The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2010-01-06 Work Session Minutes- ES Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 6, 2010 Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Alan Unger and Tammy Baney. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; and, for a portion of the meeting, George Kolb, Road Department; Susan Ross and Teresa Rozic, Property & Facilities; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Tom Anderson, Nick Lelack and Peter Gutowsky, Community Development; Planning Commissioners Keith Cyrus, Brenda Pace and Richard Kylce; and two other citizens. Chair Luke opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. L Discussion of DEQ Requirements regarding Underground Injection Control Regulations. George Kolb provided a brief overview of the item, which requires the compliance of counties, cities and private industry. Since 2001, all are supposed to be registered and in a database, and approved per Oregon Administrative Rule. There has to be some level of treatment, and private entities are also required to comply at this point. (See attached documents for reference.) Susan Ross said that the city of Portland has about 9,000 sites, where the County has less than a hundred. Rob von Rohr of Hickman Williams said that permits are issued for a period of ten years. He explained the process of collecting and testing runoff. The group then discussed the various County facilities and what it might cost to make these improvements at each site. The Board will be kept informed as the process continues. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 6, 201( Page 1 of 6 Pages 2. Update on Destination Resort Remapping Procedures. Peter Gutowsky said there would be a public hearing on January 20. He gave a PowerPoint presentation and an overview of what is required by law, where existing or planned resorts are located, and what land might be eligible or ineligible based on local and State criteria. (A copy of the presentation is attached for reference.) Nick Lelack said that a lot of properties shown on the map might not truly be eligible. Mr. Gutowsky explained the public process up to this time, which included numerous meetings with organizations and groups, public hearings and other activities. He then gave Planning Commission recommendations. A small irrigated farm tract would be less than forty acres. Hypothetically, there will be fewer acreages, especially where resort zoning would not apply Mr. Gutowsky then detailed how the properties that might be removed could be handled. Commissioner Luke asked how to notify people without doing a huge mass mailing. Commissioner Baney said this was previously included in the countywide tax mailing. Mr. Gutowsky said that members of the Planning Commission feel there should be another mailing of this type. A lengthy discussion occurred regarding the notification process. Nick Lelack said that some consideration has been given for small destination resorts consisting of 20 acres or so. The legislature is considering similar information, as 160 acres might not be the number later. Mr. Lelack passed out a sheet with the current proposed changes to the law. There is a work group meeting throughout this year to consider this. At this time, small destination resorts are only allowed on exception lands, per State law. Brenda Pace asked about whether small destination resorts will be looked at during 2011. Mr. Lelack said that they will spend 2010 working on what they have begun first. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 6, 2010 Page 2 of 6 Pages Mr. Lelack said that citizen Mary Ann Moore has asked that the hearing be held in the evening. The ordinances, findings and so on have already been as a convenience to the public. There could be a meeting at 6:00 p.m. the same day as the morning hearing, if the Board wishes. Commissioner Baney asked if there are things not shown in the current documents that have come up recently. Mr. Gutowsky said that given the state of the economy, there is concern about changes. Nick Lelack wants everyone to be aware of the public costs of studies — indirect economic costs. Commissioner Luke asked if the information includes Sunriver. Mr. Gutowsky said that it includes Sunriver as well as the other established resorts. The cost for the study would be about $15,000 total. The pertinent material will be provided soon, but not prior to the next available work session. Commissioner Baney would like to see comprehensive plan updates and destination resort hearings held in the evening. There was talk about starting the hearing at 10 AM and continuing it in the evening at 6. It should be noticed as a joint meeting with the Planning Commission. Ms. Pace said that some decisions of the Planning Commission were split, two - to -two, but she was absent. She asked if she should testify as a private citizen. She will provide something in writing. Mr. Cyrus said that there were two amendments discussed. He did not vote on the motion that was a two -to -two tie. Commissioner Irvine supported it but only voted against it due to a lack of complete information. Mr. Cyrus feels that support is there. He said that the irrigation district has land mapped for resorts, but a lot of their land is a reservoir. He is also concerned about the impacts of Measure 37 and 49. Disqualifying what is already mapped puts the County at risk. Mr. Gutowsky said that the map does not accurately reflect what may or may not meet State or County requirements. The grandfather clause is a way for people to keep their property mapped if they want, whether or not the property would be eligible. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 6, 2010 Page 3 of 6 Pages Mr. Cyrus feels that an existing subdivision could decide to remain mapped, and conceivably its owners could get together and put in amenities and become a resort. Mr. Klyce said that properties could be removed and those that fit to go back on, but he is concerned about Measures 37 and 49 impacts. That was the reason for the grandfather clause. Ms. Craghead said that these impact only residential properties. Under statute, destination resorts are not purely residential but are meant to provide economic stimulus. Mr. Klyce said that he would like to wait until the next tax bills come out and renotice everyone. Commissioner Baney asked how much it would cost to notify everyone within the appropriate property range. Mr. Gutowsky said that there are about 39,000 properties. There was significant savings by including notice in the tax bill, but it still cost about $5,000. Mr. Lelack stated that it will take people who want to be added a lot more time to go through the process due to new requirements. Discussion took place regarding extending the process. There are about 39,000 properties that are mapped today. It may be possible to glean those out and notify them separately. Mr. Cyrus feels that this is a good way to proceed. Mr. Lelack said that by August or September it would be known if the State is able to come up with a plan. Some people question whether there should even be a map, and instead feel these should be handled on a case by case basis. 3. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules. The Commissioners are attending a variety of meetings next week, some out of the office, so there will be no regular Board meetings or work sessions held. Commissioner Baney said that the health integration project meeting would address how to combine services. She is concerned that the County will end up with no oversight capability but a lot of the liability. Chair Luke said that in the past the hospital was not interested in pursuing this because they did not want much public scrutiny. The goal is service integration but the private entities do not seem to understand what is required. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 6, 2010 Page 4 of 6 Pages Commissioner Baney stated that the FQHC, the hospital, representatives of the three counties and others meet each month, but there is a big difference in their approaches. She is concerned about the County being left out of the loop; a Commissioner and the Health Director need to be intimately involved during the formation of this program. The governing body is yet to be determined. The regular meeting with the Sisters City Council is scheduled for January 7. The regular meeting with the Redmond City Council is scheduled for January 21. Mr. Kanner said that Richard Whitman, the head of DLCD, wants to present a report to the City and County on January 22. Erik Kropp is attending a meeting next week to discuss what future events might be allowed under the event venues regulations. 4. Other Items. The previously noticed Executive Session, under ORS 192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations, was canceled. Susan Ross and Teresa Rozic gave an overview of County -owned properties that may be eligible for sale at some point to help provide funding for the jail expansion project (fund #140). (A copy of this information is attached.) • 67 Greenwood Avenue — to be available at the May auction, with a minimum bid amount. • Tumalo Road/Gerking Market — has been subject to appeals. • Smith Rock Way — 2 tax lots, zoned EFU. Access would have to be perfected, and a decision would have to be made as to whether to subdivide it, potentially adding value, up to $1 million. • Redmond, eight acres near the cemetery. The City of Redmond was interested in it at one point, to expand the cemetery. • O'Neill Junction, Redmond, 80 acres. Access needs to be perfected. There are nice homesites on rimrock areas, but it would need to be partitioned to maximize the value. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 6, 2010 Page 5 of 6 Pages • Rickard Road — the main problem is it is a cluster of tax lots, and some of the lots are foreclosure properties. This could make it more difficult to sell because the proceeds may have to go back to the taxing districts. This can be bypassed if it is donated to a benevolent cause or used for a public purpose. Selling it outright is another matter. Counsel has said that a delayed exchange might work if the proceeds eventually will fund a public purpose, but this is something on which previous and current counsels do not agree. There are no court cases to support this one way or another. • The next four parcels require a lot of work to be marketable (Redmond 215 acres, Redmond 1600 acres, Simpson Avenue, and McGrath Road). Mr. Kanner reminded the Board that Solid Waste fronted the funds for various studies on the demolition landfill property (Simpson Avenue), and needs to be repaid at some point. Chair Luke suggested that some of these properties be a start for the fund. Commissioner Baney wants to keep the Redmond 1600 acres and the Simpson Avenue property off the fund for now. At some point, properties on Long Butte and Fryrear Road may be traded with the State for land near the Fairgrounds, which would eventually be more valuable. Commissioner Unger would like to have further discussion about some of the properties that might have more potential with a different type of use. Being no further items addressed, the meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m. DATED this 6th Day of January 2010 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: \/G-A-kiA— Recording Secretary Dennis R. Luke, Chair Alan Unger, Vice Cha' Tammy Baney, Cori, issioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 6, 2010 Page 6 of 6 Pages r , , Deschutes County Board of Commissionei s 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-196) (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 6, 2010 1. Discussion of DEQ Requirements regarding Underground Injection Control Regulations — Susan Ross 2. Update on Destination Resort Remapping — Peter Gutowsky 3. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules 4. Other Items Executive Session, under ORS 192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations. PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), pending or threatened litigation; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572. Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. Wed., Jan. 6, 2010 Work Session e-mail address a) c 0 L a Q QJ r.y ovr G) 00 co z DESCHUTES COUNTY UIC INFORMATION January 6, 2010 • A UIC (Underground Injection Control) is any system, structure, or activity that is created with the intent to manage surface water runoff (from rain or snow) directly into the subsurface. These may be more commonly referred to as dry wells, drill holes, injection wells, etc. • The DEQ regulates UICs under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act in order to protect existing groundwater quality. DEQ requires that all UICs be inventoried, registered, and permitted. • In 2008, DEQ notified owners of UICs that we had to come into compliance with the regulations or face possibility of fines and enforcement. If owners "confessed" to DEQ the existence of UICs and submitted a letter of intent to comply with the regulations, then DEQ agreed to hold off on any penalties. • Deschutes County retained the services of Hickman Williams Associates (HWA), a local civil engineering firm that has specialization in UICs, to conduct an inventory of our UICs, make recommendations regarding the best way to achieve compliance, and to submit the initial DEQ permit application. • Hickman Williams conducted an inventory of all UICs located on county -owned property and roadways. The study showed that the County had 61 UICs located at 9 different facilities, and 22 LTICs in public right-of-ways in the La Pine and Terrebonne areas. The DEQ requires a fairly detailed description of each individual UIC and the surrounding site. • HWA's assessment included a preliminary estimate of capital improvements necessary to achieve compliance. I have included the table below: Facility Name Estimated Cost of Improvements Warehouse/IT Building $ 23,700 CDD/Maier 120,500 DSB/Admin Building 140,600 Historical Building 39,700 Health Services Building 72,000 Public Safety Complex (jail/juvenile/work ctr) 260,000 Public ROW 210,000 Fairgrounds 45,000 Becky Johnson Center 19,600 Total Projected Capital Cost: $ 931,500 NEXT STEPS • Deschutes County recently submitted our application to DEQ for a Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) permit for our UICs. We will now be working closely with DEQ to begin the permitting process and developing a plan for achieving compliance with our UICs. • County needs to prioritize the required capital improvements and develop a funding source to pay for such. 11111M-100" CO Property & Facilities Department Susan C. Ross, Director 14 NW Kearney Street, Bend, OR 97701-1960 [541) 388-6594 • Fax: (541) 317-3168 www.co.deschutes or. us December 21, 2009 TO: Board of Commissioners FROM: Susan Ross, Property & Facilities Director RE: 1/6/10 WORK SESSION REGARDING LTIC PROCESS More than a year ago, the Department of Environmental Quality issued a warning letter to all public entities requiring compliance with the new UIC (Underground Injection Control) regulations. We were required to notify DEQ whether or not we had UICs and, if so, to develop a plan to inventory, permit/register, and improve/repair the UICs. Deschutes County retained Hickman Williams Associates (HWA), a local civil engineering firm that has personnel who specializes in UICs, to develop the inventory and assessment. An executive summary of Deschutes County's plan is attached. The report found that Deschutes County has 61 UICs located throughout our various facilities, and 22 UICs located in right-of-ways. This is a fairly technical report and process, and I have invited the engineer to attend the January 6 work session in order to answer questions. If anyone would like additional sections of the report, please let me know. The table of contents is included with your packet for reference. Quality Services Performed with Pride DESCHUTES COUNTY UIC INVENTORY AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents I. Introduction 1 II. UIC Inventory and Registration 2 III. UIC Compliance 4 A. Rule Authorization 4 B. UIC WPCF Permit 6 C. RA vs. UIC WPCF Permit 7 D. UIC Closure 8 E. UIC Sediment Sampling and UIC Systems Cleaning 8 IV. UIC Assessment 10 A. Facility UIC Categories 10 B. UIC Type Based on Assessment 10 C. Recommendations for Structural and Non -Structural BMPs 13 D. Need for Additional Information 14 E. Capital Cost Estimates 15 V. Next Steps 16 A. WPCF Permit 16 B. Interim Operation and Maintenance of County Stormwater Systems 16 C. Prioritize Capital Improvement Needs D. Long Term Operational Cost Based on Permit Exhibits 1. Letter of Intent 2. Deschutes County Zoning Map 3. DEQ UIC Registration Form 4. DEQ UIC No -Exposure Form 5. Deschutes County 2 -yr TOT Map 6. Cost Comparison of Rule Authorization vs. WPCF Permit 7. DEQ UIC Pre -Closure Notification Form 8. Guidance for Sediment Sampling, UIC Cleaning and UIC Closure Appendix 1 — UIC Database & Supplemental UIC Registration Information A. UIC Registration Database Spreadsheet B. Contaminated Site Search Summary and Information C. Water Well Search Summaries and Information Appendix 2 — Site/Facility Assessments DESCHUTES COLINTY LIIC INVENTORY AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT I. Introduction HWA has been retained by Deschutes County to inventory county -owned stormwater underground injection control (UIC) systems, provide registration information for LIICs previously not registered with the DEQ, make recommendations for the most appropriate DEQ approval mechanism (authorization by OARS or individual groundwater pollution permit), make the initial WPCF permit application (if that is the recommended approval mechanism), and make recommendations to comply state and federal stormwater UIC requirements. On December 29 2009 HWA notified the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) of the counties intent to comply with the UIC Program requirements. A copy of the letter is included as Exhibit 1. Deschutes County is located in the geographic center of the state of Oregon on the eastern side of the Cascade Range. The county covers approximately 3,055 square miles, has a semi -arid climate and mostly well draining soils. The county is made up of four incorporated cities and a number of unincorporated communities. The cities include Bend, Redmond, La Pine and Sisters. A map of the county is included as Exhibit 2. The purpose of this report is to inventory UICs located on county owned property and roadways register UICs that are not currently registered with the DEQ; and provide an initial needs assessment with recommendations for approval of UIC systems by the DEQ. The assessment includes preliminary estimates of anticipated capital improvement needs to meet water quality goals over the next several years. This report is intended to be provided to the DEQ with the registration information and permit application. This is a living document and as more information becomes available it can be revised. UICs typically found in central Oregon include, but are not limited to, drywells, drill holes, seepage pits and drainage galleries. The county owns and operates 22 buildings at nine distinct sites (or facilities) on 38 tax lots and is responsible for maintaining approximately 830 miles of roadway. An inventory of UIC systems conducted by HWA between November 2008 and July 2009 concluded that the county has 61 LIICs located at nine different facilities' and 22 UICs in public rights-of-way in La Pine and Terrabone. One of the UICs in the La Pine right-of- way could not be confirmed as a UIC. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines a UIC as subsurface emplacement of fluids through a bored, drilled, or dug hole whose depth is greater than the largest surface dimension; or an improved sink hole; or, a subsurface fluid distribution system. Oregon also includes sewage drain holes and septic fields larger than 2,500 gpd. A LIIC is basically any system, structure or activity that is created with the intent to discharge liquids directly into the subsurface. The UICs of interest in the inventory and assessment are Class V stormwater injection systems. Central Oregon is unique in that it has very few natural drainage courses owing to the highly permeable soil and mostly fractured basalt. Storm sewer systems are typically constructed as urbanized areas are developed to carry runoff to nearby streams, rivers or open bodies of wates. In Central Oregon constructing storm sewers in the shallow bedrock is very expensive. Here UICs have been a relatively simple and inexpensive way to dispose of stormwater on site and ill public right-of-ways. In addition to being inexpensive to install, if UICs are properly designed PT' A number of the contiguous facilities are lumped together in this report and considered as one facility. 1 DESCHUTES COUNTY UIC INVENTORY AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT and maintained, they have the added benefit of preventing damage caused by larger rain events associated with collecting an concentrating runoff; recharging local groundwater; maintaining better stream base flow; and, cool, and sometimes treat, stream base -flow. However, if they are not designed, installed and operated properly they have the potential to degrade groundwater resources, contribute to localized flooding and fail prematurely. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) regulate groundwater injection wells, stormwater drywells and drill holes under the auspices of the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program. The Oregon UIC Program was developed in response to Part C of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act in order to limit and control the injection of waste fluids in a manner that protects existing groundwater quality. The DEQ implements the UIC program through OAR 340-044. Since 2000 the DEQ has required that all new and existing groundwater injection wells be inventoried (registered) and since 2001 that all new and existing injection wells either be authorized by Oregon Administrative Rule, commonly known as rule authorization (RA), or approved by individual Water Pollution Facilities Control (WPCF) to operate such systems. RA is a prescriptive set of requirements for operating and maintaining UICs in Oregon. If the RA requirements cannot be met then the UIC systems must be operated under a WPCF permit or permanently abandon. In general, to attain RA best management practices of stormwater injection systems must be instituted to protect existing ground water quality. This includes good housekeeping practices, operating systems in a manner that prevents groundwater contamination and the implementation of stormwater pretreatment prior to groundwater injection. II. UIC Inventory and Registration During the period of November 2008 to July 2009 HWA inspected nine different county -owned facilities in Bend and Redmond and public rights-of-way in the unincorporated community of Terrabone and the City of La Pine. George Kolb, Deschutes County Road Department Engineering Services Manager, identified the rights-of-way UIC locations. The facilities were inspected with the help of county staff including Teresa Rozic, Property Specialist, and Tad Walker, Building Services Manager, under the direction of Susan Ross, Director of the Property and Facilities Department. The DEQ requires that all UICs are registered with the DEQ and entered into a DEQ UIC database. Registration of each UIC requires the completion of a UIC registration form, a copy of which is included as Exhibit 3. An alternate method of registration is the completion of a single electronic database for all of the UICs. This is a preferred method of registration for a Targe site (many UICs) or for a large number of UICs at multiple sites under single ownership. Registration by database would likely be required under and area -wide UIC WPCF permit. Registration requires that each of the UICs and the site be characterized, including, but not limited to the following information: • UIC location (latitude and longitude), depth, diameter, approximate drainage area, type of drainage received, pretreatment (if any) and type. • Depth to seasonal high groundwater and distance to nearest wetland, surface water and water well; and. 2 DESCHUTES COUNTY UIC INVENTORY AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT • Type of facility where the UIC is located by NAICS code and the types of materials, products and wastes handled at the facility. • Existence of known soil or groundwater contamination that might be impacted through the use stormwater injection, including the nearest cleanup site within' mile of the UIC(s). • An estimate of the number of vehicle trips generated each day at the facility or over the roadway: The number of trips, is used to classify the level of risk for groundwater contamination from polluted runoff. Residential streets and small commercial parking lots with less than 1000 trips per day (500 in and 500 out) are considered to pose less risk. The DEQ requires that the number of traffic trips be estimated using the Institute of Traffic Engineer's Trip Generation Manual, 7th edition or newer. • Land use zone, source of drinking water, characterization of the subsurface geology if available, reason why UICs are being used as apposed to a public storm sewer connection. • Identify if the UIC is located in a drinking water protection area as defined by the Oregon Department of Human Services. • Completion of a No -Exposure Certificate. This certificate has a list of criteria that if not met the UICs cannot be approved under Rule Authorization. A copy of the certificate is included as Exhibit 4. Registration requires a certain level of due diligence by the applicant. During the process of registration there are a number of site characteristics that may be identified that can preclude approval by RA. This will be discussed in further detail below. HWA has prepared a spreadsheet database and included the necessary registration information to the best of our ability given the scope of work. HWA has also included in this database the information for approximately 51 UICs that were previously registered by the county or their consultants. The registration information provided by HWA is based on initial site inspections and readily available information provided by the county or found in public databases. The site inspections provided only information about the systems that could be obtained by visual assessment from the ground surface did not include any subsurface investigation. Those systems that could be readily accessed were opened and cursory measurements made. Certain assumptions may have been made about select UIC systems that could not be verified visually. A copy of the UIC database is included as Appendix 1. Private well identification was carried out by standard well log query at the Oregon Water Resources Department website (http://apps2.wrd.state.or. us/apps/gw/well_log/Default.aspx). This information is typically used as an initial estimate for depth to groundwater in addition to identifying if a well is closer than 500 feet to a UIC. If there is a suspected water well in the area that may be within 500 feet of the UIC it may be necessary to perform a visual survey or additional due diligence to ensure that a well is not within 500 feet of the UIC. For this inventory and initial assessment HWA did not perform more that the standard well log query. Where applicable, a well log query was carried out for the UICs previously registered that did not have HWA 3 DESCHUTES COUNTY UIC INVENTORY AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT sufficient well search information. Any recommendations for more extensive well log search can be found in the discussion of the individual site assessments in Appendix 2. The presence of contaminated soil or water and the location of the nearest environmental cleanup site was carried out by use of the Oregon DEQ Regulated Facility Profiler (http://deg12.deq.state.or.us/fp20I). This is an interactive database by which contaminated sites can be searched. This information is used to rule out any possibility of stormwater injection impacting (mobilizing) existing soil or groundwater contamination that is hydraulically down gradient from the UIC in question. Additional information may be required by the DEQ to ensure that any known contamination is not impacted by the UIC if a contaminated site is identified down gradient. A discussion of any suspected contamination that may be mobilized by the use of groundwater injection can be found in the individual site assessments found in Appendix 2. III. UIC Compliance In general stormwater UICs are allowed to operate as long as they are operated in a way that protects the highest beneficial use of groundwater. The highest beneficial use is usually drinking water (OAR 340-040-0020(3)). In addition to registration, UICs are to be approved by the DEQ under Oregon Administrative Rule, commonly referred to as rule authorization (RA), or approved by individual Water Pollution Facilities Control (WPCF) to operate such systems. If the UICs cannot be authorized by rule or approved by permit, then they must be permanently closed. Any UIC closures must be performed according to OAR 340-044-0040 and must be carried out by an Oregon registered, geologist, geotechnical engineer or professional engineer. A. Rule Authorization Rule authorization is a prescriptive set of requirements that must be met in order to continue operation (OAR 340-044). There are a number or basic requirements for RA or UIC systems, including but not limited to the following: 1. There must be no exposure of runoff to hazardous materials. None of the situations listed on the No -Exposure Certification survey may take place (Exhibit 4). 2. Groundwater injection from the UIC cannot have the potential to impact (mobilize) existing soil or groundwater contamination. 3. The UIC must have adequate separation from seasonal high groundwater. In general, the bottom of a drywell must have 10 feet of separation from seasonal high groundwater for discharge from pollutant generating surfaces (PGS) and five feet of separation for roof drain or landscape only UICs. It may be allowable for 5 feet of separation from PGS UICs if the UIC is less than 5 feet in depth. In highly fractured geology with little or no soil or natural sediments to "filter" stormwater the separation depth must be evaluated on a case by case basis and is dependent on the subsurface characteristics in the unsaturated zone below the UIC and the type of pretreatment employed. 4. There must not be other wastes, including agricultural drainage, industrial waste or sanitary wastes mixing with stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces entering the UIC. 5. The UIC must not be deeper than 100 feet. 6. UIC cannot be located in defined drinking water protection area. The Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS)has delineated drinking water protection areas W A 4 DESCHUTES COUNTY UIC INVENTORY AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT for certain municipal wells. The area of concern is the 2 -year time of travel (2 -yr TOT) groundwater flow path to the municipal wel1.2 7. The UIC cannot be located within 500 feet of a water well (irrigation, domestic or public water well without a designated 2 -yr TOT). 8. Design' and operation of the UIC prevents accidental or illicit spills and temporary drain blocking is provided. (Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure plans). 9. There is an adequate containment barrier, infiltration media or adequate BMPs (best management practices) are in place to protect groundwater quality from runoff from pollutant generating surfaces. This may or may not apply to UICs accepting roof or landscape runoff with no other wastes. Best Management Practices (BMPs) means institutional, structural and non-structural controls designed to prevent or reduce the concentration of pollutants in storm water before discharge to the subsurface: BMPs include, but are not limited to: i) Schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, education or other management practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of waters of the state; ii) Operational and structural source controls that minimize or prevent contaminants from entering stormwater; and iii) Pre-treatment controls that remove contaminants contained in stormwater runoff before infiltration into natural subsurface soils. Additional requirements apply to municipalities with 50 or more UICs, per OAR 340-044- 0018(3)(b) or have UICs in areas that have 1,000 or more vehicle trips per day (OAR 340- 044-0018(3)(f). Note: Right-of-way (ROW) is considered a municipal facility. The DEQ assumes that large municipal stormwater systems with 50 or more injection sites pose an increased risk to groundwater quality and public health. Therefore the DEQ may require more information to evaluate the potential impacts to groundwater quality than would be required for non -municipal systems. The additional requirements include, but are not limited to the following: 10. An evaluation of potential impacts of storm water injection on groundwater quality based on the storm water volume and quality, local geology, density of injection systems, injection system design, and drainage area land use. 11. Prepare and implement a written storm water management plan (SWMP), based on current conditions and updated routinely, that includes the following: a. Storm water system -wide assessment that includes the location and construction details of all injection systems and other storm water management controls, an evaluation of the land use and activities in all areas draining into the storm water injection systems, and an identification based on available information of areas withir 2 HWA uses the state 2 -yr TOT GIS shape files prepared by ODHS. The most recent information we received was on 7/24/09. A map showing the 2 -yr TOT shape files superimposed on the