The URL can be used to link to this page

2011-113-Minutes for Meeting February 23,2011 Recorded 4/11/2011DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS Cd 411.113 NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 1111111 11111 04/11/201104:10:37 PM IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII~I 2011-113 Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page 11. 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, FEBRUARY 23, 2011 Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Alan Unger and Tony DeBone. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; and, for a portion of the meeting, Tracy Scott, Personnel; George Read, Terri Payne and Nick Lelack, Community Development; and Laurie Craghead, County Counsel. Also in attendance was media representative Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin and eight other citizens. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:35 p.m. 1. Discussion of Endorsement of National Career Readiness Certificate. This item was presented last week but the Commissioners wanted some time to review the information. Commissioner Unger supports the program, as he feels it would help with making placements more successful. He added that having a diploma by itself does not necessarily mean the person can do what the job requires. This can help the employer and potential employee come up with the best match. Chair Baney feels as long as it is non-discriminatory, she supports the effort. She would want to revisit it if a fee is attached later. Commissioner DeBone said that he feels it is an unnecessary layer of intrusion and does not support it. UNGER: Move support of the program and endorsement of the certificate. BANEY: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: No. (Split vote.) BANEY: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 23, 2011 Page 1 of 6 Pages Erik Kropp said the County could announce that the NCRC is welcome and people are encouraged to apply. It could also be offered to employees who might want this kind of training, but on their own time. 2. Comprehensive Plan Review. Terri Payne introduced the next part of the Comprehensive Plan review, which deals with resource lands. The use of these lands is tightly regulated, and the intent was originally to preserve natural resources through agricultural lands, and for economic reasons. Urban expansion into rural areas creates conflict, and the cost is high for infrastructure, etc. There is also a loss of open space and natural beauty. Incentives were encouraged to mitigate the impacts to the property owners. Goal 3 required an inventory of farmland. Soil classes in eastern Oregon are 1 through 6, but the Goal talks about other lands not suitable for agricultural or property that impact nearby farmland. In 1979, the County did not classify all lands, but looked at what was being irrigated. If it was not already platted or developed, and was not forest land, the remaining land was classified as agricultural. In 1992, a study was done and it was found that irrigation made the difference, so seven new subzones were developed. The State requires a minimum of 80 acres for farmland and 160 for grazing, but the County has a few subzones that are below the requirement for minimum lot size. Nick Lelack said that a lot of people from other areas point out the difference and question why the County would want to have properties even smaller in size. Ms. Payne stated that the climate and altitude have a lot to do with things as well. Farming in this area cannot be competitive. Public input was obtained from large acreage commercial farmers, who say farming is not profitable in this area. Some had been trying to do so for years. Small farmers asked for more flexibility in the use of their land. The income test for farm help is a factor. There is not a lot of support for what they want to do. Hobby farmers like to grow their own food and like the open space, but it is not profitable. The Planning Commission was very involved in this phase and some want to rethink totally how this is handled. However, legally there is not a lot of flexibility. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 23, 2011 Page 2 of 6 Pages The policies look first at meeting State requirements. It may be possible for someone to come in and prove their land is not suitable for agricultural and get the zoning changed. Supplemental activities were analyzed as well. Agri- tourism may be one way to supplement farm uses. Legislation was passed last session that allows people to amend mapping errors. It has to be done in conjunction with DLCD. Chair Baney asked how to defend the policies that are decided upon. Ms. Payne stated it would be the applicant's responsibility to state that the land was not accurately mapped. Mr. Lelack stated that it could cost thousands of dollars just for the process, not including whatever has to be paid to specialists. If the County initiates the change, there would be less cost involved. Dave Kanner asked about policy 2.29. Ms. Payne said this does not include events but other agricultural uses. There is no policy included to support a study of private parks or events. Mr. Lelack said this is the time and place to investigate this issue. Commissioner Unger asked about MUA zoning. Ms. Payne said MUA is considered rural residential. She is not sure of the exact differences between RR-10 and MUA-10, but knows that MUA counts more towards residential than agricultural. Mr. Lelack stated that this is the first county to try to come up with a definition of agri-tourism. A legislative concept is being discussed at the State level, but has probably not been introduced. The use would have to be subordinate to the agricultural use. Commissioner Unger noted that the `big look' did not get the attention it needed. He asked if the idea is still viable. Mr. Lelack said that the idea of allowing counties more flexibility did not make it into the newer version. In regard to farm worker housing, there are a lot of restrictions under State law. Commissioner Unger asked how they could help to support generational farming and keep families on farms. Ms. Payne said that an additional residence might be allowed, but the criteria are very inflexible. The biggest issue is that no one can seem to make a profit by farming. The money generated locally from farming is a small amount compared to other uses of the land. LUBA has determined that profitability is not a factor in how the land is used. However, it is hard to not consider economic viability when building this document. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 23, 2011 Page 3 of 6 Pages Mr. Lelack said that there are a lot of factors to consider, such as the poor soils, the rocks, and the necessity for irrigation. Ms. Payne said the State wants to preserve agricultural land in whatever form. There is only so much that can be done. Mr. Lelack would like to see more flexibility regarding how people can use their farmland, to keep the land in or available for agricultural use. Commissioner Unger stated that success is measured by economics within cities. Ms. Payne replied that the counties are supposed to protect the resources and support agriculture. The public emphasized that they can only make a living if they have outside work. State law got very detailed when lobbying occurred and someone got specific wording put into law. These changes do not always assist the local farming community. The focus should be how to help farmers be successful within the confinements of the law. Commissioner Unger asked if the last twenty years were examined to see if change is needed. In the debate, a lot of the language was softened to allow more consideration of potential uses. This is something on which the Board has already taken a stand. In regard to forestlands, the language came out mostly from agricultural rules. Chair Baney said she is hesitant to include language related to Skyline Forest. Ms. Payne indicated there was a lot of debate when the Skyline Forest Authority was formed in recent years. Chair Baney asked if it is necessary for this specific language to be in the Comprehensive Plan. A lot of the language talks about coordinating and cooperating, but it might not be beneficial. Mr. Lelack said that it was hard to get agreement within the Planning Commission as well. He thought they could shorten up the language and be a little more vague if that would help. Commissioner Unger asked about the challenges of weeds, and locations such as the Lower Bridge dicolite mining site. He feels a management plan is needed. Ms. Payne said there are two goals that affect water resources; Goal 5 for wetlands and Goal 6 for land, air and water quality. Goal 6 says that local entities are tasked with making sure there is no pollution. It is not very specific. It is the longest chapter and there are a number of issues tied to it. Most of the debate was on the role of the County, although there was a fair amount of agreement. Ms. Craghead added that the focus is mostly on the Deschutes River basin, but there are other locations as well. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 23, 2011 Page 4 of 6 Pages Section 2.5.5 encourages conservation on the part of the County, mostly by setting an example. Section 2.5.18 has to do with south County; identifying water quality problems, sewers and similar issues. Section 2.5.25 has to do with intergovernmental agreements with irrigation districts and others. They want to know about potential lot line adjustments and other changes to the land since it can affect how they use their systems. Mr. Lelack stated that a lot of input has come in from nonprofits and others who want support when they apply for grants or other funding. Section 2.6 refers to wildlife, a Goal 5 resource. There is a wildlife combining zones for migration, animal ranges, and specific sites. The Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife was asked for an up to date inventory. They talked to federal fish & wildlife and the BLM, and put together a consolidated report. It has been somewhat controversial. The initial idea was to update the inventory during the comprehensive plan process. The County will have to review ordinances to make sure they are well coordinated. Fish & Wildlife recommend adding the spotted frog found along the rivers. The Planning Commission wanted to ignore the study and felt that these agencies should not be giving recommendations. The public was divided, with concerns about sage grouse and wildlife protection in general, but also property rights. Section 2.6.2 addresses this. The Planning Commission still does not support including the interagency study information. Mr. Lelack stated that the Planning Commission wanted to refer just to input from expert sources. They are trying to look at wildlife, fire, water and road issues. It is a shame to have expert input and not pay attention to it. The combining zone applies usually along rivers and roads. Staff recommends the language but the Planning Commission said it is too specific. It was left in as a placeholder. 3. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules. Commissioner Unger stated that there are nine points of concern over HB 2229, regarding the watershed council. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 23, 2011 Page 5 of 6 Pages The County has a radio segment scheduled for March 9. The annual meeting with the 911 Board is scheduled for March 15. Commissioner DeBone stated that he has been and will be attending various meetings having to do with La Pine area issues: transportation corridor, water and sewer groups. Mr. Kanner observed that 90% of what the County does is mandated by the State, but some State agencies do not seem to understand this. 4. Other Items. Mr. Kanner asked if anyone is willing to testify on SB 83, which has to do with retrofits. Commissioner DeBone said he is willing but will need staff to help out. Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 3:25 p.m. DATED this Z Day of 2011 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Dt~~ Tammy Baney, Chair zA0h4-,,- ATTEST: Recording Secretary Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair ~/Ua4l aAlan Unger, Commissioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 23, 2011 Page 6 of 6 Pages 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 WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2011 1. Discussion of Endorsement of National Career Readiness Certificate 2. Comprehensive Plan Review - Nick Lelack, Peter Gutowsky, Terri Payne 3. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules 4. Other Items 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), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; 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. V 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. co H L s U co C ,a m N •co o M C ~ a M ~ J lv V V r ~ J Q ~ ~ v - o L O 1 Oregon National Career Readiness Certificate Endorsement of the Oregon Certificate r( ( The following organization endorses Oregon's National Career Readiness Certificate NC RC) for employee recruitment, hiring and training, and gives permission to use its name for public awareness efforts to .promote the NCRC. Organization Information Organization Name Address City County State Zip Key Contact Name Key Contact Title Key Contact Phone Number Key Contact E-mail Industry Current number of members (or employees) Signature Date Please fax this letter without a cover page to: (503) 378-3365 If you have other questions, please contact Todd Nell, NCRC Program Administrator, Oregon Department of Community Colleges and Workforce Development, (503) 947-2406 or Todd.Nell@state.or.us WORKSOURCE The Oregon NCRC program was funded partly with MA Title 1 B, and American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds, VOREGON administered by the Oregon Department of Community Colleges and Workforce Development. The Oregon NCRC is an equal opportunity program. Auxliary aids and services are available upon request to individuals with disabilities. 08/10 Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Draft Comprehensive Plan Work Session Schedule 2011 March 9 Work Session Topic Noteworthy Issues and/or Policies Chapter 2, Resource Management Section 2.8 Energy No major issues Section 2.9 Environmental Quality No major issues Section 2.10 Surface Mining No major issues Section 2.11 Cultural and Historic Policies may need to change due to the intent of Resources Bend, La Pine and Redmond to create their own Landmark Commissions Chapter 5, Supplemental Sections - no goals or policies in this chapter Section 5.1 Introduction n/a Includes a definition of agri-tourism Section 5.2 Glossary and Acronyms Defining private parks was discussed, but a definition was not added Section 5.3 Goal 5 Water Resources n/a Section 5.4 Goal 5 Wildlife Resources n/a Section 5.5 Goal 5 Open Spaces, Scenic Views and Sites resources n/a Section 5.6 Goal 5 Energy Resources n/a Section 5.7 Goal 5 Wilderness, Natural Areas and Recreation Trails n/a Section 5.8 Goa15 Mineral and Aggregate Resources n/a Section 5.9 Cultural and Historic Resources n/a Section 5.10 Goal Exception Statements n/a Section 5.11 Legislative History n/a Additional Discussion Points Preamble Proposed and revised by the Planning Commission Maps Goal 5 maps removed from the draft Findings Coordination with Legal Counsel -4- Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Draft Comprehensive Plan Work Session Schedule 2011 February 23 Work Session Topic Noteworthy Issues and/or Policies Chapter 2, Resource Management - Section 2.1 Introduction No goals or policies, just background Adds policies to retain current farm designations but to reevaluate farm land Section 2.2 Agricultural Lands Adds policies to support farming and other uses compatible with farming Section 2.3 Forest Lands No major issues Section 2.4 Goal 5 Resource Policy 2.4.1 refers to reviewing all Goal 5 inventories Overview and programs - Long section, considerable discussion on County's Section 2.5 Water Resources role - there was consensus on the final goals and policies Long section, considerable discussion Policy 2.6.3 is a staff recommendation on the Section 2.6 Wildlife Interagency Report on wildlife that can be found at www.deschutes.org/cdd under comprehensive plan update then reports Section 2.7 Open Spaces, Scenic Policy 2.7.5(d) includes a staff recommendation Views and Sites -3- Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Draft Comprehensive Plan Work Session Schedule 2011 March 9 Work Session Topic Noteworthy Issues and/or Policies Chapter 2, Resource Management Section 2.8 Energy No major issues Section 2.9 Environmental Quality No major issues Section 2.10 Surface Mining No major issues Section 2.11 Cultural and Historic Policies may need to change due to the intent of Resources Bend, La Pine and Redmond to create their own Landmark Commissions Chapter 5, Supplemental Sections - no goals or policies in this chapter Section 5.1 Introduction n/a Includes a definition of agri-tourism Section 5.2 Glossary and Acronyms Defining private parks was discussed, but a definition was not added Section 5.3 Goal 5 Water Resources n/a Section 5.4 Goal 5 Wildlife Resources n/a Section 5.5 Goal 5 Open Spaces, n/a Scenic Views and Sites resources Section 5.6 Goal 5'Energy Resources n/a Section 5.7 Goal 5 Wilderness, n/a Natural Areas and Recreation Trails Section 5.8 Goa15 Mineral and n/a Aggregate Resources Section 5.9 Cultural and Historic n/a Resources Section 5.10 Goal Exception n/a Statements Section 5.11 Legislative History n/a Additional Discussion Points Preamble Proposed and revised by the Planning Commission Maps Goal 5 maps removed from the draft Findings Coordination with Legal Counsel -4- Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Draft Comprehensive Plan Work Session Schedule 2011 February 23 Work Session Topic Noteworthy Issues and/or Policies Chapter 2, Resource Management Section 2.1 Introduction No goals or policies, just background Adds policies to retain current farm designations but Section 2.2 Agricultural Lands to reevaluate farm land Adds policies to support farming and other uses compatible with farming Section 2.3 Forest Lands No major issues Section 2.4 Goal 5 Resource Policy 2.4.1 refers to reviewing all Goal 5 inventories Overview and programs Long section, considerable discussion on County's Section 2.5 Water Resources role - there was consensus on the final goals and policies Long section, considerable discussion Policy 2.6.3 is a staff recommendation on the " Section 2.5 Wildlife Interagency Report on wildlife that can be found at www.deschutes.org/cdd under comprehensive plan update then reports Section 2.7 Open Spaces, Scenic policy 2.7.5(d) includes a staff recommendation Views and Sites -3- Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Draft Comprehensive Plan Work Session Schedule 2011 March 9 Work Session Topic Noteworthy Issues and/or Policies Chapter 2, Resource Management Section 2.8 Energy No major issues Section 2.9 Environmental Quality No major issues Section 2.10 Surface Mining No major issues Section 2.11 Cultural and Historic Policies may need to change due to the intent of Resources Bend, La Pine and Redmond to create their own Landmark Commissions Chapter 5, Supplemental Sections - no goals or policies in this chapter Section 5.1 Introduction n/a Includes a definition of agri-tourism Section 5.2 Glossary and Acronyms Defining private parks was discussed, but a definition was not added Section 5.3 Goal 5 Water Resources n/a Section 5.4 Goal 5 Wildlife Resources n/a Section 5.5 Goal 5 Open Spaces, n/a Scenic Views and Sites resources Section 5.6 Goal 5 Energy Resources n/a Section 5.7 Goal 5 Wilderness, n/a Natural Areas and Recreation Trails Section 5.8 Goals Mineral and n/a Aggregate Resources Section 5.9 Cultural and Historic n/a Resources Section 5.10 Goal Exception n/a Statements Section 5.11 Legislative History n/a Additional Discussion Points Preamble Proposed and revised by the Planning Commission Maps Goal 5 maps removed from the draft Findings Coordination with Legal Counsel -4- Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Draft Comprehensive Plan Work Session Schedule 2011 February 23 Work Session Topic Noteworthy Issues and/or Policies Chapter 2, Resource Management Section 2.1 Introduction No goals or policies, just background Adds policies to retain current farm designations but to reevaluate farm land Section 2.2 Agricultural Lands Adds policies to support farming and other uses compatible with farming Section 2.3 Forest Lands No major issues Section 2.4 Goal 5 Resource Policy 2.4.1 refers to reviewing all Goal 5 inventories Overview and programs - Long section, considerable discussion on County's Section 2.5 Water Resources role -there was consensus on the final goals and policies Long section, considerable discussion Policy 2.6.3 is a staff recommendation on the Section 2.6 Wildlife Interagency Report on wildlife that can be found at www,deschutes.org/cdd under comprehensive plan update then reports Section 2.7 Open Spaces, Scenic policy 2.7.5(d) includes a staff recommendation Views and Sites -3- Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Draft Comprehensive Plan Work Session Schedule 2011 March 9 Work Session Topic T Noteworthy Issues and/or Policies Chapter 2, Resource Management Section 2.8 Energy No major issues Section 2.9 Environmental Quality No major issues Section 2.10 Surface Mining No major issues Section 2.11 Cultural and Historic Policies may need to change due to the intent of Resources Bend, La Pine and Redmond to create their own Landmark Commissions Chapter 5, Supplemental Sections - no goals or policies in this chapter Section 5.1 Introduction n/a Includes a definition of agri-tourism Section 5.2 Glossary and Acronyms Defining private parks was discussed, but a definition was not added Section 5.3 Goal 5 Water Resources n/a Section 5.4 Goal 5 Wildlife Resources n/a Section 5.5 Goal 5 Open Spaces, n/a Scenic Views and Sites resources Section 5.6 Goal 5 Energy Resources n/a Section 5.7 Goal 5 Wilderness, n/a Natural Areas and Recreation Trails Section 5.8 Goals Mineral and n/a Aggregate Resources Section 5.9 Cultural and Historic n/a Resources Section 5.10 Goal Exception n/a Statements Section 5.11 Legislative History n/a Additional Discussion Points Preamble Proposed and revised by the Planning Commission Maps Goal 5 maps removed from the draft Findings Coordination with Legal Counsel -4- Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Draft Comprehensive Plan Work Session Schedule 2011 February 23 Work Session Topic Noteworthy Issues and/or Policies Chapter 2, Resource Management Section 2.1 Introduction No goals or policies, just background Adds policies to retain current farm designations but Section 2.2 Agricultural Lands to reevaluate farm land Adds policies to support farming and other uses compatible with farming Section 2.3 Forest Lands No major issues Section 2.4 Goal 5 Resource Policy 2.4.1 refers to reviewing all Goal 5 inventories Overview and programs Long section, considerable discussion on County's Section 2.5 Water Resources role -there was consensus on the final goals and policies Long