HomeMy WebLinkAboutSage Grouse Regional Update (2)Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division
P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005
(541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 6,2013
TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
FROM: Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner
RE: Sage Grouse Conservation Strategy Update
Cooperating Agency
As a cooperating agency, the Planning Division continues to participate with the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), who is conducting an environmental analysis and preparing a draft
programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for federal land use and resource
management plan (RMP) amendments to incorporate sage-grouse conservation measures in
Central and Eastern Oregon. In March 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
published its listing decision for the Greater sage-grouse indicating that listing was "Warranted
but Precluded" due to higher listing priorities under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The
following is an updated schedule for the Draft Greater Sage-Grouse Resource Management
Plan Amendments I Draft EIS for the Oregon Sub-Region.
• November 22, 2013 -The Draft EIS should be available for a gO-day public comment
period. The public comment period will be triggered by publication of a Notice of
Availability in the Federal Register on that date.
• January 2014 -Public meetings to discuss the Draft EIS, originally scheduled for
November 18-22, will be held the first part of January. The BLM will coordinate with the
respective counties to establish specific dates and times.
I• September 2014 -The Final EIS and Record of Decision are anticipated for September
2014.
I
Sage Grouse Conservation Partnership I
The Planning Division is also participating with the Governor's Office, Sage Grouse
Conservation Partnership. This involves interagency and inter-stakeholder coordination on
issues related to sagebrush and sage grouse habitat conservation on non-federal lands. This
effort compliments actions being undertaken by BLM on federal lands. The state's goal is to
demonstrate to FWS that listing the sage grouse as a threatened or endangered species under
the federal ESA is unnecessary. Last February, Deschutes County, as a member of the
I
tGovernor's Office Habitat Fragmentation Work Group, completed a baseline assessment and
impact analysis to characterize the level of disturbance associated with development in sage
QU"lity Senlices Perfonned with Pritle
r
grouse designated habitat subject to our permitting authority. This report served as a template
to assist Central and Eastern Oregon counties to perform a similar analysis.
Attached with this memorandum is a Central and Easter Oregon Land Use Planning
Assessment of Sage-Grouse Habitat (Attachment 1). This Regional Assessment incorporates
the analysis from seven affected counties. The results are unequivocal:
Oregon's statewide land use planning program as implemented by local
comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances has succeeded in discouraging
habitat fragmentation in central and eastern Oregon. The existing framework of
state and local laws are ideally equipped to guarantee the adequate regulatory
mechanisms necessary to provide continued protection of Sage-grouse and
Sage-grouse habitat from anthropogenic threats associated with energy
development, mining, infrastructure and urbanization. Furthermore, local land
use approvals may serve as the primary factors to require mitigation relative to
Oregon's primary Sage-grouse threats such as invasive species, conifer
infestation and wildfire. 1
Last week, at a meeting in Burns, Central and Eastern Oregon planning directors recommended
forwarding the Regional Assessment to their respective county commissioners. The goal is for
each county commission to review and formally endorse the Regional Assessment so it can then
be forwarded to Richard Whitman, the Governor's Natural Resource Policy Advisor on November
19 (8:00 -9:00 a.m.) at the Associate of Counties (AOC) meeting in Eugene. Attached is a draft
letter for the Board's consideration that supports the Regional Assessment's findings. Lastly, the
planning directors also respectfully requested that Deschutes County staff prepare a short
presentation on the Regional Assessment at AOC.
Attachments:
1. Central and Easter Oregon Land Use Planning Assessment of Sage-Grouse Habitat
2. Draft Letter to Richard Whitman, Natural Resources Policy Director
1 Central & Eastern Oregon Land Use Planning Assessment, Sage-Grouse Habitat. 6/28/2013. Page 113.
-2
November 14, 2013
Richard Whitman, Natural Resources Policy Director
Governor's Natural Resources Office
State Capitol Building
900 Court Street NE, Suite 160
Salem, OR 97310
Dear Mr. Whitman,
The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners extend our appreciation for your work on behalf of the
State of Oregon to address the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) determination that protection of
the greater sage-grouse under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) is warranted. The status of the
sage grouse, both biologically and legally, is important to the state because so much of Central and
Eastern Oregon consists of sage grouse habitat.
Collectively, Deschutes County is one of seven counties affected by sage-grouse habitat. Deschutes
County is committed to working together with the Bureau of land Management and the Governors
Office, Sage Grouse Conservation Partnership to develop a state-wide strategy to ensure long-term
conservation of the species, while maintaining the vitality of our rural communities. As a demonstration
of this commitment, Deschutes County, in partnership with Baker, Crook, Harney, Klamath, lake, and
Malheur counties completed a Central and Easter Oregon Land Use Planning Assessment of Sage-Grouse
Habitat. This comprehensive report describes the region's existing land use and development patterns
on the landscape. It also includes an inventory of each county's current conservation policies, regulatory
mechanisms and development history over the last decade. The results of the assessment are
remarkable:
Oregon's statewide land use planning program os implemented by local comprehensive
pions and zoning ordinances has succeeded in discouraging habitat fragmentation in
central and eastern Oregon. The existing framework of state and local lows are ideally
equipped to guarantee the adequate regulatory mechanisms necessary to provide
continued protection of Sage-grouse and Sage-grouse habitat from anthropogenic
threats associated with energy development mining, infrastructure and urbanization.
Furthermore, local land use approvals may serve as the primary factors to require
mitigation relative to Oregon's primary Sage-grouse threots such as invasive species,
conifer infestation and wildfire.1
As the region works to maintain and enhance the rural economy, Deschutes County understands its
stewardship responsibilities. Oregon's Statewide land Use Planning Program provides an extraordinary
framework for enabling Central and Easter Oregon counties to collaborate with the state to ensure that {sage-grouse core habitat and low density areas are protected.
1 Central & Eastern Oregon Land Use Planning Assessment, Sage-Grouse Habitat. 6/28/2013. Page 113. J
I
I
Deschutes County remains committed as a partner to strengthening our tools and policies to minimize
threats and expand opportunities in our region. In closing, the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners respectfully requests that the Central and Easter Oregon Land Use Planning Assessment
af Sage-Grause Habitat be incorporated into the Sage Grouse Conservation Partnership's formal
response to USFWS. It is our belief that this document will help demonstrate to USFWS that there are
adequate regulatory protection measures in place and that listing the sage grouse as a threatened or
endangered species under the federal ESA is unnecessary.
Sincerely,
ALAN UNGER, Chair, County Commissioner
TAMMY BANEY, Vice Chair, County Commissioner
ANTHONY DEBONE, County Commissioner
Central & Eastern Oregon
Land Use Planning
Assessment
Sage-Grouse Habitat
Harney County Grant Project
6/28/2013
This project is funded by Oregon general
fund dollars through the Department of
Land Conservation and Development. The
contents of this document do not
necessarily reflect the views or policies of
the State of Oregon. Harney County
thanks the Oregon Department of Land
Conservation and Development for
providing a technical assistance grant to
fund this project.
1
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... 3
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT ................................................................................................................................. 5
BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................................ 8
LAND USE PLANNING IN OREGON .................................................................................................................. 10
OREGON LAND USE CHANGE 1974-2009..................................................................................................... 13
Forests, Farms and People ........................................................................................................................................................... 13
Summary of Important Points .................................................................................................................................................... 16
COUNTY LAND USE PLANNING PROGRAMS ................................................................................................ 18
Baker County ....................................................................................................................................................................... 18
Baker County Planning Overview ............................................................................................................................................. 18
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning ............................................................................................................................................... 19
Built Environment and Development Activity ...................................................................................................................... 21
Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................................ 23
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 24
Crook County ....................................................................................................................................................................... 25
Overview of Sage Grouse Habitat in Crook County, Oregon ............................................................................................ 25
Zoning Statistics for Sage Grouse Habitat .............................................................................................................................. 25
Highway and Road Statistics within Sage Grouse Habitat ................................................................................................ 26
Ownership of Land within Sage Grouse Habitat .................................................................................................................. 26
Sage Grouse Lek Sites in Crook County ................................................................................................................................... 27
Non-Farm Dwellings approved and built in Core and Low Density Sage Grouse Habitat .................................... 27
Aggregate Sites in Core and Low Density Sage Grouse Habitat ...................................................................................... 28
Core and Low Density Sage Grouse Habitat and Big Game (Antelope, Elk and Deer) Habitat in Crook County
................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 29
Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 30
Deschutes County ................................................................................................................................................................ 32
Deschutes County Sage-Grouse Habitat .................................................................................................................................. 32
Land Use Planning History ........................................................................................................................................................... 33
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning ............................................................................................................................................... 35
Base Zoning within Sage-Grouse Designated Areas ........................................................................................................... 37
Combining Zones within Sage-Grouse Designated Areas ................................................................................................. 38
Existing Habitat Conservation Measures ................................................................................................................................ 39
Built Environment and Development Activity ...................................................................................................................... 45
Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................................ 49
Harney County ..................................................................................................................................................................... 52
Harney County Land Use Planning Program ......................................................................................................................... 52
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning ............................................................................................................................................... 52
Existing Habitat Conservation Measures and Zoning Designations ............................................................................. 56
2
Built Environment and Development Activity ...................................................................................................................... 57
Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................................ 63
Lake County ......................................................................................................................................................................... 66
Lake County Land Use Planning Program .............................................................................................................................. 66
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning ............................................................................................................................................... 67
Existing Habitat Conservation Measures and Zoning Designations ............................................................................. 69
Built Environment and Development Activity ...................................................................................................................... 70
Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................................ 75
Malheur County ................................................................................................................................................................. 77
Malheur County Land Use Planning Program ....................................................................................................................... 77
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning ............................................................................................................................................... 77
Existing Habitat Conservation Measures and Zoning Designations ............................................................................. 79
Built Environment and Development Activity ...................................................................................................................... 81
Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................................ 86
Union County ....................................................................................................................................................................... 89
Land Use History .............................................................................................................................................................................. 91
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning ............................................................................................................................................... 92
Built Environment and Development Activity ...................................................................................................................... 93
Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................................ 96
REGIONAL SUMMARY......................................................................................................................................... 98
The Territory .................................................................................................................................................................................... 98
County Land Use Planning Programs ..................................................................................................................................... 101
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning ............................................................................................................................................. 101
Existing Habitat Conservation Measures and Zoning Designations ........................................................................... 103
Built Environment and Development Activity .................................................................................................................... 104
Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................................................................................. 106
Final Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................................. 113
3
Executive Summary
This report considers the existing presence of habitat fragmentation activities in Oregon’s Sage-grouse habitat and
describes state and local land use programs that apply to development proposals. The review is generally limited
to nonfederal lands where local governments have direct jurisdiction.
Habitat Fragmentation Threats
According to the Conservation Objectives Team (COT) Report multiple habitat fragmentatio n threats are found in
the various management zones identified across the range. The following threats have been identified for the
management zones (IV. & V.) and Sage-grouse populations located in Oregon:
Conversion to Agriculture
Energy Development
Mining
Infrastructure
Urbanization
Land Use Planning Programs
Each of the seven counties implements a local land use planning program consistent with state law. Most habitat
fragmentation threats (Mining, Energy Development, Infrastructure, Urbanization) are regulated by county
comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances. Conversion to Agriculture is the only identified habitat
fragmentation threat not regulated by local planning programs.
Almost all of the lands (98%) identified as Sage-grouse habitat are designated as resource land devoted to farm,
ranch or forest uses and also receive protection for wildlife. The regulatory environment for these lands is
characterized by very large minimum parcel size requirements (80 to 320 acres or more), limited land division
opportunities and limited provisions for uses not related to farm, ranch or forest management. Wildlife
protection programs that apply in addition to resource land zoning commonly require coordination with ODFW,
clustering new uses in areas of existing conflicts or simply not allowing certain new uses to become established.
The applicable programs have done an outstanding job limiting rural residential and urban development and
maintaining large parcel sizes. Demand for large scale development has historically been very low. To the extent
it has occurred, it has generally been located along existing transportation corridors.
Governance
Oregon’s Sage-grouse territory is simply dominated by federal land. As stated in the Harney County element of
this report, lands under county jurisdiction are like:
“…an island of privately-owned tracts in a sea of publically managed land.”
4
However, even with the amount of nonfederal lands making up less than 24% of the state’s total habitat area
these areas remain important as a higher level of scrutiny on public land could create an increased demand on
private lands. Furthermore, much of the private or nonfederal land in central and eastern Oregon is managed in
conjunction with public land for commercial livestock grazing. In order to secure a promising future for Oregon’s
Sage-grouse population all lands, federal or nonfederal should be included in Oregon’s strategy for Sage-grouse.
Settlement Pattern
Oregon’s Sage-grouse habitat exhibits a very sparse settlement pattern. An estimated 900 dwellings are present
across nearly 11.5 million acres of federal and non federal land. Assuming an average household size of 2.5, just
2,250 citizens are estimated to reside in these areas. This amount of population would result in a density of one
person per eight square miles (about 5,100 acres) and is just less than one percent of the total population of all
seven counties combined (269,805 in 2012).
Large scale infrastructure in the form of existing state highways, county roads and transmission lines are present.
Mining in the form of existing aggregate quarries is also present. No new infrastructure was approved between
2003 and 2013. No new state or local infrastructure in planned for the future. Only a single new aggregate quarry
was approved between 2003 and 2013. With no new road projects on the horizon it is unlikely that there will be a
demand for new or expanded aggregate quarries.
Urban activities are concentrated within urban growth boundaries at local and regional population centers.
Population centers are located outside of Sage-grouse habitat. Based on information from ODF, no development
of any substance occurred in these areas between 1974 and 2009.
Other Threats
Invasive species, wildfire and conifer infestation are the primary threats to Sage-grouse habitat in Oregon.
Although these threat are not regulated by state or local land use laws, attaching mitigation requirements as
conditions of development approvals could assist in generating important habitat improvements.
Local governments should use the state’s mitigation framework to determine appropriate thresholds of exaction
for large scale development proposed in Sage-grouse habitat.
Final Conclusion
Oregon’s statewide land use planning program as implemented by local comprehensive plans and zoning
ordinances has succeeded in discouraging habitat fragmentation in central and eastern Oregon. The existing
framework of state and local laws are ideally equipped to guarantee the adequate regulatory mechanisms
necessary to provide continued protection of Sage-grouse and Sage-grouse habitat from anthropogenic threats
associated with energy development, mining, infrastructure and urbanization. Furthermore, local land use
approvals may serve as the primary factors to require mitigation relative to Oregon’s primary Sage -grouse threats
such as invasive species, conifer infestation and wildfire.
5
Purpose of the Report
The purpose of this report is to assist state and local decision makers in their efforts to arr est the decline of the
Greater Sage-grouse. Success in Oregon will ultimately mean restoring the species to a breeding population of
about 30,000 up from a 2010 population of about 24,000. Meeting objectives to distribute the species across five
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) management areas is also central to the state’s goal. In order to promote the
desired amount of recovery, strategies will be established that adequately consider threats to the species. In
2005 a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) review of the species identified a variety of threats to Sage-grouse
and Sage-grouse habitat. Findings prepared in 2010 were nearly the same.
Table 1: Threats to Sage-grouse Range Wide1
1 USFWS (2013). Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report. Denver, CO.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Contaminants
Climate Change
Hunting
Hard Rock Mining
Prescribed Fire
Water Development
Disease
Predation
Human
Conifer Invasion
Weather
Coal/Strip Mining
Urbanization
Oil & Gas
Grazing
Agriculture
Wildfire
Infrastructure
Invasive Species
West
East
Rangewide
6
Table 2: Threats to Sage-grouse in the West1
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) “Identified Threats”1 register slightly different for the western
portion of Sage-grouse habitat. This area includes Oregon but is not specific to Oregon. Wildfire presents a greater
threat to Sage-grouse in the western portion of their range compared to oil & gas development, which presents
the leading threat in the eastern portion of the range. After reviewing Tables 1 & 2 it is apparent Sage-grouse
populations are threatened in two basic ways: activities that directly inflict mortalities (i.e. predation, hunting,
disease) and activities that damage or otherwise fragment Sage-grouse habitat. Both types of threats place the
future of the species in jeopardy.
Habitat fragmentation constitutes a threat to the Greater Sage-grouse and can come from many different sources.
Activities that severely threaten Sage-grouse in some areas of their range are not present in Oregon. Other
threats are naturally occurring or not otherwise subject to regulation. In March of 2013 the Conservation
Objective Team assembled by the USFWS released a report assessing threats to Sage-grouse. The “COT Report”
identifies five broad categories of large scale land disturbances that could have the potential to cause habitat
fragmentation in Oregon. These categories are as follows:
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Coal/Strip Mining
Climate Change
Contaminants
Hunting
Water Development
Oil & Gas
Prescribed Fire
Hard Rock Mining
Disease
Predation
Human
Urbanization
Weather
Grazing
Conifer Invasion
Agriculture
Infrastructure
Wildfire
Invasive Species
7
Conversion to Agriculture
Urban Sprawl
Infrastructure
Mining
Energy Development
Aside from conversions to agriculture, the identified threats are accounted for by Oregon’s Statewide Land Use
Planning program and regulated through local comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances. Conversion to
agriculture in central and eastern Oregon most often involves introducing irrigation to rangeland in order to
support hay production. Adjusting farm and ranch management practices is not ordinarily regulated by land use
planning programs. However, establishing new irrigation water rights does require a permit from the Oregon
Water Resources Department.
This report provides a description of the Oregon Planning Program and how it is carried out at the local level.
Specifically, the report looks at the central and eastern Oregon regions including all or portions of Baker, Crook,
Deschutes, Lake, Harney, Malheur, and Union counties. These seven (7) counties have agreed to move forward in
a collaborative fashion to address the presence of Sage-grouse and Sage-grouse habitat.
This report does not attempt to inventory or describe the actual condition of Oregon’s Sage-grouse habitat as that
is the purview of biological experts in partnership with local officials or public and private land managers. Instead,
the report documents existing conditions in two ways. First, land use regulations that apply to large scale
development are identified and discussed. Second, existing development is also described to the extent possible.
Other components of the report attempt to reasonably forecast future dev elopment pressure in the affected
areas and suggest possible policy alternatives. Appropriate strategies will consider the existing regulatory
environment and adaptive management strategies that promote long lasting, collaborative partnerships.
8
Backgro und
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
In April 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) determined that protection of the Greater Sage-grouse
under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) was warranted but precluded. Listing the Sage-grouse was
precluded at this time by the need to address other listings facing greater risk of extinction and hence for now is
just a candidate species for listing. More than any native species since the spotted owl, the Sage-grouse sparks
direct conflict with traditional industries and emerging large-scale renewable energy projects from livestock
grazing to the construction of wind turbines and power lines. The status of the Sage-grouse, both biologically and
legally, is significant to the state of Oregon because so much of Central and Eastern Oregon consists of Sage-
grouse habitat. If Sage-grouse become protected as a threatened or endangered species, federal agencies will be
required to consult with USFWS on projects and approvals that that affect its habitat. “Taking” a Sage-grouse will
be illegal, and the USFWS will be required to designate “critical habitat” resulting in further restrictions upon
activities within those areas. The USFWS will begin reviewing the status of Sage-grouse in 2014 in order to make a
final determination of whether to list the species in 2015.
ODFW Sage-Grouse Population Management
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) is Oregon’s lead state agency managing Sage-grouse. In 2005
a multi-stakeholder group (including federal, state and private agencies) developed The Greater Sage-Grouse
Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon (Strategy)2 to help manage Sage-grouse populations in Oregon.
The strategy was adopted by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission in April 2011. It describes ODFW’s
management of greater Sage-grouse and provides guidance to public land management agencies and land
managers for Sage-grouse conservation. Conservation actions are encouraged on private lands while ODFW’s
overall goal is to maintain or enhance Sage-grouse abundance and distribution at the 2003 spring breeding
population level of approximately 30,000 birds over the next 50 years.2
Sage-Grouse Core Area and Low Density Habitat
ODFW’s strategy identifies and maps Core Areas of habitat that are essential to Sage-grouse conservation.2
According to ODFW, the maps and data provide a tool for planning and identifying appropriate mitigation in the
event of human development within Sage-grouse habitats. Core Areas represent a proactive attempt to identify a
set of conservation targets to maintain a viable and connected set of populations before the opportunity to do so
is lost. These areas should be targeted for conservation actions or protections when large scale disturbances are
proposed. Alternatively, the Low Density habitats may assist in identifying areas where impacts to Sage-grouse
populations can be less of a risk or opportunities exist to mitigate for lost habitat.
Overview of the Territory
Sage-grouse habitat in Oregon includes approximately 11 million acres. The vast majority of this of this territory is
owned and managed by the Federal Government and nearly all the Federal land is managed by the Bureau of
2 Source Document. ODFW, Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon: A Plan to Maintain Populations and
Habitat. April 22, 2011.
9
Land Management (BLM). Private lands comprise scarcely 20 percent of this territory while other nonfederal
lands account for less than 10 percent of the total.
Table 1: Land Ownership Pattern in Oregon
The following table compares Sage-grouse population estimates from 2003 and 2010 and shows how that
population is expected to be distributed across the Burns, Lakeview, Prineville and Vale BLM Districts, and the
Baker Resource Area which is a portion of the Vale BLM District. The table shows that in 2010, Oregon’s Sage
Grouse population was about 82% of the target identified by ODFW and that some BLM management areas have
more robust populations than others.
Table 2: Estimated Percent of Target Population2
BLM District County(ies) 2003 Population 2010 Population Percent of Target
Baker RA Baker, Union 1,566-2,546 872-1,650 61%
Burns Harney 3,722-4,941 3,877-5,195 105%
Lakeview Lake 8,613-10,134 5,523-6,445 64%
Prineville Crook, Deschutes 2,072-2,440 1,775-2,084 86%
Vale Malheur 8,474-13,921 9,016-11,740 93%
Statewide 24,447-33,982 21,064-27,115 82%
The population numbers and percent of target expressed in Table 2 do not account for the severe wildfires
encountered in southeast Oregon during the summer of 2012. Nearly 1 million acres of rangeland was burned
and much of it within Sage Grouse habitat. As of the drafting of this document, it is unknown what effects the
wildfire season of 2012 might have had on Oregon’s Sage-grouse population, or what it could mean for the future.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
BLM Private State & Other Federal
Percent of Total
10
Land Use Planning in Oregon
Importance of Comprehensive Plans
The purpose of a comprehensive plan is to provide a blueprint for land use conservation and development. This is
accomplished through goals and policies that tell a cohesive story of where and how development should occur. A
comprehensive plan provides a consistent policy framework for more specific land use actions and regulations
such as zoning. Goals and policies are based on existing conditions and trends, population projections, and
community values. In Oregon, comprehensive plans must comply with the statewide planning system, which as
noted above, was adopted in 1973 to ensure consistent and proactive land use policies state wide. While
compliance with the statewide system is required, it is also important for a comprehensive plan to reflect local
issues and interests.
Legal Framework
In 1973 the Oregon Legislature adopted a statewide planning system that draws a bright line between urban and
rural land uses, channeling growth and infrastructure into urban areas while protecting farm and forest lands.
Public outreach around the state led to the adoption of 19 Statewide Planning Goals (Statewide Goals). These
Statewide Goals are implemented through local governments’ adopted comprehensive plans. Local
comprehensive plans are reviewed for compliance with the Statewide Goals by the Oregon Land Conservation and
Development Commission (LCDC), a seven-member committee appointed by the Governor and staffed by the
Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). The comprehensive plans are in turn implemented
through zoning, land division ordinances, and other planning techniques. The majority of the Statewide Goals are
written broadly with specific regulations cited either in Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) or Oregon Administrative
Rule (OAR). The LCDC adopts OARs which clarify and implement the Statewide Goals.