Deschutes County GIS map is included as Exhibit 5. DESCHUTES COUNTY UIC INVENTORY AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT the drainage catchment where hazardous substances and toxic materials are used, handled or stored. b. System controls that include best management practices for source control and treatment, and shall include measures to prevent storm water drainage from areas where hazardous and toxic materials are used, handled or stored; a spill prevention and response plan; a maintenance plan and schedule; an employee and public education plan; and the identification of personnel or contractors responsible for implementing these plans. The maintenance plan shall specify the frequency of maintenance activities, including visual inspections and physical maintenance. c. Monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of the best management practices in eliminating contamination prior to storm water injection into the subsurface. The monitoring plan shall use information developed in the system -wide assessment to identify representative locations and types of best management practices that will be routinely monitored and sampled. At a minimum, sampling shall be conducted twice within the first 12 months of implementation of the storm water management plan, followed by annual sampling during a representative storm event at the onset of wet weather conditions. Criteria for selection of representative storm events shall follow available guidance protocols, such as the Central Oregon Stormwater Manual. DEQ UIC program does not have a fixed "design" storm or "representative" storm event. Grab samples shall be collected at the last available sampling point prior to storm water injection into the subsurface. Sampling protocols shall follow standard quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures for environmental sampling and shall use analytical methods that achieve detection limits that are below drinking water standards or risk-based levels. Samples shall be analyzed for contaminants of concern identified in the system -wide assessment, and shall at a minimum include benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, xylenes, benzo(a)pyrene, lead (unfiltered), total chromium (unfiltered), cadmium (unfiltered), total nitrogen and fecal coliform bacteria. These are minimum requirements and depending on the suspected risk to groundwater DEQ may require additional pollutant parameters as part of rule authorization. d. A plan for record keeping and reporting. Monitoring and sampling results shall be available for review on request. e. Annual reporting on the on the municipal storm water management plan implementation, monitoring and sampling with supporting records and laboratory documentation. The report shall also include an assessment of the effectiveness of best management practices. 12. A plan and schedule to decommission existing storm water injection systems that do not meet the basic requirements in OAR 340-044-0018(3)(a), or a permit application for those injection systems. Based on discussions with DEQ UIC Program staff and past experience with other UIC projects, all of the county UIC systems would have to be sampled per A.11.c. above on a three year cycle. That is, approximately 30 UICs would have to be sampled every year. B. UIC WPCF Permit 6 DESCHUTES COUNTY WC INVENTORY AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT When UICs cannot meet the requirements of rule authorization, they may be approved by permit. It may also be desirable to operate UICs under permit because of the operational flexibility a permit may provide and it may be less cost than RA. In any event, whether the UIC systems are approved by rule or by permit, the burden of proof is on the owner/operator of the system to prove that an injection activity does not have the potential to cause a violation of the EPA'S.primary. drinking water standards, adversely impact groundwater quality, human health or the environment. Thestate requirement is to meet Oregon's anti - degradation law. For groundwater, the discharge cannot adversely impact the naturally existing groundwater quality (ORS 468B.020, ORS 468B.025 and OAR 340-040-0020(3)). It is possible to operate most, if not all of the county's existing UIC facilities under an area - wide stormwater UIC WPCF permit. However it will require meeting most of the requirements of rule authorization. It is anticipated that under permit the following RA elements will still apply: Al through A5 above would not be allowed; A6 and A7 may be allowed but additional restrictions may be imposed by. the DEQ, such as additional. characterization of potential impacts to groundwater quality and/or additional BMPs than might otherwise be required to protect groundwater; A8 through All would be required; and Al2 would be required for those UIC systems that cannot meet the requirements of the permit. Based on discussions with DEQ Program staff there is reason to believe that some of the flexibility a permit would provide is less sampling of systems that have adequate BMPs in place. For example, low risk sites meeting all of the requirements of rule authorization, including servicing of pretreatment systems and vacuuming of parking lots, may not require verification via end of pipe stormwater sampling. Sampling and monitoring requirements will be based on risk to impact groundwater. The DEQ is presently working on a UIC WPCF permit template for private and municipal UIC systems. At present only the City of Portland has an approved UIC WPCF permit. The permit is to operate over 9,000 UICs. This report, including the registration and initial assessment is the first step towards meeting requirements for an area -wide UIC WPCF Permit. C. RA vs. UIC WPCF Permit As discussed above, with a permit the state has the flexibility to look at each site or individual UIC independently of the prescriptive UIC rule authorization requirements. The most significant impact rule authorization imposes on municipalities with over 50 UICs is the requirement to test runoff to all UICs. Sites that are classified as 'moderate risk to groundwater' are not required to do annual testing under rule authorization, unless the owner of the site has 50 or more UICs. Additionally, any UICs in right-of-way with traffic volume of over 1,000 trips per day must sample regardless of the number of UICs. HWA would request that under permit the individual sites might be looked at independently and for each one to be managed based on level of risk for groundwater contamination. If, as HWA believes, the sampling requirement could be reduced there could be substantial savings to the county. Sampling of runoff and reporting to the DEQ the results of the analysis can run over $1,000 per UIC sampled. HWA has prepared an analysis of cost for RA vs. UIC WPCF permit fees and included it as Exhibit 6. The analysis assumes that the 7 DESCHUTES COUNTY I.IIC INVENTORY AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT annual DEQ fees will increase at a rate of 8% per year. The analysis shows that the cost savings in DEQ fees alone is substantial, not including the annual testing and reporting which would be more than $30,000 in the first year under RA. In a recent telephone conversation with the DEQ UIC Program director Rodney Weick (6/30/09), he stated that the county has to either apply for RA or make a permit application soon. He said that given the number of UICs it would be in the county's best interest to apply for permit. The draft permit template is expected for public review in approximately three months. If the county applies for a permit then ata later date it has the option to be refunded permit fees and apply for RA of individual UICs if the withdrawal is prior to an individual permit being drafted for the county. Based on the initial cost estimates, discussions with DEQ UIC Program staff, and the expected flexibility it is recommended that the county apply for a WPCF Permit. In December 2009 HWA notified the DEQ in writing that HWA was conducting an inventory of county UICs, providing additional registration information and would likely be applying for a WPCF Permit following the completion of the inventory and assessment and the release of the draft UIC WPCF Permit for review. At that time it was expected that a permit template would be released for public review and comment in March of 2009. D. UIC Closure When a UIC system cannot be approved by RA or by Permit is must be permanently closed and an alternate, non-UIC stormwater system must be installed (or the UIC must be relocated to an area where it could be approved if possible). UIC closure must be done in accordance with OAR 340-044-0040. The DEQ must be notified via a Pre -Closure Notification form, along with a $100 fee. DEQ policy requires a UIC sediment, sampling, cleaning and closure plan for review and approval. A copy of the DEQ Pre -Closure Notification form and Guidance for Sediment Sampling, Cleaning and Closure is included as Exhibit 7 and Exhibit 8, respectively. The guidance document is for the closure of drill holes and drywells in a parking lot or right-of-way where there is little concern for presence of hazardous materials or high levels of diesel, gas or oil contamination (no more than would be expected in typical stormwater runoff). Where there is documented soil or groundwater contamination, a history of hazardous materials use, heavy equipment use or maintenance, fuel or oil handling, etc., then the DEQ may require additional screening for potential contamination prior to closure. In accordance with OAR 340-044-0040(3)(b) an Oregon registered geologist, engineering geologist, or professional engineer must submit a signed closure report documenting that the UIC was properly closed, typically in accordance with the DEQ approved closure plan. E. LIIC Sediment Sampling and UIC Systems Cleaning The DEQ typically requires that UIC sediments be sampled for contamination and that the UIC be cleaned prior to closure or installing pretreatment BMPs. A qualified environmental services provider should carry out sampling, testing and cleaning of UICs. Guidance for stormwater system sediment sampling is included in Exhibit 8. HWA 8 DESCHUTES COUNTY UIC INVENTORY AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT Cleaning of UICs and any catch basins or pretreatment BMPs should be done on an as needed basis. Catch basins used prior to UIC injection should be inspected bi-annually and sediments should be removed when the depth exceeds more than 6 inches to protect UICs. Typically catch basins need to be cleaned every one to two years. Many of the catch basins and UIC systems are not cleaned regularly or may never have been cleaned and some may not be functioning. When observed during inspection, systems in severe need of cleaning have been identified in the individual site assessments in Appendix 2. Inspecting and cleaning of UIC systems, catch basins and other pretreatment BMPs is beyond the scope of this report. Any sediments and liquids removed from stormwater collection and disposal systems, including catch basins and pretreatment systems must be disposed properly at a landfill or other DEQ approved method. A DEQ licensed contractor should remove the sediments with a vac -truck. The liquids should be disposed at licensed liquid receiving.. facility or evaporated at a licensed