section, considerable discussion Policy 2.6.3 is a staff recommendation on the Section 2.6 Wildlife Interagency Report on wildlife that can be found at www.deschutes.org/cdd under comprehensive plan update then reports Section 2.7 Open Spaces, Scenic Policy 2.7.5(d) includes a staff recommendation Views and Sites -3- Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Draft Comprehensive Plan Work Session Schedule 2011 March 9 Work Session Topic T Noteworthy Issues and/or Policies Chapter 2, Resource Management Section 2.8 Energy No major issues Section 2.9 Environmental Quality No major issues Section 2.10 Surface Mining No major issues Section 2.11 Cultural and Historic Policies may need to change due to the intent of Resources Bend, La Pine and Redmond to create their own Landmark Commissions Chapter 5, Supplemental Sections - no goals or policies in this chapter Section 5.1 Introduction n/a Includes a definition of agri-tourism Section 5.2 Glossary and Acronyms Defining private parks was discussed, but a definition was not added Section 5.3 Goal 5 Water Resources n/a Section 5.4 Goal 5 Wildlife Resources n/a Section 5.5 Goal 5 Open Spaces, n/a Scenic Views and Sites resources Section 5.6 Goal 5 Energy Resources n/a Section 5.7 Goal 5 Wilderness, n/a Natural Areas and Recreation Trails Section 5.8 Goals Mineral and n/a Aggregate Resources Section 5.9 Cultural and Historic n/a Resources Section 5.10 Goal Exception n/a Statements Section 5.11 Legislative History n/a Additional Discussion Points Preamble Proposed and revised by the Planning Commission Maps Goal 5 maps removed from the draft Findings Coordination with Legal Counsel -4- Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Draft Comprehensive Plan Work Session Schedule 2011 February 23 Work Session Topic Noteworthy Issues and/or Policies Chapter 2, Resource Management Section 2.1 Introduction No goals or policies, just background Adds policies to retain current farm designations but to reevaluate farm land Section 2.2 Agricultural Lands Adds policies to support farming and other uses compatible with farming Section 2.3 Forest Lands No major issues Section 2.4 Goal 5 Resource Policy 2.4.1 refers to reviewing all Goal 5 inventories Overview and programs Long section, considerable discussion on County's Section 2.5 Water Resources role - there was consensus on the final goals and policies Long section, considerable discussion Policy 2.6.3 is a staff recommendation on the Section 2.6 Wildlife Interagency Report on wildlife that can be found at www.deschutes.org/cdd' under comprehensive plan update then reports Section 2.7 Open Spaces, Scenic Policy 2.7.5(d) includes a staff recommendation Views and Sites -3- July 6, 2009 Deschutes County Planning Division 1130 NW Harriman Street Bend, Oregon 97701 RE: Recommendations from the Interagency Wildlife Working Group on the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Update Dear Deschutes County: In response to a request from Deschutes County to provide up-to-date wildlife information for the County's Comprehensive Plan Update, a group of local interagency wildlife experts from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, US Fish.and Wildlife Service, US Bureau of Land Management and US Forest Service convened a working group (Interagency Working Group). The enclosed document provides wildlife information to support the Comprehensive Plan Update and includes recommendations from the Interagency Working Group concerning necessary wildlife conservation measures to include in Deschutes County's Comprehensive Plan. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Update. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact members of the working group listed herein. Sincerely, ODFW High Desert Region Manager . . AXW-1 ~ 4,nt USFWS Bend Field Office Supervisor US Forest Service Deschutes National Forest Supervisor / f--J UVi BLM i Y Prineville District Manager g 2009 J BY: p~ Updated- Wildlife Information and Recommendations for the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Update Prepared by: An Interagency Working Group Jennifer O'Reilly (USFWS), Glenn Ardt (ODFW) Jan Hanf (BLM), Rick Demmer (BLM) and Lauri Turner (USFS) 7/6/2009 Table of Contents Economic Value of Fish and Wildlife Recreation in Deschutes County ..6 Oregon Conservation Strategy ..7 ODFW Fish and Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Policy ..8 Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern ..8 Riparian and wetland areas for wildlife and fish ..9 Shrub-Steppe Habitat 13 Critical Bird & Mammal Sites 19 Game Species 20 Energy Development 23 Tables Table 1: 2008 Fishing, Hunting, & Wildlife Viewing Expenditures in Deschutes County 7 Table 2: Threatened, endangered and species of concern dependent on floodplain areas in Deschutes County ..................................................................................:........:..:.......:.................10 Table 3: Threatened, endangered and species of concern dependent on sagebrush steppe habitat in Deschutes County ..............:.........................................................................:..............14 Table 4: Big game population estimates, Deschutes County 2009 ..................................:.........21 Figures Figure 1: Winter deer population in Paulina Unit ......................................................................22 Figure 2: Winter deer population in Upper Deschutes Unit ......................................................22 Appendices Appendix A1: Bald eagle nest sites occupied and protected by Deschutes County 25 Appendix A2: Bald Eagle nest sites currently protected by Deschutes County and no longer in use ...........................................................................................:...............................26 Appendix A3: Bald Eagle nest sites that are occupied and not protected by Deschutes Countv ........................................................................................................................27 Appendix B1: Golden Eagle nest sites that are occupied and protected by Deschutes County 28 Appendix B2: Golden Eagle nest sites not protected by Deschutes County and currently in use ....................:...................................................................................................................:.29 3 Appendix Cl: Sage Grouse lek sites that are in use and currently protected by Deschutes County .................30 Appendix C2: Sage Grouse lek sites currently protected by Deschutes County and no longer in use ......................:...................................................................................................................31 Appendix C3 Sage Grouse lek sites not currently protected by Deschutes County and currently in use 31 Appendix C4: Name change for Sage Grouse lek site currently protected by Deschutes County 31 Appendix D: Prairie Falcon nest sites currently occupied and protected by Deschutes County.32 Appendix E1: Heron Rookery site currently in use and protected by Deschutes County 32 Appendix E2: Heron Rookery site currently protected by Deschutes County and.no longer in use 32 Appendix F: Great Grey Owl nest site currently in use and protected by Deschutes County.... 32 Appendix G: Bat sites currently in use and protected by Deschutes County ..............................32 Appendix H: Use period, abundance and special status of select mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles in Deschutes County 2009 .......................................................................................33 T.TCT AF V1D1 DAi?TIDQ Glen Ardt - ODFW Chris Carey = ODFW Wildlife Habitat Biologist Wildlife Diversity Biologist 61374 Parrell Road 61374 Parrell Road Bend, Oregon 97702 Bend, Oregon 97702 541-388-6444 ex 230 541-388-6350 ex 228 Rick Demmer Steven George - ODFW Bureau of Land Management Wildlife Biologist Prineville District 61374 Parrell Road 3050 NE Third Street Bend, Oregon 97702 Prineville, OR 97754 541-388-6363 541-416-6738 Jan Hanf Jennifer O'Reilly Bureau of Land Management Fish and Wildlife Biologist Prineville District US Fish and Wildlife Service -Bend Field Office 3050 NE Third Street 20310 Empire Avenue Suite A-100 Prineville, OR 97754 Bend, OR 97701 541-416-6721 541-312-6426 Lauri Turner Deschutes National Forest Forest Wildlife Biologist .1001 SW Emkay Drive Bend, Oregon 97702 541-383-5640 5 Economic Value of Fish and Wildlife Recreation in Deschutes County The Interagency Working Group recommends that Deschutes County consider the economic impact or benefit to wildlife resources when making a decision that could affect wildlife populations or their habitats to limit conflicting use. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Travel Oregon contracted with Dean Runyan and Associates in 2008 to conduct an economic analysis by county of Fishing, Hunting Wildlife Viewing, and Shellfishing Recreation in Oregon: 2008 -Trip Characteristics and Expenditure Estimates. The survey identified two distinct type of expenditures related to fishing, hunting, shellfish and wildlife viewing trips. Travel related expenditures were for trips of more than 50-miles one way or included an overnight stay. Local recreation trips were less than 50-miles one way. Preliminary results for the 36 county economic analyses revealed that travel generated expenditures for fishing, hunting, and wildlife viewing trips to Deschutes County generated nearly $70-million. Expenditures for fishing trips in Deschutes County were the third highest in the state at. $20,410,000, the second highest for hunting at $6,663,000, and the third highest for wildlife viewing at $42,771,000. Dean Runyan and Associates also found that out of the $478,781,000 expenditures generated by people traveling to Deschutes County that 14.6% came from fishing,. hunting, and wildlife viewing activities. Preliminary results also revealed for locally generated expenditures, that fishing trips in Deschutes County generated the fourth highest in the state at $5,321,000, the fifth highest for hunting ($1,817,000); and the ninth highest for wildlife viewing at $1,520,000. Additive, residents and non-residents spent $25,731,000 on fishing trips in Deschutes County, $8,480,000 on.hunting trips, and $44,291,000 on wildlife watching for a grand total of $78,502,000. Compared to Oregon's 36 counties, Deschutes County ranked third highest for fishing, hunting, and wildlife viewing revenues, behind Lincoln County's $102,605,000 and Clatsop County's $84,967,000, both of which provide saltwater, salmon and steelhead, and shellfishing opportunities..Freshwater fishing trips mi Deschutes County generated the highest fresh water revenues at $25,731,000, with Lane and Tillamook Counties generating the second and third highest revenues at $22,703,000 and $15,557,000 respectively. Shellfishing generated an additional $36,295,000 in revenue resulting in over one billion dollars being spent on fishing, hunting, wildlife viewing, and shellfishing activities in Oregon in 2008. Table 1: 2008 Fishing, Hunting, & Wildlife Viewing Expenditures in Deschutes County Activity Fishing Hunting Wildlife Viewing. Total FHW Total Travel Generated Travel Generated Revenue 20,410,000 6,663,000 42,771,000 69,844,000 478,781,000 14.6% FHW 36 County Rankin 3 2 3 3 Locally Generated Revenue 5,321,000 1,817,000 1,520,000 8,658,000 36 County Rankin 4 5 9 4 Deschutes Total **25,731,000 8,480,000 44;291,000 78,502,000 Statewide Total 341,510,000 136,032,000 495,260,000 972,802,000 Deschutes County generated the highest freshwater fishing revenues in the state. Oregon Conservation Strategy The Interagency