Most of the south bound traffic generated by Eagle Crest exited at the main entrances.(C) Drive- by south- bound traffic at entrance C was added to the number of cars observed to exit at entrance C to arrive at a total number south- bound. Since it was not possible to observe the north entrance(B) at the same time, averages obtained at the same time and day of the week at the north entrance were used to compute the total south- bound exit. Since some of the vehicles which exit south at entrance B may enter at the main entrance rather than continue south, it was decided to divide this number by two, assuming half continued south and half turned in at the main entrance. Since the number of vehicles which exit south at entrance B is quite small this should have negligible impact on the accuracy of the data. Not enough winter data was -available for the Saturday AM, but on Saturday 8:30AM - 9:30AM in the summer, 59 percent of the south- bound traffic on Cline Falls Road is generated by Eagle Crest Resort. Data show that on Wednesday 12:30PM-1:30PM in the winter 58% if the traffic traveling south- bound on Cline falls Road(south of Eagle Crest) is generated by Eagle Crest, while in the summer, the number is 56%. On Friday 4:30PM - 5:30 PM in the winter, 51% of the south- bound traffic is generated by Eagle Crest while in the summer the number is 50%. Based upon these samples, it would seem that in the summer Eagle Crest produces over one half of the traffic traveling south on Cline Falls Road. These percentages exceed the 41% projected for 2009 by Kittelson and Associates.(11) Further study will be need to determine how many of these vehicles reach Tumalo and the congested intersections with Highway 20. 3. Percentage of ?+Torth Bound Traffic On Cline Falls Highway ' at Will Enter E eat Crestt(Appendix D) Counts were made of the number of vehicles which enter the main entrance(C) and the north entrance(B) to Eagle Crest. Again, the number of vehicles that entered the north entrance was divided by two in that some of these vehicles may have exited at the main entrance rather than having a more southern origin. The number of vehicles that enter at the north entrance from the -south is very small, so the impact of the estimate on the data should be minimal. These numbers were compared to the number of north bound vehicles that drove by the main entrance. Not enough winter data were available for Saturday AM, but on Saturday 8:30AM - 9:30AM in the summer, 42% of the north bound traffic enter Eagle Crest Resort. Data show that on Wednesday . 12:30PM- 1:30PM in the winter 41% of the north bound traffic on Cline falls Road enter Eagle Crest, while in the summer, the number is 55%. On Friday 4:30PM - 5:30PM in the winter, 40% of the north bound traffic enter Eagle Crest, while in the summer, the number is 48%. Based upon these samples, in the summer somewhere between 48 and 55 percent afire weekday PM traffic traveling north- bound on Cline Falls Road will enter Eagle Crest Resort. A 1999 Kittelson Report projected 42% for 2009111) • 4. Directional Flow Of Traffic From Eagle Crest. Data from the three sample. periods(Saturday AM. Wednesday PM and Friday PM) suggest that about 30% of the turning vehicles .drive south from the main entrances(C) at Eagle Crest while 70% turn north. At the north entrance(B), 17% turn south while 83% turn north. Summary. The 2006 Kittelson Study(Appendix C) indicates the Eagle Crest peak traffic time is from 3:OOPM - 4:OOPM, but they chose 4:30PM - 530PM as the peak PM time because of later peaking times for adjacent roadway traffic Their 3:00PM - 4:OOPM count was 559 while their 4:30 - 5:30PM peak was about 481, a