facility and the sediments mixed with sawdust and allowed to further dry. Sediments need to be analyzed for the 8 RCRA metals and for petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH-Dx) prior to acceptance at landfill. Knott and Crook County landfills will not accept the sediments without certification as non -hazardous waste. The sediments, if non -hazardous and free of organic materials may be used appropriately as construction material. The risk of soil contamination and need for site remediation associated with UIC use is low for most commercial and industrial sites. Should the sediments be deemed hazardous based on exceeding the EPA RCRA TCLP MCLs3 for leaching of metals or the hydrocarbons exceed risk based health standards it is likely that the contamination is isolated to sediments contained in the UIC. In that case simply removing the sediments and pressure washing the UIC would suffice. However, when sediments are found to be hazardous and the there is a cleanup action occurring, there are or have been floor drains connected to the UICs, there is history or evidence of indiscriminate handling of hazardous materials, or there is warranted concern for illicit dumping then the DEQ UIC Program may refer the UIC to the DEQ Cleanup Program for further investigation. Stormwater systems must be maintained if they are to function properly. The lack of proper operation and maintenance is the leading cause of failure for stormwater collection, treatment and disposal systems. HWA recommends that a plan be developed for assessing the operation and maintenance needs of county stormwater collection, treatment and disposal systems, including non-UIC stormwater systems, as soon as possible. 3 EPA Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for leaching of metals based on the toxicity characteristic leaching potential (TCLP). Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) is an EPA SW -846 analytical method (Method 1311) that simulates sanitary landfill contaminant leaching in waste samples. Based upon concentrations of the TCLP constituents and guidelines set forth in 40 CFR 261.4, the solid waste samples can be deemed hazardous or non- hazardous for sanitary landfill disposal purposes. The recommended alternative to the TCLP test is a Total Metals test method, which less expensive and inferences can be made as to exceeding the TCLP MCLs. Should the Total Metals test infer the possibility of exceeding the TCLP the TCLP test could be conducted on the metal(s) of concern. Additionally, the SPLP method (EPA's synthetic rain test) can be used to determine if there was a potential for UIC contaminants leaching to groundwater. Rain water is less acidic than the TCLP method. Therefore there is a lower leachability risk. H DESCHUTES COUNTY UIC INVENTORY AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT IV. IIIC Assessment In addition to the inventory of UICs, HWA has made an initial assessment of existing UIC systems. The assessment of individual UIC systems prepared by HWA is based initial site inspections and readily available information provided by the county or found in public databases. The site inspections did not include any subsurface investigation and only included information about the systems that could be obtained by visual assessment from the ground surface. Those systems that could be readily accessed were opened, visually inspected and qualitative and quantitative data was gathered. Certain assumptions may have been made about select UIC systems that could not be verified visually. The individual site UIC assessments are included in Appendix 2. A. Facility UIC Categories The DEQ has three UIC types used for determining fees for registration under rule authorization. For the purposes of this report HWA has chosen to use these types as categories for classifying the level of risk the accessed site/facilities poses to groundwater contamination. Table 1 below includes the three categories and the types of UICs in those categories. For the purposes of the UIC system assessments the site/facility will be included in one of these three categories, where applicable, with the exception of 3b and 3c. B. UIC Type Based on Assessment For the purposes of assessing the county UIC systems we have ranked the UICs as Type A, B, C, D or E. Table 2 below includes the UIC Type and general definition of each type. In HWAs estimation, Type A and B UICs are considered compliant and Type C and D UICs are non-compliant, with regard to adequate pretreatment BMPs. Type E UICs will have to be closed and replaced with non-UIC stormwater systems. FIWA 10 DESCHUTES COUNTY UIC INVENTORY AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT TABLE 1: DEQ UIC Categories for Rule Authorized UIC Systems CATEGORY 1. LEAST ENVIRONMENTAL RISK TO GROUNDWATER a. Common roof drains (Residential, Commercial, Industrial); Roof drainage injection system not mixed with any other type of discharge Note: Roof drainage injection system mixed with any other type become that type risk (box 2, below). CATEGORY 2. MODERATE ENVIRONMENTAL RISK TO GROUNDWATER a. Mixed roof/parking lot injection systems Example: Roof drained mixed with driveway, parking lot, alley, or road runoff. b. Small jurisdictions owning a total of fewer than 50 injection systems c. Owners with fewer than 50 injection systems (at one site or multiple locations) d. Owners who do not store, handle, or use hazardous materials, toxics, or petroleum products e. Sites that generate fewer than 1,000 trips per day (for contiguous Tots or acreage under one owner) f. Small/medium parking lots, residential roads CATEGORY 3. SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RISK a. Complex sites with significant potential for environmental risk b. Owners of sites generating 1000 or more trips per day (ITE manual calculation) on all contiguous lots c. Owners of sites with hazardous materials (storage, handling, generation or use), toxics, or petroleum products d. Loading docks e. Roof drain mixed with large parking lot drainage f. Any site where monitoring is required 11 DESCHUTES COUNTY UIC INVENTORY AND INI'T'IAL ASSESSMENT TABLE 2: Assessed UIC T • e TYPE A (compliant, will meet RA) UIC system will meet LIIC rule authorization requirements for the specified DEQ UIC Category (see Table 1 above) without significant physical improvements to the UIC system. • NI of the basic requirements for RA have been met, including structural BMPs. • Will require use of non-structural BMPs through the implementation of a DEQ approved (SWMP). Note, site may have an approved SWMP but may not be actively im •lementin • it. TYPE B (compliant, will require WPCF Permit) UIC system will not meet RA requirements but is likely to meet groundwater protection requirements under permit without significant physical improvements to the UIC system. • Will require use of non-structural BMPs through the implementation of a DEQ approved (SWMP). Note, site may have an approved SWMP but may not be actively implementing it. • Under permit, additional structural and non-structural BMPs may be required for Category 2 and Category 3 UICs located in a DWPA, 2 -yr TOT or within 500 feet of water well. TYPE C (non-compliant, will meet RA with improvements) UIC system will meet UIC rule authorization requirements for the specified DEQ UIC Category (see Table 1 above) with physical improvements to the UIC system (pretreatment BMPs) or isolation of loading dock(s). • All of the basic requirements for RA have been met, not including structural BMPs. • Will require the implementation of structural BMPs for pretreatment of stormwater. • Will require use of non-structural BMPs through the implementation of a DEQ approved (SWMP). Note, site may have an approved SWMP but may not be actively im •lementin • it. TYPE D (non-compliant, will require WPCF Permit with improvements) UIC system will likely to meet groundwater protection requirements under permit with physical improvements to the UIC system (pretreatment BMPs) or isolation of loading dock(s). • Will require the implementation of structural BMPs for pretreatment of stormwater. • Will require use of non-structural BMPs through the implementation of a DEQ approved (SWNIP). Note, site may have an approved SWMP but may not be actively implementing it. • Under permit, additional structural and non-structural BMPs may be required for Category 2 and Category 3 UICs located in a DWPA, 2 -yr TOT or within 500 feet of a water well. TYPE E (non-compliant, must be closedlreplaced) UIC systems cannot be approved and will have to be decommissioned and replaced with non- UIC stormwater systems. A 12 DESCHUTES COUNTY UIC INVENTORY AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT C. Recommendations for Structural and Non -Structural BMPs The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act is a numeric compliance based act and the EPA has established numeric based criteria for compliance with underground injection. The criteria include meeting federal drinking water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and human health based standards. Therefore, under permit it may be possible to operate UIC systems without any form of pretreatment and still protect groundwater quality, however, the DEQ will require verification through runoff monitoring. Runoff monitoring is expensive and in our semi -arid climate and it is our opinion that a reasonable, statistically valid sampling program could not be carried out. Unlike most of the Portland, Oregon area, many of the drill holes and drywells constructed in Central Oregon were installed without any form of pretreatment. Not even a catch basin. In the Portland area many of the UIC systems were constructed with catch basins and sediment manholes preceding them. This may be because of the perceived need to remove gross sediments to prevent UIC failure in their less porous soils. In central Oregon many of the drill holes and drywells receive runoff directly through grate tops. By not having a minimum of sediment removal UICs, especially drill holes, are prone to failure. Rehabilitating a drill hole may be possible through drilling the hole deeper, but rehabilitating a plugged drywell, seepage pit or drainage gallery is next to impossible. The City of Portland has shown through statistically valid sampling and additional modeling that groundwater is being protected through the use of catch basins and sediment manholes prior to UIC injection. Because of the complications presented by verification, the need to protect UIC systems and the need to protect groundwater quality this report recommends that that Type C and Type D UICs identified in this assessment be upgraded to include a minimum level of structural BMPs (pretreatment) that will protect groundwater quality while preserving the integrity of the UIC system. Recommendations for improvements to Type C and D UICs are provided in the individual assessments in Appendix 2. Most contaminants of concern, specifically metals and hydrocarbons, are hydrophobic and will attach to fine sediments contained in stormwater runoff. In general the primary goal of pretreatment BMPs is the removal of sediments from the stormwater runoff before injection. Additional natural filtering of sediments can occur in sand, soil and sediment in the unsaturated zone beneath the UIC. If the unsaturated zone below the UICs is Tess than 