Working Group recommends that Deschutes County utilize the Oregon Conservation Strategy as a guide and reference for the maintenance and enhancement of Oregon's wildlife resource to limit conflicting use. In 2006 the Oregon Conservation Strategy was adopted by Oregon's Fish and Wildlife Commission for the state of Oregon. The focus of the Conservation Strategy is to use the best available science to create abroad vision and conceptual framework for long-term conservation of Oregon's native fish and wildlife, as well as various invertebrates and native plants. As a guide to conserving the species and habitats that have defined the nature of Oregon, this strategy can help ensure that Oregon's natural treasures are passed on to future generations. The Conservation Strategy emphasizes proactively conserving declining species and habitats to reduce the-possibility of future federal or state listings. It is not a regulatory document, but instead presents issues and opportunities, and recommends. voluntary actions that will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of conservation in Oregon. Healthy fish and wildlife populations require adequate habitat, which is provided in. natural systems and, for many species, in landscapes managed for forestry, agriculture, range and urban uses. The goals of the Conservation Strategy are to maintain healthy fish and wildlife populations by maintaining and restoring functioning habitats, preventing declines of at-risk species, and reversing declines in these resources where possible. The Conservation Strategy is a broad strategy for all of Oregon, offering potential roles and opportunities. for residents, agencies and organizations. It incorporates information and insights from abroad range of natural resources assessments and conservation plans, supplemented by the professional expertise and practical experiences of across-section of Oregon's resource managers and conservation interests. It is designed to have a variety of applications both inside and outside of state government. 7 Most important, perhaps, it establishes the basis fora common understanding of the challenges facing Oregon's fish and wildlife, and provides a shared set of priorities for addressing the state's conservation needs. The heart of the Conservation Strategy is a blueprint for voluntary action to address the long-term needs of Oregon's fish and wildlife. The future for many species will depend on landowners' and land managers' willingness to voluntarily take action on their own to protect and improve fish and wildlife habitat. The Oregon Conservation Strategy is available online at ift://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy ODFW Fish and Wildlife' Habitat Mitigation Policy Oregon Department of Fish and lldlife recommends that Deschutes County require impact avoidance for development actions that will impact Category I habitat and development of a wildlife mitigation plan for development actions that will impact habitat Categories 2-5 to limit conflicting use. Oregon Department of Fish and. Wildlife's (ODFW) Fish and Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Policy (OAR 635-415) 0=://www.dfw.state.or.us/lands/miti ag tionpolic .gasp ) provides direction for ODFW staff to review and comment on projects that may impact fish and wildlife habitat. This policy recognizes six distinct categories of wildlife habitat ranging from Category 1 - essential, limited, and irreplaceable habitat, to Category 6 - low value habitat. The policy goal for Category 1 habitat is no loss of habitat quantity or quality through avoidance of impacts by using development alternatives, or by not authorizing the proposed development action if impacts cannot be avoided. The Department recommends avoidance of Category I habitats as they are irreplaceable, and thus mitigation is not a viable option. Categories 2-4 are for essential or important, but not irreplaceable habitats. Category 5 habitat is not essential or important habitat, but has high restoration potential. Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern The interagency working group recommends that Deschutes County develop and adopt measures that will protect federal and state listed threatened and endangered species to limit conflicting use. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is responsible for administration of the Endangered-Species Act and.multiple Federal wildlife laws that protect endangered species and migratory birds, respectively. For more information on legal authorities of the USFWS in the protection of migratory birds, please visit hqp://www.fws. og v/mi rg atoK3birds/intrr ltr/treatlaw.htrnl. It is Oregon's policy "to prevent the serious depletion of any indigenous species" (ORS 496.012).- Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife maintains a list of native fish and wildlife species in Oregon that have been determined to be either "threatened" or "endangered" according to criteria set forth by rule (OAR 635-100-0105) ( hM://www.dfw.state.or.us./OARs/100.pdf Recovering species when their populations are severely depleted can be difficult and expensive, and socially and economically divisive. To provide a positive proactive approach to species. conservation, a "sensitive" species classification was created under Oregon's Sensitive Species Rule (OAR 635-100- 040) (hM2://www.dfw.stAte.or.us/wildlifeldiversily/species/does/SSL by taxon.pdf Appendix H lists species in Deschutes County that are listed by either the Federal or State wildlife agencies under the above mentioned laws or authorities along with a list of wildlife species that occur in Deschutes County. Riparian and wetland areas for wildlife and fish The Interagency Working Group recommends that Deschutes County complete a Local Wetland Inventory and adopt it into the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan to limit conflicting use. Riparian areas support a greater diversity of wildlife than upland areas, and are particularly imps ortant and limited habitats in the and Western U.S. Over 60 percent of the neotropical migratory songbirds in the western U.S. use riparian areas at some point during the year. Approximately 80 percent of all wildlife species depend on riparian areas. Aquatic and fish productivity are directly related to properly functioning and healthy riparian habitat. Deschutes County has limited riparian and wetland habitats. In 1985, the US Fish and Wildlife Service conducted a National Wetland Inventory for most of Deschutes County. However, due to the large spatial scale of the mapping effort (1:58,000) wetlands smaller than five acres in size were not identified as significant only because they were not mapped, not because they are insignificant. Most wetlands smaller than five acres in size provide significant habitat necessary for a suite of wildlife species as depicted in the introductory paragraph above. A Local Wetland Inventory would greatly improve the County's ability to conserve wetland resources, which are vital to maintaining healthy fish and wildlife populations in the Upper Deschutes basin. Therefore, the Working Group strongly recommends that the County pursue the completion of a Local Wetland Inventory and its adoption into the Comprehensive Plan Update. Sensitive fish and wildlife species dependent on riparian and wetland areas in the County include but are not limited to those in Table 2. 'Birds that reproduce and summer in. North America and winter in South America. Table 2: Threatened, endangered and species of concern dependent on floodplain areas in Deschutes County. Species State Oregon Dept of Fish.: and Wildlife:. Federal US.Fish;and Wildlife. Service Deschutes County Bull Trout . SC - OCS Threatened Redband Trout Sv - OCS Summer Steelhead SC - OCS Threatened** Chinook Salmon Sv Columbia Spotted Fro SC Candidate Oregon Spotted Frog SC - OCS Candidate Western Toad Sv - OCS Cascade Frog Sv - OCS SOC Coastal tailed frog SOC Oregon slender salamader SOC Great Blue Heron Goal 5 Yellow-billed Cuckoo SC Candidate. Lewis' Woodpecker SC - OCS SOC White-headed Woodpecker SC SOC American Bald Eagle Threatened EPA Goal 5 Northern Goshawk Sv -OCS SOC Goal 5 Osprey Goal 5 American Peregrine Falcon Sv Delisted Goal 5. Greater Sandhill Crane Sv - OCS Flammulated Owl Sv - OCS Great Gray Owl Sv- OCS Three-toed Woodpecker Sv - OCS Black-backed Woodpecker Sv - OCS Pileated Woodpecker Sv Olive-sided Flycatcher Sv - OCS SOC Willow Flycatcher Sv SOC Bufflehead OCS Barrows Goldeneye OCS Yellow-breasted chat SOC Townsend's Big-Eared SC - OCS 10 Bat California M otis SV -OCS Long-legged Myotis SV - OCS Hoary Bat SV - OCS Silver-haired Bat SV - OCS Pallid Bat SV - OCS Mule Deer Goal 5 Elk Goal 5 - National Marine Fisheries Service has regulatory authority for steelhead. C - USFWS Candidate is warranted to be listed as Threatened or Endangered SC - State Sensitive Critical SV - State Sensitive Vulnerable OCS - Oregon Conservation Strategy Species SOC - USFWS Species of Concern State Sensitive Species List - http://www.dfW.state.or.us/wildlife/diversit//species/sensitive species.asp EPA - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act Oregon Conservation'Strategy Species List - !Mp://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrate /g s~trate_gy species.asp Oregon Spotted Frog in the Upper Deschutes Basin Oregon Spotted Frog Conservation Recommendations to Limit Conflicting Use The Interagency Working Group recommends that Deschutes County add an Oregon spotted frog habitat area to the wildlife area combining zone map to include the . floodplains along the Deschutes and Little Deschutes Rivers south of Bend (approximately from River Mile, (RM) 173 to headwaters of the Deschutes River and from the confluence with the Deschutes River to the Klamath County line (RM42.9) for the Little Deschutes River). Oregon spotted frog habitat is essential and limited, and depending on the site, it could be irreplaceable. The mitigation goal for essential, limited, and irreplaceable habitat is no net loss of either habitat quantity or quality through avoidance (Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife (ODFI9.Habitat Category 1). The mitigation goal for essential and limited habitat if impacts are unavoidable is no net loss of either habitat quantity or quality and to provide a net benefit of habitat quantity or quality (ODFWHabitat Category 2). . • The Working group recommends a No Net Loss of wetlands within the Oregon spotted frog habitat area. Therefore, wetland fill permits should be sent to the ODFW and FWS for review and comment to the county on their findings. 