Hallmarks of Oregon’s Planning Program
Oregon’s Statewide Planning Program has attracted national and international acclaim. As mentioned above,
maintaining rural lands for rural uses and preparing urban areas for development are the principle underpinnings
of state land use policy. Additional features include integrating transportation and land use and protecting
sensitive areas like wetlands and wildlife habitat. More recently, the state has been working to develop an
additional strategy for climate change.
Oregon’s commitment to its working rural landscapes led early policy makers to place an unmistakable emphasis
on protecting lands devoted to commercial farming, ranching, or timber production, from conflicting activities.
Statewide Planning Goals 3 and 4 implemented by OAR Chapter 660, Divisions 6 and 33, direct counties to identify
and protect valuable agriculture and forest lands. A detailed legal structure including state statute, Oregon
administrative rules, and local planning programs has emerged to guide preservation and development.
Longstanding protective measures include, but are not limited to:
Very large minimum parcel sizes required for farm, ranch, or forest related land divisions originating in
state statute. ORS 215.780 prescribes a range of parcel sizes from 80 to 320 acres.
Very narrow opportunities to create new parcels for uses other than farm, ranching or forest activities.
Authorizing other uses only under certain circumstances.
Not allowing certain land use activities on lands devoted to farming, ranching or timber production.
Oregon pioneered the use of Urban Growth Boundaries to contain urban development in and around
incorporated cities. Statewide Goal 14 and its implementing rule OAR 660, Division 24, require each city to
establish an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Every UGB should furnish a supply of land capable of supporting
11
growth and development over a 20-year planning horizon. Urban growth management promotes efficient,
vibrant communities with a strong sense of place. Cities must coordinate with the respective counties to establish
their UGB. A hierarchy established at ORS 197.298 acts in addition to Statewide Planning Goals to direct urban
planning efforts away from productive lands in favor of areas with less value for farming or timber production.
Special safeguards designed to protect wildlife are commonly employed by Oregon’s cities and counties.
Statewide Planning Goal 5 and its implementing administrative rule, OAR Chapter 660, Division 23, call for local
governments to adopt programs that will protect natural resources and conserve scenic, historic, and open space
resources for present and future generations. Big game habitat and winter range are commonly protected
resources on rural lands governed by counties. Protection is implemented in a number of ways ranging from
requiring uses to be located in proximity to existing disturbance to an outright prohibition of conflicting uses.
Most county programs involve some sort of balancing assessment between private property rights and protection
of the identified resource.
Oregon’s land use policies act collectively to maintain large areas for commercial agriculture and forestry while
containing urban sprawl and offering special consideration for distinct places and sensitive lands. Minimizing
sprawl is considered better for the maximization of agriculture and forestry production while a strong natural
resource sector benefits local economies. Currently in Oregon about 15.5 million acres are inventoried as farm or
ranch land in local comprehensive plans and an additional nine million acres are inventoried as forest land. When
combined, these figures represent nearly 25 million acres that are inventoried and protected for resource uses. A
rural landscape is generally better for other values like open space and natural areas. Much of this land, millions
of acres, also receives additional protection to ensure their function as wildlife habitat. Even species that are not
targeted benefit from land use provisions regulating types and intensity of future development.
Comparison with Other States
Greater Sage-grouse habitat spans a vast area that is a part of up to eleven (11) western states where land use
policy and guidelines vary. Whereas it is common for all states to grant land use planning authority to local
jurisdictions, the role of individual states and their locally imposed guidelines can differ. Some states require local
planning while others consider it optional. A lack of required planning at the local level could lead to poor
implementation of policies that affect the environment at a broad scale, possibly due to the jurisdictions inability
to deal with issues cohesively. Alternatively, greater influence at a state level may lead to regulation that does
not adequately reflect local values. A combination of these strategies like Oregon incorporates can help to
adequately address broad scale concerns such as Sage-grouse conservation, while allowing local counties and
municipalities to continue addressing local individual needs.
Notably, the eight western states with the largest area of Sage-grouse habitat demonstrate subtle differences
among their influence upon a county’s ability to use land use planning as a tool for conservation of the Greater
Sage-grouse. Table 1 demonstrates a comparison of general differences between each state’s land use planning
guidelines. This table helps to exhibit how Oregon’s land use planning program stands out by providing structured
consistency among each county’s individual plans while allowing for individualistic authority to address specific
needs. While other states such as Washington and Nevada have developed similar attributes, they are influenced
by the groundbreaking work laid down by Oregon’s pioneering land use program. The following is a brief
summary of each Western state’s approach to land use planning.
Oregon: Oregon requires cities and counties to develop their own individual land use planning through
adoption of comprehensive plans and zoning, land-division, and ordinances. Each comprehensive plan is
required to be consistent with statewide planning goals which are the foundation of Oregon’s Statewide
Planning system. The Department of Land Conservation and Development oversees local implementation of
state land use goals.
Washington: The 1990 Growth Management Act established state land use goals that are required as a part
of city and county comprehensive plans. One caveat to these guidelines is that cities and counties only have
12
to comply when they reach certain population or growth boundaries, so small or low growth counties are not
required to participate. Land use is still determined at city and county levels to meet the specific needs of
individual counties, and is overseen by the Environmental and Land Use Hearings Office.
Nevada: State law mandated counties to adopt a comprehensive (master) plan when populations reach
specified threshold. Planning is done primarily at the local level with cities and counties making decisions for
their district with technical assistance provided by regional planning commissions and the state.
Wyoming: State law requires use of a comprehensive plan at a local county level that incorporates the needs
of cities within that county. Each plan is specific to the individual county needs regarding planning regulations
and processes under state law.
Idaho: Land use planning is done at the local level with less influence or oversight from a state agency that
monitors compliance. Cities and counties are required to develop comprehensive land use plans based upon
13 duties, but implementation is strictly at the local level with little or no technical assistance from the state.
Montana: Land use planning is done at a local level. Local governing bodies can develop growth policy
should they choose. There is little to no state involvement in development of land use policy.
Colorado: No formal state land use plan. All planning decisions are done at the local level with minimal
guidelines provided by the state.
Utah: Utilizes a state land use plan that addresses broad issues at a state level, but the majority of decisions
are done at a county or municipal level, granting land use planning authority to local jurisdictions.
Comprehensive plans are required, but little oversight or assistance provided by the state on how local plans
are developed or implemented.
Table 1 - State Land Use Planning Comparison3
State
Local
Planning
Authority
Granted by
State
Local
Planning
Required by
State
Specification
of Plan
Elements
Zoning
Regulations
Conform with
Comprehensive
Plan
Local Plans
Consistent
with higher
Jurisdiction
Local Plans
Consistent
with
Neighboring
Jurisdictions
Oregon X X X X X X
Washington X *X X X X X
Nevada X *X X X X X
Wyoming X X X X X
Idaho X X X X
Montana X X X X
Colorado X X
Utah X X
* Local planning requirement based on population of counties. Under a specified population threshold, no planning is
required.
3 Source. Schwab 2010. Summary of State Land Use Planning Laws. Presentation. American Planning Association.
13
Oregon Land Use Change 1974 -2009
Forests, Farms and People
In January 2011 the Oregon Department of Forestry released a report examining changes in land use on non -
Federal land in Oregon between 1974 and 20094 (hereafter ODF Report). This period effectively represents the
existence of Oregon’s Statewide Planning Program.
The following is an excerpt from the ODF Report introduction:
Introduction
This report examines changes in land use on non-Federal land in Oregon between 1974 and 2009.
We collected consistent, sample-based data to address two key topics: 1) changes in the distribution of
private and public non-Federal land by land use class and 2) development patterns on private land by land
use class and by planned, county-level land use zone. Data collected for this report may also be used to
analyze the effects that land use change has on forest resources and forest management practices on
non-Federal owner- ships in a later report. Highlighted in this report are trends in land use before and
after the implementation of comprehensive land use plans in the mid-1980s. An Appendix provides
detailed statistics in tabular formats for Oregon and by region and county.
The report updates 3 previous publications: Forests, Farms and People: Land Use Change on Non-Federal
Land in Western Oregon 1973-2000 (Lettman and others 2002), Forests, Farms and People: Land Use
Change on Non- Federal Land in Eastern Oregon 1975-2001 (Lettman and others 2004), and Forests,
Farms and People: Land Use Change on Non-Federal Land in Oregon 1974-2005 (Lettman and others
2009).
The Oregon Progress Board and the Oregon Board of Forestry requested this information and will use it to
evaluate several Oregon Benchmarks and Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management.
Approach
Using 2009 digital imagery with one-meter resolution, we updated previously collected land use
information on a sample of 37,003 points distributed across non- Federal land in Oregon. We interpreted
each sample point for land use class, number of structures, and nearest distances to adjacent land use
classes. These attributes had been evaluated in earlier inventories with aerial imagery using the same
sample points; for eastern Oregon, the images were taken in 1975, 1986, 1994, 2001, 2005, and 2009 and
for western Oregon, in 1973, 1982, 1994, 2000, 2005, and 2009. Definitions associated with these
attributes are the same for 2009 and these earlier years. We also determined owner class and land use
zone at each sample point.
A major strength of this report is that it is based on data that are sampled and defined consistently back
to 1973.
Land use class: We interpreted the land use present at each sample point. Eight land use classes are
recognized:
4 Source Document. Forests, Farms & People, Land Use Change on Non-Federal Land in Oregon 1974-2009 (Lettman et al. 2011)
14
Wildland forest – A polygon of land in forest use of at least 640 acres. The polygon has fewer than 5
structures per 640 acres, and these structures are scattered generally across the polygon. Forest land
occupies more than 80-percent of the polygon and the remainder is agricultural or “other” land except for
the structures. In eastern Oregon, the remainder can also include range land.
Wildland range – A polygon of undeveloped land in range use (non-forest or non-agricultural land) of at
least 640 acres. The polygon has fewer than 5 structures per 640 acres, and these structures are scattered
generally across the polygon. Forest land comprises less than 51 percent of the polygon, and agricultural
land less than 20 percent. This class may include grassland, non-irrigated pastures or hayfields, marshes
or sagebrush land. This land use classification is used only in eastern Oregon.
Intensive agriculture – A polygon of land in agricultural use of at least 640 acres. The polygon has fewer
than 9 non-farm-related structures per 640 acres, and these structures are scattered generally across the
polygon. Agricultural land occupies more than 80-percent of the polygon. Agricultural land is land used for
growing row crops, seed crops, orchards, vineyards, hay fields, nursery stock, Christmas trees, and for
improved pasture and grazing land.
As discussed above, the ODF report measures changes in land use based not on zoning but on actual development
trends revealed by digital imagery. Several other land use classes were identified and mapped in this effort. Only
those most relevant to Sage Grouse habitat have been included above.
The figures below compare ODFW’s Sage Grouse Core Areas map with the mapped distributions of land use
classes across Oregon. The land use class map is identified as Table 1 located on page 5 of the ODF report.
Figure 1: Oregon Land Use 20094
15
Figure 2: ODFW Sage-grouse Core Areas5
A close look at Figures 1 and 2 above clearly shows two things. First, public lands managed by BLM make up the
vast majority Sage grouse Habitat in Oregon. This is not an unknown feature and has been identified previously in
Section II of this Report. However, seeing the ODF map helps to emphasize just how much land is controlled by
BLM across the landscape and how little of it is privately held. Second, nearly all of the privately held land is
classified as Wildland range.
5 ODFW GIS; Aug 24, 2011.
16
Figure 3: Change in Land Use on Private Land
The basic question asked by the ODF report is whether or not there have been changes to Oregon’s land use
patterns during the period between 1974 and 2009. The answer for most of Oregon is that some areas have been
affected by development but by and large the land use pattern remains intact. The answer for Sage grouse
habitat is that other than some limited changes to irrigated agriculture there has been no substantive increase in
development for 35 years.
Summary of Important Points
The ODF Report offers key findings and other statistics s regarding land use changes on private land in Oregon.
Most of the findings are of a statewide nature. However, some are particularly relevant to lands identified as
Sage Grouse habitat. For instance:
Ninety-eight percent of all non-federal land and 98 percent of private land that was in forest, agricultural,
and range land uses in Oregon in 1974 remained in these uses in 2009.
One percent of Oregon’s Wildland range outside of the Bend Area and Klamath County was converted to
other uses between 1974 and 2009.
Number of structures per square mile of Wildland range increased from 0.4 to 0.8 between 1974 and
2009.
17
Most all of the Wildland range converted to a different land use category between 1974 and 2009 was
planned and zoned for development activity.
The rate at which private land in range land uses shifted to low-density residential or urban land uses is
related to the distance between land in these resource uses and land in more developed uses.
The picture provided by the ODF Report shows very little of Oregon’s landscape has been converted by
development during the 35 year history of the Statewide Planning Program. An even smaller percentage of lands
identified as Wildland range changed during this period. Furthermore, most of the Wildland range that did
convert to a different land use class was planned for development activities rather than farm or ranch use.
Although the number of structures on Wildland range did increase, the amount of development grew at the rate
of only one new structure per 1,600 acres, hardly a startling amount.
Based on the identified trends it is also unlikely that Sage Grouse habitat will convert to other land use classes in
the future. This is because all or nearly all of it is classified as Wildland range and, as Section IV. of this report will
demonstrate, virtually all Sage Grouse habitat in Oregon is planned for farm and ranch activities rather than
development and is located a great distance from population centers.
18
County Land Use Planning Programs
Working under a regional memorandum of understanding county planners along with DLCD collaborated to
produce a stand-alone development report for each county. There are 7 counties in central and eastern Oregon
which have land use planning jurisdiction (development permitting) over non-federal lands which contain Sage
Grouse habitat areas. Each report was created to provide an understanding of the county-specific land use
programs and show development trends on non-federal lands within habitat areas. The findings for each county
will show existing developments such as housing, mining sites, and infrastructure within habitat and list county
permitting decisions over a ten year period from 2003 through 2013. Each report lists area specific development
designations and in some instances special programs for habitat protection. In addition to the development
studies listed in the report, 3 counties (Deschutes, Harney, Lake) produced a series of overview maps showing
existing development, ownership, and zoning designations or districts
Baker County
Baker County Planning Overview
Baker County’s planning program formally began in 1970 with the adoption of the County’s first zoning ordinance.
In the early 1980’s, Baker County’s first Comprehensive Land Use Plan was written, and the implementing Zoning
Ordinance was revised based on the goals and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the
statewide planning goals and regulations in place at that time. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan has been
amended as needed over time. Two of the most notable changes relating to sage grouse habitat are the 1994
Aggregate Inventory update and Big Game Habitat update.
The Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the Zoning Ordinances in place from 1970 to present, covers all lands in
Baker County that are outside incorporated city limits and not managed by the federal government. The planning
program aims to protect lands appropriate for agriculture, timber production and mining as well as identify lands
appropriate for development. Zones for farm use, timber production, mineral extraction, rural development,
commercial, and industrial lands are all implemented within the framework of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
The vast majority of lands in Baker County are within a zone designed to protect agriculture or timber resource
uses and have specific protections in place to prevent intensive development. These protections also have
benefits for wildlife habitat, leaving large areas of open space. Baker County’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan
includes a protection program specific to elk, deer and antelope habitat in areas of the County designated as
important habitat for each species. The land use program provides additional habitat protection for other wildlife
species.
Land Base
Over half of Baker County’s land base is managed by federal agencies such as Bureau of Land Management and
USDA Forest Service. Table 1 Total Acreage in Baker County identifies over a million acres in federal land
management and 934,755 acres in non-federal ownership (including private & state owned land).
19
Table 1: Total Acreage in Baker County
Federal Lands Non-federal Lands Total
Acreage
Number
Percent
1,003,306.89
51.7%
934,755
48.3%
1,938,062.47
100%
*This data does not include acreages for public right-of-ways
Table 2 identifies the total acres and total Baker County Assessor’s Tax Lots within Core Area and Low Density sage grouse ha bitat divided
between federal and non-federal lands. About 38.6 percent of Baker County is in designated sage grouse habitat (69% Core Area & 31%
Low Density) and about 75 percent of that habitat is in non-federal land ownership.
Table 2: Sage Grouse Habitat Acreage & Tax Lots in Baker County
Core Area Low Density Total Percent Habitat (Core
and Low Density)
Federal
Lands
Non-federal Lands Federal
Lands
Non-federal
Lands
Federal
Lands
Non-federal
Lands
Acres 131,659.32
385,140.38
56,223.25
175,885.32
748,908.27 25% 75%
Tax
Lots
193 965 118 655 1931
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Overview
The Baker County Comprehensive Land Use Plan was adopted in 1984 and acknowledged to be in compliance with
statewide planning goals in 1986. The Plan identifies general land use classifications, land use policies,
recommendations and provides the foundation for land use regulations in the unincorporated county.
The Baker County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance #83-3 includes the county-wide zoning map, zoning
designations, uses and minimum parcel sizes authorized, development standards and procedural requirements.
Table 3 Baker County Zoning Designations identifies those zones that include sage grouse habitat.
20
Table 3 – Baker County Zoning Designations
Zone Designations Ordinance Section(S)
Exclusive Farm Use BCZPO Section 301,301.05: 80 ac. irr. 160 ac. non
irr.
Timber Grazing BCZPO Section 302.01 - .10: 5 – 80 ac.
Mineral Extraction BCZPO Section 307, 308.03; 5ac.
Rural Service Area BCZPO Section 305.01, 305.04, 7500sqft.
Primary Forest (PF) Federal Land
Cemetery
Commercial Industrial BCZPO Section 311, DEQ
Big Game Habitat (EFU & TG) BCZPO Section 301.05(2)(D) – 40 ac. for non-
farm or lot of record dwellings
Base Zoning within Sage Grouse Designated Areas
The majority (85%) of sage grouse habitat in Baker County and on non-federal is in an Exclusive Farm Use Zone
that conforms to state law (ORS Chapter 215). This EFU Zone includes private crop and rangeland (see Table 4).
About 70 percent in this zone is Core Area and 30 percent is in Low Density Habitat.
There are some private properties in both EFU and TG Zones. Table 4 does not include these properties in a
separate category. Each property was assigned to the most dominant zone.
About 6.81 percent of non-federal land in sage grouse habitat is in a Primary Forest (PF) Zone that applies to all
federal lands (forest and range). The County does not regulate land uses on federal lands, however, if there are
private land inclusions or federal ownership converted to state or private ownership the County will apply an EFU
or Timber Grazing Zone, whichever is applicable.
The Timber Grazing Zone includes about 58,546.22 acres in sage grouse habitat which represents only about 3
percent of sage grouse Core Area and 4.8 percent of Low Density Habitat. This zone also conforms to state law.
Other minor inclusions are in the County’s Mineral Extraction Zone (3344.16 acres), Rural Service Area (82.90
acres), Commercial – Industrial (370.60 acres) and Cemetery (5.75 acres).
Combining or Overlay Zone within Sage Grouse Designated Areas
Baker County has three wildlife overlay zones for elk, deer and antelope. The Big Game Habitat Overlay Zone
limits new non-farm parcels with non-farm dwellings and lot-of-record dwellings to no smaller than 40 acres.
Otherwise, new parcels with dwellings must meet the statutory 160 acre minimum for cropland, 240 acre
minimum for forestland and 320 acre minimum for rangeland.
21
Table 4 – Baker County Zoning Designations
Core Area Low Density Total Acres
Percent in
Sage-Grouse
Habitat Federal Lands Non-federal Lands Federal Lands Non-federal lands
Exclusive Farm Use
Acres 80059.29 363805.88 52071.90 139554.72 635491.79 84.89%
Timber Grazing
Acres 2563.48 20019.11 1858.14 34105.49 58546.22 7.81%
Mineral Extraction
Acres 256.16 1000.65 0 2087.35 3344.16 0.44%
Rural Service Area
Acres 0 6.91 18.65 57.34 82.90 0.01%
Primary Forest
Acres 48780.39 0 2274.56 0 51054.95 6.81%
Cemetery
Acres 0 5.75 0 0 5.75 0.00076%
Commercial Industrial
Acres 0 295.17 0 75.43 370.60 0.04%
Rural Residential 2
Acres 0 0 0 4.99 4.99 0.00066%
Rural Service Area
Acres 0 6.91 0 0 6.91 0.00092%
Total 748908.27 100%
Built Environment and Development Activity
Housing Units
Existing dwelling units based on the County’s rural addressing system include 158 dwellings in Core Areas and 88
dwellings in Low Density sage grouse habitat. Table 5 lists a nine (9) year history for residential single family
dwelling approvals. A total of nine (9) dwellings over 9 years were built in Core Areas and four(4) dwellings over
9 years in Low Density Habitat. For perspective, the average is 1.4 dwellings per year over 604,000 acres of sage
grouse habitat or 46,461 acres per dwelling over the 9 years.
22
Roads and Utilities
No major highways in Baker County bisect sage grouse habitat. Several existing secondary highways and county
roads extend through sage grouse habitat and have existed for many years. No new State highway or County
Road are anticipated or planned through sage grouse habitat.
I-84 borders sage grouse habitat on one side or another south of Baker City. An Idaho Power existing 230 kilovolt
high voltage transmission line parallels I-84 through the County and a new 500 kilovolt transmission line that
parallels the existing line is proposed. Idaho Power Corp. is currently pursuing BLM/USFS federal approval
through the NEPA process and Oregon EFSC approval for the proposed 500 kV route. Sage grouse habitat has
been a major consideration during route selection.
Surface Mining Sites
Table 6 identifies 29 aggregate sites in Core Areas and 20 aggregate sites in Low Density Habitat. The general
locations are broadly distributed throughout sage grouse habitat. Each site is only used periodically for road
improvement or maintenance work in each site’s general vicinity. No permanent continually operated sites exist
within sage grouse habitat.
Table 5: Land Use Approvals in Sage Grouse Habitat
Year Dwellings in
Core
Dwellings in
Low Density
Other in Core Other in Low
Density
Note
2012 0 0 0 0
2011 0 1 0 0 LOR
2010 1 1 0 0
2009 0 0 0 0
2008 2 1 1 0 C: SFmd,
LD: FmD,
Other: Agr
Site
2007 1 0 0 0 Secondary
Farm
Dwelling
2006 1 1 0 0 C: LOR, LD:
SFmD
2005 4 0 0 0 Farm
Dwellings
2004 0 0 0 0
Total 9 4 1 0
Table 6: Aggregate Sites within Sage Grouse Habitat
Area Aggregate Sites
Core 29
Low Density 20
Total 49
23
Impact Analysis
Risk Assessment
Risks identified for sage grouse habitat in Oregon counties include the following activities:
Table 7: Sage-Grouse Habitat Risk levels
Land Use Related
Risk Levels Threat Rating
Agriculture Conversion Present, but localized (rangeland to cropland)
Energy Present, but localized (wind and solar farms)
Mining Present, but localized
Infrastructure Present, but localized (power lines and roads)
Recreation Unknown
Urbanization Not known to be present (increased residential density)
Findings
Rangeland conversion to cropland in Baker County only occurs where irrigation water is available. Over the last
10 years no new water sources such as irrigation reservoirs have been developed and no known conversions
within sage grouse habitat have occurred.