10 - feet then biological degradation of organic compounds may occur in addition to filtering. If the UICs are located in highly fractured rock then the additional filtering and degradation may not occur. H 13 DESCHUTES COUNTY UIC INVENTORY AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT It is anticipated that UICs located within delineated 2 -yr TOT well protection areas will be subject to additional pollutant monitoring at injection sites, including fecal coliform. Typical sediment removal BMPs do not effectively remove fecal coliform. HWA recommends that UICs in parking lots or right-of-way located in a 2 -yr TOT employ basic sediment removal BMPs as a first step. If permit discharge limits cannot be met then catch basins and sediment manholes can be upgraded with filter media containing non -leaching biocides. Such media will require frequent maintenance and regular replacement, but it can be effective in reducing bacterial loading. Final recommendations for pre-treatment BMPs should be made once the permit maximum discharge limits (MDLs) are issued for each facility or UIC. The best option for UICs located in the 2 -yr TOT is to utilize non-LIIC infiltration systems with appropriate structural and non-structural BMPs. In addition to pre-treatment, structural and non-structural BMPs should be implemented through site-specific or area -specific stormwater management plans for all county UIC systems. These plans would implement site-specific or area -specific system controls that include the following where applicable: • Best management practices for pollution source control (both structural and non- structural). • Measures to prevent storm water drainage from areas where hazardous and toxic materials are used, handled or stored to the maximum extent possible (both structural and non-structural). • Spill prevention and countermeasure plan tailored for each site or area. • Maintenance plan and schedule, with frequency of maintenance activities, including visual inspections and physical maintenance. • Employee and public education plan. • Identification of personnel or contractors responsible for implementing individual plans. D. Need for Additional Information This phase of work was limited to inventory and preliminary assessments of UIC systems. HWA staff conducted facility site walks and visual inspections of observable drainage features were made. In some instances the county provided site construction plans to assist in the assessment. For registration purposes additional information was obtained from public databases. The site inspections did not include subsurface investigation and only included information about the systems that could be obtained by visual assessment from the ground surface. Those systems that could be readily accessed were opened, visually inspected and qualitative and quantitative data was gathered. Certain assumptions may have been made about select UIC systems that could not be verified visually. Additional site-specific information may be required to make recommendations to meet groundwater protection goals. Recommendations for additional information are discussed in the individual site UIC assessments in Appendix 2. HWA 14 DESCHUTES COUNTY UIC INVENTORY AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT Assumptions regarding implementation of structural and non-structural BMPs are based on the on discussions with the DEQ. HWA believes that under permit each site can be approached in a similar manner as would be required for rule authorization, however, with more flexibility than would be allowed under rule authorization. E. Capital Cost Estimates As part of this report HWA has made preliminary estimates of capital costs for implementing the structural and non-structural BMPs outlined above. The costs are very rough and are to be used for budgeting purposes only and may be revised as more detailed information is made available. At this time the approach in assessing the level of improvements necessary to permit county UIC systems is sufficient for capital planning, or master planning, purposes. The estimates provided may include engineering, construction and permitting and may be site-specific or system -wide. Site-specific estimates for each of the facilities can be found in the individual site assessments and are tabularized below. The basic elements for capital cost estimating include the following: Site Specific 1. Capital improvements for each site, including surveying,, engineering and construction 2. Permitting, including preparation of a stormwater management plans and/or closure plans where applicable 3. One time sampling and cleaning of existing UICs as needed for closure or installation of pretreatment BMPs Facility Name Warehouse/IT Building $23,700 Justice Building/Courthouse ---- DesCo Admin/Comm Dev $120,500 DesCo Services Bldg $140,600 Historical Society $39,700 Health & Human Serv. Bend $72,000 Public Safety Complex $260,400 Terrebonne & La Pine ROW $210,000 Fairgrounds $45,000 Becky Johnson Center $19,600 Total: $931,500 System Wide 1. Permit Application (see Exhibit 6) 2. UIC WPCP Permit negotiation, including template review and comments and final permit development Estimates for permit negotiation; facilities operation and maintenance; and, compliance verification and reporting are beyond the scope of this report. HWA 15 DESCHUTES COUNTY I.IIC INVENTORY AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT V. Next Steps A. WPCF Permit DEQ is expected to publish a LIIC WPCF template for public comment and review in the fall of 2009. Once the template is finalized the county will have to negotiate a permit with the DEQ. We recommend that county retain HWA to represent them at each of the phases of the permitting process to maintain continuity and to represent the county's best interests. B. Interim Operation and Maintenance of County Stormwater Systems Assess interim stormwater system operational and maintenance needs to maintain the integrity of existing stormwater systems, prevent localized flooding and protect water quality. This is prudent and any work done towards this end can be incorporated into the SWMP that will be required under permit. C. Prioritize Capital Improvement Needs WPCF permits are for ten years. The permits are structured in such a way that milestones must be met during the life of the permit. It can be expected that non -complaint systems will need to be upgraded within four CIP cycles. That is, capital improvements needed to meet water quality goals under permit will need to be completed in four CIP cycles, or approximately 5 years. D. Long Term Operational Cost Based on Permit Assess the annual costs for operating and maintaining the county's stormwater collection, treatment and disposal systems. 00000 16 .43 1- O Z 0 to cc coO LL N ? tu Z f' 0z Q, Z ?� W 'z oZ reo O ZZ LL 0 Z W Z Hci N Z C.1W 7 to c c O c (a Deschutes County Facilities b. catch basin c. catch basin with filter insert (Krystar Flo -Guard Plus) o Z oe 1. A p0 `:. A♦o'�OA 4®0'�•�''os lone of 3 CB's located in loading dock area i ((same facility as above) CB filled w/ sed. d •� 3 Parkin lot west of DesCo Services Bldg Parking lot west of DesCo Services Bldg f Secure lot north of DesCo Services Bldg 5" Dia DH (12' deep) overflow © -2.2 from RE I No inlet/outlet to DW _ 2 rn aD . o Historical Society 4r isv). �0 10 / too�A AG♦�O Aor 2 -yr TOT 2 -yr TOT 2 -yr TOT 2 -yr TOT L 2 -yr TOT_ 2 -yr TOT 2 -yr TOT X00 s4 0c' 16. �\° 0 Q ti`r 0t r 0� �0° G.c 00 o`Q0 00a ` . 4 61 12.8. 3.5_ 62. 5,000_ a 13.51 3.51 90: 14,5001 c 13.E 3.5 1[ 1 a YM r13' 3.5 78T 6,300 a 14 3.5 136 10,900 c 10.9 3.5 136 10,900 c m ooairiMoc O`• m V e- m N C 0 to N r e-0 CO to r ?1 0.4 a 15; 0.4 a 10.7 41 a 10.11 41 1 a m.0 CO Tr Tr u) ri an.? o0 . 0v- r r m.0.0 'd' .-117: Tr 'e•- V • Fll)1CD � .0 4 Or .0 'd' O ID Tr O 0i CO TrV' M er- m CO st In co .-(0 ek4Zu11 9A�0ed. r/ v x mmm /`'A r0/ Fi b• • m CO m CO CO LTiitt CO CO m . v CO CO CO m cO COm— o cb m cc Ti m m CO ti b CO CO x rfst 4/AO //A `v % eGi 't a't 't 't O. 't G. G. Q. m Q. 't G t. a 6. G. a a a a C a a o, G. o.C t a C�/is �s • ,y�•o st Q. 5,600 5,425, 1,325 5,6251 5,425i 1,300' 5,600 5 1 1,275, 5,225 4,6751 800' 5,300 4,7751 875 O) ti v M lA 5,825 3,900 775 5,8501 3,925; 825 5,900; 3,9251 850 5,9251 3,9751 925 5,8001 4,1001 1,050 5,500 4,300 1,000 5,525 4,325 1,050 6,1251 3,600 525 5,9001 3,7501 575 5,6251 3,175' 700 5,7501 3,350 625 5,7251 3,400 650 5,6501 3,3751_ 700 5,6001 3,4001 7751 5,8751 3,6001 650 NA 1. -o 1. cco to 5,5001 3,8001 1,025 5,5001 3,9001 1,075 5,6251 3,9001 1,000 2,900 2,350 1,875 2,850 2,225 1,775 ' t� 33� �.0 4e 0 0 C 33� O 0 0 x 0 s3�3x 0 0 0 0 x 0 x 33�3��3333�� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �3 O 0 (se c>� \a0 a0 44.06141 -121.3075 44.06101 -121.3077 44.06111 -121.3078 44.0612; -121.3077 44.0603 -121.3109 44.0603 -121.3105 44.06031 -121.3105 44.06101 -121.3094 44.06171-121.3100 44.0617' -121.3096' 44.0617 -121.30931 44.0617 -121.3089 44.06131 -121.3090 44.06071 -121.3097 44.06071 -121.3095 44.06251 -121.3084 44.0626 -121.3098 44.06221 -121.3104 44.0641' -121.3078 44.0635 -121.3084 44.0634 -121.3083 44.0635 -121.3080 44.06351-121.3078 44.06271 -121.3088 44.0624' -121.3089 44.0624 -121.3074 44.06221 -121.3074 44.06211 -121.3079 L44.0552: -121.3170 44.05521-121.3168 44.0551/_ -121.3172 �°AToJAS°v Q�Q _ pp 71 N vv•v Nppp•o)o) _ - m �i wooOe At7) ow .a.o A VEli y=UHpONppppppN 3231 232gvvv32 z/4 y/) A J d'' 44Ys�O�to /�A- 11888 - 1 2003 11888 - 2 2003 11888 - 3 2003 MMM NN yG/ y iG+V� Historical Society no no I - 21 rNM rN- O) ' r r rN OV r 1.- OY rNNNNQ 1 12623 - MMMMMM NNNNNN NN0t)toNM 11675 - 1? f 11675 - 2? V 1 i OO OD N t( i 0.. CO N OD 1 0... OD 11675 - 7? N CO 1 LO 0.. OD C.- O) 1 Qr1 In to P.- til•(. OO OD r' r MD U1 OO (0S%pA•-• ,1" v g ¢� o ¢g¢ 22 G ut), C C C m 0 0.. at.. p. N 0.. 0.. 0.. 0-0.. n. ON 3m VMH r NM vi. tDOD N-(00)OrNM r r r r . tO(DI.000)ON r r r r r N NMc10 N N N N (OO.N N HWA PROJ. NO.: 040811A DW _ 6,225 10,250310,2507 pk j active f 10.8 4. . b I I Health and Human SRwices I -a ... I, MMMM PO?e-. e' N C .nO.as 1000 l+)N .� MN Mce) n •-• e= slotted lid in lawn, catch basin from pking area Terrebonne ROW 2 -yr TOT 2 -yr TOT cm ISO e m.0.n 03 0 _.�_ In sr 0 to M Nus e- m X10 Moi In as ca .1- 6 ci I- co 0 Oi m r ---- ... 10 in CM M r d v- Ci m 0.O M P. Ci 10 .__. M ip 0 m� us M 101, 0 O M Ci m a Y_. In In M M IO M03 0 e- 11.9 3.5 I a 22.4 0.5 a 20.8 0.5 a 2. 0.5. - a m U)Io N N m co 1CO e - e- co T 0o. 0 V Ili nN �OD O e - m• N O 1.- r_. O a - N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N W 01 N N N N t Ad 0 N a't 4! naao.n'C.an.aaaaa I. 1,250 3,200; 3,200 1,250 3,150 3,150 1,300 3,150 3,150 1,475, 3,325; 3,325 1,575 3,150 153 0 1,275' 2,800' 2,800 1,175 2,600 2,600 975: 2,4501 2,450 1 875, 2,325 2,325 775= 2,400 2,400 700 2,400 2,400 925 2,700 2,700 875 2,725 2,725 575, 2.525; 2.525 1,000 2,925 2,925 1,125 2,950 2,950 1,325 3,075 3,075 1,375 3,100 3,100 1,350 3,000 3,000 1,575 3,225 3,225 1,600 3,325 3,325 7 8,250 4,300 7 7,850 3,850 00004oa000a00000000000 �1.:: 144.1010 -121.30651 44.1009 -121.3056 44.1004 -121.3058 44.1001 -121.3058 44.0999 -121.305Y 44.0999; -121.3050 44.0988;-121.3050 44.09881-121.3063 44.0985 -121.3071 44.0987 -121.3078_ 44.0987 -121.3084 44.0991 -121.3083 44.09937 -121.3084,' 44.09951-121.3074 44.0997: -121.3074 44.099911 -121.3085 I 44.1000 -121.30681 44.0997 -121.30641 44.0996; -121.3057 1 44.0994 -121.3055 1 144.0992 -121.3057 11 44.0992 -121.3048 I 44.09951 -121.3046 1 44.3513 -121.18051 -� i rC� I 10209 - 2 na 11 44 3513; -121 17911 co W 0000 CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC O 0.