11 • The working group recommends that Deschutes County complete a Local Wetland Inventory to properly protect wetland and inherent functions and values. • Hydrologic connectivity should be maintained when wetlands will be filled. For example, culverts should be installed below roads, driveways, or other obstructions that may block hydrologic connectivity that allows for proper wetland function and dispersal of Oregon spotted frogs. • Limit structures within floodplains. that could impactfloodplain functions • Maintain highest water quality standard in wetlands and rivers. The Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) is endemic to the Pacific Northwest and historically ranged from southwestern British Columbia to northeast California. There are less than 50 known sites inhabited by the species in southwestern British Columbia, western and south-central. Washington, and western, central, and south-central Oregon; no populations are known to persist in California. Revisits of historic localities suggest the species is lost.from 70-90% of its historic range (Cushman and Pearl 2007). In Oregon, Oregon spotted frogs historically were found in Multnomah, Clackamas, Marion, Linn, Benton, Jackson, Lane, Wasco, Deschutes and Klamath counties. Currently, this species is. only known to occur in Deschutes, Klamath, and Lane counties. In Deschutes County, Oregon spotted frogs occur within water bodies on the Deschutes National Forest, Prineville District Bureau of Land Management and private land. The Oregon spotted frog is considered a Candidate species by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), which means that there is sufficient information to support a proposal to list this species as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The FWS is currently completing a status assessment for the Oregon spotted frog. The Upper Deschutes and Little Deschutes Rivers and associated wetlands are key habitat for the frog. In particular, riverine oxbows that contain permanent standing water but are no longer connected to the river provide essential overwintering and breeding habitat for Oregon spotted frog. The rivers and associated floodplains are connectivity corridors that must be maintained to allow populations of frogs to interbreed. Small ponds and isolated wetlands with emergent or floating aquatic vegetation and perennial water also provide habitat for the frog, particularly those that are devoid of predatory fish and bull frogs. In the Upper Deschutes and Little Deschutes Rivers, Oregon spotted frog is threatened by the loss of marsh habitat due to vegetation succession and lodgepole pine encroachment into wetlands; alteration of riverine and wetland hydrologic regimes; interactions with non-native fish and bull frogs; and degraded water quality. Livestock grazing in high density may also pose a threat to Oregon spotted frog. Development of Deschutes County "red lots" within the floodplain of the Upper Deschutes and Little Deschutes Rivers may pose a threat to Oregon spotted frog in the 12 future and could be considered conflicting uses relative to conservation of the Oregon spotted frog. Filling of wetlands will directly affect the habitat on which the frog is dependent. Additionally, the recent findings of the US Geological Survey suggest that development of lots with a high water table will increase nutrient loading (i.e., nitrate) in the rivers. Excess nitrate loading in the river, combined with a naturally occurring high level of phosphorous in the substrate, will greatly exacerbate eutrophication of the rivers and lead to excess algal growth and vegetative growth. Spotted frogs are dependent not only on the wetland habitat but the high quality of water within these wetlands. References: Cushman. K.A. and CA. Pearl. 2007. A Conservation Assessment for the. Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa). USDA Forest Service Region 6 and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington. Shrub-Steppe Habitat The Interagency Working Group recommends that Deschutes County consider impacts to wildlife populations and their habitat when a decision will result in degradation of shrub- steppe habitat to limit conflicting use. Nationally, grassland and shrubland birds show the most consistent population declines over the last 30 years of any group of bird species. Across the U.S.j the population of 63% of shrubland and shrub-dependent bird species and 70% of grassland species are declining. In the Intermountain West, more than 50% of grassland and shrubland species show downward trends (Paige 1999). The sagebrush ecosystem has been reduced in.area by greater than 40% since'pre- European settlement, and less than 10% remains in a condition unaltered by human disturbance. Populations of many of the sagebrush-associated species are declining, and approximately 20% of the ecosystem's native plants and animals are considered imperiled (Wisdom 2005). Invasion of exotic vegetation, altered fire regimes, road development and use, mining, energy development, climate change, encroachment of pinyon juniper woodlands, intensive grazing by livestock, and conversion to -agriculture, to urban use, and to non- native livestock forage all have contributed to the ecosystem's demise (Wisdom 2005). Shrub-steppe habitat provides needed resources for over 100 bird species and 70 mammals included 12 Oregon state listed sensitive species, and one threatened species (Table 3). Large blocks of unfragmented functioning habitat with low human disturbance are needed to support shrub-steppe wildlife. If avoidance of these areas is not possible, providing for "no net loss" and a "net benefit" (restoration) of shrub-steppe habitat should be a vital component of any conservation plan. 13 References Paige, C., and S.A. Ritter. 1999. Birds in a sagebrush sea: managing sagebrush habitats for bird communities. Partners in Flight Western Working Group, Boise, ID. Wisdom, M.J., M.M. Rowland, and L.H. Suring, editors. 2005. Habitat threats in the sagebrush ecosystem: methods. of regional assessment and applications in the Great Basin. Alliance Communications Group, Lawrence, Kansas, USA. Table 3: Threatened, endangered and species of concern dependent on sagebrush steppe habitat in Deschutes County Species State Oregon Dept of Fish . and Wildlife Federal US Fish and Wildlife Service . Deschutes County Greater Sage-Grouse SV - OCS SOC Goal 5 American Bald Eagle Threatened EPA Goal 5 Golden Eagle EPA Goal 5 Swainson's Hawk SV - OCS Ferruginous Hawk OCS SOC Prairie Falcon Goal 5 American Peregrine Falcon SV - OCS DeListed Goal 5 Burrowing Owl SV SOC Loggerhead Shrike OCS Townsend's Big-eared Bat SC - OCS SOC California Myotis SV - OCS Long-legged Myotis SV - OCS SOC Hoary Bat SV - OCS Silver-haired Bat SV SOC Spotted Bat SV - OCS SOC Pallid Bat SV OCS Pygmy Rabbit SV - OCS SOC Mule Deer Goal 5 Elk Goal 5 Pronghorn Goal 5 SC - State Sensitive Critical SV - State Sensitive Vulnerable OCS - Oregon Conservation Strategy Specie SOC - USFWS Species of Concern EPA - Federal Eagle Protection Act State Sensitive Species List - http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/diversity/species/sensitive species.asp 14 of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), but was collaboratively agreed upon and written by the Oregon Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush Habitat Conservation Team (Sage-Grouse Team). Specifically, the Commission adopted the population and habitat goals into rule (OAR 635-140-0005 & -0010), and directed staff to implement these policies as described in the Plan. The statewide population objective is to maintain or enhance sage-grouse numbers and distribution at the 2003 spring breeding population level, approximately 40,000 birds (Hagen 2005:32)." The statewide habitat goal is to maintain 70% of the sagebrush steppe as sagebrush dominated 10% sagebrush cover) landscapes and allow.for 30% of the landscape to occur in various stages of disturbance and transition. To achieve this goal, conservation guidelines were established to "...maintain (at a minimum) or enhance'. (optimum) the quality of current habitats (Hagen 2005: 70)." Further, the population management objective for sage-grouse in this region (Prineville District), which includes portions of Deschutes and Crook Counties, is to restore sage- grouse numbers and distribution near the 1980 spring breeding population level, approximately 3,000 birds (Hagen 2005: 37). ODFW's state estimate was at a low point in 2008, with figures showing populations levels at less than half the population estimate for 2005, (Hagen 2009 news release). In 2008, Prineville District alone showed a 38% decrease from the 2007 estimate (Hagen 2008 personal communication). Sagebrush conversion to agricultural lands, wetland degradation, invasive plants, mining, transmission lines, grazing practices. that affect necessary cover or forage, recreational disturbance - motorized and non-motorized, and residential and wind energy developments all can impact local sage-grouse populations and could be considered conflicting uses relative to conservation of greater sage-grouse. Sage-grouse populations have declined since the 1960s across their range. The declines have been substantial enough to initiate 9 petitions to protect the sage-grouse under the Federal Endangered Species Act. The Sage-Grouse Plan was developed to maintain sustainable populations in Oregon, so that listing under the Endangered Species Act would not be warranted. To this end, the Plan established a `°no net loss" objective for sage-grouse habitat conservation. This objective also provides benefits for a suite of other sagebrush obligate species (Hagen 2005, Rowland et al. 2005). Breeding habitat (lekking, nesting habitat, and early brood-rearing) is critical to the life- history of sage-grouse (Johnson and Braun 1999, Walker 2008). Like many upland birds, sage-grouse rear only 1 brood of young in a breeding season. Thus, any hindrance to' breeding activities (i.e., habitat loss or other disturbance) may be deleterious to production and ultimately recruitment into the population (Lyon and Anderson 2003, Holloran 2005, Walker et al. 2007). Leks are used for breeding and the surrounding sagebrush habitat is used for nesting. Oregon research shows that nearly all nests occur within 5 miles of a lek, while 80 percent of nests occur within 3 miles of a lek. However, regional radio-telemetry data in Deschutes and Crook counties showed that 80 percent of hens nest within 4 miles of a lek. This distance becomes paramount when considering the sage-grouse population in 16 Deschutes County, which is on the fringe of the species range, and therefore is more susceptible to cumulative effects of habitat alteration and disturbance. Population models suggest that such a loss (20%) can be sustained by a large "healthy" population; but the carrying capacity will. be diminished resulting in a smaller but viable population in the future (Walker et al. 2007). A model, indicating where sage-grouse populations are more likely to persist in landscapes throughout the full range of the species, shows Deschutes county to be on the fringe of the species range and at risk of extirpation (Aldridge et al. 2008) These authors suggest that conservation efforts focused on maintaining large expanses of sagebrush habitat, enhancing the quality of existing habitat, and increasing connections between. suitable habitat patches would be most beneficial to maintaining healthy sage-grouse populations. These conservation measures are key in Deschutes county due to the present low sage-grouse population levels, the species low reproductive rate, and the species limited ability to adapt to habitat changes (i.e. habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation). Breeding.and nesting habitats are essential, limited, and irreplaceable. Based on Oregon's research and elsewhere in the West, the biological dynamic that occurs between female nest site selection and movement patterns that drive males to establish. a lek in these areas of female use has yet to be successfully recreated. Given the uncertainty and risk involved in trying to mitigate for the loss of these habitats (i.e., replace/restore), protection of breeding and nesting habitat is paramount. Generally brood-rearing habitat is comprised of a mosaic of upland vegetation intermixed with wetland sites (e.g., playas, seeps, springs, wet meadows, riparian areas) where broods seek succulent vegetation and invertebrates. These areas can be greater than 10 miles from lek sites. Wetland sites in shrub-steppe habitats are an essential and limited habitat and'to net loss" and "net benefit" (restoration) are paramount if protection is not possible. . Winter habitat is comprised of low elevation flats in stands of Wyoming big sagebrush, basin big sagebrush, or stands of low sagebrush along windswept ridges or drainages. Winter habitat has not been adequately inventoried in Oregon, thus its distribution and abundance is unknown. However, in Deschutes County, some wintering areas are known and have been delineated. (Hanf, et al. 1994).. These habitats have included extensive stands of mountain big sagebrush and low and early-flowering sagebrush. Depending on winter snow accumulations, some wintering areas become especially important, as heavy snowfall forces birds out of low sage areas into big sage areas where sagebrush is still accessible. Because of sage-grouse dependence on sagebrush for winter forage, losses to these areas can have severe impacts on winter survival and subsequent breeding population size (Swenson et al. 1987, Connelly et al. 2004). Because of the essential and limited nature of winter habitat "no net loss" and "net benefit" (restoration) are paramount if avoidance is not possible. 