One small wind farm (3MW) has been developed above the Old Lime Plant on BLM land. The County has
approved two new wind farms, one 20 MW and the other 30 MW in the same general vicinity. No solar projects
currently exist or are proposed.
Recreation in sage grouse habitat is limited to big game and upland bird hunting in the fall. Other form of
recreation on private lands is undeveloped and minimal. No destination resorts currently exist or are planned
within sage grouse habitat.
Urbanization of sage grouse habitat has not occurred as witnessed by the 13 new dwellings over 9 years and
604,000 acres. Urbanization on non-federal land is not expected to be a future risk to sage grouse habitat
because 93 percent is in large lot resource zoning (EFU or TG) and 6.81 percent is in federal ownership in a
Primary Forest Zone.
24
Conclusion
Historical development within Baker County sage grouse habitat has been incidental at best. An average of 1.4
new dwellings per year per 46,461 acres over the last 9 years is not even noteworthy. Future development
(residential or otherwise) is severely limited by statewide resource zoning (EFU and TG) and federal land
ownership.
Conversion of rangeland to cropland has not occurred over the last 10 years and is not anticipated unless new
water sources developed.
Very limited opportunities exist for renewable energy development.
The proposed 500 kV Idaho Power Corp. transmission line will parallel the existing 230 kV transmission line
consolidating impacts to a transmission corridor.
In conclusion, historical impacts to sage grouse habitat have been insignificant and future impacts are not
anticipated to be significant.
25
Crook County
Overview of Sage Grouse Habitat in Crook County, Oregon
In Crook County, Sage Grouse habitat is found in the southeast two thirds of the county as shown on Map 1
below. There are:
423,726 acres of Sage Grouse Core Habitat in Crook County that covers 23% of the county;
140,134 acres of Sage Grouse Low Density Habitat in Crook County that covers 7% of the county;
563,860 acres of Core and Low Density Sage Grouse Habitat (when combined) in Crook County that
covers 30% of the county.
Zoning Statistics for Sage Grouse Habitat
Exclusive Farm Use Zone, EFU-1 Total Acres within Sage Grouse Habitat - 546,054 Acres
26
Core Area
Federal parcels (acres, number of parcels) – 138,585 Acres, 101 Parcels
Non-federal parcels (acres, number of parcels) – 269,639 Acres, 362 Parcels
Low Density
Federal parcels (acres, number of parcels) – 44,924 Acres, 68 Parcels
Non-federal parcels (acres, number of parcels) – 91,432 Acres, 346 Parcels
Forest Zone, F-1 Total Acres within Sage Grouse Habitat – 19,070 Acres
Core Area
Federal parcels (acres, number of parcels) – 14125 Acres, 5 Parcels
Non-federal parcels (acres, number of parcels) – 1233 Acres, 11 Parcels
Low Density
Federal parcels (acres, number of parcels) – 2606 Acres, 5 Parcels
Non-federal parcels (acres, number of parcels) – 1105 Acres, 11 Parcels
Rural Service Center Zone, RSC Total Acres within Sage Grouse Habitat – 52 Acres,
Core Area
Federal parcels (acres, number of parcels) – 0 Acres, 0 Parcels
Non-federal parcels (acres, number of parcels) – 19 Acres, 43 Parcels
Low Density
Federal parcels (acres, number of parcels) – 0 Acres, 0 Parcels
Non-federal parcels (acres, number of parcels) – 19 Acres, 6 Parcels
Highway and Road Statistics within Sage Grouse Habitat
Core Habitat
State Highway or County Roads in Core Area - 103 Miles, 15 Roads
Low Density Habitat
State Highway or County Roads in Low Density Area - 22 Miles, 8 Roads
Ownership of Land within Sage Grouse Habitat
Core Habitat
Ownership of the land within the Core Habitat, when divided into two groups of federal and non-federal
lands, indicates:
Federal ownership is 152,709 acres (102 parcels) acres; and
Non-Federal ownership is 271,017 acres (394 parcels).
Low Density Habitat
Ownership of the land within the Low Density Habitat, when divided into two groups of federal and non-
federal lands, indicates:
Federal ownership is 47,530 acres (70 parcels); and
Non-Federal ownership is 92,604 acres (349 parcels).
27
Sage Grouse Lek Sites in Crook County
In 1993, there were 24 Lek Sites in Crook County.
There are currently 64 Lek Sites in Crook County as of 2012.
43 of the Lek Sites (67%) are within Sage Grouse Core Habitat found in area 6, 7, 10, 11, 15, 16 17, 20,
23 and 25 on Map 2 below.
11 (18%) of the Lek Sites are within Sage Grouse Low Density Habitat found in area 4, 6, 9, 12, 17 and
24 on Map 2 below.
10 (15%) Lek Sites are outside the Core and Low Density Habitat and are:
o not verified (3 sites) found in area 5 on Map 2 below; or
o in BLM Category 2 Habitat (6 sites) found in area 22 and 24 on Map 2 below; or
o inventoried and outside the identified Core and Low Density Habitat (1 site) found in area 3
on Map 2 below.
Non-Farm Dwellings approved and built in Core and Low Density Sage Grouse Habitat
Non-Farm Dwellings in Core and Low Density Sage Grouse Habitat are an uncommon occurrence in Crook County.
Crook County has seen only five Non-Farm Dwellings be approved and built in Core or Low Density Sage Grouse
Habitat in the last ten years. One Non-Farm Dwelling was approved and built in the Core Habitat (found in area 7
on Map 3 below), with the remaining four Non-Farm Dwellings being approved and built near the very westerly
edge of the Low Density Habitat (found in area 4 and 8 on the Map 3 below).
28
Aggregate Sites in Core and Low Density Sage Grouse Habitat
In Crook County there are thirteen Aggregate Sites within Core and Low Density Sage Grouse Habitat.
Six of the thirteen Aggregate Sites are in Core Sage Grouse Habitat, one (8% of the Aggregate Sites) of
which is adjacent to SE Paulina Highway which runes east to west in Crook County (found in area 6
and 10 on Map 4 below); and
Seven Aggregate Sites are in Low Density Sage Grouse Habitat, all of which (100% of the Aggregate
Sites) are adjacent to a State Highway or a County Road (found in area 4, 9 and 10 on Map 4 below).
29
Core and Low Density Sage Grouse Habitat and Big Game (Antelope, Elk and Deer) Habitat in
Crook County
The map below shows the Core and Low Density Sage Grouse Habitat along with Crook County’s Antelope, Deer
and Elk Habitat Protection Overlay. The map indicates that approximately 90% of the Sage Grouse Core Habitat
and 95% of the Sage Grouse Low Density Habitat is within Crook County’s Habitat Protection Overlay for
Antelope, Deer, and Elk.
90% of the Core Sage Grouse Habitat is within Crook County’s Habitat Protection Overlay for
Antelope, Deer, and Elk.
95% of the Low Density Sage Grouse Habitat is within Crook County’s Habitat Protection Overlay for
Antelope, Deer, and Elk.
30
Summary
Background
The Crook County Comprehensive Land Use Plan was adopted on February 2, 1978 and has been in use by the
County since that time. Over the years, there have been amendments to the maps and text of the Comprehensive
Plan. The Plan provides guidance on land use throughout Crook County with the exception of the City of
Prineville.
In 1992, Crook County went through Periodic Review which included inventory and policy updates for Goal 5. This
Goal 5 Periodic Review included inventorying Sage Grouse Leks. This 1992 Goal 5 Periodic Review data for Sage
Grouse Leks is used in this report in addition to 2012 data from the BLM and ODFW.
Crook County’s Comprehensive Plan also has inventory and policy guidance for Exclusive Farm Use, Forest and
Rural Service Center Zoned land as well as Antelope, Deer and Elk habitat Protection Overlay’s. The
Comprehensive Plan works in concert with Crook County Land Use Code and Ordinances which have been
adopted over the years to keep Crook County’s Land Use Program contemporary.
31
Land Use Activity
Crook County’s Land Use Program provides for a number of land use activities based on what is allowed by
Oregon Revised Statutes, Oregon Administrative Rule, the Oregon Statewide Planning Goals and a host of other
laws and regulations.
When considering land use in Crook County it is important to understand Crook County’s land use history. There
are approximately 21,000 people who call Crook County home. Approximately 90% (18,900) of Crook County
residents’ live in the western most 15% of the County. The western 30% of the County is home to approximately
95% (19,950) of the population. This means approximately 1,050 people live on farms and ranches in the eastern
70% of the County (1,319,276 acres), or approximately 1 person per 1,256 acres. This sparse settlement pattern is
characteristic of what Crook County anticipates for its future, and is codified in its Comprehensive Plan and Land
Use Zoning Code.
This report includes information and a map (on page 27) showing non-resource dwelling approvals for the last ten
years. Non-Farm Dwellings in Core and Low Density Sage Grouse Habitat are an uncommon occurrence in Crook
County. Crook County has seen only five Non-Farm Dwellings be approved and built in Core or Low Density Sage
Grouse Habitat in the last ten years. One Non-Farm Dwelling was approved and built in the Core Habitat, with the
remaining four Non-Farm Dwellings being approved and built near the very westerly edge of the Low Density
Habitat.
Six of the thirteen Aggregate Sites in Crook County (on page 28) are in Core Sage Grouse Habitat, one of the sites
is adjacent to SE Paulina Highway which runes east to west in Crook County; and seven Aggregate Sites are in Low
Density Sage Grouse Habitat all of which are adjacent to a State Highway or a County Road.
Core and Low Density Sage Grouse Habitat in Crook County is also typically within a Habitat Protection Overlay for
Crook County’s Antelope, Deer and Elk. Approximately 90% of the Sage Grouse Core Habitat and 95% of the Sage
Grouse Low Density Habitat are within Crook County’s Habitat Protection Overlay for Antelope, Deer, and Elk.
The Antelope, Deer and Elk Habitat Protection Overlay is designed to reduce development opportunities for
dwellings with an allowable density of no more than one dwelling per 160 acres or 320 acres in most instances.
This Antelope, Deer and Elk Habitat Protection Overlay combined with the fact the Sage Grouse Core and Low
Density Habitat lands are also zoned Exclusive Farm Use of Forest, reduces development and protects Sage
Grouse Habitat.
Conclusion
Crook County has established a strong land use program in 1978, and has continued to implement the program
throughout the years. The background mentioned above and the land use activity mentioned above describe
Crook County’s actions which have provided solid protection for animal habitat over the years. In conclusion, one
only look to on page 27 of this report to see evidence that Crook County has been and is continuing to do a great
job protecting identified Sage Grouse Habitat in Crook County. If one looks closely at the 1992 Lek Site numbers
(24) from ODFW and compares them with the 2012 Lek Site numbers (64) found on on page 27, it becomes quite
clear that Sage Grouse Core and Low Density Habitat has been successfully protected by the Crook County Land
Use program. The Lek Site numbers show a 166% increase in Lek Sites over the past twenty years. This is average
an annual increase of approximately 8.3% over the last twenty years. This significant and steady increase
indicates that Crook County’s Sage Grouse Core and Low Density Habitat have been well protected by Crook
County’s Land Use program.
32
Deschutes County
Deschutes County Sage-Grouse Habitat
As shown in Figures 1 and 2, sage-grouse habitat in Deschutes County is located in the southeast, near Millican,
Brothers, and Hampton.
Figure 1 Figure 2
ODFW’s management recommendations for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Prineville District, which
include the affected portions of Deschutes County shown in Figure 2, are:
Restore greater sage-grouse abundance and distribution near the 1980 spring breeding population level,
approximately 3,000 birds.6
According to the Strategy, because the Prineville District is at the northern edge of sage-grouse range,
connectivity in this region is important. The primary habitat block where sage -grouse occur is contiguous with the
area shared by the Lakeview and Burns districts. Table 1 lists the total number of federal and non-federal parcels
and their respective acreages in Deschutes County. Seventy-six percent of Deschutes County’s land base is
managed by the federal government. As shown in Table 2, 437,987 acres are designed Core Area and Low Density
habitat. This constitutes 23% of the total acreage in Deschutes County.
Table 1 - Total Acreage and Parcels in Deschutes County
Federal Lands Non-Federal Lands Total
Acreage
Number 1,446,395 466,506 1,912,901
Percent 76% 24% 100%
Parcels
Number 615 95,569 96,184
Percent 1% 99% 100%
6 Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon: A Plan to Maintain and Enhance Populations and Habitat. April
22, 2011. Page 39
33
Table 2 - Acreage and Parcels in Deschutes County Containing Sage-Grouse Habitat
Core Area Low Density Total
Percent Habitat (Core and
Low D.)
Federal Lands Non-Federal Lands Federal Lands Non-Federal Lands Federal Lands Non-Federal Lands
Acres 182,482 66,723 132,946 55,836 437,987 72% 28%
Parcels 114 402 125 464 1,105 22% 78%
Disaggregating the acreage further, 22% of the federal lands and 26% of non-federal lands in Deschutes County
are designated in sage-grouse habitat. Seventy-two percent of the habitat is located on federal lands and 28% on
non-federal lands. Parcel data shows that the federal government is also the most affected. Thirty-nine percent of
the federal government’s total parcels in Deschutes County are designated in sage-grouse habitat, compared to
1% of non-federal lands. Figure 3 shows the region in greater detail by depicting federal and non-federal lands
within Core Area and Low Density habitat.
Land Use Planning History
In Deschutes County, the Comprehensive Plan provides a policy framework for the rural, unincorporated areas.
The cities of Bend, La Pine, Redmond and Sisters each maintain their own comprehensive plans within their
respective Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB). Intergovernmental agreements between the cities and Deschutes
County coordinate land use within urban unincorporated boundaries.
Deschutes County’s first comprehensive plan, Comprehensive Plan to 1990, was adopted in 1970. To comply with
newly adopted statewide planning regulations a new plan was adopted in 1979, titled, Year 2000 Comprehensive
Plan (Plan 2000). In 1981, Plan 2000 was acknowledged as being in compliance with the Statewide Goals. Along
with Plan 2000, the County adopted a Resource Element. It contained valuable background information, including
maps depicting the long-term general land use categories for all lands in the county. Over time the County
amended Plan 2000 to comply with changes initiated by LCDC, the Board of County Commissioners and property
owners through Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendments (PAPAs). Periodic Review, a mandatory plan update
process required by DLCD was initiated in 1988 and completed in 2003. Periodic Review included major additions
and amendments to Plan 2000 to keep the plan and its policies current with evolving land use law and local
conditions. Plan 2000 was codified into Title 23 of the Deschutes County Code (DCC). Responding to rapid growth
and changing demographics, in 2011, the Board of County Commissioners completed a multi-year effort to
establish the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update (Plan 2030). This new plan incorporates updated goals and
policies, community plans for Tumalo and Terrebonne, and new projects like the South County Plan, destination
resort remapping, a 2030 Transportation System Plan, and a South County Local Wetland Inventory. Plan 2030
continues to balance statewide requirements and local land use values.
34
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
- Fe
d
e
r
a
l
a
n
d
N
o
n
-fe
d
e
r
a
l
L
a
n
d
s
A
f
f
e
c
t
e
d
b
y
O
D
F
W
S
a
g
e
-Gr
o
u
s
e
C
o
r
e
a
n
d
Lo
w
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
H
a
b
i
t
a
t
35
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Local comprehensive plans govern land use regulations. On rural lands, growth is significantly restricted to protect
farms, forests and natural resources. Deschutes County is required to plan in compliance with the Statewide Goals
in order to promote orderly and efficient growth and protect resources important to Oregonians. The
comprehensive Plan Map (Plan Map) illustrates the County’s goals and policies. The Plan Map describes land use
categories that provide for various types of conservation and development for the rural area during a 20-year
planning period. Each Comprehensive Plan designation provides the land use framework for establishing zoning
districts.7 The Plan map designations are defined below.
Agriculture: Preserves and maintains agricultural lands for farm use.
Airport Development: Allows development compatible with airport uses while mitigating impacts on
surrounding lands.
Bend Urban Area Reserve: Define lands outside of Bend’s Urban Growth Boundary but within its General Plan
area that are expected to be brought into its UGB.
Destination Resort Eligibility Areas: Shows lands eligible for siting a destination resort.
Forest: Conserves forest lands for multiple forest uses.
Open Space and Conservation: Protects natural and scenic open spaces, including areas with fragile, unusual or
unique qualities.
Redmond Urban Reserve Area: Defines Redmond’s additional 30-year growth boundary for lands expected to
be brought into its UGB.
Resort Community: Defines rural areas with existing resort development that are not classified as a destination
resort, based on OAR 660, Division 22.
Rural Commercial: Defines existing areas of isolated rural commercial development that do not fit under OAR
660, Division 22.
Rural Community: Defines rural areas with limited existing urban-style development, based on OAR 660,
Division 22.
Rural Industrial: Defines existing areas of isolated rural industrial development that do not fit under OAR 660,
Division 22.
Rural Service Center: Defines rural areas with minimal commercial development as well as some residential
uses, based on OAR 660, Division 22.
Surface Mining: Balances protection of surface mines while minimizing adverse impacts on the natural
environment.
Urban Growth Boundaries: Defines land that provides for urban development needs and identifies and
separates urban and urbanizable land from rural land.
Urban Unincorporated Community: Defines rural areas with existing urban development, based on OAR 660,
Division 22.
7 The Deschutes County zoning map exists in official replica form as an electronic map layer with the County’s geographic information
system.
36
Table 3 lists Deschutes County’s Comprehensive Plan designations and related zoning districts in DCC,Titles
18, 19, 20, and 21. Some Plan designations apply county-wide, others only to designated areas of existing
development.
Table 3 - Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations8
Comprehensive Plan Designation Associated Zoning Districts
County-wide designations
Agriculture Title 18, Chapter18.16 - Exclusive Farm Use Zones
Airport Development Title 18, Chapters18.76 and 18.80 - Airport
Development and Airport Safety Combining Zones
Destination Resort Eligibility Areas Title 18, Chapter 18.113 - Destination Resorts Zone
Forest Title 18, Chapters18.36 and 40 - Forest Use 1 and
Forest Use 2 Zones
Open Space and Conservation Title 18, Chapters 18.48 and 18.84 - Open Space and
Conservation and Landscape Management Zones
Rural Residential Exception Area Title 18, Chapter 18.60 and 18.332 - Rural Residential
and Multiple Use Agriculture Zones
Surface Mining (SM) Title 18, Chapters 18.52 and 18.56 - Surface Mining and
Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zones
Area specific designations
Bend Urban Growth Area Title 19, Bend Urban Growth Boundary Ordinance
Redmond Urban Growth Area Title 20, Redmond Urban Area Zoning Ordinance
Redmond Urban Reserve Area (URA) Chapter 18.24 - Redmond Urban Reserve Area
Combining Zone
Resort Community
Chapter 18.110 - Resort Community Zone (Black Butte
Ranch and Inn of the 7th Mountain/Widgi Creek)
Rural Commercial Chapter 18.74 - Rural Commercial Zone
Rural Community Chapters 18.66 and 18.67 - Tumalo and Terrebonne
Rural Community Zoning Districts
Rural Industrial Chapter 18.100 - Rural Industrial Zone
Chapter 18.65 - Rural Service Center, Unincorporated
Rural Service Center (RSC) Community Zone (Alfalfa, Brothers, Hampton, Millican,
Whistlestop, Wildhunt)
Sisters Urban Growth Area Title 21, Sisters Urban Area Zoning Ordinance
Urban Unincorporated Community Chapter 18.108 - Urban Unincorporated Community
Zone, Sunriver
8 Deschutes County Geographical Information System and Deschutes County Code
37
Base Zoning within Sage-Grouse Designated Areas
To systematically assess Core Area and Low Density habitats in Deschutes County, staff developed a map series
consisting of the following:
An overview map of Deschutes County;
An index map dividing the sage-grouse designated areas into 13 sub-areas; and
Customized sub-area maps displaying federal and non-federal lands, base zoning, and combining zones.9
Table 4 summarizes in acres and parcels, County zoning within ODFW’s Core Area and Low Density habitat on
federal and non-federal land. It is important to note that some parcels overlap both habitat designations.
Table 4 - Deschutes County Base Zoning within ODFW’s Core and Low Density Habitat
Core Area Low Density
Total Acres
Percent in
Sage-Grouse
Habitat
Federal Lands Non-federal Lands Federal Lands Non-federal lands
Exclusive Farm Use, Horse-Ridge Subzone
Acres 165,974 64,412 113,551 43,659 387,596 88%
Parcels 113 397 121 462
Flood Plain Zone
Acres 1,124 329 646 380 2,479 0.6%
Parcels 20 11 25 48
Forest Use 1 Zone
Acres 13,174 40 16,418 9,568 39,200 9%
Parcels 2 1 20 7
Open Space and Conservation Zone
Acres 2,202 1,735 2,278 0 6,215 1%
Parcels 13 12 4 0
Rural Service Center, Commercial/Mixed Use District (Brothers and Millican)
Acres 0 38 0 26 64 0.015%
Parcels 0 6 0 3
Rural Service Center, Open Space District (Brothers and Millican)
Acres 0 10 0 0 10 0.002%
Parcels 0 1 0 0
Surface Mining
Acres 0 167 53 2,203 2,423 0.6%
Parcels 0 17 2 26
Total 437,987 100%
9 Deschutes County Sage-Grouse Conservation Area Index Map. February 28, 2013.
38
Combining Zones within Sage-Grouse Designated Areas
In 1992, during Periodic Review, the County was required to review and update its Comprehensive Plan and
implementing ordinances to address fish and wildlife resources. Deschutes County updated its inventories,
policies and land use regulations within its Sensitive Bird and Mammal Habitat and Wildlife Area combining zones
to protect sage-grouse, antelope, and deer winter ranges, among others.10 These three habitat types encompass
96% (117,914 acres) of ODFW’s Core Area and Low Density designations on non-federal lands. The remaining 4%
(4,645 acres) is zoned Exclusive Farm Use. Table 5 summarizes in acres and parcels how the County’s two
combining zones intersect them. Figure 4 shows sage -grouse, antelope, and deer winter ranges recognized in its
Comprehensive Plan specifically for the southeast portion of the county.
Table 5 - Deschutes County Combining Zones within ODFW’s Core and Low Density Habitat
Core Area Low Density Total
Federal Non-federal Federal Non-federal
Sensitive Bird and Mammal Habitat Combining Zone (Sage-Grouse Leks)
Acres 12 139 862 225 1,238
Parcels 3 3 6 6
Wildlife Area Combining Zone (North Paulina Antelope Range)
Acres 181,535 62,155 89,837 39,360 372,887
Parcels 114 388 98 426
Wildlife Area Combining Zone (North Paulina Deer Winter Range)
Acres 32,376 992 59,767 22,914 116,049
Parcels 12 10 60 149
Figure 4 - Sensitive Bird and Mammal Habitat and Wildlife Area Combining Zones in Southeastern
Deschutes County
10 Ordinance Nos. 92-040, 92-041, 92-042, 92-046, 93-043, 94-004, 94-005, and 94-021 pertain specifically to sage-grouse.