- h coQ) coN U) slotted slotted W N u) !71 N •a co 401 co 0) O) nine ROW 10209 - 1 1 Ina _ NCDO r e - ONM 1 1 1 1 V Of0 r 1111111.12 n c0 0) O e^ N N N N 0, N et N 0fon N N r N r 000000000000000000 .° t: 0 F. F+ oDCD M 01 00 d NM V V V V V V 10 t01 V -OD 0)O V V V V 4D T NM 0 0 T}In 0 0 ors 0 10 t0 ODC 0 U HWA PROJ. NO.: 040811A ate... xov tim o. a`0 0 4.a g e o of `� '`'�� yy \0 o0a' eco be ato a R` a O a �- Q 4,s$V5-1 ea X�ovs e O1ey�a �� tye •• . Notes I Downtown La Pine ROW 1 N .0 0) C G i Ea 3 0 -e 2 m cu co Ea not previously inventoried (near downtown) c E Rock backfilled pond w/soil on top Rock backfilled pond w/soil on top Becky J Center (6" DH overflow at -1 RE) Icl m r-- QC co_Qp N I6.81 4j 1 14,200 a _ 6.71 41 1 10,200. a 1 m c5 CV h 7:. m m O7 CV h J. --T-- m O r r 1.7 0.5 11,070 a 1.3 0.51 18,4501 a 1.4. 0.51 36.9001 a 1 0.51 15,5801 a 1.3 0.51 42,2301 a 1.1 0.5; 13,3251 a 2.2i 0.5' 29,7251 a 2.2 0.5 14,3501 a 1.8 0.5, 34,8501 a 17 0.5` 28 0 a 1.6 0.5 38,950 a 5.2. 4. . a m 0 --------•-- r CO cs• CO c•-• CO M - 0 r 33333333 0 0 0 0 0 2 o o 2 r 33333333 2 o 3333 2 2 o 0 0 0 Q o Q o t'tl . 0. x'"_"x n o. r Y o. 925115,500 4,975 1,200, 16,100 5,650 1,075116,4001 5,7501 3,450 17,400 2,500 00ca C1•0c)cica001-F-I-I-I-F-h-F-F--/- 0 g' C 43.67461 -121.5041 1 43.67621 -121.5041 143.6747 -121.5006 43.6748 -121.5017 43.67551-121.5016 43.6758 -121.5011 43.6757 -121.5009 43.6752' -121.5043 43.6746 -121.5075 43.6716 -121.5053 43.6708; -121.4909 43.6709'-121.4955 43.6714 -121.4929 43.6714 -121.4954 43.67261 -121.4928 43.67261 -121.4946 43.6733; -121.4909 43.67381 -121.4911 43.67381 -121.4953 43.6740 -121.4809 43.6742 -121.4955 43.6693 -121.5055 44.23671 -121.1840 44.23471 -121.1852 44.23381 -121.1826 44.2348; -121.1814 • 12. mc)c)cloociol2mascomatmmmmcgas 10:D171,12 fA N CO N y v d C 0 (0 C C —p' C C C C C C C C C en a) E m CO 'fl 0) C C Becky Johnson Center I no 1 - 1 r slotted CO CAOQp CV CV CD r CD N. CD Ch CA CO CO N CV CV CV 0 CD CD CD r r r r r lW09-10 10209 - 11 10209 - 12 10209 -13 10209 -14 10209 - 15 10209 - 16 10209-17 10209 - 18 10209 - 19 10209 - 20 10209 - 21 10209 - 22 10209 - 23 10209 - 24 Y.rNO C 1 1 V )p �r C N 0 CO >. J HN 0) >. N 0 N 0 0 0) 0) 0) 0) >. >. 7..>1 >. H y CA u) 0) 01 N N co >1 >. >. >. >. a COCA CD 0) >. CA N CO CO 0) 0) 0 01 >. T >. >+ b y 6 CU 0 d >.›.• >. - V O O O :CCC OrNCe)�• CO CO CO t/) pr` CD CO CD CC) CO 02 Ch O e- CO CO t` r` N M N. r- d' 10 CO r• r- ti r- r• W CO CD r- r- Co Co r• CC)•• m Co 00 2003 Oregon Legislature 0 y C 2 1 01'II 0 1 0 c a) iv -0 o c ai v ro 'j O en ea a1 �- a�J U N E (LIu To rU ,® 0 ?. C • N C a] 0. c (17 • C a.r tn�? v, U E E {,fs .t]C C3 rn O O in N U LL.' Ci3 N V f43 all V7 a�7 > in C al C3}0 a fl E' i.. a 413 U o a • 4-0 Va • • c9 U..! Map Amendment Public Process L roC F- co C 4=1= 3 U LL r13 C R7 it cn N c JO v N a r4 aJ w C a E0 z u • • • • • in U 4-5 vs mi N (r} E c w Ci+ 0 113 rct -10 c o ck' pZ `y ' J — 2 UT c g W in 0. a} O 0 2O1 co c u aro c U E a a, um JD a' E E3 a ¢ Ni. o a 12 ro r4 o o a o c otC1 r_�•-- aJ ,--I ,-e cc a u txT 0 Planning Commission Recommendation Staff proposal with the following revisions: a ea laoo a p� 0. m 0w si 0 E � C N Q q OCC6! +-jCEr+ .. z ,,EoU a ._ , � R,SAJ E 0 'Q 06 3 2 G G .a'0 E E c> ro C C 2 C e a; _ E n9.12 0 d C vnu ° o512rc nu co 5 K ).a5g 5 . a a, a. w aNi +' O M 41:1lc �5E+ad .. ...ac z $-}270m EC m E .E e ? ar c c a L a t$ �+, C'a'"E I. a a 3z oro ra a N 0 RI �- arE l I .. .+ zE lc m3 tw amE a3w cede II c 42 o c 4Z G w O ` y E _ no z¢ a 4.! a 2, to Y3 010 A = ed :Cal _.171:g 'V VF• yN C 61 d E i+ - E C •o fa — G i a� a� 3a 4u ' EAv * * Map Amendment Overview a 10 Chi o m o2 a)ub o � +'-`= a Q d O Q c, V6 b co ro 0al c a.r f°E c o- u u, L Q fiD a (0 0 uE E1 ,4-.L]. 4_ w MT 2 Lel E c E 1i 2 E � T. a u E u 0 13-2 0 7,6E am- 4 O ra a Q w m L }' m c m o I- v tp0 aJG] 0 no Q c E u 0 no in Map Amendment Rules v c ra 0 C W C C E c 7 N 'O 97 N E a 7 R 4 u en Eo u m WZ i tio in . v 3 00 m o arc m in 01 Bm N +a h.-. iC C 'w2 Nc '"' 3 0 N v m e O tit' SP 0 m en -ad R .z W I. _ g� 4N O en'"4 it` t' eTi, EE ui `— o. 317; E E i O 0 O E 7 C` a N G Q, � z H x a f Tr2 Pal N o 01 GI ,1 . a� -0u 33 -c w.er.o u "s' c sa u u E ar atn :' o D 11 QC EE'3u CL CV axV, 4..., i 'v m �cost . ► °cn y4cu ae 5 e•0 °ode 4a= 3croi► 4.o .y. °V4t c la H Q .I IC Va7 c CO It '> y C3 to .12 a °"= ..= C un , h a C c co A E O m r.Zr. 4iJ faacu 0. <4.1 • o l ba II at or* ..* C 7 a� 4 A . C tv • E �'ts= . m a c„ E RI w v 0 mar a i'n no c a 5 .+ ij • ro • 01 E c a a ot3 t w o 3 ti' y z w 0- . et. c.• 4 ca eto`a 76 413 O 0' 07 " • •u a • E • In 9 • C C t0 n V ` so $'` E ID R C ro tD �_ _LII � S 0. Q N. V .Zi 2 C d to7 C O1 y S 0 = c 't i en g c m a 0 CE c to•r,c3co .. 9.0 ° u a v E.= 0= d a .. E e �0 c1 RLva En 'ac 3 E: A a to 13 4* 0 o a s 441 8 41 8 Map Amendment Process * * * Question or Comments? CO � � • A 11 J�■�§. §falf %!2}}�)�ƒk ��k�k § £ | s ! £ f! 'I'La k«�|�� ! @)=•••*• 4, *•* §! ! Remaining eligible lands = » | December 15, 2009 Page 1 of 3 1 ORS 197.455 [What Lands May be Mapped as Eligible for a Destination Resort] (1) A destination resort ilnustj may be sited only on lands mapped as eligible for destination resort siting by the affected county. The county may not allow destination resorts approved pursuant to ORS 197.435 to 197.467 to be sited in any of the following areas: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 (a) Within 24 air miles of an urban growth boundary with an existing population of 100,000 or more unless residential uses are limited to those necessary for the staff and management of the resort. (b)(A) On a site with 50 or more contiguous acres of unique or prime farmland identified and mapped by the United States Naturah4esources Cons y tion Service, or its predecessor agency. (B) On a site within three miles of a high Nrea unless thejesort complies with the requirements of ORS 197.445 (6)`inwhich case the resort may not be closer to a high value crop area than E- alf mile for each 25 units of overnight lodging or fraction thereof. (c) On predominantly Cubic Foot the State Forestry Departmentovhich are net, subject to' an approved goal exception. (d) In the Colun*ia River Gorge Natiopal Scenic Area as defined by the Columbia River Gorge Natio - r, ct, L. 99-663. (e) In an especially Department of Fish and Wildli Department of Fish and Wildlj determination is for as] deo kf) On a site in whiff regime condition class 3, uteS protection plan or an amendme :,forestlands as determined by developed without being: at a g ;gine habitat area as determined by the Oregon ly 1984, unlessthecounty and the Oregon on a d ffereut determination, and that dged comprehensive plan. Lntly classified as "being in fire e i�oiiinty ap rro ves a community wildfire to'a plan that demonstrates the site can be ON All is - (2) In carrying out subsection (1) of this section, a county shall adopt, as part of its comprehensive plan, a map consisting of eligible lands within the county. The map must be based on reasonably available information and may be amended pursuant to ORS 197.610 to 197.625, but not more frequently than once every 30 months. The county shall Co mllent [rw11: Legislative counsel ptefened style., Con#ment (rw2]: Intent is to allow upsiatc of 1984 Wildlife map. nhere otw'F'w-and county agrreto new xnap. ±Mitt' count? iii xs 2227. k area` mly if ieasures to allow igaton that reduces December 15, 2009 Page 2 of 3 1 develop a process for collecting and processing concurrently all map amendments made 2 within a 30 -month planning period. A map adopted pursuant to this section shall be the 3 sole basis for determining whether tracts of land are eligible for destination resort siting 4 pursuant to ORS 197.435 to 197.467. 5 6 ORS 197.460 [Siting Criteria for Compatibility — At the Stage a Particular Resort is 7 Proposed on Eligible Lands] 8 A county shall [insure] ensure that a destination resort is compatible with the site and 9 adjacent land uses through the following measures: 10 11 (1) Important natural features, including habitatpkthreatened o endangered species, streams, rivers and significant wetlands shall be retained. Riparia vegetation 12 within 100 feet of streams, rivers and significant'etlands£i ll be retainedpitteration of 13 important natural features, including placement of steres [which] that maintain the 14 overall values of the feature may be allowed. 15 (2) Improvements and activities shall be located and designed to avoid or 16 minimize adverse effects of the resort on uses on surrounding lands, particularly effects 17 on intensive farming operations in the area. At a minimum, measures to accomplish this 18 shall include: 19 (a) Establishment and maintenance of buffers between the resort and adjacent 20 land uses, including natural vegetation and where appropriate, fences, berms, landscaped 21 areas and other similar types of buffers. 22 (b) Setbacks of structures and other improvements from adjacent land uses. 23 (3) If the resort will be located west of the summit of the Coast Range and 24 within 10 miles of an urban growth boundary, or east of the summit ofrtthe Coast 25 Range and within 25 miles of an urban growth, the county Shall.alsor! 26 applicant to submit an economic -impact analysis of theproposed dtev 27 prepared by a qualified economists) or financial analyse 28 includes a[ analysis of the projected fiscal, -economic+ and housing 29 county land cities within the applicable distance specified above if the proposed 30 development is completed, and if the proposed development is not carried out. re Abe prrlera doh is within the Comment [IRW4j:.'his provision is modeled on Deschutes ^: ounty's resort ordinance, Itrequires an economic impact analysis, but di^s not require mitigation (a county could, but is not required to, do anything with this information. The putpase is to help monitor imitpacts over tune.. December 15, 2009 Page 3 of 3 1 (4) If the resort will be located west of the summit of the Coast Range and 2 within 10 miles of an urban growth boundary, or east of the summit of the Coast 3 Range and within 25 miles of an urban growth boundary, the county shall also 4 (require the applicant] include measures to avoid or mitigate adverse transportation 5 effects on state highways and other transportation facilities affected by the proposed 6 resort, including facilities located in the cities within the applicable distance 7 specified above.L 8 (5) If the water supply for the resort will utilize a ground water source that 9 has been classified or reclassified as a ground water limited area pursuant to ORS 10 536.340, is subject to an order of withdrawal under ORS 536.410, or is located in an 11 area that has been designated as a critical ground water area pursuant to ORS 12 537.730, then the acreage of land irrigated within the resort shall not exceed 13 14 Comment ine5]: Conte pt is that if a resort is within a certain dit'ance of an urban area, require the coutty to work with the city on iransportan m hnpacts, Richard Klyce DCPC 12/14/09 Deschutes County Commissioners As Planning Commissioners we have been encouraged to express our views to you regarding the Destination Resort Remapping ordinances. In