17 References Aldrige, C.L., S.E.Nielsen, H. L. Beyer, M. S. Boyce, J. W. Connelly, S. T. Knick, M.A. Schroeder. 2008 Range-wide patterns of greater sage-grouse persistence. Diversity and.Distributions 14, 983-994. Connelly, J. W., S.T. Knick, M. A. Schroeder, and S. J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation assessment of greater sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats. Unpublished report, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Denver, CO. Hagen, C.A. 2005. Greater sage-grouse conservation assessment and strategy for Oregon: a plan to maintain and enhance populations and habitat. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Salem, Oregon. Hagen, C.A. 2009. Sage grouse numbers dip, but biologists are hoping for a rebound. Bend Bulletin May 21, 2009 News Release. Hagen, C.A. 2008. Personal communication. Hanf, LM., P.A. Schmidt, and E.B., Groshens. 1994. Sage grouse in the high desert of central Oregon: results of a study, 1988-1993. United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Series P-SG-01, Prineville, OR. Holloran, M. J. 2005. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) populatoin response to natural gas field development in western Wyoming. Dissertation, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. Johnson, K. H., and C. E. Braun. 1998. Viability and conservation of an exploited sage grouse population. Conservation Biology 13: 77-84. Lyon, L. A., and S. H. Anderson. 2003. Potential gas development impacts on sage . grouse nest initiation and movement. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31: 486-491. Rowland, M. M., M. J. Wisdom, C. W. Meinke, and L. H. Suring. 2005. Utility of greater sage-grouse as an umbrella species. (pages 232-249). In Habitat Threats in the Sagebrush Ecosystem: Methods of Regional Assessment and Applications in the Great Basin (Wisdom et al. eds). Alliance Communications Group, Lawrence, Kansas. Swenson et al, 1987. Decrease of Sage Grouse Centrocercus urophasianus after ploughing.of sagebrush steppe. Biological Conservation. 41:125-132. Walker, B. L. 2008. Greater sage-grouse response to coal-bed methane natural gas development and West Nile viruse in the Powder River Basin, Montana and Wyoming USA. Dissertation, Universtiy of Montana, Missoula, MT. 18 Walker, B. L., D. E. Naugle, and K. E. Doherty. 2007. Greater sage-grouse population response to energy development and habitat loss. Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 2644-2654.' Critical Bird & Mammal Sites Oregon Department of Fish and ffIldlife is not requesting additional. or modification of existing protection criteria for site specific sensitive. bird and mammal sites other than for sage grouse. Sage grouse protection criteria additions and modification are listed under Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Recommendations to Limit Conflicting Use. The sites adopted in the last periodic review have been examined and we recommend that the county consider updating their inventory to include new sites and remove old sites that are no longer used.. Attached is a list of current and recommended critical.bird and mammal site locations and protection measures (See Appendices A-G). Site-specific protection recommendations • Continue to protect 30 bald eagle nest sites in Deschutes County (Appendix AI) • Remove protection for 34 bald eagle nest sites that are no longer occupied (Appendix A2) • Add protection for 22 eagle nest sites that are not currently protected under Deschutes County ordinance (Appendix A3). • Maintain protection for 32 golden eagle nest sites are currently protected under Deschutes County ordinance (Appendix BI). • Add one golden eagle nest site to the Deschutes County inventory for protection (Appendix B2). • Continue to protect 32 sage grouse lek sites that are currently protected under Deschutes County ordinance (Appendix CI). • Remove protection for 4 sage grouse lek sites that are currently protected under Deschutes County ordinance but are no longer in use (Appendix C2). • Add S sage grouse lek sites to the Deschutes County inventory for protection (Appendix C3). • Change the name of the sage grouse lek site, currently protected by Deschutes County, from Squaw Lake to Shaver Flat (Appendix C4). • Continue to protect 8 prairie falcon sites under Deschutes County ordinance Appendix D). 19 • Maintain protection for one heron site that is still in use (Appendix EI). • Remove protection for heron site that is no longer in use (Appendix E2). • Maintain protection for Great gray owl nest site (Appendix.F). • Maintain protection for two, known bat sites in Deschutes County (Appendix G). Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife identified a list of bird and mammal species that occur on private land in Deschutes county that'are especially sensitive to human activity: bald and golden eagles, sage grouse, prairie falcon, great blue heron, great gray owl and Townsend's big-eared bat. The purpose of providing special protection for sensitive birds and mammals is to assure that their habitat areas are protected from the effects of conflicting uses or activities. Protection of bird sites can be achieved through the development of site specific management plans. Management plans assure that the proposed use and activities will not destroy or result in abandonment of the sensitive species from a nest site. The county previously adopted protection criteria for site specific sensitive bird and mammal sites. Residential development, mining, and activities with high human disturbance and other actions that result in habitat loss and/or. degradation are threats to these critical bird and mammal sites that could be considered conflicting uses relative to conservation of critical. bird and mammal sites. Game Species Game Species Conservation. Recommendations to Limit Conflicting Use: Many new land uses have occurred that were not envisioned during the last periodic review. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife recommends that Deschutes County add the following uses with high human use and disturbance to the do not permit list: 1. Guest ranch; 2. Outdoor commercial events (i.e. "Wedding Venues, Farmers Market.') 3. OHV course 4. Paintball course 5. Shooting range 6. Model airplane park 7. BMX course Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is not asking the county to change any of the existing big game wintering range and migration corridor maps currently in use by the county. 20 Existing county ordinances do not permit the following uses in a WA Zone designated as deer winter range, significant elk habitat, or antelope range. 1. Golf course; 2. Commercial dog kennel; 3. Church; 4. Public or private school; 5. Bed and breakfast inn; 6.- Dude ranch; 7. Playground, recreation facility or community center owned and operated by a government agency or a nonprofit community organization; 8. Timeshare unit; 9. Veterinary clinic; 10. Fishing lodge; 11. Destination Resort The above listed uses generate a 'high level of public activity, noise, and habitat alteration, which in turn can impact large geographic spaces and alter many acres of valuable wildlife habitat. Game species avoid areas with these uses, which results in reduced overall habitat effectiveness of these critical habitats. Mule Deer, elk, antelope, cougar, black bear, and silver grey squirrel are species considered to be sensitive to human disturbance in Deschutes County by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Cougar populations are increasing. Elk, antelope, black bear, and silver grey squirrel populations are stable. Mule deer populations continue to decline. Table 4: Big game population estimates, Deschutes County 2009 Species Number Mule Deer 9,337* Elk 1;500 Pronghorn 1,000 Cougar -150 Black Bear -150 Silver Grey Squirrel -800 * The management objective for the Pauhna and Upper Deschutes Wildlife Management Units, primarily located in Deschutes County, is an April adult population of 18,700 mule deer 21 Paulina Unit 25000- 20000- m 3 15000 t Mgmt Obj . -~-Wtr Pop " 10000 Pop Trend - m c 5000- 0 00 ~ v r, O M CO O N In 00 le ti O M co rn LO eo w m m m 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 r r r r r r r r r r r - - N N N N Year Figure 1: Winter deer population in Paulina Unit. Upper Deschutes Unit 3000 0 :2500 - m a 2000 o t Mgmt Obj 1500 -a-Wtr Pop 1000 Pop Trend 500- 0 . 0p r I~ O M (O O N LO 00 r O M (0 rn Lp CC CO r, r- n 00 CO 00 rn 0 W O O O O a7 d) O Q) CA .O O O O O O O O O O O O O r r r r r ~ ' ~ r r r ~ r r N N N N Year Figure 2: Winter deer population in Upper Deschutes Unit 22 Energy Development Wildlife Conservation Recommendations to Limit Conflicting Use with Energy Developments: The Interagency Working Group recommends that Deschutes County: develop a wind energy ordinance that would include both pre and post construction wildlife surveys, monitoring, and mitigation requirements as outlined in the following documents. We also recommend the county require the developer to create a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) that would provide wildlife oversight and recommendations to the county. Any TAC would minimally include an Oregon Department.of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and a developer wildlife biologist. Resources of particular concern in Deschutes County are sage-grouse habitat, raptor nest sites, pygmy rabbit colonies, and big game winter range. Impacts to bats has also become an issue with wind energy development. The Oregon Columbia Plateau siting guidelines recommend that a county wind project p. ermitting process rely on ODFW's Fish and Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Policy (OAR 635-415-0000) for guidance on mitigation strategies. The interagency working group recommends the county require of a developer a map and classification offish and wildlife habitat impacted by a wind development, and a plan outlining the proposed mitigation to any impacted habitat. Mitigation of impacted habitat is critical to the future of Deschutes County's wildlife. The interagency working group recommends language be included in any ordinance that will provide information on impacts to the following wildlife species: 1) state or federally listed endangered, threatened, sensitive, and special status species, 2) bats and raptors, 3) species of local sport and economic importance such as big game, and any Goal 5 species. Other Forms of Energy Production (e.g., geothermal, biomass, solar): The interagency