39
Existing Habitat Conservation Measures
Exclusive Farm Use: Horse-Ridge East Subzone
As demonstrated on Table 4, the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Horse Ridge Subzone intersects ODFW’s Core
Area and Low Density habitats. In 1992 a commercial farm study was completed as part of the Periodic Review
process. The study concluded that irrigation is the controlling variable for defining farm lands in Deschutes
County. Soil classifications improve when water is available. Seven new agricultural subzones were identified
based on the factual data provided in the 1992 study. Minimum acreages were defined based on the typical
number of irrigated acres used by commercial farms in that particular subzone with one exception. The Horse-
Ridge East Subzone contained 20 ownership tracts with the median consisting of 2,100 acres. The report noted
the following:
“Since there is virtually no demand for land partitions or dwelling units in this subzone, it would achieve the
overall objectives of the farmland plan to leave the minimum parcel size at the current 320-acre size.” 11
DCC, Chapter 18.16 implements the EFU zone. There are 859 parcels, consisting of 108,071 acres of non-federal
land in the Horse-Ridge East Subzone affected by sage-grouse habitat. Three hundred and ninety-seven EFU
parcels are located in Core Area and 462 in Low Density. The minimum parcel size for a land division is 320 acres
(DCC 18.16.065).
Non-Farm Dwelling Policy
Creating new lots in the EFU Horse-Ridge Subzone as noted above is significantly limited by the 320 acre minimum
parcel size. The potential for new dwellings in this subzone are predominantly non-farm dwellings on existing lots
stemming from several pre1970 unplatted subdivisions sold to uninformed buyers. Approval for a non-farm
dwelling usually turns on three key factors:
1. Legal Lot of Record. There are many small, unrecorded subdivisions in the EFU-Horse Ridge Subzone that are
undeveloped. Some, but not all are legal lots of record based on historic deeds.
2. Access. Many parcels do not have legal access.
3. Wildlife Area Combining Zone. Most of these properties are subject to a Wildlife Area Combining Zone that
limits new dwellings to within 300 feet of a historic road. Many do not adjoin one.
These requirements currently curtail non-farm dwelling development. Additionally, a 1992 finding by the Board of
County Commissioners (Board) denying a conditional use permit has effectively prohibited new non -farm
dwellings in this region. The Board found in Conditional Use Permit 92-169:
“That the overall land use pattern of the area of review is resource lands, primarily as antelope range, sage
grouse range and open grazing for cattle. For this reason, the Board finds that the proposed non-farm dwelling
would constitute the introduction of an incompatible use to an area where now none exist. Approval of the
proposed dwelling could serve to set a precedent for future non-farm dwellings and, thus, tip the balance from
resource to nonresource use. Therefore, the Board finds that approval of this nonfarm dwelling would alter the stability
of the overall land use pattern of the area by increasing density and causing compatibility problems, as well as set a
precedent for similarly situated parcels.”12
11 Deschutes County Agricultural Resource Lands Project, Oregon State University Extension Service. June 1992. Page 51.
12 Deschutes County Conditional Use Permit 92-169. Pages 6 and 7.
40
In 2007, a Hearings Officer summarized its effect by finding the County established a policy that any nonfarm
dwelling application in the Millican area will not meet the approval criteria because such approval would force a
significant change or significantly increase the cost of accepted farming practices in the area because of the
precedent such an approval is perceived to set for the area.13 To date, the Board has not issued a decision
reversing it.
Flood Plain Zone
Special flood hazard are identified by the Federal Insurance Administration in a scientific and engineering report
titled, "Flood Insurance Study for Deschutes County, Oregon and Incorporated Areas." Its effective date is
September 28, 2007. Within the Core Area and Low Density habitats, the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) has mapped floodplains associated with features such as portions of the Dry River, Fehrenbacker
Reservoir, as well as approximately 20 other unnamed depressions. FEMA designates them as a Special Flood
Hazard Area subject to inundation by a 1% annual chance of a flood. Deschutes County’s Flood Plain Zone includes
all areas designated as Special Flood Hazard Areas.14 Structures in these locations require a conditional use
permit. In this region, there are 59 parcels, consisting of 709 acres of non-federal land in the flood plain. Of these,
11 parcels are located in Core Area and 48 in Low Density.
Forest Use Zone
In 1990, LCDC initiated the Forest Rule, OAR 660-006, defining allowed uses, siting conditions, and minimum lot
sizes in forest zones. As part of Periodic Review, in 1992 Deschutes County adopted Ordinance No. 92 -025 and
revised its forest designations and associated regulations to Forest Use 1 (F1) and Forest Use 2 zones. The F1 zone
intersects ODFW’s Core Area and Low Density habitats. DCC, Chapter 18.36 implements the F1 zone. There are 8
parcels, consisting of 9,608 acres of non-federal land in the F1 zone within these designations. One F1 parcel is
located in Core Area and 7 in Low Density. The minimum parcel size for a land division is 80 acres (DCC 18.36.090).
Open Space and Conservation Zone
Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan (Plan 2000) contained a list of open spaces and areas of special
concern, the majority of which were in federal or state control. As part of Periodic Review, in 1992 Deschutes
adopted Ordinance No. 92-052 and updated this inventory. The Open Space and Conservation Zone (OSC)
intersect ODFW’s Core Area and Low Density habitats. DCC Chapter 18.48 implements the OSC zone. There are
12 parcels, consisting of 1,735 acres of non-federal land in the OSC zone within these designations. All twelve OSC
parcels are located in Core Area. The minimum parcel size for a land division is 80 acres (DCC 18.48.040).
Sensitive Bird and Mammal Habitat Combining Zone
In 1993, state biologists released, The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Research Report, Sage Grouse in
Oregon. It listed the population of adult sage -grouse in Deschutes County at 775. It also cited BLM estimates of
275 adult birds. ODFW conducted field work to obtain accurate inventory information on the precise location of
sage-grouse leks. A total of 22 leks were identified, 14 on federal lands and 8 on non-federal lands.15 They
identified a radius of 1,320 feet (1/4 mile) around a lek as a sensitive habitat area where conflicting uses with the
habitat or strutting birds should be regulated.16 Based on these recommendations, Deschutes County adopted
Ordinance No. 94-004 on June 17, 1994. This ordinance revised a Sensitive Bird and Mammal Habitat Combining
Zone and inventory, first adopted in 1992, by containing inventories of sage-grouse leks on federal and non-
federal land. The ordinance contained site specific economic, social, environmental and energy consequence
analysis (ESEE) for the sage-grouse inventoried sites on non-federal land. According to ODFW:
13 CU-97-93. Page 14.
14 DCC 19.96.020, Flood Plain Zone. Designated Areas.
15 Deschutes County Ordinance No. 94-004. Exhibit 4. Pages 5 and 6.
16 Ibid. Exhibit 4. Page 4
41
Conflicts with sage grouse habitat are reduced by the limitations on uses in exclusive farm use and flood plain
zone, by the 320 acre minimum lot size, and by the predominance of Bureau of Land Management land
throughout their range. However, because of their sensitivity and importance, the sage grouse leks or strutting
grounds need additional protection. Uses conflicting with the leks are activities or development which would
disturb birds during the breeding season, disturb or occupy the ground in the lek area which could displace the
birds, or destroy the vegetation within the sensitive habitat area the birds use for roosting and cover. These
activities could include road construction activity, structural development and associated use of structures
within 1,320 feet of the lek.
For each of the 8 leks located on non-federal lands, the ESEE analysis discusses site characteristics, affected tax
lot, zoning, area the birds use for display, and conflicting uses. Table 6 lists the conflicting uses for each lek site.
Figure 5 shows the lek location and its 1,320 foot radius in relation to non-federal lands. There are 9 parcels,
consisting of 364 acres of non-federal lands in sage-grouse habitat designated by Ordinance No. 94 -004. Of these,
3 parcels are located in Core Area and 6 in Low Density.
Table 6 - Conflicting Uses with Goal 5 Sage-Grouse Lek Habitat Sites
ODFW Site # Zone Permitted Use Conditional Use
DE 0994-01 (Circle Reservoir)
Exclusive
Farm Use
Farm Use
Exploration for Minerals
Some road Construction
Single Family Dwelling; Residential homes;
Private Park, Campground; Personal Airstrip;
Home Occupation; Process Forest Products;
Solid Waste Disposal Site; Storage, Crushing,
Processing of Aggregate; Church or School;
Certain Road Projects; Bed and Breakfast
Floodplain
Farm Use (no structure)
Forest Management
Open Space
Road or Bridge; Single Family Dwelling;
Agricultural Accessory Buildings; Recreation
Uses
DE 0995-01 (Merril Road)
DE 0996-01 (Dickerson Well)
DE 0997-01 (Moffit Ranch)
DE 0997-02 (Moffit Ranch Satellite)
DE 0998-01 (Evans Well)
DE 0998-02 (Evans Well Satellite)
Exclusive
Farm Use
Farm Use
Exploration for Minerals
Some road Construction
Single Family Dwelling; Residential homes;
Private Park, Campground; Personal Airstrip;
Home Occupation; Process Forest Products;
Solid Waste Disposal Site; Storage, Crushing,
Processing of Aggregate; Church or School;
Certain Road Projects; Bed and Breakfast
DE 0999-01 (Millican Pit)
Exclusive
Farm Use
Farm Use
Exploration for Minerals
Some road Construction
Single Family Dwelling; Residential homes
Private Park, Campground; Personal Airstrip;
Home Occupation; Process Forest Products;
Solid Waste Disposal Site; Storage, Crushing,
Processing of Aggregate; Church or School;
Certain Road Projects; Bed and Breakfast
Floodplain Farm Use (no structure)
Forest Management
Open Space
Road or Bridge; Single Family Dwelling;
Agricultural Accessory Buildings; Recreation
Uses
Surface
Mining
Subject to Site Plan
Geothermal Exploration; Crushing Batching,
Asphalt, Concrete
Extraction of Minerals
Storage of Minerals
Screening, Washing,
Structures Necessary for
Extraction, Storage
42
Figure 5 - Deschutes County Goal 5 Sage-Grouse Range
Table 7 describes Deschutes County’s restrictions for protecting leks and their sensitive habitat areas, while
allowing limited conflicting uses. DCC Chapter 18.90, Sensitive Bird and Mammal Habitat Combining Zone
implements the provisions in Table 7. It defines the Sensitive Habitat Area as 1,320 feet (DCC 18.90.20), site plan
review requirements (DCC 18.90.050), and Site Plan Review Criteria (DCC 18.90.060).17 Table 8 summarizes the
code in more detail.
Table 7 - Program to Meet Goal 5 Sage-Grouse Lek Habitat Sites
ODFW Site # Program
DE 0994-01 (Circle Reservoir)
DE 0995-01 (Merril Road)
DE 0996-01 (Dickerson Well)
DE 0997-01 (Moffit Ranch)
DE 0997-02 (Moffit Ranch Satellite)
In order to protect both the lek and the sensitive habitat area and allow limited conflicting uses,
the following restrictions shall apply:
1. Site plan review under the Sensitive Bird and Mammal Habitat Combining Zone shall be
required for all land use within the sensitive habitat area requiring a conditional use permit.
2. Structural development within the quarter mile sensitive habitat area shall be prohibited
because there are alternative locations for structures outside of the sensitive area.
3. Partitions creating a residential building site within the sensitive habitat area shall be
prohibited.
*In addition, the BLM is working with private property owners to develop grazing management to
minimize grazing conflict with the lek site.
DE 0998-01 (Evans Well)
DE 0998-02 (Evans Well Satellite)
Includes the program elements listed above, plus:
4. Existing structures may be repaired and maintained.
DE 0999-01 (Millican Pit)
Includes the program elements listed above, plus:
5. The amended ESEE analysis for the surface mine (Site #494) identifies the lek as a conflicting
use and requires consultation with ODFW prior to operation or expansion of the site to
determine what specific requirements are necessary to protect the lek from surface mining
conflicts.
17 DCC Chapter 18.90, Sensitive Bird and Mammal Habitat Combining Zone
43
Table 8 - Summary of Sensitive Bird and Mammal Habitat Combining Zone for Sage -Grouse
Code Sage-Grouse Habitat Overview
DCC 18.90.020
(Definition of Sensitive Habitat
Area)
A. The sensitive habitat area is the area identified in the Deschutes County Comprehensive
Plan Resource Element inventory and site specific ESEE for each sensitive bird or mammal
site.
1. Within a radius of 1,320 feet of a sage-grouse lek.
DCC 18.90.030
(Limitations and Uses Permitted) B. When there is a conflict between the site specific ESSE analysis and the provisions of
DCC Title 18 (County Zoning), the site-specific ESEE analysis shall control.
DCC 18.90.040
(Applicability)
Review under DCC 18.90 shall be trigged by the following proposals occurring within a
sensitive habitat area, as defined in DCC 18.90.020:
A. An application for a building permit for a new structure or addition to an existing
structure;
B. Land divisions creating new lots or parcels within the sensitive habitat area;
C. An application for a conditional use permit; or
D. An application for site plan approval.
DCC 18.90.050
(Site Plan Review Requirement)
A. For those proposals identified in DCC 18.90.040 to be sited within an inventoried
sensitive habitat area, as defined under DCC 18.90.020, a site plan shall be prepared in
accordance with the requirements of DCC 18.90.050.
B. The County shall submit a copy of the site plan to the Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife for comment. ODFW shall have 20 days from the date the site plan is mailed to
submit written comments to the County.
C. Based upon the record, and evaluation of the proposal based on the criteria in DCC
18.90.060, and conformance with the ESEE analysis for the site contained in the Resource
Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the County shall approve or reject the site plan.
DCC 18.90.060
(Site Plan Review Criteria)
Approval of site plan shall be based on the following criteria:
A. The site plan shall consider the biology of the identified sensitive species, nesting trees,
critical nesting periods, roosting sites and buffer areas. Based on the biology of the
species and the characteristics of the site, the site plan shall provide protection that will
prevent destruction of the subject nesting site, lek, hibernation site or rookery and will,
to a reasonable certainty, avoid causing the site to be abandoned.
B. Development activities, including grading and fill, mining, construction, or activities
generating noise or dust within the sensitive habitat area shall be prohibited during the
nesting, strutting or hibernation season identified in the site specific ESEE analysis and
decision for each habitat site. An exception to this standard may be made if ODFW
determines in writing that the nest, lek or rookery is not active and will not become
active during the proposed construction period or if the sensitive birds have fledged.
C. New roads, driveways or public trails shall be located at the greatest distance possible
from the nest, lek, rookery or hibernation site unless topographic or vegetation or
structural features will provide greater visual and/or noise buffer.
D. Existing vegetation or other landscape features which are located on the subject property
and which obscure the view of the nest, rookery, lek or hibernation site from the
proposed development, shall be preserved and maintained. A restrictive covenant to
preserve vegetation shall be required when specified in the ESEE for the site.
E. No partitions or subdivisions shall be permitted which would force location of a dwelling
or other structure, not otherwise permitted by the site specific ESEE, within the
designated sensitive habitat area.
F. All exterior lighting, including security lighting shall be sited and shielded so that the light
is directed downward and does not shine on the subject nest, rookery, lek or hibernation
site.
G. The site plan shall conform to the requirements of the ESEE decision for the sage- grouse
habitat contained in the Resource Element of the Comprehensive plan.
44
Wildlife Area Combining Zone
During Periodic Review, Deschutes County worked with ODFW to obtain the most recent inventory information
on wildlife resources in the county. In 1998, the Board adopted Ordinance Nos. 92-040, 92 -041, and 92-046.
These ordinances updated the Wildlife Area Combining Zone, inventory and ESEE Analysis. Two wildlife resources,
North Paulina antelope and deer winter ranges overlap the Core Area and Low Density habitats. There are 814
parcels, consisting of 101,515 acres of non-federal land in antelope range. Of these, 388 parcels are located in
Core Area and 426 in Low Density. There are 159 parcels, consisting of 23,906 acres of non -federal land in deer
winter range. Of these, 10 parcels are located in Core Area and 149 in Low Density. Table 9 summarizes the
Wildlife Area Combining Zone requirements for both habitat types.18
Table 9 - Summary of Wildlife Area Combining Zone for Antelope and Deer Winter Range
Code Overview
DCC 18.88.040
(Use Permitted Outright)
A. All “permitted uses” require a conditional use permit.
B. Following uses are not permitted in WA Zone designated as antelope and deer winter
ranges: golf course, commercial dog kennel, church, school, bed and breakfast inn,
dude ranch, playground recreational facility, timeshare, and veterinary clinic.
DCC 18.88.050
(Dimensional Standards)
A. In deer winter range, minimum lot size shall be 40 acres.
B. In antelope range, minimum lot size shall be 320 acres.
DCC 18.88.060
(Siting Standards)
A. The footprint, including decks and porches, for new dwellings shall be located entirely
within 300 feet of public roads, private roads or recorded easements for vehicular
access existing as of August 5, 1992.
DCC 18.88.070
(Fence Standards)
A. New fences in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone shall be designed to permit wildlife
passage. The following standards and guidelines shall apply unless an alternative fence
design which provides equivalent wildlife is approved by the County after con sultation
with ODFW:
1. The distance between the ground and the bottom strand or board of the
fence shall be at least 15 inches.
2. The height of the fence shall not exceed 48 inches above ground level.
3. Smooth wire and wooden fences that allow passage of wildlife are
preferred. Woven wire fences are discouraged.
18 DCC Chapter 18.88, Wildlife Area Combining Zone.
45
Built Environment and Development Activity
Housing Units
According to 2010 Census, there are 42 housing units occupying 63 residents within the 122,575 acres of non-
federal lands designated Core Area and Low Density habitat. Twenty-seven residents in 13 homes live in the Core
Area. Thirty-six residents in 29 homes live in Low Density habitat.
Roads and Utilities
Excluding U.S. 20, there are 19 county designated roads, spanning approximately 115 miles within the Core Area
and Low Density habitat. Eighteen are classified as a Rural Local Road. The other is designated a Forest Highway.
Figure 6 shows their location. Three Bonneville Power Administration overhead transmission lines transect the
region as well. Deschutes County Sage-Grouse Conservation Area Index Maps show their location.19 There are no
regional gas lines (TransCanada) in the region.
Figure 6 - County Roads in ODFW Sage-Grouse Core and Low Density Habitat
Surface Mining Sites
There are a total of 21 surface mines within Core Area and Low Density habitat. With the exception of two federal
parcels affiliated with Sites 404 and 505, all the mines are located on non-federal lands. Table 10 summarizes
them. Figure 7 shows their location.
19 ODFW. Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and strategy for Oregon: A Plan to Maintain and Enhance Populations and
Habitat. April 22, 2011. Pages x and 34.
46
Table 10 - Surface Mining Sites in Sage-Grouse Habitat
Surface Mining Site (ESEE) # Sage-Grouse
Designation Description
Site No. 404: Moon Mining Claim. Quantity is
193,000 cubic yards of sand and gravel and 800,000 to
2M cubic yards of rock; (Ord. 90-025 and 95-041)
Low Density
This site is part of a working ranch. Access to the site is
along a dirt road which leaves the highway at the base
of the Horse Ridge grade, 1 mile NE of the highway.
Site No. 408: RL Coats. Quantity is 3 million cubic
yards of sand and gravel; (Ord. 90-025) Low Density Site is located north of Highway 20 near the
intersection with Highway 27
Site No. 413: Deschutes County. Quantity is
30,000 cubic yards of sand and gravel; (Ord. 90-025)
Site No. 414: Deschutes County. Part of same 35
acres of 413 (Ord. 90-025)
Low Density These two sites are located partway up the base of Pine
Mountain.
Site No. 415: Deschutes County. Quantity, 30,000
cubic yards of sand and gravel; (Ord. 90-025)
Site No. 416: Deschutes County. Quantity, 30,000
cubic yards of sand and gravel; (Ord. 90-025)
Site No. 417: Deschutes County. Quantity, 20,000
cubic yards of sand and gravel; (Ord. 90-025)
Site No. 418: Deschutes County. Quantity, 30,000
cubic yards of sand and gravel; (Ord. 90-025)
Core Area
Sites Nos. 415, 416, 417, 418 and 419 run along the
north side of Highway 20 East. Sites are located roughly
1.5 miles east of Route 27, the Prineville cutoff at mile
marker 38.
Site No. 419: Deschutes County. Quantity, 30,000
cubic yards of sand and gravel; (Ord. 90-025) Core Area
Sites Nos. 415, 416, 417, 418 and 419 run along the
north side of Highway 20. Sites are located roughly 1.5
miles east of Route 27, the Prineville cutoff at mile
marker 38.
Site No. 496: Taylor. Quantity is 1,800,000 cubic
yards of sand and gravel; (Ord. 94-050, 94-051, 94-
052)
Low Density
Site is located on the Old Bend-Burns Highway, roughly
2 miles west of the east end of the road, just to the east
of Horse Ridge grade.
Site No. 498: State of Oregon. Quantity is 200,000
cubic yards of sand and gravel; (Ord. 90-025) Low Density Site is located approximately one mile south of Highway
20 and four miles west of Millican.
Site No. 499: Oregon State Highway. Quantity is
50,000 cubic yards of sand and gravel; (Ord. 90-025) Low Density Site is located approximately one-half mile west of
Millican on both sides of the highway.
Site No. 500: Oregon State Highway. Quantity is
130,000 cubic yards of sand and gravel; (Ord. 90-025) Low Density Site is located approximately one mile of Millican on the
north side of the highway.
Site No. 501: Deschutes County. Quantity is 50,000
cubic yards of sand and gravel; (Ord. 90-025) Low Density Site is located approximately one and one-half mile east
of Millican.
Site No. 503: State Highway. Quantity is 200,000
cubic yards of sand and gravel; (Ord. 90-025) Low Density Site is located north of Highway 20, roughly 4.5 miles
east of Millican.
Site No. 505: Oregon State Highway. Quantity is
275,000 cubic yards of sand and gravel; (Ord. 90-025)
Site No. 506: State Highway. Quantity is 36,000
cubic yards of sand and gravel; (Ord. 90-025)
Low Density
These two sites are located near one another and are
roughly 1.6 miles west of the Prineville cutoff on east
Highway 20. Both sites are along the highway.
Site No. 508: Oregon State Highway. Quantity is
100,000 cubic yards of sand and gravel; (Ord. 90-
025)
Core Area Site is located approximately 2.5 miles north of the site,
roughly 4 miles NW of Brothers.
47
Table 10 - Surface Mining Sites in Sage-Grouse Habitat (continued)
Surface Mining Site (ESEE) # Sage-Grouse
Designation Description
Site No. 515: Oregon State Highway. Quantity is
100,000 cubic yards of sand and gravel; (Ord. 90-
025)
Core Area This site is a cinder pit which is located on Camp Creek
Road, roughly 6 miles NE of Brothers.
Site No. 533: Oregon State Highway. Quantity is 1
Million cubic yards of sand and gravel; (Ord. 90-025) Core Area Site is least of Hampton, approximately 1 mile off the
highway
Site No. 600: Robinson Site. Quantity is 3.8 million
cubic yards of sand and gravel; (Ord. 96-076) Low Density
Site 600 adjoins Site 496. It is located approximately
one-half mile off of Highway 20 along the Old Bend-
Burns Highway.
Figure 7 - Deschutes County Goal 5 Surface Mines Affected by ODFW Sage-Grouse
Core and Low Density Habitat
48
Land Use and Building Permit Activity (2003-2013)
Tables 11 and 12 list the land use planning and building permits issued from 2003 to 2013. As shown in Table 11,
taking into account the projects requiring multiple land use permits, there were a total of seve nteen site specific
proposals.20 Building permits followed a similar pattern. Deschutes County issued 26 permits. Only 12 pertained to
non-federal lands, with 5 of those applying to a particular Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) site.