significant difference. This observer's 4:30PM - 5:30PM Friday count of 567 was even higher. Perhaps, 3:OOPM - 4:OOPM should be used for a more accurate reflection of the resort's PM peak count. The intersections in Tumalo that intersect with Highway 20, may be carrying a higher percentage of traffic generated by Eagle Crest than predicted by engineers. Data show 50% - 56% of the summer traffic going south from Eagle Creston Cline Falls Road is generated by Eagle Crest and that 48% -55% of the north- bound traffic enter.the resort. The 1999 Kittelson Report predicted about 41% for both north and south bound for the year 2009.(11) (Using the later 4:30PM - 5:30PM'peak time may have served to lower the percentage of resort generated traffiic compared to drive-by traffic) When Thornburgh develops, it seems reasonable to expect that the congestion in Tumalo intersections will be greatly exacerbated, especially when you consider that is no possibility of an interchange before 2011(10) State and county traffic engineers do not believe that a traffic signal is appropriate attire Cook/Aighway 20 intersection because they believe the area to be rural. There are not enough funds available for a traffic interchange.(10) This illustrates the irony of siting numerous resorts in rural open space. Traffic generated by the resorts creates .a need for traffic up grades(such as traffic lights) where such improvements have not traditionally been required in a rural area. It was the intent of the original land use laws that high traffic volumes would generally be confined within Urban Growth Boundaries. The state and counties cannot have it both ways. If counties are going to continue to approve resorts in rural areas, then the .counties and state are going to have to make sure the resorts pay a fair share for traffic improvements and the state is going to have to modify its policies concerning the placement of traffic lights. This observer does not believe that high levels of traffic in rural areas, coupled with more traffic signals and interchanges, is what the original planners of Oregon's land use laws envisioned, or what most Oregonians want for their state. The data summarized in this report is deemed accurate, given the limitations of visual observations. C. William Boyd December 27, 2007 Bibliography 1. Eck, Christopher. Hearings Officer Decision For Fagle Crest 3. November 17,1997. 2. Lincoln, Kathryn.. Department of Justice, State Of Oregon. Letter to County Commissioners On Behalf of O.D.O.T.. December, 1997. 3. Deschutes County Commissioners. Board Findings And Final Decision For Eagle Crest 2. January 1998. 4. Ferguson And Associates. Review Of Thornburgh Traffic Study Conducted by Group MacKenzie. July 14, 2005. 5. Ferguson and Associates. Review Of Revision 2, Thornburgh. October 12, 2005. 6. Green, Karen. Decision Of The County Hearings Officer On Eagle Crest 3. December, 1999. 7. Deschutes County County Commissioners. Decision On Thornburgh. May 10, 2006. 8. McCarroll, Joel. O.D.O.T. Phone Conversation. November, 2007. 9. Russell, Peter. Letter From O.D.O.T.. December 1,1997 10. Russell, Peter, Deschutes County Planner And Bob Bryant. of O.D.O.T. Presentation To Tumalo Community Association. October 2, 2007. 11. Kittelson and Associates. Figure 7A, Traffic Analysis For Eagle Crest 3. June, 1999. 12. Dewey, Paul. Letter To O.D.O.T. On Behalf Of Central Oregon Land Watch. November 8, 2007. 13. Clemow, Christopher. Letter From Group MacKenzie (Representing Thornburgh) To Deschutes County Community Development. September 28, 2005. 14. Falcon, Xavier. Private Traffic Consultant In Lake Oswego, Oregon. Letter To Nunzie Gould. December 12,1906. ' Salurtal q M 0e.4721. ' - Wee" Ca' Valais.: Co u t - - Lir le cares ...