working group recommends that Deschutes County use. the proceeding Wind Energy recommendations as a template when the county develops geothermal, solar, and biomass ordinances. Wind Energy: The Interagency Working Group supports wind energy as a renewable resource, and we support wind energy projects that are designed to conserve fish and wildlife populations and their habitat. To that end, the interagency working group recommends that Deschutes County consider several resources that are available to counties. The first is the "Oregon Columbia Plateau Ecoregion Wind Energy Siting and Permitting Guidelines " 23 (guidelines). This document was finalized in September 2008. Although the guidelines were targeted for wind projects in the Columbia Plateau Ecoregion, much of the information is applicable in other areas. The guidelines identify the kinds of surveys, monitoring and wildlife habitat mitigation that we and other agencies will be looking for from wind developers. (http://oregon.gov/ENERGY/RENEW/Wind/does/OR wind siting_Zuidelines.pdi). The second resource the interagency working group recommends the county consider is the Oregon Department of Energy "Model Ordinance for Energy Projects This 2005 document has useful material for siting all types of energy projects. (http://oregon. goy/ENERGY/SrFING/local.shtn-il 24 Appendix Al: Bald eagle nest sites occupied and protected by Deschutes County. ODFW Location U TM's NAD27 Land Site # Town/Ran a/Sec/Quarter[TL. Datum Northing Eastin General Location/Name Owner - 18S/08E/33/NE 10 598108 4869571 Hosmer Lake Federal - 20S/07E/35/SW 10 591800 4848990 Lemish Butte Federal 20S/08E/16/SW 10 597983 4854608 Benchmark Butte - NE Federal - 20S/08E/33/SE 10 598952 4849706 Crane Pr Res NE Federal DE-0046-00 20S/10E/34/NWSE/03401 10 619554 4850162 Bates Butte Non-Federal - 21S/07E/01/NW 10 593554 4848658' Quinn River Federal - 21S/07E/01/SE 10 594165 4847608 Crane Pr Res W Federal - 21S/07E/01/SW 10 593100 4847710 Crane Pr Res W Federal - 21S/07E/01/SW 10 593907 4847852 Crane Pr Res W Federal - 21 S/08E/04/NW 10 598296 4848291 Crane Pr Res E Federal - 21 S/0.8E/04/W 10 597960 4848106 Crane Pr Res E-SW Federal - 21 S/08E/04/W 10 598132 4848214 Crane Pr Res E-NW Federal - 21S/08E/05/SE 10 597792 4847934 Crane Pr Res E Federal - 21S/08E/07/SE 10 596119 4846116 Crane Pr Res S Federal - 21 S/08E/08/SW 10 596830 4845816 Crane Pr Res SE Federal - 21S/08E/20/SE 10 597283 4843015 Browns Mountain Federal - 21S/08E/32/NE 10 597579 4840222 Browns Cr - E Federal - 21S/08E/34/SE .10 601283 4839680 Wickiup Res N Federal - 21Sl08E/34/SW 10 600280 4840010 Wickiu Res N Federal - 21S/09E/13/SE 10 613976 4845233 Tetherow Mdw Federal - 21S/13E/19/S 10 643539 4844084 East Lake SE Federal = 22S/07E/26/S 10 592220 4831230 Davis Lake NW Federal - 22S/07E/26/SW 10 592227 4831231 Davis Lake NW Federal - 22S/07E/34/SW 10 590666 4829884 Davis Lake W-E Federal - 22S/08E/23/NW 10 601742 4834448 Wickiup Res S-N Federal - 22S/08E/25/NE 10 604111 .4833069 Round Swam - S . Federal. - 22S/09E/06/SE 10 605858 4838037 Wickiu Dam - E Federal - 22S109E/20/NE 10 607220 4834070 Eaton Butte Federal - 22S/09E/20/NE 10 607295 4834050 Eaton Butte Federal - 22S/09E/20/SW 10 606469 4833721 Eaton Butte Federal 25 Appendix A2: Bald Eagle nest sites currently protected by Deschutes County and no longer in use. ODFW Location . U TM's NAD27 Land Site # Town/Ran a/Sec/QuarterfFL Datum Northing Eastin General Location/Name Owner DE-0035-01 15S/10E/23/NENE/01400 10 620280 4901790- Cloverdale NE Non-Federal DE-0035-00 15S/10E/23/NWNE/01400 10 620000 4901700 Cloverdale NW Non-Federal - 18S/08E/32/NE Elk Lake Federal - 19S/08E/27/SE Lava Lake - E Federal 19S/08E/27/SW Lava Lake - W Federal - 20S/07E/35/S Lemish Butte Federal - 20S/08E/08/SE. Benchmark Butte W Federal - 20S/08E/33/NE Crane Pr Res NE - NW. Federal - 20S/08E/33/SE Crane Pr Res NE-S Federal - 20S/08E/33/SE Crane Pr Res NE-NE Federal - 21S/08E/08/SW Crane Pr Res S Federal 21S/08E/3'IISE Wickiu Res N Federal - 21S/08E/32/NE Browns Cr- W Federal - 21S/08E/34/SE Wickiu Res N Federal 21S/08E/34/SE Wickiu Res N Federal - 21S/08E/34/SE Wickiu Res N Federal - 21S/09E/34/NE Deschutesw R Ox Federal - 21S/13E/19/SE East Lake E Federal - 21S/13E/19/SW East Lake SW . Federal - 22S/07E/34/SW Davis Lake W -W Federal - 22S/08E/06/SE Davis Cr - N Federal - . 22S/08E/06/SE Davis Cr Federal - 22S/08E/06/SE Davis Cr - E Federal - 22S/08E/07/NE Davis Cr - S Federal - 22S/08E/15/SE Wickiu Res W-E Federal - 22S/08E/15/SW Wickiu Res W-W Federal - 22S/08E/23/N Wickiu Res S-S Federal - 22S/08E/23/NE Wickiu Res S-E Federal - 22S/08E/23/NW Wickiu Res S-W Federal - 22S/08E/24/S Round Swam - NE Federal - ' 22S/08E/24/SE Round Swam - NE Federal - 22S/08E/25/NE Round Swam - E Federal DE-0037-00 22S/09E/04/00500 Dilman Meadows Federal DE-0039-00 22S/09E/06/SESW/0500 Wickiu Dam Federal 26 Appendix A3: Bald Eagle nest sites that are occupied and not protected by Deschutes County. ODFW Location U TM's NAD27 Land Site# Town/Range/Sec/Quarter/TL Datum'. Northing Eastin General Location/Name Owner DE-0055-00 13S/13E/33/NWSW 10 644325 4917164 Crooked River Non-Federal DE-0055-01 13S/13E/33/NWSW 10 644434 4917456 Crooked River Non-Federal 14S/10E/34/SE _ 10 618411 4907356 Cam .Polk Federal DE-0035-02 15S/10E/23/SW 10 619270 4900750 Cloverdale Federal - 19S/08E/22/NW 1.0 599207 4863693 Lava L Federal - 20S/08E/16/NW 10. 597914 4855364 Benchmark Butte Federal - 20S/08E/19/SE 10 595488 4852666. Cultus River Federal - 20S/08E/l9/SE 10 595449 4852663 Cultus River. Federal DE-0056-01 20S/11 E/07/NWNE 10 624558 4857616 Harper Bride Non-Federal - 21S/08E/04/NE 10 599280 4848938 Wuski Butte Federal - 21 S/08E/04/NW 10 598015 4848393 Crane Pr Res E Federal - 21S/08E/07/SE 10 595963 4846315 Crane Pr Res SW Federal - 21S/08E/07/SW 10 595455 4845870 Crane Pr Res SW Federal - 21 S/08E/17/SW 10 596783 4844633 Browns Peak Federal - 21S/08E/29/SE 10 597395 4841495 Browns Crossing Federal - 21S/09E/19/SW 10 604979 4842920 Pringle Falls Jct Federal - 21S/09E/34/NW 10 610220 4840711 Deschutes R Ox Federal - 21S/12E/25/NW 10 641568 4842817 Paulina Lk Federal - 22S/08E/07/NE 10 595845 4837161 Davis Cr Federal - 22S/08E/07/SE 10 595858 4836323 Davis Cr Federal - 22S/09E/05/SE 10 607483 4838049 Haner Park Federal 22S/09E/07/SE 10 606001 4836688 Wickiu Butte Federal 27 Appendix Bl: Golden Eagle nest sites that are occupied and protected by Deschutes County. ODFW Location U TM's NAD27 Land Site # Town/Ran a/Sec/Quarter[TL Datum Northing Eastin General Location/Name Owner DE-0015-01 14S/11 E/03/NENW/0400 10 627156 4916522 W chus Cr Non-Federal DE-0015-00 14S/11 E/03/SESW/0400 10 627267 4915294 Rimrock Ranch Non-Federal DE-0012-01 14S/11 E/26 SWNW 10 629711 4909656 Upper Dee Canyon Non-Federal DE-0009-00 14S/12E/23/NWSW/D00300 10 637991 4911031 N Odin Falls Non-Federal DE-0002-03 14S/13E/11/NWNE/0100 10 648447. 4915134 Smith Rock St Park Non-Federal DE-0002-04 14S/13E/11/NWNE/0100 . 10 648723 4915118 Smith Rock St Park Non-Federal DE-0002-05 14S/13E/11/NWNE/0100 10 648728 4915160 Smith Rock St Park Non-Federal DE-0002-06 14S/13E/11/NWNE/0100' 10 648919 4915159 Smith Rock St Park Non-Federal DE-0002-00 14S/13E/11/SENW/0100 10 648290 4914150 Smith Rock St Park Non-Federal DE-0002-01 14S/13E/11/SENW/0100 10 648270 4914301 Smith Rock St Park Non-Federal DE-0002-02 14S/1.3E/11/SENW/0100 10 648238 4914850 Smith Rock St Park Non-Federal DE-0034-00. 15S/10E/15/SENW/01400 10 617590 4902865 La Z/USFS Non-Federal DE-0034-01 15S/10E/15/SENW/01400 10 617904 4903075 La Z/USFS Non-Federal DE-0012-00 15S/11 E/03/NENE/0800 10 628023 4906651 Upper Deep Canyon Non-Federal DE-0003-00 15S/11 E/07 .10 624192 4902695 Fre ear Butte Federal DE-0003-01 15S/11 E/16/SESW/02900 10 625649 4902342 Fre ear Butte Federal DE-0011-01 15S/12E/01/NESE/0100 10 640993 4906107 Radio Tower/Deschutes Non-Federal- DE-0011-00 15S/12E/01/NWSE/0100 10 640858 4906085 Radio Tower/Deschutes . Non-Federal DE-0006-05 15S/12E/35/NESE/01503 10 639433 4898053 Mid-Deschutes Riv Non-Federal DE-0006-00 15S/12E/35/SENE/01502 10 639580 4898411 Mid-Deschutes Riv Non-Federal DE-0006-01 15S/12E/35/SENE/01502 10 639680 4898477 Mid-Deschutes Riv Non-Federal DE-0006-02 15S/12E/35/SENE/01502 10 639606 4898473 Mid-Deschutes Riv Non-Federal DE-0006-04 15S/12E/35/SENE/01502 10 639519 4898406 Mid-Deschutes Riv Non-Federal DE-0014-00 16S/11 E/29/NWSE/07800 10 625802 4890297 Tumalo Dam Non-Federal DE-0005-00 16S/1 2E/09 Mid-Deschutes Riv Federal DE-0005-01 16S/12E/09 Mid-Deschutes Riv Federal DE-0020-00 19S/14E/24 Horse Rid e/D River Federal DE-0018-00 20S/15E/19 Pine Mountain - West Federal DE-0019-00 20S/1 5E/25 Pine Mountain - East Federal DE-0029-00 20S/17E/36/NWSE/03801 10 690387 4851025 Twin Pines Non-Federal DE-0017-00 21S/16E/12 Pine Ride Federal DE-0001-00 21S119E/04 Imperial Vaile Federal 28 Appendix B2: Golden Eagle nest sites not protected by Deschutes County and currently in use. ODFW Location UTM's NAD27 Land Site # ' Town/Ran a/Sec/QuarterrrL Datum Northin Eastin General Location/Name Owner DE-0009-01 14S/12E/14/S 10 . 638709 4912157 N Odin Falls Non-Federal 29 Appendix Cl: Sage Grouse lek sites that are in use and currently protected by Deschutes County. ODFW Location . U TM's NAD27 Land Site # Town/Range/Sec/Quarter/TL Datum Northing Eastin General Location/Name Owner DE0999-01 T19S/R14E126 10 659867 4861510 MILLICAN BORROW PIT #1 Federal DE0997-01 T20S/R16E/25 10 680609 4852538 MOFFIT RANCH #1 Non-Federal DE0050-02 T20S/R17E/5 10 683188 4859265 AUDUBON #2 Federal DE0050-01 T20S/R17E/6 10 682744 4858915 AUDUBON #1 Federal DE0051-01 T20S/R18E/6 10 693837 4858816 CIRCLE F RESERVOIR #1 Non.Federal DE0051-02 T20S/R18E/5 10 693278 4859064 CIRCLE F RESERVOIR #2 Non-Federal DE0051-03 T20S/R18E/5 10 693690 4859114 CIRCLE F RESERVOIR #3 Non-Federal DE0053-01 T20S/R19E/13 10 709289 4856180 TODD WELL #1 Federal DE0053-04 T20S/R19E/13 10 710670 4856193 TODD WELL #4 Federal DE0053-05 T20S/R19E113 10 710587 4856642 TODD WELL #5 Federal. DE0053-06. T20S/R19E/14 10 708920 4857539. TODD WELL #6 Non-Federal DE0053-07 T20S/R19E/15 10 707337 4857304 TODD WELL #7 Non-Federal DE0053-02 T20S/R19E/24 10 709756 4855699 TODD WELL #2 Federal - DE0053-03 T20S/R19E/24 10 710628 4855359 TODD WELL #3 Federal DE0052-01 T20S/R19E/6 10 702068 4859581. MERRILL ROAD #1 Non-Federal DE0052-02 T20S/R19E/6 10 702354 4859516 MERRILL ROAD #2 Non-Federal DE0052-03 T20S/R19E/7 .10 702375 4$58957 MERRILL ROAD #3 Federal DE0879-01 T21S/R15E112 10 671706 4847943 KOTZMAN BASIN Federal DE0879-02 T21S/R15E/2 10 670524 4849771 PRONGHORN Federal DE0992-02 T21S/R16E/13 10 681348 4846455 POWERLINE Federal DE0992-01 T21S/R16E123 10 680809 4845470 THE GAP Federal DE0994-01 T21S/R17E/20 10 685352 4845889 WHISKEY SPRINGS #1 Federal DE0886-02 T21S/R18E116 . 10 696622 4846599 SOUTH WELL #2 Federal DE0886-03 T21S/R18E/16 10 696002 4847560 SOUTH WELL #3 Federal DE0886-01 T21S/R18E/22 10 697782 4846342 SOUTH WELL #1 Federal DE0886-04 T21S/R18E/22 10 698011 4845728 SOUTH WELL #4 Federal DE0996-01 T22S/R16E/12 10 682744 4839459 DICKERSON WELL Non-Federal DE0990-01 T22S/R17E/16 10 686349 4837447 THE ROCK Federal DE0995-01 T22S/R17E/2 10. 