Table 11 - Land Use Planning Permits (2003-2013)
4 Administrative Determinations for a Farm Dwelling (AD-05-10, AD-06-6, AD-07-18, AD-12-10)
9 Conditional Use Permits CU-03-9: Farm Dwelling
CU-03-19: Manufactured Home Park and RV Park 21
CU-07-43: Type 3 Home Occupation for Auto Sales
CU-07-63: Private Shotgun Only Trap Shooting Facility
CU-07-79: Paintball Facility
CU-07-94: Hunting Preserve
CU-09-12: Commercial Wind Farm Accessory Operations and Maintenance Building
CU-11-26: Lot of Record Dwelling
CU-11-27: Lot of Record Dwelling
1 Landscape Management Permit for an Accessory Building (LM-07-138)
2 Non-conforming Use Alternation Request to Replace a Total of Four Manufactured Homes at ODOT Maintenance
Station in Brothers
1 Partition Creating Two Parcels Associated with CU-03-9 (MP-03-3)
6 Site Plan Permits
SP-03-13: Addition to Existing Toilet Building at ODOT Rest Area
SP-03-14: Manufactured Home Park and RV Park Approved under CU- 03-19
SP 07-32: Private Shotgun Only Trap Shooting Facility Approved under CU-07-63
SP-08-6: Paintball Park Approved Under CU-07-79
SP-09-9: Wind Project Operations and Maintenance Building Approved under CU-09-12
SP-09-30: Expansion of Trap Club Approved Under CU-07-63
1 Variance Altering the Survey Requirement for Partition Approved under CU-03-9 (V-03-6)
20 See CU-03-09, MP-03-3, V-03-6; CU-03-19 and SP-03-14; CU-07-63 and SP-07-32; CU-07-79 and SP-08-6; CU-09-12 and SP-09-9; CU-07-63
and SP-09-30.
21 As of February 28, 2013, the manufactured home park and RV park have not been developed.
49
Table 12 - Building Permits (2003-2013)
Permittee Building Permit Multiple Permits Issued
for One Site (Y/N)
Bend Trap Club
1. Club House
2. Range Building
3. Storage / Warming Hut
Yes
Century Tel 4. Foundation No
Federal Government (leases with ATT and
Deschutes County)
5. Cell Tower
6. Cell Tower Antennae Co-location
7. Co-locate on Existing Tower
8. Equipment Shelter
9. Foundation for Radio Equipment
10. Gold Label Equipment Shelter
Yes
Federal Government (lease with Central
Oregon Shooting Association)
11. Pole Barn
12. Pole Barn Yes
Federal Government (leases with Pine
Mountain Observatory and Technology
Associates
13. Cell Tower Co-locate
14. Demolition of Existing Residence
15. Microwave Dish Installation
16. Replace Microwave Dish
17. Residence
Yes
Homeowners
18. Detached Storage
19. Ramada for Manufactured Home
20. Residence / Attached Garage
21. Residence / Garage
No
State of Oregon
22. Additional Bathrooms
23. Break Room
24. Detached Garage
25. Replacement Dwelling
26. Replacement Dwelling
Yes
Impact Analysis
Risk Assessment
In December 2011, Wyoming Governor Matt Mead and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar cohosted a meeting
to address coordinated conservation of the Greater sage-grouse across its range. Ten states within the range of
the sage-grouse were represented, as were the FS, NRCS, and the Department of the Interior and its BLM and
FWS. The primary outcome of the meeting was the creation of a Sage-Grouse Task Force. The Task Force was
directed to develop recommendations on how to best move forward with a coordinated, multi-state, range-wide
effort to conserve the sage-grouse, including the identification of conservation objectives to ensure the long-term
persistence of the species. The FWS was tasked by its Director with the development of conservation objectives
for the sage-grouse. Recognizing that state wildlife agencies have management expertise and retain management
authority for this species, the FWS created a Conservation Objectives Team (COT) of state and FWS
representatives to accomplish this task.22 The Sage-Grouse Conservation Objectives Draft Report, created by the
COT identifies risk levels and priority areas for Central Oregon. Approximately 700,000 acres of habitat for the
Central Oregon sage-grouse population has been identified as priority areas for conservation. The COT assigns the
Central Oregon management zone a rating of C2/C3 (At Risk, Potential Risk).23 Those risk levels pertaining to land
use are summarized below in Table 13. According to the COT, this population faces a wide suite of threats.
22 Sage-Grouse Conservation Objectives Draft Report, Submitted August 1, 2012. Page 1.
23 Ibid., Page 16, C2 means the population is at risk because of very limited and/or declining numbers, range, and/or habitat, m aking sage-
grouse in this area vulnerable to extirpation. C3 means the population is potentially at risk because of limited and/or declining numbers,
range, and/or habitat, even though sage-grouse may be local abundant in some portion of the area.
50
Table 13 - Central Oregon Sage-Grouse Risk Levels24
Risk Levels (Land Use Related) Rating
Agriculture Conversion
Energy
Infrastructure
Recreation
Urbanization
Localized, Substantial
Mining Slight Threat
According to ODFW, there is also the potential for renewable energy developments (i.e., geo-thermal, solar, and
wind) in most sage-grouse regions in Oregon.25 Recently, the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral
Industries (DOGAMI) upgraded its online geothermal data with in-depth information about wells, hot springs and
other resources across the state.26 Data obtained from DOGAMI identifies 17 geothermal wells along the Brothers
fault zone and Glass Butte within Core Area and Low Density habitat. Eleven wells are located on non-federal
lands. Of those, 6 are in Core Area and 5 in Low Density.
Findings
From a land use perspective, the COT’s threat analysis as it pertains to Deschutes County does not take into
account its land use planning program. The Periodic Review process required by DLCD from 1988-2003, positioned
Deschutes County to adopt significant measures for the protection of farm lands and wildlife resources. The
analysis contained in this report demonstrates that Deschutes County is effective in minimizing land use conflicts
within Core Area and Low Density habitat on non-federal lands. A sparse residential population, coupled with
farm and forest zoning and Sensitive Bird and Mammal Habitat and Wildlife Area combining zones have enabled
non-federal lands to remain rural. Deschutes County’s land use program does not pose a risk to sage-grouse
populations. Presently, there are regulatory safeguards in place to prevent urbanization, recreatio n, renewable
energy, and infrastructure projects on non-federal lands from disrupting sage-grouse habitat.
Deschutes County retains land use authority on 122,559 acres of non-federal lands designated Core Area and Low
Density habitat. This constitutes 28% of the affected area designated by ODFW. A majority of the land is zoned for
farm and forest uses. Eighty-eight percent (108,071 acres) of the area is zoned EFU and 8% (9,608 acres), F1. The
remaining 6% is zoned open space, surface mining, or rural service center. Due to Periodic Review, Deschutes
County also applies Sensitive Bird and Mammal Habitat and Wildlife combining zones on 96% (117,914 acres) of
the area designated Core Area and Low Density. The remaining 4% (4,646 acres) is zoned EFU. Table 14 recaps
Deschutes County’s base and combining zones for this particular region as well as its non-farm dwelling policy. As
demonstrated by the land use and building permit activity occurring from 2003 to 2013, Deschutes County’s land
use program, when applied cumulatively to the region, is effective in limiting rural development. Just 63 residents,
living in 42 houses, occupy the area, amounting to a population density of one person for every 3 square miles.
Land use and building permits issued from 2003 to 2013 reveal limited activity and disturbance on non-federal
lands. Deschutes County issued a total of 24 land use permits for 17 properties and just 12 building permits during
this ten-year period. Five of the building permits applied to a specific site managed by ODOT near Brothers. The
most intensive building permits pertained to the Bend Trap Club for a clubhouse, range building, and
storage/warming hut.
24 Id. Pages 25 and 63.
25 See note 1. Pages x and 66.
26 Rachel Ross, “Oregon Doubles its Geothermal Info Online”, The Bulletin, February 18, 2013.
51
Table 14 - Recap of Deschutes County’s Conservation Zoning
Base Zones Description
Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Horse Ridge
Subzone; and
* Non-farm dwelling policy
320 acre minimum parcel size
Policy: Limits non-farm dwellings, deeming them incompatible with resource
lands, antelope range, sage-grouse range, and open grazing for cattle.
Non-farm dwellings required to take access within 300 feet of a historic road
Forest Use Zone (F1) 80 acre minimum parcel size
Flood Plain Zone New structures require conditional use permit in Special Flood Hazard Areas
Open Space Zone 80 acre minimum parcel size
Sensitive Bird and Mammal
Combining Zone Description
Sage-Grouse Range
Activity proposed within ¼ mile of a designated sage-grouse lek requires site plan
review, specific conditions noted in each ESEE analysis, and coordination with
ODFW
Wildlife Area Combining Zone Description
Antelope and Deer Winter Range
All permitted uses require a conditional use permit.
Minimum parcel size is 40 acres in deer winter range and 320 in antelope range
Access for new dwellings limited to 300 feet of a historic road
Conclusion
Land use represents just one of the many tools that need to be in place to prevent sage-grouse from being listed
on the federal ESA. As the Governor’s Sage Con efforts develops and refines its “all lands, all threats” approach, it
must be paired with BLM’s resource management plan amendments and the efforts underway by the Oregon
Cattlemen Association to develop a programmatic Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA) for sage -grouse on
BLM lands within the state. In 1992, Deschutes County recognized that conserving sage-grouse leks depends in
part on BLM working with private property owners to develop grazing management plans. This collaborative
partnership is more important than ever. The BLM controls 72% of Core Area and Low Density habitat in
Deschutes County.
52
Harney County
Harney County Land Use Planning Program
Land Use Planning History
Harney County’s land use planning program, as it is practiced and recognized today in relation to the Oregon
Statewide Planning Program, began in the early 1980s. Although the county adopted a comprehensive plan on
June 26, 1980, the plan was not issued a Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) compliance
acknowledgement order until April 17, 1984, which was subsequently adopted by the county in October 10, 1984.
Planning Staff refer to 1984 as the very first Harney County Comprehensive Plan (HCCP) and refer to this date as
the beginning of the local program for purposes of administration. With exception to the incorporated cities of
Burns and Hines, the HCCP provides the overarching development goals, policies, and related implementation
measures for all lands within the county boundary. While the HCCP has been through a number of minor/major
revisions, the plan its self is considered a living document in the sense that it will continually be updated, within
the plan’s specified framework, to reflect the needs and desires of the local community. In fact this is one
objective of the plan. Amendments have been made to ensure the plan continues to reflect community interests.
Yet, the basic intent of the plan has not changed significantly. 27 In 2009, the latest revision, the plan was
modified to improve organization of the document with the aim to provide better administration and usability.
The plan contains tools (not all contained within the singular document) that provide guidance for the local
program. Examples include the plan’s maps which graphically depict primary or underlying zoning/plan
designations such as the Exclusive Farm and Range Use zone, or other zoning overlays such as Urban Growth
Boundaries or the Airport Approach Vicinity Area. Another example can be found within the related and adopted
inventories such as local aggregate mining sites, or even commercial energy development areas as listed under
the Harney County Renewable Energy Plan. The HCCP is implemented primarily through specific regulations
contained within the Harney County Zoning Ordinance. Other local plans and/or ordinances also contribute to
implementing the goals and policies of the HCCP, such as the Harney County Transportation System Plan, Urban
Growth Boundary agreements with the incorporated cities, etc…
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Overview
The majority of lands within Harney County (not inclusive of the incorporated cities) fall under a county zoning
designation meant to protect and preserve resources for agriculture and forest use. These zoning designations are
illustrated in the HCCP maps along with other specific zoning designations aimed at providing for area-specific
appropriate development. As an example, chapter 3 of the HCCP defines the county’s agriculture designation,
related goals, and policies. Policy 3 is implemented by the creation of the Exclusive Farm and Range Use Zoning
underlying zoning district. Table 1 below lists the HCCP land use and zoning designations as found and described
within the plan.
27 Source Document 1. Harney County Comprehensive Plan, October 2009.
53
Table 1 – Harney County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations
Plan Designation Zoning Districts (Harney County Zoning Ord - HCZO)
Agriculture HCZO, 3.010/3.020, Exclusive Farm
and Range Use Zones: EFRU-1, EFRU-2
Airport Development HCZO, 3.070, Airport Development Zone: AD-1
Commercial & Industrial HCZO, 3.130, Commercial & Industrial Zone: C-1
Forest Use HCZO, 3.0060, Forest Use Zone: FU
Rural Community
HCZO, 3.120.3,.5, Rural Community Zone (Crane, Drewsey), RC
HCZO, 3.120.2,.8,.9,.10,.11, Rural Commercial Zone
(Buchanan, Lawen, Princeton, Riley, Wagontire), RCA
HCZO, 3.120.1,.4,.6,.7, Rural Service Center
(Andrews, Diamond, Fields, Frenchglen), RSC
Rural Recreational HCZO, 3.110, Rural Recreational, R-2
Rural Residential HCZO, 3.090, Rural Residential, R-1
Zoning Map Overlays Zoning Districts (Harney County Zoning Ord - HCZO)
Airport Vicinity HCZO, 3.080, Airport Overlay Zone, AVO
Flood Hazard HCZO, 4.080, HCCP Map No. 2 (*FEMA Flood mapping)
Mineral & Aggregate Resource HCZO, 3.150, Mineral & Aggregate Resource Overlay Zone, MARO
(*Applied to proposed aggregate sites)
Urban Growth Boundaries HCCP Map No. 11 (*UGB agreement contained in separate local
ord. Revisions)
Zoning and Overlays within Sage-Grouse Designated Areas
To assess Core Area and Low Density habitats in Harney County, staff developed 3 maps dividing the county into
30 sub areas. Each map depicts the following:
Development: Existing homes, land use permits, and building permits within habitat areas
Ownership: Land ownership, rural communities, and Core/Low Density habitat areas
Zoning: County base zoning districts and DOGAMI surface mining permit locations
Table 2 summarizes in acres and parcels, County zoning within ODFW’s Core Area and Low Density habitat on
federal and non-federal (private) lands. It should be noted, as in other county reports, that some parcels overlap
both habitat designations and gaps between habitat designations in the GIS layers exist. So, for the purposes of
this report these instances have been reported conservatively as Core Area.
54
Table 2 – Harney County Zoning Designations within ODFW’s Core and Low Density Habitat
Core Area Low Density
Total Acres
Percent in
Sage-Grouse
Habitat Federal Lands Non-federal lands Federal Lands Non-federal lands
Exclusive Farm and Range Use , EFRU-1
Acres 1,372,702 353,041 1,556,706 415,148 3,697,597 67.0%
Parcels 271 928 236 1,046
Exclusive Farm and Range Use - 2, EFRU-2
Acres 0 0 16,587 12,886 29,474 5.9%
Parcels 0 0 5 45
Forest Use, FU Zone
Acres 30,519 890 7,984 0 39,394 7.4%
Parcels 19 13 8 0
Commercial & Industrial, C-1
Acres 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Parcels 0 0 0 0
Rural Community (RC), Rural Commercial (RCA), Rural Service Center (RSC)
Acres 0 0.2 0 133 133 25.0%
Parcels 0 RCA –Drewsey(1) 0 RSC-Fields(11)
RSC-French Glen(1)
Rural Recreational, R-2
Acres 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Parcels 0 0 0 0
Rural Residential, R-1
Acres 0 0 0 8 8 0.6%
Parcels 0 0 0 3
Special Flood Hazard Areas (100-Year Flooding)
Acres 9,557 11,359 20,916 6.0%
Parcels
55
Figure 1 – Harney County Ownership
56
Existing Habitat Conservation Measures and Zoning Designations
“Goal 5” and Wildlife Mapping and Protection within Habitat Areas
When the HCCP was first acknowledged in 1984 official maps were made a part of the document that outlined or
depicted particular areas of sensitivity or importance. In 2009 Harney County organizationally formatted its plan
to correspond with the related Oregon State Planning Goals. An example of this is within Chapter 5 of the HCCP. It
has goals and policies relating to the county’s natural resources. The county has these resources inv entoried in
either tabular or mapping form. In many county goal 5 inventories, a protection element or program is established
for each singular site or region. Harney County’s wildlife inventory is composed of a broad group listing of
resource site name/description (such as “big game winter range “or “Upland Game Birds”) and a corresponding
area listed within the Plan map depicting coverage ranges.
Harney County’s policy is to provide notice and an opportunity to comment on land use applications to ODFW. In
practice, County Planning Staff will perform site plan reviews of proposed developments within ODFW habitat and
critical species areas. If the development intersects one of these mapped areas, the local ODFW office will be
provided an adjacent landowner notification of the development proposal from Staff.
This policy is aimed at providing ODFW an opportunity to aid the county in review of a land use proposal and
landowner’s development objectives by commenting and/or producing recommendations on how to either avoid
or mitigate for impacts to big game winter range and/or other sensitive species habitat areas. The conditional use
provisions of Article 6 of the HCZO provide the county opportunities to impose conditions of approval which can
directly execute the recommendations from ODFW.
To that end, Harney County has regularly provided notice to or communicated with ODFW relating to proposed
developments within areas of either big game habitat/winter range, or sensitive species habitat.
Flood Plain Zone Overlay
Special flood hazard areas are identified by the Federal Insurance Administration in a scientific and engineering
reported titled, “Flood Insurance Study for Harney County, Oregon unincorporated Areas.” Its effective date is
March 28, 1984. Within the Core Area and Low Density habitats, the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) has mapped floodplains. FEMA designated these floodplains as areas of Special Flood Hazard (SFHA)
subject to inundation by a 1% annual chance of flood. Harney County’s floodplain SFHA or “A” zones are immense
covering roughly 351,385acres of land. These and other areas of the county are generally flat with little to no
drainage. Harney County actively discourages new development in the SFHA. 9,557 acres of the SFHA is located in
Core Area, and 11,359 acres in Low Density.
EFRU-1 & EFRU-2 Zones
The lands designated for agriculture use within Harney County are zoned Exclusive Farm and Range Use (EFRU-1 &
EFRU-2). These designations are nearly identical, with the only difference being the minimum size parcel that can
partitioned or created (EFRU-1 = 160 minimum & EFRU-2 = 80 minimum). Harney County applied this designation
to both private and federally-managed lands within its boundary lines. As a matter of perspective, Harney County
has more lands designated EFRU (6,008,914 acres or roughly 9,389 square miles) than Vermont, New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, Hawaii, Connecticut, Delaware, and Rhode Island have total land area within their
State borders.28 In fact 84.25% of the county is zoned EFRU, 1,827,907 acres of that non-federal.
28 U.S. Geological Survey Weblink: http://nationalatlas.gov/articles/mapping/a_general.html
57
The EFRU zoning designations follow closely to Oregon Statutory standards and related Oregon Administrative
Rules, which are guided by the principles established under 3rd goal of the Oregon Statewide Planning system
(protection of agriculture lands). In Harney County the most prevalent development type aside from agriculture is
housing related to farm use (see Table 3). Two types of housing are allowed in the zone: Dwellings on par cels 160
acres in size or larger (most common), or dwellings provided to families that have owned specific tracts of land
prior to 1/1/1985. Only one dwelling per tract is permitted through these provisions. Farm -related dwellings may
also be allowed on tracts below 160 acres in size if the corresponding farm operation on the tract has produced a
certain amount of revenue over time (uncommon in Harney County). Otherwise, dwellings are conditionally
permitted on tracts of land smaller than 160 acres, however they move through a more stringent set of standards
and must be found to not inhibit the expansion of existing farming operations in the area. Newly created or
adjusted property boundaries must conform to a minimum dimension or lot size of either 160 or 80 acres (EFRU-
1, EFRU-2 respectively). This standard has lessened the possibility for high dwelling density or urban sprawl based
on the limited opportunities for dwelling per ownership tract.
Forest Use Zone
The forest land in Harney County, which is zoned FU-80, is in the northern part of Harney County. Of the total
409,290 acres (or 93%), 382,770 acres of land is in federal ownership. The remaining 7 % is scattered throughout
the forest zone. The minimum parcel size in the FU-80 zone is 80 acres, however very few land divisions have
occurred since the early 1980’s. There are 3 possible ways to permit a single-family dwelling in the FU-80 zone: (A)
Large Tract (240 contiguous acres or 320 throughout the county), (B) dwellings provided to families that have
owned specific tracts of land prior to 1/1/1985, and (C) on a tract of land that is capable of producing a certain
range of cubic feet per acre of wood fiber, etc. In addition, new dwellings proposed within the Forest Use Zone
must also comply with strict siting standards relating to access from public roads, water supply needs, and meet
stocking requirements of the Department of Forestry.
The FU-80 zone is the most restrictive zoning district for new developments. Due to a low amount of privately-
owned land and large lot size requirement for new dwellings, very few new dwelling approvals are located within
the Forest Use Zone. Many of the privately-owned lands in this area are around the edges of the Forest Service
boundary. In fact only two (2) of the approvals over last decade in Sage Grouse habitat are in the FU-80 zone.
(*see Table 4, files: 11-17, 11-18))
Built Environment and Development Activity
Housing Units
According to local addressing records there are a total 282 housing units or single-family dwellings within 782,107
acres of non-federal lands designated Core Area and Low Density habitat. 134 of those dwellings are within Core
Area, 132 are within Low Density, 11 are within the Paiute Indian Reservation (Low Density), and 5 are within the
Rural Community of Fields (Low Density).
Roads and Utilities
Excluding U.S. HWY 20, U.S. HWY 395, State Highway 78, and State Highway 205, there are 121 county designated
roads spanning approximately 781 miles within Harney County. 174 and 158 miles of those roads are in Core Area
and Low Density habitat respectively. While minor alterations have been made to existing roads, no new county
roads have been created from 2003-2013. In fact, no new local roads have been constructed since the loss of
timber receipts. Figure 1 shows their locations. Bonneville Power Administration, Idaho Power, and the Harney
County Electrical Cooperative maintain overhead transmission lines totaling approximately 246 miles through the
region. 105 of those miles are within sage grouse habitat. There are no gas utility lines within Harney County.
These general locations are also depicted in figure 1.
58
Figure 2 – County Roads and Transmission Lines
59
Surface Mining Sites
There are a total of 16 surface mines within Core Area and Low Density habitat on non-federal lands, 13 are
closed and 3 active/permitted.29 DOGAMI GIS (Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries) reports
that 387.1 acres of land are disturbed by surface mines in Harney County, and of those sites, 3 .4 acres are
disturbed within Core Area and 12.8 acres are disturbed in Low Density habitat.30 Harney County has not
permitted a surface mine within Core Area or Low Density habitat from 2003 – 2013. Table 3 lists the 3 surface
mines within ODFW sage grouse habitat that are active or permitted. Figure 3 shows the locations of these mine
throughout the entire county and also shows an example how the bulk of the mines are located close to the two
incorporated towns of Burns and Hines.
Table 3 – DOGAMI Permits within Sage Grouse Habitat
Surface Mining Site (DOGAMI Permit # & Permittee)
(Non-Federal)
Habitat
Designation Status
13-0085 - Hammond Ranches, Inc. Low Density Permitted
13-0057 - ODOT LaGrande Low Density Permitted
13-0041 - ODOT LaGrande Low Density Permitted
29 DOGAMI Online Permit Inventory Weblink: http://www.oregongeology.org/mlrr/surfacemining-report.htm
30 DOGAMI GIS, Ed Buchner - Analysis Results for Harney County 4/17/2013
60
Figure 3 – Mapped DOGAMI Permits for Surface Mines within Sage Grouse Habitat on Non-Federal Lands
61
Land Use and Building Permit Activity (2003-2013)
Tables 4 and 5 list the land use planning and building permits issued from 2003 to 2013 within Core Area and Low
Density habitat. As shown in Table 4, there were a total of 36 approved land use permits for development. 13 of
the approvals were within Core Area, 20 within Low Density, and 2 with both Core Area and Low Density. Table 5
shows that 27 building permits have been taken out as well. Of that number, 16 are structural and 11 are
manufactured dwelling placements. 4 of the structural permits are on federally-managed lands for either new or
existing cell towers, or remodeling an existing rest area. 6 of the 11 manufactured dwelling permits were for
replacement of existing homes (structures).