my view the two ordinances which were presented to the Planning Commission did not embody the concepts which were agreed to at the joint BOCC/DCPC meeting. Specifically the ordinances unmapped everyone, imposed new, more restrictive criteria, and then allowed back on the map only those properties which met the new criteria and only if the property owners specifically asked to be mapped. This is why we felt it necessary to add an amendment which would "grandfather" those properties currently mapped. Under the amendment all the landowners need to do is notify the County of their wishes. While they do not need to meet the new restrictions we felt requiring the active step of notification would cut down the number of mapped properties. The "grandfather amendment" fulfills the wishes of the BOCC as expressed at the Joint Session and at the 12/9/09 Working Session. This assumes the County does a more than adequate job of notifying property owners of the potential changes. Because of the high stakes involved I feel the County should go farther than the legally required minimums for notification. Personally, I do not feel efforts to date are adequate, however a revised flier inserted in next years tax bill would go a long way toward satisfying adequate notice. Thank you for your time. Richard Klyce Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner DATE: January 8, 2010 HEARING: January 20, 2010 SUBJECT: Destination Resort Remapping / Summarizing Planning Commission Testimony The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners asked staff, at their January 6 work session, to summarize destination resort remapping testimony submitted into the record during the Planning Commission's November 19 and December 2 public hearings. The purpose of the summary is to prepare them for their hearing on January 20. Summary of Destination Resort Remapping Testimony November 19 Public Hearing Prohibit destination resorts within 5 air miles of Bend's UGB. The following issues warrant attention: • Costs of destination resorts • Percentage of economic activity at resorts' that are a diversion from other existing visitor -serving amenities • Value of wildlife • Costs of public services • Are taxes levied on resorts collected in full • True costs and benefits of destination resorts • Penalties preventing construction of less than the required amount of overnight unitsbefore permanent lots are sold • Stronger enforcement • Mitigation fund which could be forfeited to the County if not used • High wildfire risk should be exempt from eligibility Questions the haste of the current destination resort remapping process. Safety of the natural environment is an important criteria for siting a resort. Develop a full soils map and overlay it on the existing resort map, showing that it complies with high value soils (Soil 65A) Safety concerns in Tumalo resulting from resort development that have not been addressed; transportation an ongoing issue. Encourage smaller resorts which would have a minimal impact on services. Postpone final mapping process until the Comprehensive Plan policies have been finalized regarding resort size and location:' Quality Services Performed with Pride November 19 Public Hearing Requests properties of Tess than 160 acres be included so that parcels can be combined. Clarify "lots," "parcels," "sites," etc., in the generic sense versus legal terminology. Allow at least 90 days for people to file applications after the Board's decision. Developers of large-scale destination resorts have to spend a lot of money to build. Tourists visit es, contributing to the local economy. Oppose a five -mile resort prohibition from Bend's;UGB. F-1 land should be eligible for resorts. Areas within the Deschutes Basin may not be acceptable for resorts (ex. aquifer under Thornburgh site). Require a map amendment applicant to pay for transportation, water, safety, height, environmental, and wildlife studies. Develop a list of independent firms to perform the studies before remapping amendments are adopted. Preserve open space and consider the lifestyle and great places to live in Deschutes County before considering remapping areas for new resorts. Pronghorn is nothing but a subdivision. The rernapping amendments should be continued beyond February 2010. Remove all the eligible land from the destination resort map. Consider a moratorium on new resorts. Destination resorts are an attack on state land use laws and have nothing to do with providing a service. Mapping depends in large part on whether the resorts cater to rural subdivisions or whether they cater to tourism and include overnight housing. Identify the amount of room and property taxes collected from each resort. No more destination resorts. Protect public resources dike water, fish and wildlife. Exclude resorts within 10 miles of a UGB or 10 miles from an existing destination resort. Require economic assessment which affirmatively demonstrates clear and positive economic development for the region before approving new resorts. Repeal existing destination resort map. Need a scientific water survey. A new map must take into consideration threatened or endangered species as well as analyses where development would diminish wildlife or their habitat. Strengthen siting requirements for resorts No further destination resorts in the south county groundwater study area. Allow small destination resorts Current siting criteria too restrictive. Rely solely on state statute. Allow contiguous properties less than 160 acres to be eligible. 2 November 19 Public Hearing Opposed to any effort aimed at facilitating additional resort development in the countythat does not first take serious steps to address the numerous issues pertaining to traffic, affordable housing, wildlife, groundwater, and impacts to neighbors and neighboring, communities. Opposed to development models so heavily focused on the sale of real estate for residential purposes as opposed to the generation of true tourism.. Troubled by' the fact that Deschutes County continues to invest substantial time, andeffort into remapping at a time whenthe issue remains so clearly in play at the state level., Put this portion of the comprehensive plan update on the back burner until there is clarity at the state level. Destination resort development leads to loss of critical deer and elk habitat. Developed areas become at risk for wildfire Limit destination resorts to those areas tfiiat relate .to and showcase rural agricultural and natural resources, leaving more urban recreation activities to urban areas, Encourage a variety of resort sizes that focus on the diversity of natural resources. Development regulations must apply equallyto both large and small resorts. Restrict residences and non-naturalresource related recreational uses so more property owners, investors, and developers might be attracted to the resort field: Oppose destination resorts because it allows suburbia to interfere with the rural lifestyle. Resorts and tourism provide few high paying jobs once the initial construction is completed, Revenue from a potential increase in taxes should be weighed against loses in quality of life (open space, natural habitat, farm, and forest). Don't need more traffic Rural areas should be protected from resort development December 2 Public Hearing Clarify acknowledged Goal 5 planning program Destination resorts provide an important tax based to local fire districts. Destination resorts do not reduce but actually add to the safety of areas by installing fire hydrants and implementing defensible space Destination resorts are good for the economy. There is more wildlife in developed areas. Golf courses use less water per acre than agricultural crops. Destination resorts are sited on land that is beautiful and generally less productive for farming. It would lessen the impact on irrigated agriculture if resorts were encouraged to be sited on irrigated land. Resorts use far Tess public services than they provide. Simplify the destination, resort remaping process. Fish and wildlife are important for the livability of Deschutes County. No resorts in the County have met state criteria. 3 December 2 Public Hearing Collect more data from independent studies before embarking;on a remapping program. Evaluate the Central Oregon Land Watch report, documenting the socio- economic impacts ofdestination resorts. Deschutes County needs updated wildlife inventories because it is important to protect recreational resources. Standards set forth in the amendments should be upheld and strengthened where resorts have failed to provide the economic development as promised. A moratorium on new resort applications should: be put in place until existing resorts are fully built out and we know they are economically viable land use decisions and not new county liabilities. Special consideration should be given to: wildlan urban interface, groundwater flows, especially to Whychus Creek, open space and non- motorized recreation, and rural livability. Protect wildlife connectivity: Prevent land use decisions from creating ecological islands Allow adjacent properties to combine with each other, but only if at least one of the properties is already greater than 160 acres. Current siting language is too restrictive and does not meet intent of Goal 8. Destination resort language should be streamlined to be more in line with state statute. Oppose 5-mile prohibition of destination resorts from Bend's UGB. AIIow contiguous property owners, less than 160 acres, to qualify for eligibility. Permit properties smaller than 160 acres to be combined with contiguous properties to satisfy the 160-acre requirement for resort eligibility. Develop a vision. Acknowledge public regulations and lands that restrict resort development. Identify appropriate County locational criteria. 4 Offer in May auction. Waiting for decision on appeal of land use decision for partition. TID will develop road. Very appealing location but need to perfect access. Partition before offering for sale? Appealing location in residential zone. Potential for attractive Homesites. Need to perfect access. Partition before offering for sale? Includes some tax deed property. Near recently approved DSL cluster development. Partition before offering for sale? Simpson Ave — 80 acres Demo landfill. Possible Brownfield Development. If any changes at the Bend Airport make this land more attractive, move higher on priority list. O O O 0 in 1-F Tumalo-Gerking Mkt Rd — 40 2011 850,000 acres 816,000 O O O 0 O 000`OGZ 1,926,000 O O N Smith Rock Way — 280 acres 2012 M O N O N Rickard Rd — 700+ acres 2015 McGrath Rd - 300 acres 67 Greenwood 31st St, Redmond — 8 acres O'Neill Jct, Redmond — 80 acres Redmond 215 acres Redmond 1600 acres - .---(J z N va Q ti .-• o N 4r`( -4.e y• + . -, -4 "74,4.+ yam, . ,r� � -< Ili IP. • • f _ a :ftr‘ 11441.k" ire ,* 'i. R 4 `q at < 44, • 40* • � - 3�4., • i�. of g T� TUMALO, HWY 20/GERKING MARKET RD SMITH ROCK 31st ST., REDMOND State of Oregon Proposed Cluster Development GRIBBL-ING=RD ;RD z a Lir z SUPREME -CT- 2 z w z C) BACCHUS+L--1\l— m i SUFERIO GT II RICKARD-RD ii 0 cc K BARR-RD; J rY l I z sC, a w oma_ CHISHOI:MiTRL Li /. .Q I: m \ <A \ / 7 ;jQ� i C. U7 BTERFIELE TRL .73 County Owned P ° FEDERAL- LAN STATE LAND 2400 NE MAPLE AVE, REDMOND 4' SVvYCh01:LANE', : I jcm :r.. 1812060000100 19755 SIMPSON AVE, BIEND MC GRATH RD, BEND