689465 4840673 SPICER FLAT #1 Federal DE0887-01 T22S/R18E/6 10 693382 4840952 LITTLE MUD LAKE Federal DE0880-01 T22S/R21 E/32 10 724677 4832585 CANARY LAKE Federal DE0054-01 T22S/R23E/36 10 749557 4834190 NORDELL RIDGE Federal 30 Appendix C2: Sage Grouse lek sites currently protected by Deschutes County and no longer In use. ODFW Location U TM's (NA 27). Land Site # Town/Range/Sec/Quarter/TL Datum Northing Eastin General Location/Name Owner DE0998-01 T20S/R14E/10 10 6571.22 4857646 EVANS WELL #1 Non=Federal DE0998-02 T20S/R14E/3 10 657109 4858692 EVANS WELL #2 - Federal DE0997-02 T20S/R16E/26 10 679540 4853374 MOFFIT RANCH #2 Non-Federal DE0992-03 T21 S/R16E/22 10 678936 4844497 MAHOGANY BUTTE Federal Appendix C3 Sage Grouse lek sites not currently protected by Deschutes County and currently in use. ODFW Location U TM's NAD27 Land Site # Town/Range/Sec/Quarter/TL Datum Northing Eastin General Location/Name Owner CRO128-01 T18S/R16E/32 10 673787 4869490 WEST BUTTE Non-Federal DE0999-03 T20S/R14E/2 10 659892 4858953 SMITH WELL Non-Federal DE0996-02 T21S/R16E/36 10 681774. 4841319 DICKERSON GUZZLER Federal DE0992-04 T21 S/R1 7E/1 8. 10 683134 4847577 BLM POWERLINE #2 Federal LA0800-01 T22S/R17E/5 10 684653 4831119 JAYNES WELL Federal Appendix C4: Name change for Sage Grouse lek.site currently protected by Deschutes County. ODFW Location UTM's (NA 27). Land Site # Town/Range/Sec/Quarter/TL Datum Northing Eastin General Location/Name Owner DE0888-01 T22S/R18E/11 10 700327 4839386 SHAVER FLAT . Federal 31 Appendix D: Prairie Falcon nest sites currently occupied and protected by Deschutes County. ODFW Location U TM's NAD27 Land Site # Town/Range/Sec/Quarter/TL Datum . . Northin Eastin General Location/Name Owner DE-0794-01 14S/13E/11/NWSW/0100 10 647745 4913940 Smith Rock $t Parke Non-Federal DE-0007-00 15S/12E/35 Mid-Deschutes Riv Federal DE-0031-00 16S/11 E/20/NESE/05600 10 625812 4892106 Tumalo Natural Area Federal DE-0031-01 16S/11 E/20/SESW/0400 10 625303. 4891621 Tumalo Dam. Non-Federal DE-0010-00 16S/12E/02 10 638929 4897371 Mid-Deschutes Riv Federal DE-0463-00 19S/12E/04 Imperial Valle Federal DE-0021-00 19S/14E/24 Horse Rid e/D River Federal DE-0016-00 22S/16E/12/SWSE/0100 10 682234 4838145 Dickerson Flat Non-Federal Appendix El: Heron Rookery site currently in use and protected by Deschutes County. ODFW Location UTM's NAD27 Land Site # Town/Ran a/Sec/Quarter/TL Datum Northing Eastin General Location/Name Owner DE-0980-01 14S/09E/00/SENE/0100 10 608516 4914211 Black.Butte Ranch Federal Appendix E2: Heron Rookery site currently protected by Deschutes County and no longer in, use. ODFW Location UTM's NAD27 Land Site # Town/Range/Sec/Quarter/TL Datum Northing Eastin General Location/Name Owner DE-0981-01 21S/08E/03/NENW Crane Pr Res Federal Appendix F: Great Grey Owl nest site currently in use and protected by Deschutes County. ODFW Location UTM's NAD27 Land Site # Town/Range/Sec/Quarter/TL. Datum Northing Eastin General Location/Name Owner - 22S/09E/09/SESW Dorrance Meadow Federal Appendix G: Bat sites currently in use and protected by Deschutes County. ODFW Location UTM's NAD27 Land Site # Town/Range/Sec/Quarter/TL Datum Northing Eastin General Location/Name Owner DE-0992-00 14S/09E/19/NWNE/0200 10 602445 4911183 Skylight Cave Non-Federal DE-0993-00 19S/13E/13/SWNE 10 651460 4865255 Stookey Flat Non-Federal 32. Appendix H: Use period, abundance and special status of select mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles in Deschutgs County 2009 Special Status" Species Use Period Relative Abundance State Status Federal Status Mammals Allen's Chipmunk X U Badger X C Beaver X A Belding Ground Squirrel X C Big Brown Bat S U Black Bear X C Blacktail Jackrabbit X C Bobcat X C Bush ail Woodrat . X C . California Ground Squirrel X F California M otis X F V California Vole X F California Wolverine X U T SOC Canyon Mouse X F Chickaree X C Coyote X A Dark Kangaroo Mouse X F Deer Mouse X A Dusk Shrew X U Fisher X U C Fringed M otis S U V Golden-mantled Squirrel X A Gray Fox X U Great Basin Pocket Mouse X C Heather Vole X F Hoa Bat S F 33 House Mouse x C Least Chi munk x C Little Brown M otis s u Long-eared M otis s u SOC Long-legged M otis X F V SOC Lon tail Vole X F Lon tail Weasel X F Merriam Shrew x u Mink x C Montane Vole X A Mountain Cottontail x C Mountain Lion x C Mule Deer X A Muskrat X F N. Grasshopper Mouse X F N. Pocket Gopher x u Northern Flying Squirrel X F Northern Water Shrew X F Norway Rat X F Ord's Kangaroo Rat x C Pacific Jumping Mouse x u Pacific Mole x u Pallid Bat s u v Pine Marten x C Pinon Mouse X F Porcupine x C Preble's Shrew x u SOC Pronghorn Antelope x C Pygmy Rabbit X R V SOC Raccoon x C Red Fox X F River Otter x C Rock Mtn Elk x C 34 Roosevelt Elk X C Sagebrush Vole X C Shorttail Weasel X F Silver-haired bat S F V SOC Siski ou Chipmunk X C" Small-footed M offs S u SOC Snowshoe Hare X F Spotted bat -x R V Striped Skunk X C . Townsends Chipmunk, X. C Townsends Ground Squirrel X C Townsends western big-eared bat X F C SOC Trowbridge Shrew X F Vagrant Shrew x u Water Vole X C Western Gray Squirrel X C Western Harvest Mouse X C Western Jumping Mouse X F Western Pi istrel S u Whitetail Jackrabbit X R Wolverine X R Yellow Pine Chipmunk X C Yellow-bellied Marmot X C Yuma M otis X F SOC Birds American Avocet S F American Bittern S F American Coot X C American Dipper X F American Goldfinch S C American Kestrel X C American Peregrine Falcon x R V DL 35 American Pipit X F American Robin X C American Wi eon X C Anna's Hummingbird S F Ash-throated Fl catcher S F Bald Eagle X F T DL Bank Swallow S F Barn Owl X F Barn Swallow S C Barred Owl X R Barrow Goldene e X F . Belted Kin fisher X F Bewick's Wren X . R Black tern s F SOC Black-backed Woodpecker X F V Black-billed Magpie X C Black-capped Chickadee W R Black-chinned Hummingbird S F . Black-crowned Night Heron . S F Black-headed Grosbeak S F Black-necked Stilt S F Black-throated Gray Warbler S F Blue "Sooty" Grouse X F Blue-winged Teal S F Bohemian Waxwing W F Boreal Owl X F Brewer's Blackbird X C Brewer's Sparrow S C Brown Creeper X F Brown-headed Cowbird S C Bufflehead X C Burrowing Owl S R V Bushtit S F 36 California Gull s c California Valle Quail x C Calliope Hummingbird S F Canada Goose X C Canyon Wren x C Caspian Tern S F Cassin's Finch x C Cassins Vireo S F Cedar Waxwing x C Chipping Sparrow s C Chukar Partridge. X. R Cinnamon Teal s C Clark's Nutcracker x C Cliff Swallow s C Common Bushtit x C Common Crow x C Common Goldene e x C Common Loon S R Common Merganser X C. Common Nighthawk s C Common oorwill S. F Common Raven x C Common Snipe S F Common Yellowthroat S F Coopers Hawk x C . Cordilleran Flycatcher S F Dark-eyed Junco X A Double-crested Cormorant s C Down Woodpecker x C Dusk Flycatcher s F Eared Grebe W F Eastern Kingbird S F Eurasian Collared-Dove x F 37 Evening Grosbeak x c Ferru inous Hawk S F v SOc Flammulated Owl S F v Fox Sparrow S c Franklin's Gull S F Gadwall W F Golden Eagle X F Golden-crowned Kinglet X F Golden-crowned Sparrow w c Gray Flycatcher s c Gray Jay x c Gray Partridge X R Gra -crowned Rosy Finch S F Great Blue Heron x c Great Gray Owl X F v Great Horned Owl x c Greater Sage Grouse x F v SOc Greater Yellowle S F Green Heron S R Green-tailed Towhee S F Green-win ed Teal X F Hai Woodpecker X c Hammond's Flycatcher S F Hermit Thrush S F Hooded Mer anser X F Horned Grebe S F Homed Lark x c House Finch x c House Sparrow X A House Wren S F Killdeer x c Lark Sparrow S F Lazuli Bunting S F 38 Least Sandier S F Lesser Goldfinch X R Lesser Scau w c Lewis' Wood ecker S F C SOC Lincoln's Sparrow X F Loggerhead Shrike X F v Lon -billed Curlew S R v Long-eared Owl X . F MacGillivra 's Warbler S F Mallard x C Marsh Wren x . C Merlin w R Mountain Bluebird x C Mountain Chickadee x C Mountain Quail X R v SOC' Mourning Dove x ' C Nashville Warbler X F Northern Flicker X C. Northern Goshawk X F v SOC Northern Harrier X F Northern Oriole S F Northern Phalarope S R Northern Pintail W C Northern Pygmy Owl X F Northern Rough-winged Swallow S F Northern Saw-whet Owl X F Northern Shoveler w F Northern Shrike W F Northern Spotted Owl X R. T T Olive-sided Flycatcher S C v SOC Orange-crowned Warbler S F Osprey S C Pied-billed Grebe S u 39 Pi►eated Woodpecker X F v Pine Grosbeak X R Pine Siskin X C Pinyon Jay X C Prairie Falcon X C Purple Finch X F Pygmy Nuthatch X C Red Crossbill X F Red-breasted Nuthatch X C Red-breasted Sapsucker X C Redhead W F Red-na ed Sapsucker X F Red-tailed Hawk X C Red-winged Blackbird X C Ring-billed Gull S C Ring-neck Duck W F Ring-necked Pheasant X R Rock Dove X C Rock Wren S C Rosy Finch X R Rough-legged Hawk W C Rub -crowned Kinglet X F Rudd Duck X C Ruffed Grouse X F Rufous Hummingbird S F Rufous-sided Towhee X F Sage Sparrow S C Sage Thrasher S -C Sandhill Crane S F Savannah Sparrow S C Say's Pheobe S F Scrub Jay X C Semi palmated Plover S R 40 Sharp-shinned Hawk x C Short-eared Owl S- F Snow Goose W F Snowy Egret S F Son Sparrow x C Sara S F S otted Sandier S C Starling x C Steller's Jay X F Swainson's Hawk S R V Swainson's Thrush S F Three-toed Woodpecker X F Townsend's Solitaire x C Townsend's Warbler S. F Tree Swallow S C Trumpeter Swan X F Tundra Swan W F Turkey Vulture S C Varied Thrush X F Vaux's Swift S F Vesper Sparrow S F Violet-green Swallow S C Virginia Rail S F Warbling Vireo S F Western Bluebird S F Western Burrowing Owl. X R SOC Western Grebe S C Western Kingbird S F Western Meadowlark S C Western Sandier S F Western Screech Owl X F . Western Tanager S F Western Wood Pewee S F 41 White-breasted Nuthatch X F White-crowned Sparrow S F White-headed Woodpecker X F C SOC White-throated Sparrow W R White-throated Swift S ' F Wild Turkey x C Williamson's Sapsucker X F Willow Flycatcher S R V SOC Wilson's Phalarope S F Wilson's Warbler S F Winter Wren X F . Wood Duck S F Yellow Warbler S F Yellow-breasted chat s F SOC Yellow-headed Blackbird S F Amphibians and Reptiles Bullfrog X F Cascades Fro X F. V SOC Coastal tailed fro x F SOC Common Garter Snake x C Gopher Snake x C Great Basin S adefoot Toad X F Long-toed Salamander X 'F Night Snake x u Northern alligator Lizard X F Northern Sagebrush Lizard x C SOC Northwestern Salamander X F Oregon slender salamander X F SOC Oregon Spotted Fro X F S C Pacific Tree Fr x C Racer X F Roughskin Newt X R 42 Rubber Boa X F Sharp-tailed Snake X U Short-horned Lizard X F Side-blotched Lizard X F Striped Whip-snake X F Tailed Fro X F Western Fence Lizard X C Western. Pond Turtle X R C Western Rattlesnake X- F Western Skink X F Western Terrestrial Garter Snake X C Western Toad X . C V Use Period: X = Year Around S = Summer W = Winter Relative Abundance Key: R = Rare F = Few C = Common A Abundant U = Unknown Federal Status Key: E = endangered; T =Threatened; C= Candidate; SOC = Species of Concern; DL = Delisted Federal ESA-listed Species: An endangered species is one that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is one that is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. Federal Candidate Species: Taxa for which the Fish and Wildlife Service has. sufficient biological information to support a proposal to list as endangered or threatened. Federal Species of Concern: Taxa whose conservation status is of concern to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, but for which further information is still needed. Federal Delisted Species: A species that has been removed from the Federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. State Status Key: T = Threatened; C = Critical; V = Vulnerable State Endangered Species: Any native wildlife species determined by the commission to be in danger of extinction throughout any significant portion of its range within the state; or any native wildlife species listed as an endangered species pursuant to the federal ESA. State Threatened: an animal that could become endangered within the foreseeable future within all or a portion of its range. State Critical: species are imperiled with extirpation from a specific geographic area of the state because of small population sizes, habitat loss, or degradation and/or immediate threats. Sensitive Vulnerable: species are facing one or more threats to their populations and/or habitats. 43 44