Table 4 – Land Use Planning Permits (2003-2013)
30 Administrative Decisions:
Farm Dwellings - FD (160 acre or greater), Accessory Farm Dwelling - AFD, Lot of Record Dwelling - LORD
-> (Blue = No dwelling has been developed on the subject parcel)
03-10: (FD - 12.6 miles west of Drewsey)
03-29: (AFD - 8.9 miles north west of Riley)
03-32: (FD - 10.7 miles south west of French Glen)
03-33: (FD - 11.8 miles south west of French Glen)
03-36: (FD - 6 miles south west of French Glen)
03-45: (FD - 3.7 miles north west of Drewsey)
04-11: AFD - 9.8 miles north east of Burns)
05-23: (AFD - 18 miles south of Fields (near Denio, NV))
06-23**: (LORD - 7.7 miles north of Andrews)
06-24**: (LORD -7.7 miles north of Andrews)
06-51**: (LORD - 20.8 miles south east of Princeton)
07-01: (AFD - 13.2 miles south east of Princeton)
07-25: (FD - 4.8 miles south west of Hines)
07-69: (AFD - 4.9 miles north west of Drewsey)
07-76: (LORD - 5 miles south west of Andrews)
07-83**:(LORD - 9.6 miles south east of French Glen)
07-84**:(LORD - 10.9 miles south east of French Glen)
08-01**: (LORD - 8 miles east of Diamond)
08-02: (AFD -9.1 miles south east of French Glen)
08-43**: (LORD - 5 miles north west of Andrews)
08-47: (FD - 7.5 miles south north/north east of Burns)
08-55: (AFD - 2.4 miles north west of Drewsey)
10-22: (FD - 3.3 miles north of Burns)
10-24: (FD - 0.8 miles south of Diamond)
10-25: (FD - 17.7 miles south east of Fields)
10-29**:(LORD - 14.7 miles east/south east of French Glen)
11-06**:(FD - 14.2 miles east of French Glen)
11-17**:(LORD - Forest Use Zone, 27 miles north/north east of Burns)
11-18**:(LORD - Forest Use Zone, 27 miles north/north east of Burns )
12-04: (AFD - .5 Miles from Drewsey)
62
Table 4 (continued) – Land Use Planning Permits (2003-2013)
6 Conditional Use Permits:
03-01: Non-Farm Dwelling (.45 Miles from Drewsey Rural Community)
05-36: Single-Wide MFH (Within Fields Rural Commercial Area
07-04: Non-Farm Dwelling (North of USHWY 20, 2.4 Miles west from Hines)
07-13: Partition & Non-Farm Dwelling (5 Miles from Drewsey Rural Community)
07-56: Partition & Non-Farm Dwelling (North of USHWY 20, 4.5 Miles west from Hines)
08-35: Non-Farm Dwelling (1.5 miles SW of Fields Rural Service Center )
Table 5 – Building Permits (2003-2013)
Permit
Type
Permit
Number
Habitat
Designation Permittee Work – Private/Federal
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
BLD03-00094 Core Area Private Landowner Pole Barn Storage Building, Private
BLD04-00040 Core Area Private Landowner New single Family Dwelling, Private
BLD04-00227 Low Density Utility Replacing existing \foundation Only (MFH), Fields
Service Yard (Home Site 1), Private
BLD07-00132 Low Density Private Landowner Home Addition (existing), Private
BLD08-00049 Low Density Private Landowner New single Family Dwelling, Private
BLD10-00179 Low Density Private Landowner New single Family Dwelling, Private
ST11-HAR0017 Core Area Private Landowner Home Addition (existing), Private
ST11-HAR0032 Core Area American Tower Corp. New Cell Tower, Federal Lands
ST11-HAR0038 Core Area Verizon Updates to existing Cell Tower, Federal Lands
ST12-HAR0041 Low Density BLM Replacing restrooms at Sage Hen Rest Area
(existing), Federal Lands
ST12-HAR0056 Core Area Private Landowner New Garage, Private
ST12-HAR0057 Core Area Private Landowner New single Family Dwelling, Private
ST12-HAR0059 Low Density BLM/Verizon New antennas mounted to existing cell tower,
Federal Lands
Ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e
d
H
o
m
e
MA11-HAR0014 Core Area Private Landowner New MFH Placement, Private
MA12-HAR0001 Low Density Private Landowner Replacing existing MFH, Private
MA12-HAR0010 Core Area Private Landowner Replacing existing MFH, Private
(ST12-HAR0042 – Daylight Basement Portion)
MFH03-00043 Low Density Private Landowner Replacing existing MFH, Private
MFH05-00012 Low Density Private Landowner Replacing existing MFH (Fields Rural Community),
Private (BLD05-00037 – Stem Wall)
MFH05-00038 Low Density Private Landowner Replacing existing MFH (Field Rural Community),
Private
MFH05-00057 Low Density Private Landowner New MFH (Fields Rural Community), Private
MFH06-00012 Low Density Utility Replacing, existing MFH (Placement Fields service
yard *Home Site 2), Private
MFH06-00035 Core Area Private Landowner New MFH Placement, Private
MFH07-0053 Core Area Private Landowner New MFH Placement, Private
(BLD07-00254– Stem Wall)
MFH09-00030 Low Density Private Landowner New MFH Placement, Private
63
Impact Analysis
Risk Assessment
According to the COT (Conservation Objectives Team) report, Harney County falls within an area designated as
Management Zone V (5), the Northern Great Basin, or more pointedly the Western Great Basin Subarea (31).
According to the report, this area contains one of the few remaining large intact expanses of sagebrush habitat,
with most of the sagebrush-dominated landscape in Oregon. Oregon’s portion of the (bird) population has some
of the best habitat and highest sage-grouse densities in the state, including Hart Mountain National Antelope
Refuge and Trout Creek Mountains, though habitat in the Trout Creeks was likely compromised by 2012 fires. The
delineation of the Western Great Basin population doesn’t correspond well to any existing assessment for
Oregon, but does include almost all of the Lakeview administrative unit, as well as portions of the Burns and Vale
administrative units. Invasive weeds, fire, and juniper encroachment (particularly on the western edge) represent
the greatest risks to this population. Renewable energy development (wind and geothermal) and wild horses have
been identified as a threat to sage-grouse habitat in portions of Oregon’s (e.g., Steens, Dry Valley/Jack Mountain
Action Areas) Western Great Basin population. 31 Table 6 depicts habitat fragmentation threats and their
corresponding levels for Harney County (COT report).
Table 6 – Southeastern Oregon Sage-Grouse Risk Levels
Land Use Related
Risk Levels Threat Rating
Agriculture Conversion Present, but localized
Energy Present, but localized
Mining Present, but localized
Infrastructure Present, but localized
Recreation Unknown
Urbanization Not known to be present
Findings and Conclusion
As listed in the other county development reports, the COT does not provide a consideration of county land use
programs. Harney County has zoning jurisdiction over a vast area principally reserved for natural resource
production (agriculture and forest use). This development report shows that Harney County is effective in
minimizing land use impacts or conflicts within its large regulatory jurisdiction (1,839,624 acres). As reflected in
the other county reports, sparse residential population across a vast open landscape, coupled with agriculture and
forest zoning have preserved non-federal lands as rural.
Harney County’s land use program does not pose a risk to sage-grouse populations. As listed earlier, agriculture-
designated lands cover the large majority of non-federally managed parcels within the county. This zoning
designation is important to the ecological values of the county and has largely been intact over the last decade.
Oregon’s land use program has in place procedural steps for counties to change the land use designation of
agriculture lands to residential or other uses by taking what is defined as a “goal exception.” From 2003 – 2013
only two exceptions (or re-zones) have occurred totaling 268 acres in area, both residential and in the same year
(2006). Over a decade’s time only ½ of 1% of agriculture lands have been re-designated to a different land use
31 Sage-Grouse Conservation Objectives Report
64
purpose. This means that the large tract requirements of local agriculture lands have remained intact throughout
the development study period. In Harney County, the large majority of these lands are utilized as range use,
further highlighting the important correlation between local agriculture planning designation and the
preservation of large tract (non-converted) sage brush lands.
Looking specifically at the development of these lands, the local land use planning and building programs show
that over a ten year period, thirty six (36) land use permits have been approved within designated Core and Low
Density habitat (of those, 11 have yet to be developed, all Lot of Record Dwelling approvals). All of these
approvals are for single-family dwellings. 13 of the approvals were within Core Area, 20 within Low Density, and 2
with both Core Area and Low Density. Based on the current number of dwellings inside habitat on non-federal
lands within Harney County (section IV), and conservatively proposing for the sake of this study that all existing
dwellings (282) were there prior to said land use approvals and considered by ODFW when both Core and Low
Density habitat ranges were developed, and considering that on average 3.6 dwelling permits are approved per
year over a habitat area covering 782,107 acres, it is apparent that urban sprawl is not a habitat fragmentation
threat in Harney County based on local land use regulatory controls. Building permit activity from 2003-2013 also
show a limited amount of activity within habitat.
Development Activity within Core and Low Density Habitat on Privately-owned lands within Harney County (Data
from Tables 4 and 5):
Over the last ten years, an average of 3.6 new homes where approved for land use permits
Only single-family dwellings approved, no other land use permit approvals were granted within habitat
areas
(9) building permits for new home sites (new residence)
(11) building permits for existing homes being replaced, added on to, or updated (existing residence)
(1) storage pole barn
It is clear that development trends in local land use decisions over the last decade have proven to be a strong tool
for limiting potential developments not related to rural residential developments. Over the study’s 10 year period,
no new county roads, transmission lines, or surface mining permits have been issued within Core or Low Density
habitat ranges.
Table 7 – Harney County Habitat Risk Levels Revisited
Land Use Related
Risk Levels Threat Rating Harney County Results
Agriculture Conversion Present, but localized Protected by land use laws, not a significant threat
Energy Present, but localized Regulated, limited opportunities, not a significant
threat
Mining Present, but localized Regulated, limited acreage for sites, not a significant
threat
Infrastructure Present, but localized Regulated, limited opportunities for growth, not a
significant threat
Recreation Unknown Not regulated, limited travel/vehicle counts across
state & county roadways, unknown threat level
Urbanization Not known to be present Regulated, not occurring
65
This report indicates that over a very large portion of non-federal lands, local development standards and policies
have allowed for considerably low habitat fragmentation activity; however, one should also consider the total size
Harney County’s landscape. The lands discussed within the report should be considered conceptually as an island
of privately-owned tracts within a sea of publicly-managed lands. As depicted in Figure 1, public lands account for
roughly 3 quarters of the landscape of Harney County, the largest county in Oregon, and the 9th largest in the
continental United States. This is significant, considering the latest sage grouse population counts within the
Burns BLM district compared to that of the surrounding regions as shown below. This indicates that county
development policies do not pose a significant habitat fragmentation threat to Federally-managed lands, or
comprehensively, the county as a whole.
Table 7 – Current BLM District Sage Grouse Populations
BLM District County(ies) 2003 Population 2010 Population Percent of Target
Baker RA Baker, Union 1,566-2,546 872-1,650 61%
Burns Harney 3,722-4,941 3,877-5,195 105%
Lakeview Lake 8,613-10,134 5,523-6,445 64%
Prineville Crook, Deschutes 2,072-2,440 1,775-2,084 86%
Vale Malheur 8,474-13,921 9,016-11,740 93%
Statewide 24,447-33,982 21,064-27,115 82%
66
Lake County
Lake County Land Use Planning Program
Land Use Planning History
Lake County’s land use planning program, as it is practiced and recognized today in relation to the Oregon
Statewide Planning Program, began in the early 1980s. Although the county adopted a Comprehensive Plan on
May, 1980, the plan was not issued a Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) compliance
acknowledgement order until July 8, 1982. The Plan has been amended a number of times with significant
changes in July 1981, April 1982, February 1985, and also in June 1989. Minor adoptions including Plan
Designation Amendments to allow for further development in areas approved for Goal 3 exceptions have been
approve over the years although not included as a major topic of history in this report. None of those
Amendments were in area of Wildlife concern. Planning Staff refer to Amended 1989 version of the Plan as the
Amended Lake County Comprehensive Plan of 1989 (LCCP) and refer to this version of purposes of administration
and to the Zoning Ordinance for implementation. With exception to the incorporated communities of Lakeview
and Paisley, the LCCP provides the overarching development goals, policies, and recommendations for all lands
within the county boundary. While the LCCP has been through a number of minor/major revisions, the plan it s
self is considered a living document in the sense that it will continually be updated, within the plan’s specified
framework, to reflect the needs and desires of the local community. Amendments have been made to ensure the
plan continues to reflect community interests; however, the basic intent of the plan has not changed
significantly.32 In 2013, Lake County will be applying for a Technical Assistant Grant through the Department of
Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) to update the Comprehensive Plan and Implementing Ordinances. If
awarded the Grant the plan will be modified to improve organization of the document with the aim to provide
better administration and usability. The updating of references to Oregon Revised Statutes and Oregon
Administrative Rules and the direct inclusion of the criteria that must be met by certain uses as well as the
inclusion of those uses are all updates that will be reviewed and applied as appropriate, to see that the County is
incompliance with the ORS and OAR requirements.
The plan contains tools (not all contained within the singular document) that provide guidance for the local
program. Examples include the plan’s maps which graphically depict primary or underlying zoning/plan
designations such as the Exclusive Farm Use Zones, or other zoning overlays such as Urban Growth Boundaries or
the Airport Approach Combining Zone. Another example can be found within the related and adopted inventories
such as local aggregate mining sites, and envisioned commercial energy development areas as listed under the
Lake County Renewable Energy Plan of October, 1984. The LCCP is implemented primarily through specific
regulations contained within the Amended Lake County Zoning Ordinance of September 6, 1989. Other local plans
and/or ordinances also contribute to implementing the goals and policies of the LCCP, such as the Lake County
Transportation System Plan, Urban Growth Boundary agreements with the incorporated cities, Lake County
Development Ordinance etc., all of which have been periodically updated.
32 Source Document 1: Lake County Comprehensive Plan, June 1989.
67
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Overview
The majority of lands within Lake County (not inclusive of the incorporated communities) fall under the county
zoning designation of either A-1: Exclusive Farm Use which purpose “is intended to preserve productive
agricultural land for the continued agricultural use in compliance with Comprehensive Plan provisions and in
compliance with State Statute as a ‘qualified’ farm use zone”33 or the A-2: Agriculture Use, which purpose is “to
preserve grazing and other agricultural land, except in those areas designated by the Plan as Rural or Farm
Residential, and to allow rural home sites, hobby farms and similar ‘not for profit’ farm residences in accord with
Comprehensive Plan policies and provisions for such uses.”34 These zoning designations are illustrated in the
LCCP maps along with other specific zoning designations aimed at providing for area-specific appropriate
development. Table 1 below lists the LCCP land use and zoning designations as found and described within the
plan.
Table 1 – Lake County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations
Plan Designation (LCCP) Zoning (Lake County Zoning Ordinance – LCZO)
A – Agriculture Article 2: Exclusive Farm Use: A-1
Article 3: Agriculture Use: A-2
R – Range
Article 2: Exclusive Farm Use: A-1
Article 3: Agriculture Use: A-2
Article 5: Forest Use: F-1
F – Forest
Article 5: Forest Use: F-1
Article 2: Exclusive Farm Use: A-1
Article 3: Agriculture Use: A-2
RR – Rural Residential Article 6: Rural Residential: R-1
Article 8: Suburban Residential: R-3
C – Commercial Article 9: Commercial: C-1
FR – Farm Residential Article 7: Farm Residential: R-2
RC – Rural/Recreation Center Article 4: Rural Center: A-3 (Adel, Alkali Lake, Christmas Valley, Five Corners, Fort
Rock, New Pine Creek, Plush, Quartz Mountain, Silver Lake and Summer Lake)
I – Industrial Article 10: Light Industrial: M-1
Article 11: Heavy Industrial: M-2
P – Public Public 12: Public Facility: P-F
Zoning Map Overlays Zoning (Lake County Zoning Ordinance – LCZO)
Airport Approach Article 13: Airport Approach Combining Zone: A-A
High Groundwater Article 14: High Groundwater Combining Zone: H-G
Mobile Home Exclusion Article 15: Mobile Home Exclusion Zone: R-A
Waste Disposal, Inactive Uranium Mill
Tailings Article 16: Waste Disposal, Inactive Uranium Mill Tailings Zone: WD
Geological Hazard Article 17: Geological Hazard Combining Zone: G-H
Significant Resource Article 18: Significant Resource Combining Zone: S-R
Limited Use Article 19: Limited Use Combining Zone: L-U
33 Source Document 2: Lake County Zoning Ordinance, September 1989, Article 2, Section 2.01.
34 Source Document 3: Lake County Zoning Ordinance, September 1989, Article 3, Section 3.01.
68
Zoning and Overlays within Sage-Grouse Designated Areas
To assess Core Area and Low Density habitats in Lake County, the county was divided into 21 sub areas. Each map
depicts the following over the period of 2003 to current:
Development: Existing homes permitted since 2003 and additional land use permits within habitat areas
Ownership: Land ownership, rural communities, and Core/Low Density habitat areas
Zoning: County base zoning districts and DOGAMI surface mining permit locations
Table 2 summarizes in acres and parcels, County zoning within ODFW’s Core Area and Low Density habitat on
federal and non-federal (private) lands. It should be noted, as in other county reports, that some parcels overlap
both habitat designations and that there are gaps between habitat designations in the GIS layers exist, and so for
the purposes of this report these instances have been reported conservatively as Core Area.
Table 2 – Lake County Zoning Designations within ODFW’s Core and Low Density Habitat
Core Area Low Density
Total Acres
Percent in
Sage-Grouse
Habitat Federal Lands Non-Federal Lands Federal Lands Non-Federal Lands
Exclusive Farm Use: A-1
Acres 0.22 2,342.79 478.87 6,183.61 9,005.49 0.17%
Parcels
Agriculture Use: A-2
Acres 884,293.32 135,938.87 677,390.63 78,899.12 1,776,521.94 33.20%
Parcels
Forest Use: F-1
Acres 2,900.40 18.11 9,271.97 305.71 12,496.19 0.23%
Parcels
Rural Residential: R-1
Acres 0.00 0.00 0.00 66.72 66.72 0.0012%
Parcels
Farm Residential: R-2
Acres 8,877.43 488.16 208.45 0.00 9,574.04 0.18%
Parcels
Total Acres in Sage Grouse Habitat
Core Area Low Density
Total Acres
Percent in
Sage-Grouse
Habitat Federal Lands Non-Federal Lands Federal Lands Non-Federal Lands
896,071.36 138,787.93 687,349.93 85,455.16 1,807,664.38 33.78%
16.75% 2.59% 12.85% 1.60%
Total County Acres 5,350,660.45
69
Existing Habitat Conservation Measures and Zoning Designations
Wildlife Mapping and Protection within Sage Grouse Designated Areas
When the LCCP was first acknowledged in 1982 official maps were made a part of the document that outlined or
depicted particular areas of sensitivity or importance. Lake County organizationally formatted its plan to
correspond with the related Oregon State Planning Goals. An example of this is within Chapter 5 of the LCCP. It
has goals and policies relating to the county’s natural resources. The county has these resources inventoried in
either tabular or mapping form. In many county goal 5 inventories, a protection element or program is established
for each singular site or region. Lake County’s wildlife inventory is composed of a tabular listing of resource site
name/description (such as “big game winter range”) and a corresponding area listed within the Plan map
depicting coverage ranges.
Lake County has taken a broad range approach regarding programs for resource protection relating to wildlife
habitat. As an example, under big game resource areas (including Mule Deer and Rock Mt. Elk habitat ranges) the
program for protection listed states as a Plan Policy “That the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife’s ‘Fish &
Wildlife Habitat Protection Plan of Lake County’ will be recognized as a guideline for Plan implementation.35 An
additional Comprehensive Plan Policy states, “That new uses within the Hart Mountain Nation Antelope Refuge
Boundary will be limited to wildlife management, livestock grazing, and incidental recreation. No new residential,
commercial or industrial uses will be allowed.”36 However, two other County Policies state the need to
“determine support…only after consideration of economic and environmental consequences of both protection
and non-protection.”37
It is fairly apparent that while Lake County has goals to conserve and protect existing fish and wildlife areas, its
related preservation policies are intended to provide for broad flexibility of habitat protection measures (not site
specific). Lake County’s implementation strategy for these policies is to provide notice and an opportunity to
comment on land use applications to ODFW.
The original inventory data and mapping is still officially utilized since the plan was acknowledged in 1982. Over
the years Lake County staff has worked with ODFW to attain more updated and accessible mapping data to be
utilized in administering the plan’s wildlife preservation implementation strategy. Said strategy is aimed at
providing ODFW an opportunity to aid the county in review of a development and landowner’s development
objectives by commenting and even producing recommendations on how to either avoid or mitigate for impacts
to big game winter range and/or other sensitive species habitat areas. The conditional use provisions of Article 24
of the LCZO provide the county opportunities to impose conditions of approval which can directly execute the
recommendations from ODFW. To that end, Lake County has regularly provided notice to or communicated with
ODFW relating to proposed developments within areas of either big game habitat/winter range, or sensitive
species habitat.
Exclusive Farm Use (A-1) & Agriculture Use (A-2) Zones
The lands designated for exclusive farm use within Lake County are zoned Exclusive Farm and Agriculture Use (A-1
& A-2). These designations are nearly identical, with the minimal difference being the wording of the purpose of
the zone, as well as lands zoned A-2 may have a plan designation of RR – Rural Residential or FR – Farm
Residential. Either lot has the possibility of being designated as either A- Agriculture or R – Range by the
Comprehensive Plan, thus the minimum size that a parcel can be partitioned to would be 80 acre minimum –
Agriculture and 160 acre minimum - Range. Lake County applied this designation to both private and federally-
managed lands within its boundary lines. As a matter of perspective, Lake County’s has a total of more than 5
million acres of which only 250,000 acres, which is less than 5% of the total County acres are privately owned and
35 Lake County Comprehensive Plan, June 1989, Planning Guidelines (V)(B)(3).
36 Lake County Comprehensive Plan, June 1989, Planning Guidelines (V)(B)(2).
37 Lake County Comprehensive Plan, June 1989, Planning Guidelines (V)(B)(13 & 14).
70
thus regulated through a County Land Use Process if not outright permitted by the underlining zone. A number of
land uses are outright permitted as they have significant value to preserving the historical use of the land (i.e.
grazing and agricultural uses). In fact, 74.53% of the county is zoned, 3,986,224.98 acres are federally owned, and
another 112,562.65 (2.10%) acres are State owned. The majority of these lands are designated either Farm or
Forest lands including Range land.