__. 35 K9 '8q $ • TA&NS . gaper& - 108 1 Xht 56 88 R Tos Toll Mann Bilitinet. 20 23 q9 ,/ sig 6 Is 46.714 2 18 .g1.54 ' Jo, -11/ R1 89 6 2531 • 8 a • ' , _. < . a‘ -f fk?11wa.�► n 41+,47r 2s1t 157 /I 18 /I /� . ,_ +. ( =� .VM a,,,1,...... L . L. ,..7 ... ... _: H7 35 K9 '8q $ • • 66 - 108 32 56 88 .�. li1drllce. 21 32 1174 102 206, 1 164 Y tr d 15► 6 112 Sg 2 i11 W3 9; R1 89 6 2531 • 8 a A ' , _. < . a‘ -f A��r� 2s1t 157 =39 Frulay • PM 1 ,i4kuW . 6 71 133/ ALAL !fillstacy rah 54/1/../ '6 58 88 156 116 92_ 138 2.6 ataiaK-y £vr ua.W&. - varows wr wv!.••... ••.-.•.. • #�+[aim wcv7 11 9 H7 96 , �R, Tos ► TA 51 'sari r„; 1 i' Sa.�itr414 Y• AM . T'.s zc ' Mala Eithimic4 21 32 5 Vw. 70 1 164 Y tr d 15► -23, 66 89 23 62.85 NLA,F►, 9; R1 89 6 2531 • 8 a A ' , _. < . a‘ -f A��r� A 18 - 10 . 138 +. 10 =� ° jo 9 H7 96 118 111 ` 51 97 113 1 111 162 RY%// A), r1L Stipence. lib /4/J,/_3®�// 156 60063 - 1 164 Y tr d 15► ID y3 53J �23l1 6 + 58 6q 3q. 26o ='i ilishnour 134 a+ Mai. aa,1,e„c 58 66_12'1/79 . So 118 168 57 158 215 , AJ 1L 6.� )1,211o923,/0/0/ . RY%// ��{53 3 60063 1 164 Y tr d 15► ✓ // 36 // / 32 Iowa toff ref 41 9z .S7 + s1D c. 11 Rissotratiost 2 MGM Meet Ilsootte Lowy oratios Mosteseltele‘miltlell • Table 4 ENO, Gant MON! DadirfraMo Voluevasoi • - tAtookday t194iour1tp . Mtpellael1enni4 Ronorattott Roes U4114 . . . : . , • . . • 0.27 ' 19899232. 2008 -W1599schor locrest 211. 2008 • . ' 411 4.44 . it ' . 8.811 . 6 ' . Avorag• • . 4711 . • • 4.40 0.32 • 11006,12:00PM - . .. . . • 924 7.814 . 0.34 IlD • 829 . 7.811 0.85 . rIt001o200 PM . samone tooesttotate 4- wormers ' . 8.12 1111101120,111 . 11100111100•11 1111.11111 Mosteseltele‘miltlell • Table 4 ENO, Gant MON! DadirfraMo Voluevasoi • - tAtookday t194iour1tp . Mtpellael1enni4 Ronorattott Roes U4114 84440oritedeoVabotte (2412eloo per day) 70010 ROO AM • - . • - 0.27 ' 19899232. 2008 -W1599schor locrest 211. 2008 • . ACM ' OM 4.44 • • llastadsy Angst Rib 2008 8.811 433 4.48 • N..........—...... Avorag• . . 4711 . • • 4.40 0.32 • /— As shown in Table 4, the avenge daily hip rate for the Pagle Crest Resort range Is 440 trips pm unit. Tam. a maws °toot Reims momtv Tap Rates • Rower D Hotly& Ratio Volumes II of Daft Taps Hem* lifp Rostotolion Rots 70010 ROO AM • 409 oas 0.27 ' 8:00199:00 AM 455. ' OM 0.30 11:00 to 10:00 AM 433 1324 . 0.28 10:00 10 11200 NA 461 7.24 0.32 • 11006,12:00PM 491 . • 7.216 0.82 12:0010 1141 Pit • 924 7.814 . 0.34 1001,200129 • 829 • 7.811 0.85 rIt001o200 PM , 640 . 8.12 0.99 atm to 4:00 Pat 859 LIS • . 0.37 4.130 to 800 PM DR 722 _ 023 ft00 to ROO PM 462 MO% 020 0:00 to 7s00 MA UN 8.42 024 wo mien.. off • 3.011 0.17 _.rem *OD lo WO PM •' 209 .- 8.111 " 0.14 As shown in Table 5, the pe* lithe resort owns betWoon die hours of3130 and 400 p.m, and the resort trip rate remains high between the hours of t0:00 am. and 6:00 p.m. It is carpooled that .••••6,4,40.6•1 arioduthnotwates ~aegis? Percentage of South Bound Traffic On Cline Falls Highway Which Egress From Eagle Crest Saturday Wednesday (8:00 AM - 9:00 AM) (12:30PM - 1:30 PM) Summer • 59% Saturday Winter Summer 58% 56% Friday (4:30 PM - 5:30 PM) Winter Summer 51% 50% Percentage Of North Bound Traffic On Cline Falls Highway Which Ingress At Eagle Crest Wednesday (8:00 AM - 9:00 may.) (12:30 PM - 1:30 PM) Summer 42% Saturday AM - Wednesday PM - Friday PM - Winter Summer 41% 55% Friday (4:30 PM - 5:30 PM) Winter Summer 40% 48% Percentage Of Vehicles Egressing Either North Or South From Eagle Ctest Resort (Summer) Main Enhance North Entrance To South To North To South To North 26% - 74% 34% - 66% 30% - 70% 19% - 81% 19% - 81% 17% - 83%