The EFU zoning designations follow closely to Oregon Statutory standards and related Oregon Administrative
Rules, which are guided by the principles established under Goal 3 of the Oregon Statewide Planning system
(protection of agriculture lands). In Lake County the most prevalent development type aside from agriculture is
housing related to farm use. Two types of housing are allowed in the zone: Dwellings on parcels 80 acres in size or
larger (most common), or dwellings provided to families that have owned specific tracts of land prior to 1/1/1985
(although never applied for in Lake County), where only one dwelling per tract is permitted through this process.
Farm-related dwellings may also be allowed on tracts below 80 acres in size if the corresponding farm operation
on the tract has produced a certain amount of revenue over time (uncommon in Lake County). Otherwise,
dwellings are conditionally permitted on tracts of land smaller than 160 acres, however they move through a
more stringent set of standards and must be found to not inhibit the expansion of existing farming operations in
the area. Proposed partitions of parcels above the minimum standards that will continue to be used for
agriculture are reviewed administratively. All proposed partitions that are below the minimum acreage must be
review by the Planning Commission to see that the property is not able to be farmed, and a finding that the
partitioning will not negatively impact the farming/ranching in the area. This standard has lessened the possibility
for high dwelling density or urban sprawl based on the limited opportunities for dwelling as per the stringent
Conditional Use Permit criteria.38
Forest Use (F-1) Zone
The forest land in Lake County, zoned F-1, is primarily on the west side. However, the Warner Range, located in
the South Central part of Lake County, is also zoned and designated Forest. The majority of the land zoned Forest
is in federal ownership, with the remaining acres scattered throughout the forest zone by multiple owners. The
minimum parcel size in the F-1 zone is 80 acres, however very few land divisions have occurred since the early
1980s. There are 3 possible ways to permit a single-family dwelling in the F-1 zone: (A) Large Tract (240
contiguous acres or 320 throughout the county), (B) dwellings provided to families that have owned specific tracts
of land prior to 1/1/1985 (although never used in Lake County), and (C) on a tract of land that is capable of
producing a certain range of cubic feet per acre of wood fiber, etc. In addition, new dwellings proposed within the
Forest Use Zone must also comply with strict siting standards relating to access from public roads, water supply
needs, and meet stocking requirements of the Department of Forestry. Lands zoned Forest also have the
possibility of being within the Big Game Habitat inventoried areas, thus addition siting standards shall be met,
which are required by the Significant Resource Combining Zone.
The F-1 zone is the most restrictive zoning district for new developments. Due to a low amount of privately-
owned land and large lot size requirement for new dwellings, very few new dwelling approvals are located within
the Forest Use Zone. In fact, no new approvals over last decade have occurred in the F-1 zone or in Sage Grouse
habitat are in the F-1 zone.
Built Environment and Development Activity
Roads and Utilities
Lake County is located in the south-central portion of Oregon and encompasses 8,359 square miles. Lake County
has two north-south trending highways and one highway for east-west travel. The Fremont Highway (OR 31/US
395) and the Lakeview-Burns Highway (US 395) provide for north-south travel and the Klamath Falls-Lakeview
38 Source Document 7: Lake County Zoning Ordinance, September 1989, Article 24, Section 24.19.
71
Highway (OR 140) and the Warner Highway (OR 140) traverse the southern portion of the county and provide for
east-west travel. Central Oregon Highway (US 20) also provides an east-west link at Lake County’s northern
boundary.39 These State Highways as well as many County Roads have been designated as within Core and Low
Density areas. The jurisdiction of roads within the County include: BLM, Forest Service, State and County, along
with many private roads. County designated roads span approximately 757 miles within Lake County, many of
which have sections of road that fall within Core Area and Low Density habitat respectively. BLM roads totaling
approximately 2,500 miles all of which are made of gravel or natural surfaces, are also within Sage Grouse habitat.
US Forest Service roads are also of gravel and natural surfaces with paved roads totaling 240 -250 miles of the
approximate 7,000 miles. There are nearly 305 miles of state highway in Lake County, with areas in which Core
and Low Density covers. While minor alterations have been made to existing roads, no new county roads have
been created from 2003-2013. Highway 31 is registered as a National Scenic Byway. Figure 1 shows the locations
of major overhead transmission lines (including lines owned by Bonneville Power Administration, Surprise Valley
Electric, Pacific Corp and Harney County Electrical Cooperative) totaling approximately 300 miles through the
region, with about half of those miles within sage grouse habitat. The Ruby Pipeline, a natural gas utility line, lies
within Lake County on the southern boundary extending on into Klamath County. This pipeline was permitted
though a Federal Government process in the mid 2000’s. The Ruby Pipeline is not depicted in figure 1.
Surface Mining Sites
There are a total of 15 surface mines within Core Area and Low Density habitat on non-federal lands, 9 are closed
and 6 active/permitted/exempt.40 DOGAMI GIS (Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries) reports
that of the 15 sites that are disturbed by surface mines in Lake County, 9 are in Core Habitat 6 sites are disturbed
in Low Density habitat. Each site is not more than 5 acres in size and located near an existing road way. Lake
County has not permitted a surface mine within Core Area or Low Density habitat from 2003 – 2013. Table 3 lists
the 15 surface mines within ODFW sage grouse habitat. All permits on Federal and Non-Federal lands are
included on the list.
Table 3 – DOGAMI Permits within Sage Grouse Habitat
Surface Mining Site - DOGAMI Permit # & Permittee
(Federal or Non-Federal Lands)
Habitat
Designation Status
19-0034 – Robert E. Mitchell (Federal) Core Area Closed
19-0045 – Gordon & Don Tracey (Federal) Core Area Closed
19-0071 – ODOT – Bend (Federal) Core Area Closed
19-0036 – ODOT – Bend (Federal) Core Area Permitted
19-0046 – ODOT – Bend (Federal) Core Area Permitted
19-0108 – Collins Timber Company, LLC (Non-Federal) Core Area Closed
19-0017 – Lake County (Non-Federal) Core Area Exempt
19-0041 – ODOT – Bend (Non-Federal) Core Area Permitted
19-0109 – Jay & Gloria Counts (Non-Federal) Core Area Permitted
19-0031 – Robert E. Mitchell (Federal) Low Density Closed
19-0032 – Robert E. Mitchell (Federal) Low Density Closed
19-0072 – U.S. Minerals Exploration (Federal) Low Density Closed
19-0084 – Glenn D. Plato (Federal) Low Density Closed
19-0073 – Cornerstone Industrial Minerals Corp. (Federal) Low Density Permitted
19-0114 – Sierra Cascade LLC (Non-Federal) Low Density Closed
39 Lake County Transportation System Plan, 2002.
40 DOGAMI Online Permit Inventory Weblink: http://www.oregongeology.org/mlrr/surfacemining-report.htm
72
Figure 1 – County Roads and Transmission Lines
73
Figure 2 – Mapped DOGAMI Permits for Surface Mines within Sage Grouse Habitat on Non-Federal Lands
including Transmission Lines
74
Land Use and Building Permit Activity (2003-2013)
Table 4 lists the land use planning decisions and assessed real market building values issued from 2003 to 2013
within Core and Low Density habitat. As shown in Table 4, there were a total of 19 land use files of which 16 were
approved for development, 2 denied and 1 withdrawn by the applicant. Of the 16 approvals 11 were within Core
Area, 5 were within Low Density. Of the 16 approvals 4 of the approvals are on 2 lots, and 1 was a partition with
no development. There was a total of 10 Non-Farm Dwellings of which 3 are built, 2 are partially built and the
remaining 5 are not built.
Table 4 – Land Use Planning Permits (2003-2013)
Year Land Use
File # Use Decision Acct T R Sec TL Acres
Real
Market
Building
Habitat
2003 927-CUP School Denied 8348 28 16 - 202 20.00 $0 Low D.
2004 940-CUP Non-Farm
Dwelling Approved 10279 36 23 31 2400 40.00 $1,410 Core
2004 955-CUP Non-Farm
Dwelling Approved 10367 36 24 - 900 20.00 $4,800 Core
2004 128-FD Farm Dwelling Approved 9853 36 23 - 3500 280.00 $0 Core
2005 985-CUP Non-Farm
Dwelling Approved 18264 33 24 - 102 20.44 $10,031 Low D.
2005 1028-CUP Non-Farm
Dwelling Approved 15328 39 22 - 1100 39.61 $0 Core
2005 1401-AP Admin
Partition Approved 10516 37 23 - 1400 266.90 - Core
2006 1096-CUP Non-Farm
Dwelling Approved 17870 29 17 - 1601 32.40 $0 Low D.
2006 1097-CUP Non-Farm
Dwelling Approved 8155 29 17 - 400 15.48 $0 Low D.
2006 1098-CUP Non-Farm
Dwelling Approved 8155 29 17 - 400 15.48 $0 Low D.
2006 148-ZP Farm Dwelling Approved 18458, 18459 29 16 - 801, 802 200.00 $0 Core
2006 149-ZP Farm Dwelling Approved 18460 29 16 - 803 490.00 $69,380 Core
2007 1117-CUP RV -
Campground Approved 81 24 18 - 200 630.50 $94,180 Low D.
2007 1123-CUP Temporary
Storage Approved 7876 28 16 20 2100 17.27 $83,405 Core
2007 1127-CUP Non-Farm
Dwelling Approved 7876 28 16 20 2100 17.27 $83,405 Core
2009 1478-TP Partition Denied 6812 27 18 - 7300 20.00 - Low D.
2009 1481-TP Partition Withdrawn 7899, 7895 28 16 21 1100, 900 25.03 - Core
2010 1245-CUP Non-Farm
Dwelling Approved 15732 40 27 5 100 98.15 $0 Core
2010 10-0179-ZP Non-Farm
Dwelling Approved 8388 30 16 01B 100 2.33 $106,580 Core
75
Impact Analysis
Risk Assessment
According to the COT (Conservation Objectives Team) report, Lake County falls within an area designated as
Management Zone V (5), more pointedly the Western Great Basin. According to the report, this area contains one
of the few remaining large intact expanses of sagebrush habitat, with most of the sagebrush-dominated landscape
in Oregon. Oregon’s portion of the (bird) population has some of the best habitat and highest sage -grouse
densities in the state, including Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge and Trout Creek Mountains, though
habitat in the Trout Creeks was likely compromised by 2012 fires. The delineation of the Western Great Basin
population doesn’t correspond well to any existing assessment for Oregon, but does include almost all of the
Lakeview administrative unit, as well as portions of the Burns and Vale administrative units. Invasive weeds, fire,
and juniper encroachment (particularly on the western edge) represent the greatest risks to this population.
Renewable energy development (wind and geothermal) and wild horses have been identified as a threat to sage-
grouse habitat in portions of Oregon’s (e.g., Steens, Dry Valley/Jack Mountain Action Areas) Western Great Basin
population.41 Table 5 depicts habitat fragmentation threats and their corresponding levels for Lake County (COT
report).
Table 5 – Southeastern Oregon Sage-Grouse Risk Levels
Risk Levels (Land Use Related) Threat Rating
Agriculture Conversion Present, but localized
Energy Present, but localized
Mining Present, but localized
Infrastructure Present, but localized
Recreation Unknown
Urbanization Not known to be present
Findings and Conclusion
As listed in other county reports, the COT does not provide a consideration of county land use programs. Lake
County has zoning jurisdiction over a vast area principally reserved for natural resource production (agriculture
and forest use). This development report shows that Lake County is effective in minimizing land use impacts or
conflicts within its large regulatory jurisdiction (1,362,312 acres). As reflected in the other county reports, sparse
residential population across a vast open landscape, coupled with agriculture and forest zoning have preserved
non-federal lands as rural.
Lake County’s land use program does not pose a risk to sage-grouse populations. As listed earlier, agriculture-
designated lands cover the large majority of non-federally managed parcels within the county. This zoning
designation is important to the ecological values of the county and has largely been intact over the last decade.
Oregon’s land use program has in place procedural steps for counties to change the land use designation of
agriculture lands to residential or other uses by taking what is defined as a “goal exception.” From 2003 – 2013 no
exceptions (or re-zones) have occurred within Habitat areas.
41 Sage-Grouse Conservation Objectives Report
76
Over a ten year period, sixteen (16) land use permits have been approved within designated Core and Low Density
habitat (of those, 8 have yet to be developed). Of the total land use approval 3 were for Farm Dwell ings which are
a use that is found to be in conjunction with the purposes of the State Land Use goals and system. The remaining
were for Non-Farm related uses that have a place in the County and State as a whole and are conditionally
allowed. Of these, the majority were within 1 mile of being out of habitat area and located on existing major
roadways. The total land use approvals averages out to less than 1.5 permits a year over a 10 year period. The
majority of these approvals are for single-family dwellings with one RV-campground approved on a ranch that
likely is looking for a bit of supplemental income for the improvement of their ranch. Based on the number of new
dwellings and uses inside habitat on non-federal lands within Lake County (Table 4), it is apparent that urban
sprawl is not a habitat fragmentation threat based on local land use regulatory controls. Building permit activity
from 2003-2013 also show a limited amount of activity within core and low density habitat. Only 8 total sites
developed within the time period studied, with two of those related to the same site (e.g., temporary storage
became a permanent non-farm dwelling).
It is clear that development trends in local land use decisions over the last decade have proven to be a strong to ol
for limiting potential developments not related to rural residential developments. Over the study’s 10 year period,
no new county roads, transmission lines, or surface mining permits have been issued.
77
Malheur County
Malheur County Land Use Planning Program
Land Use Planning History
Comprehensive planning in Malheur County began in 1966. At that time, Oregon counties were authorized (but
not required) to adopt planning and zoning regulations for all or part of their lands. In cooperation with the
Bureau of Municipal Research and Service, the Malheur County Planning Commission developed a comprehensive
plan for the Ontario-Nyssa-Vale area. However, the plan was never officially adopted by the county.
In 1969 the Oregon State Legislature mandated that all Oregon counties adopt comprehensive plans and zone
their lands. In accordance with the provisions of ORS 215.050 and 215.055, the county adopted its first official
comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance in 1973.
In 1976 Malheur County and its cities established the Comprehensive Planning Office funded by a combination of
LCDC and local moneys. The comprehensive planning staff began by preparing a series of background reports to
provide detailed information on which to base the plans. The staff then worked with each of the cities and their
citizens advisory committees to develop comprehensive plans for Ontario; Nyssa, Vale, Adrian and Jordan Valley.
At the same time, the staff developed a draft comprehensive plan for Malheur County.
After countless work sessions with citizen’s advisory committees, major revisions to the plan, at least four series
of public hearings, and extensive review sessions with the Planning Commission and County Court, this document
has evolved as Malheur County's comprehensive plan.
The plan includes zoning/plan designations for example Exclusive Farm and Range Use, Urban Growth Boundaries
and other overlays.
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Zoning and Overlays within Sage-Grouse Designated Areas
The majority of lands within Malheur County (not including incorporated areas) are designated as resource or
agriculture and forest preservation. These zoning designations are aimed at providing for area-specific
appropriate development.
Table 1 summarizes in acres and parcels, County zoning within ODFW’s Core Area and Low Density habitat on
federal and non-federal (private) lands. It should be noted, as in other county reports, that some parcels overlap
both habitat designations and gaps between habitat designations in the GIS layers exist. So, for the purposes of
this report these instances have been reported conservatively as Core Area.
78
Table 1: Malheur County Zoning Within ODFW Core and Low Density Habitat
Core Area Low Density
Total Acres
Percent of
Sage-Grouse
Habitat Federal Lands Non-federal lands Federal Lands Non-federal lands
Exclusive Farm Use, (C-A1)
Acres 5.08 1,183.65 8.81 347.6 1,545.00 0.03%
Parcels 1 49 1 20
Exclusive Range Use, (C-A2)
Acres 2,120,713.12 574,747.00 1,493,908.76 382,551.32 4,571,920.20 99.59%
Parcels 621 1299 513 1076
Exclusive Farm Forest Use (C-A3)
Acres 1,442.00 4,240.94 1,121.92 9,983.94 16,788.80 0.37%
Parcels 7 18 6 33
Rural Service Center (C-RSC)
Acres 0.00 266.48 0.00 6.79 273.27 0.01%
Parcels 0 117 0 7
Total 2,122,160.20 580,438.07 1,495,039.49 392,889.51 4,590,527.27 100.00%
79
Existing Habitat Conservation Measures and Zoning Designations
“Goal 5” and Wildlife Mapping and Protection within Habitat Areas
When Malheur County adopted the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance in 1988, official plan maps were
approved by Malheur County to outline particular areas of importance. Once such map (map 8) depicts the
county’s fish and wildlife habitat areas. Inventories of Malheur County’s fish and wildlife habitats are presented in
the “Fish and Wildlife Protection Plan” prepared by ODFW (basis for mapped areas).
Malheur County’s policy is to provide notice and an opportunity to comment on land use applications to ODFW.
Adjacent landowner will also be on pending land use actions and allowed and opportunity to comment.
This policy will provide the opportunity for ODFW to assist the county in review of a land use action by comment
and/or recommendations on how to either avoid or mitigate impacts on sensitive species habitat areas.
Flood Plain Zone Overlay
Flood Plains in Malheur County consist of a very small area mainly along the Snake, Malheur and Owyhee River.
Development is generally discouraged in the 100 year flood plan and not allowed in the flood way. A very small
area is located in the low density area.
EFU & ERU Zones
The designated agricultural lands in Malheur County fall under two zoning classifications: Exclusive Farm Use
(EFU) and Exclusive Range Use (ERU). The only difference is the size of the parcel that can be partitioned. These
designations apply to both private and federal lands.
The EFU and ERU zoning designations follow closely to Oregon Statutory standards and related Oregon
Administrative Rules, which are guided by the principles established under the 3rd goal of the Oregon Statewide
Planning system (protection of agriculture lands). There are 22 dwelling sites split evenly between the Core Area
and Low Density Existing housing in these large areas is predominantly related to farm/range use (dwellings
permitted on large private tracts). Non-Farm dwellings are allowed as a Conditional Use, however they must
meet a more stringent set of standards and must be found to not inhibit the expansion of existing farming
operations in the area. This standard has lessened the possibility for high dwelling density or urban sprawl based
on the limited opportunities for dwelling per ownership tract.
EFFU Zone
Malheur County has a small amount of what is designated as mixed Farm and Forest Use. Only 0.37% of the EFFU
Zone is located in the Sage-Grouse habitat.
80
Map 1: Malheur County Sage-grouse Core & Low Density
81
Built Environment and Development Activity
Map 2: Malheur County Permitted Sites in Sage-grouse Habitat
82
Housing Units/Structural Developments
Malheur County is the most populous of the Southeastern counties within the region, having a population of
30,630 (2012 US Census Bureau). The County’s population centers consist mostly of its incorporated cities: Adrian,
Jordan Valley, Nyssa, Vale, with its largest being Ontario. A number of unincorporated communities are also
located within the county. With the exception of Brogan (unincorporated community) none of Malheur County’s
population centers is within Core Area or Low Density Sage Grouse habitat ranges. The community of Brogan is
within Core Area habitat and has a total of 24 dwelling units within its designated zoning district (see map 1).
With Brogan aside, local addressing records indicate that there are a total 22 housing units or single-family
dwellings within 973,327.72 acres of non-federal lands designated Core Area and Low Density habitat. 14 of those
dwellings are within Core Area and 8 are within Low Density. Malheur County also tracks accessory ‘agriculture
buildings’ (e.g., barns, machinery sheds, etc…). A total of 15 such buildings are located in both Core and Low
Density. See Map 2 “Malheur County Permitted Sites in Sage-grouse Habitat.”
Roads and Utilities
Malheur County’s county road system has been constructed principally for the purposes of life safety. These roads
are critical for emergency access to federal and private lands throughout the county. Excluding the Federal and
State Highway system (U.S. HWY 20, 26, 95, and interstate 84) there are 518 county designated roads spanning
approximately 2,920 miles within Malheur County. 127 of these roads intersect BLM lands. 1,071 and 604 road
miles are in Core Area and Low Density habitat respectively. While alterations have been made to existing roads,
no new county roads have been created from 2003-2013.
Existing overhead high voltage transmission lines in Malheur County total 46 miles within Core Area and 32 miles
within Low Density. Although not constructed, Idaho Power has proposed a new high voltage power line through
habitat areas (see map 3 below) known as the “Boardman to Hemingway” or “B2H” line. The B2H line will cross
through 16 miles of Core Area and 15.23 miles of Low Density habitat ranges.
83
Map 3: Malheur County – B2H line (Proposed Location)
84
Map 4: Malheur County – County Roads and Transmission Lines
85
Surface Mining Sites
Table 2 below lists 14 existing surface mining/exploration sites within Core Area and Low Density habitat. Of
these sites, only 3 are currently active at this time. Malheur County has approved just one surface mining site
within Core Area over the last ten years, however said approval was not acted upon within the timeframe allotted
under local standards for a conditional use permit, and therefore is no longer permitted.
Table 2: Surface Mining Sites within Sage Grouse Habitat
Permit Number Permittee Type - Status Habitat Designation
23-0005 ODOT – Aggregate – Not Active Core Area
23-0050 Paul Vaden – Aggregate – (last active 12’/13’) – Not Active Core Area
23-0125 ODOT – Aggregate – Not Active Core Area
23-0126 ODOT - Aggregate – Not Active Core Area
23-0140 Oregon Energy LLC – Uranium – Not Active Core Area
23-0159 ODOT - Aggregate – Not Active Core Area
23-0176 ODOT - Aggregate – Not Active Low Density
23-0187 Eldorado Resources LLC – Exploration Only – Not Active Core Area
23-0224 Seabridge Gold Corp. – Exploration Only – Not Active Core Area
23-0234 White Mountain Natural Products Inc. – Zeolite – Not Active Core Area
23-0267 Mineral Valley LLC – Exploration – Not Active Core Area
23-0269 Three Valleys Ranch LLC – Gold Mine - Active Core Area
23-0272 Industrial Builders Inc. – Aggregate - Active Low Density
N/A Blackburn Family Trust – Aggregate – Active Low Density
Land Use and Building Permit Activity (2003-2013)
Table 3 shows the land use planning permits & authorizations issued from 2003 to 2013 within Core Area and Low
Density habitat. As listed below, there were a total of 8 approved land use permits for new development, all
within Core Area. 9 of the authorizations were for replacement of legally existing dwellings, of which 6 are in Core
Area and 3 within Low Density. Although not considered a land use decision, Malheur County shows 7 buildings
related to existing agriculture operations or “agriculture buildings.” Such buildings are allowed as an out-right use
within the C-A1 zoning designation and do not require a permit for development beyond a site plan review for
consistency with local siting standards. Building permits follow a nearly identical pattern. All new dwelling sites
(newly approved and replacement) received structural permits. One existing telecommunication facility received a
structural permit to locate new antennas (not exceeding the previous height). Agricultural buildings do not
require structural permits.
86
Table 3: Land Use Decisions (2003-2013)
Land Use Decisions (2003-
2013)
Core Area Low Density
Federal Lands Non-federal
Lands
Federal Lands Non-federal
Lands
All Land Use Approvals Within Exclusive Range Use (C-A1)
New Dwellings 0 8 0 0
Replacement Dwellings 0 6 0 3
Accessory Building
(*not Land Use Decisions)
0 7 0 0
Impact Analysis
Risk Assessment
According to the COT (Conservation Objectives Team) report, Malheur County falls within two areas designated as
Management Zones IV (4) and V (5), more specifically the “Northern Great Basin” and “Western Great Basin”
Subareas. The Northern Great Basin Subarea which contains large parts of Harney/Malheur County is described as
representing one of the largest bird populations of the subarea. “Within Oregon, this represents one of the largest
populations. The delineation of the Northern Great Basin population doesn’t correspond well to any existing
assessment for Oregon, but does include almost all of the Vale administrative unit, as well as portions of the Burns
administrative unit. In Oregon alone, the spring population in the Northern Great Basin is likely several thousand
birds, with 2011 spring lek counts approaching 3,000 males (in the Beulah, Malheur River, Owyhee, and eastern
portion of Whitehorse Wildlife Management Units).” The report goes on to describe wildfire and the proliferation
of invasive weed species as the primary and most recent risks to habitat. “Loss of sagebrush habitat has been and
continues to be threat to the population in Oregon. Between 1963 and 1974, 500,000 acres of sagebrush habitat
was seeded to crested wheatgrass or sprayed with herbicide, and 1,600 water developments and 463 miles of
pipeline were installed in the Vale District BLM’s area for the Vale project. More recently, wildfire is the most
significant threat to landscape scale losses of sagebrush habitat as indicated by the previously mentioned 582,000
acre Long Draw fire of 2012. In conjunction with fire, invasive weeds are also one of the greatest risks the 4+
million acres of sagebrush habitat for this population in Oregon.”
Table 4 lists habitat fragmentation threats and their corresponding levels for the subareas Malheur County falls
within (COT report).
87
Table 4: Southeastern Oregon Sage-Grouse Risk Levels
Land Use Related
Risk Levels Threat Rating
Agriculture Conversion Present, but localized
Energy Present, but localized
Mining Present, but localized
Infrastructure Present and widespread
Recreation Unknown
Urbanization Present and widespread
Findings and Conclusion
As listed in the other county development reports, the COT does not provide a consideration of county land use
programs. Malheur County has zoning jurisdiction over a vast area principally reserved for natural resource
production (agriculture and forest use). This development report shows that Malheur County is effective in
minimizing land use impacts or conflicts within its large regulatory jurisdiction (1,541,299 acres or 24.4% of the
County). As reflected in the other county reports, sparse residential population across a vast open landscape,
coupled with agriculture and mixed farm and forest zoning have preserved non-federal lands as rural.
While conversation of agriculture lands is not regulated by the county land use program, it is found that on-the-
ground changes to actual intense agricultural practices (as found in the ODF report cited earlier in the report) has
not occurred and is not projected to expand due to future restrictions in water availability.
Malheur County’s land use program does not pose a risk to sage-grouse populations. Agriculture-designated lands
cover the large majority of non-federally managed parcels within the county. This designation is important to the
ecological values of the county, and as listed earlier, is the principle factor in the preservation of large tracts with
little to no urban developments outside of the county’s population centers.
Looking specifically at the improvement of these lands, the most common structural development is single-family
dwellings. This development type is not a significant impact however, as only 22 total dwellings currently exist
within Sage Grouse habitat. This translates into 1 single-family dwelling per 44,242.2 acres of Non-Federal Sage
Grouse habitat within Malheur County.
The local land use and building programs show that 14 of the 22 dwellings existed prior to 2003. Over a ten year
period only eight (8) land use permits/authorizations for new home sites have been approved within designated
Core Area, with no approvals within Low Density.
14 total surface mines (or exploratory activities) exist within Sage Grouse Habitat areas in Malhe ur County. 11 are
within Core Area, and 3 within Low Density, however only 3 of those sites are active according to local and state
information (see table 2). It is clear that land use approvals over the last decade have proven to be a strong tool
for limiting potential developments not related to rural residential developments (see map 2 “Malheur County
88
Permitted Sites in Sage-grouse Habitat). Over the study’s 10 year period, no new county roads or surface mining
permits have been issued within Core or Low Density habitat ranges.
The COT report categorized Malheur County within two sub areas, one of which (26a) accounts for parts of
southern Idaho, NE Nevada, and NW Utah. Malheur County stands apart from this area because of its utilization
of local land use controls which have effectively preserved valuable agriculture lands in large tracts while
controlling urban sprawl (22 total dwellings over hundreds of thousands of acres). This is in stark contrast to the
adjacent area of Southern Idaho. Another important distinction is the disparity of actual jurisdiction area within
Malheur County. Only 21.2% (973,327.58 acres) of Sage Grouse habitat is under the County Jurisdiction. The
remaining 78.8% (3,617,199.6 acres) is located on Federal lands.
Table 5 – Malheur County Habitat Risk Levels Revisited
Land Use Related
Risk Levels Threat Rating Harney County Results
Agriculture Conversion Present, but localized Unregulated, limited water expansion opportunities,
not a significant threat
Energy Present, but localized Regulated, limited opportunities, not a significant
threat
Mining Present, but localized Regulated, not a significant threat
Infrastructure Present and widespread Regulated, limited opportunities for growth, not a
significant threat
Recreation Unknown Not regulated, unknown threat level
Urbanization Present and widespread Regulated, not occurring
89
Union County
90
91
Land Use History
Union County adopted its first comprehensive land use plan on April 11, 1979 which was intended to be in
compliance with statewide planning goals. However, a number of inconsistencies were identified by the Oregon
Land Conservation & Development Commission (LCDC) so the County was required to pursue several revisions.
Ultimately, the County received acknowledgement from LCDC that its land Use Plan and land use regulations were
in compliance with statewide planning goals on June 20, 1985.
The land use regulation amendments developed over that 6 years to bring the County into compliance with
statewide planning goals significantly reduced or limited development opportunities in currently identified Union
County sage grouse Core Areas and Low Density Areas (Union County sage grouse habitat). The 1979 Land Use
Plan had identified the currently inventoried Union County sage grouse habitat in an Agriculture-Timber-Grazing
Zone that had a 40 acre minimum parcel size, except for about 160 acres in the Pondosa-Medical Springs Rural
Center. By the time of the 1985 acknowledgement this area was changed to a new Agriculture-Grazing
Plan/Zone42 that had a 160 acre/80 acre minimum parcel size. Where properties were being actively farmed,
parcels as small as 80 acres could be created, otherwise the minimum was 160 acres.
The other major change by 1985 was the identification of Big Game Winter Range for all of the area in Union
County sage grouse habitat. For these areas new dwellings were and are required to be sited based on a
cooperative wildlife management plan signed by Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife and the landowner.
Usually, this meant siting a new dwelling within 280 feet of an open, maintained public use road.
As Oregon’s land use program has evolved since 1985 restrictions on resource zones has increased. Statutory
minimum parcel sizes for resource zones were adopted by the Oregon Legislature in 1993 (House Bill 3661).
Union County applied these statutory minimum parcel sizes directly and in 1996 the County revised its resource
zones to be in compliance with the statutes. The new A-2 Agriculture-Grazing Zone minimum parcel size was
increased to 160 acres for predominantly cropland parcels and 320 acres for predominantly rangeland parcels.
These minimum parcel sizes exist until today. There are no predominantly cropland parcels in Union County sage
grouse habitat, therefore the majority of the Union County sage grouse habitat has a 320 acre minimum parcel
size for the creation of new parcels.
Also worth noting is that Oregon’s exclusive farm use zone statutes do not allow the creation of four or more lots
from a parent parcel in a calendar year (defined as a subdivision). Therefore, only partitions are allowed that
create up to two new parcels (at least 320 acres in size) and a remainder (also, at least 320 acres in size).
Oregon land use statutes allow the creation of non-farm parcels (parcels less than the minimum parcel size) with
non-farm dwellings in exclusive farm use zones. Because this opportunity was optional, counties had to
specifically authorize these opportunities. Union County chose not to allow the creation of new non-farm parcels
until March 21, 2007. This opportunity is limited to a maximum of two new non -farm parcels as long as the
remainder is greater than 320 acres. The County has not processed any non-farm parcel requests in Union County
sage grouse habitat.
In conclusion, Union County sage grouse habitat (about 30,000 acres) is in an A-2 Agriculture-Grazing Zone that
effectively has a 320 acre minimum parcel size, except for about 160 acres that is in the Pondosa -Medical Springs
Rural Cluster Development Zone that has a specific development plan for a maximum of 17 lots or parcels. All
new residential development in the A-2 Agriculture-Grazing Zone (nonfarm & farm) must be sited subject to a
wildlife management plan, which generally means within 280 feet of an open, public use road. While non-farm
parcels and non-farm dwellings have been allowed in the A-2 Agriculture-Grazing Zone since 2007, none have
been requested or authorized in Union County sage grouse habitat.
42 The Agriculture-Grazing Zone is a qualifying ORS 215.283 Exclusive Farm Use Zone.
92
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Base Zoning within Sage Grouse Designated Areas
The Union County sage grouse Core Area and Low Density habitat include about 30,000 acres in four zoning
districts (see Table 1 and Maps 1 and 2). Approximately 93% of this area is in an A-2 Agriculture-Grazing Zone.
Incidental acres are included in a County A-1 Exclusive Farm Use Zone (45 acres), A-4 Timber-Grazing Zone (1,307
acres or 4%), and Pondosa-Medical Spring Rural Cluster Development Zone (154 acres).
Table 1 identifies the acres in each zone divided between sage grouse Core Area and Low Density habitat and
whether those acres are in federal ownership (5%) or non-federal ownership (95%). The 45 acres in the A-1
Exclusive Farm Use Zone are river bottom used for pasture and are designated Low Density habitat. This area is
just east of the City of North Powder, includes small segments west of the Powder River and is adjacent to Baker
County which is on the other side of the Powder River.
Table 1 - Union County Base Zoning within ODFW’s Core and Low Density Habitat
Core Area Low Density
Total Acres
Percent of
Sage-Grouse
Habitat Federal Lands Non-federal
Lands Federal Lands Non-federal
lands
Exclusive Farm Use Zone
Acres 0 0 0 45.43 45.43 0.15%
Tax Lots 0 0 0 2
Agriculture Grazing Zone
Acres 661.81 19,265.48 0 7807.56 27,734.85 94.85%
Tax Lots 17 96 0 17
Timber Grazing Zone
Acres 340.02 865.54 0 101.0 1306.56 4.46%
Tax Lots 1 9 0 1
Rural Cluster Development Zone
Acres 0 153.50 0 0 153.50 0.54%
Tax Lots 0 16 0 0
Rural Cluster Development Zone
Acres 0 153.50 0 0 153.50 0.54%
Tax Lots 0 16 0 0
Total 1001.83 20,284.52 0 7,953.99 29,240.34 100%
The A-2 Agriculture-Grazing Zone is predominantly rangeland, except for about 438 acres in wild hay production
and 30 acres in crop production.
The 1306.56 acres in the A-4 Timber-Grazing Zone are primarily along the north boundary of the Core Area.
About 74% of this area is in non-federal ownership and in a mix of timber and grazing uses. Forestlands have a
240 acre minimum parcel size and rangeland has a 320 acre minimum parcel size requirement.
93
The 154 acres in the Pondosa-Medical Springs Rural Cluster Development Zone is entirely in non-federal
ownership and includes, or has nearby, most of the residential development in the sage-grouse habitat. This zone
has a maximum development capacity of 17 lots or parcels.
Combining or Overlay Zones within Sage Grouse Designated Areas
All of the Union County sage grouse Core Area and Low Density habitat is in a Big Game Winter Range
Overlay Zone.
Sage grouse habitat was not identified by ODFW as a significant Statewide Planning Goal 5 resource in 1985 at the
time of LCDC acknowledgement. However, because big game winter range was inventoried and identified as a
significant Statewide Planning Goal 5 resource, the County evaluated big game winter range through the Goal 5
process. The County decided to balance big game winter range and conflicting uses (such as dwellings) through a
cooperative wildlife management plan process. The result is conflicting uses (such as homes in elk winter range)
can’t be denied but they can be sited to have the least amount of impact on big game winter range use.
Essentially this has resulted in dwellings being sited within 280 feet of an open, maintained public use road.
While the County’s Land Use Plan has not specifically inventoried or evaluated sage grouse habitat, the big game
winter range mitigation measures will generally limit new residential development to within 280 feet of open,
maintained public use roads and afford sage grouse habitat similar indirect protections.
Built Environment and Development Activity
Table 2: Union County Sage Grouse Habitat Area Land Use Assessment and Impact Analysis
33 Total Dwellings
Non-Active Aggregate Removal Sites
30 Acres of Cultivated Cropland
438 Acres of Wild Hay Production
29,701.56 Total Acres in Core Area and Low Density Habitat
Miles ODOT Secondary Highway (Hwy. 203)
10.06 Miles of County Local Roads
Development Activity 2003 – 2013
Core Area
R-1 Rural Center Zone 1 – Rural Fire Protection Building
3 – Dwellings
A-2 Agriculture Grazing Zone
1 – Lot-of-record dwelling/Replacement dwelling
1 – Farm dwelling/office
3 – Measure 37 Dwellings
A-4 Timber Grazing Zone No Activity
Low Density
A-1 Exclusive Farm Use Zone No Activity
A-2 Agriculture Grazing Zone 1- Farm dwelling
25 wind turbines
A-4 Timber Grazing Zone No Activity
94
Housing Units
There are 33 dwellings in the Union County sage grouse habitat areas. Thirty-one (31) of them are in the Core
Area sited in the vicinity of the Pondosa-Medical Springs Rural Cluster Development Zone and adjacent to an
existing State Highway or County Roads. Two dwellings are located in sage grouse Low Density habitat. Only two
dwellings, one in Core Area and one in Low Density, are set back from open public use roads.
Roads and Utilities
There is one state highway, Oregon Highway 203, about 5.06 miles long extending from north to south through
the eastern portion of the Core Area. Two County Roads about 10.06 miles long, Telocaset Lane and Big Creek
Road, extend from Ore. Hwy 203, are gravel surfaced roads and are open and maintained by the County.
Telocaset Lane extends east to west through the center of the Core Area and Low Density habitat (see Map 2).
Above ground electrical distribution lines are in the road right-of-way along Ore. Hwy 203, Big Creek County Road
and only the eastern 2 miles along Telocaset Lane.
Idaho Power LLC has a 230kv transmission line extending from south to north through the very western edge of
the Low Density habitat area.
Surface Mining Sites
There are four (4) non-active surface mining sites within sage grouse habitat (see Map 2). These sites are small
and used periodically for nearby road projects and neighboring farms and ranches.
Elkhorn Wind Farm
The Elkhorn Wind Farm was constructed in 2007 and is partially located in Low Density habitat (see Map 2). There
are 25 turbines in Low Density habitat on ridgelines out of the 61 turbines in the whole project. The turbines are
in a string connected by one gravel private access road from Telocaset Lane.
A second, larger wind farm has been proposed in Union County. The proposed site is northwest of the existing
wind farm and outside of sage grouse Low Density habitat and Core Area. An ODFW evaluation in 2011 of this
proposal found no significant anticipated conflicts between sage grouse habitat and the proposed project.
Local Land Use and Building Permit Activity
Table 3: Building Permit Activity in the Last 10 Years identifies structural improvements over the last 10 years
within the Union County sage grouse habitat areas.
As discussed above, the Elkhorn Wind Farm is partially (25 turbines out of a total of 62 turbines) lo cated in sage
grouse Low Density habitat. During construction a temporary rock crusher, concrete batch plant and lay-down
yard were established. All of these structures and improvements were removed once the wind farm was
operational. A separate application was approved for a permanent microwave tower outside of sage grouse
habitat.
One single-family farm dwelling just west of the 25 turbines received land use and building permit approval in
2003. In 2008 this residence was sold to the Elkhorn Wind Farm and converted to their office and operations
building.
Another single-family farm dwelling east of Thief Valley Reservoir was constructed in 2011 and received land use
approval but no building permit. This dwelling is on the line between the Core Area and Low Density habitat.
95
A property about one mile north of Pondosa-Medical Springs Rural Cluster Development Zone was subdivided into
five (5) lots through the voter approved Oregon Measure 37 process. Each lot is about 80 acres in size, one
includes the existing dwelling, three (3) were built on and “vested” under Measure 37 and the last 80 acre parcel
no longer has dwelling approval.
Table 3: Local Land Use & Building Permit Activity in the Last 10 Years
Structural Type
Local Approvals Multiple Permits Issued
for One Site (Y/N)
Elkhorn Wind Farm (2007)
Temporary rock crusher
Temporary batch plant
Temporary lay down yard
25 turbines & met towers
Yes
Dwelling converted to office
& operating building
Farm dwelling
CUP - office Yes
Dwelling Farm dwelling No
Dwelling Lot-of-record dwelling
Replacement dwelling Yes
3 Dwellings & Rural Fire
District building
Rural Cluster Development
Zone – exception area Yes
3 Dwellings Measure 37 claims Yes
No State or Federal development within sage grouse habitat in Union County.
One property immediately west of Medical Springs received Lot -of-Record dwelling approval in 2000 and the
approved dwelling was later replaced in 2008.
The Pondosa-Medical Springs Rural Cluster Development Zone was originally (1985) identified as a Rural Center
Zone with a one acre minimum parcel size. This zoning was later changed (1998) to the Rural Cluster
Development Zone that limited residential development to 17 lots. Three (3) of those lots have been built on and
one was dedicated to a new Medical Springs Rural Fire District building in the last 10 years.
96
Impact Analysis
Risk Assessment
The Deschutes County Sage-Grouse Conservation Land Use Assessment and Impact Analysis includes Table 13-
Central Oregon Sage-Grouse Risk levels obtained from the Sage-Grouse Conservation Objectives Draft Report
prepared by the Conservation Objectives Team:
Table 4 – Central Oregon Sage-Grouse Risk Levels
Risk Levels (Land Use Related) Rating
Agriculture Conversion
Energy
Infrastructure
Recreation
Urbanization
Localized, Substantial
Mining Slight Threat
Findings
The Union County risk levels and threats to sage grouse habitat from the uses listed in Table 13 are minimal.
Rangeland conversion to cropland has not occurred in the last 10 years for the 30,000 acres identified in sage
grouse habitat. Rangeland conversion to other non-agricultural uses has been limited to those uses identified in
Table 3. The 25 wind turbines that are part of the Elkhorn Wind Farm only eliminate livestock grazing on the
quarter acre for each turbine footprint and the private gravel access road. Infrastructure is limited to the State
Highway and County Roads described above. No additional roads or road improvements are planned.
Thief Valley Reservoir is partially in Union County and in sage grouse Core Area and Low Density habitat. The dam
was constructed in 1933 for irrigation purposes. No minimum pool is required for fisheries. Therefore, the
reservoir is periodically drained on dry summers which results in reduced recreational fishing, boating and
camping. Land under and around the reservoir was purchased by the Bureau of Reclamation and is currently
managed by the Bureau of Land Management. There is a small County park on the east side of the reservoir that
allows overnight camping, has a vaulted toilet, hand pump potable water and a boat ramp. No park expansion
has occurred in the last 10 years and no park expansion is anticipated.
No urbanization has occurred in sage grouse habitat and none is planned or allowed within sage grouse habitat.
Rural residential development has occurred in the Pondosa-Medical Springs Cluster Development Zone but it is
limited to a maximum of 17 buildable lots within 154 acres.
Four small-scale family aggregate sites have periodically operated in sage grouse Core Area habitat. No
permanent processing facilities exist at any of the sites and they are primarily used for local road projects and as
needed by neighbors. No expansion plans are known.
97
Conclusion
Sage grouse Core Area and Low Density habitat in Union County totals about 30,000 acres or about 2% of the
County. About 93% of the sage grouse habitat areas is in a County A-2 Agriculture-Grazing Zone that has a 320
acre minimum parcel size for the creation of new predominantly rangeland parcels. All new residential
development in this area will be sited within 280 feet of an open public use road. There are 33 existing dwellings
in the sage grouse habitat and 8 of them were located in the last 10 years. Except for 3 dwellings, all of the rest
are adjacent to Oregon Highway 203, Big Creek and Telocaset County Road or in the Pondosa-Medical Springs
Rural Cluster Development Zone.
Other development includes 25 of 64 wind turbines in the Elkhorn Wind Farm and its office and operations
building. A new wind farm is proposed west of the identified sage grouse habitat area and ODFW does not
anticipate any sage grouse impacts from this proposal.
There has been no conversion from rangeland to cropland, and no increased infrastructure, recreation or
urbanization over the last 10 years. Development in the Pondosa-Medical Springs Rural Cluster Development
Zone is limited to a maximum of 17 lots in 154 acres.
In conclusion, recent (last 10 years) impacts to sage grouse habitat have been minimal and future impacts are
severely limited by the A-2 Agriculture-Grazing Zone and Big Game Winter Range Overly Zone.
98
Regional Summary
The Territory
Oregon’s affected territory encompasses seven counties. All together, these jurisdictions make up over 25 million
acres of which nearly 12 million acres are identified as either low density or core Sage-grouse habitat by ODFW.
The affected territory is also characterized by vast expanses of rangeland managed by federal agencies and not
subject to state or local governance.
Harney, Lake and Malheur counties comprise the majority of the region’s land base (72%). These three counties
also include most of Oregon’s Sage-grouse habitat and have the highest proportion of federal lands (74% federal,
26% nonfederal).
Baker, Deschutes, Crook and Union counties have lesser amounts of total land area and Sage-grouse habitat.
Union County in particular has a very low amount of identified habitat when compared to other jurisdictions.
Although the overall amount of Sage-grouse habitat is less significant when compared to Harney, Lake and
Malheur; Baker, Crook and Union counties have a much higher ratio of private lands included in the ODFW
inventory.
Table 1: Region-wide Acreage by County
County Size Core Habitat Low Density Habitat Total Habitat By
County
Baker 1,938,062 265,095 82,996 348,091
Crook 1,920,000 423,726 140,134 563,860
Deschutes 1,912,901 249,205 188,782 437,987
Lake 5,350,660 1,034,859 772,805 1,807,664
Harney 6,533,320 1,757,152 2,009,444 3,766,596
Malheur 6,353,930 2,702,598 1,887,928 4,590,526
Union 1,304,960 21,286 8,374 29,660
Overall Totals 25,310,143 6,453,921 5,090,463 11,544,384
Each county has one or more population centers where the majority of their citizens reside and where most
commercial and employment opportunities are available. Each population center is characterized by one or more
incorporated city and associated urban growth boundary. In every case, local and regional population centers are
located outside of identified Sage-grouse habitat. The city of Unity, in Baker Couty, is located within Low Density
Sage-grouse habitat. However, with a 2012 population of 70 residents it is not considered a population center for
purposes of this report.
99
Table 2: County Population and Primary Population Centers (2012)
County County Population Primary Population Centers
Baker 16,210 City of Baker City – Pop 9,890
Crook 20,650 City of Prineville – Pop 9,245
Deschutes 160,140 City of Bend – Pop 77,455
City of Redmond – Pop 26,345
Harney 7,315 City of Burns – Pop 2,835
City of Hines – Pop 1,565
Lake 7.290 Town of Lakeview – Pop 2,300
Malheur 31,395 City of Ontario – Pop 11,415
City of Nyssa – Pop 3,270
City of Vale – Pop 1,890
Union 26,175 City of La Grande – Pop 13,110
All population numbers are taken from the Certified Population Estimates for 2012 prepared by Portland State University.
As indicated above, lands that are used by the species are usually very remote, sparesly inhabited and lacking in
infrastructure to support community development. For instance,
there are no commercial airports located in Sage-grouse habitat and most of these lands are distant from major
transportation systems. Although state highways are present across the range, most serve district levels of traffic
and are not expected to support interstate travel. Rail service is generally unavailable south of Interstate 84.
Table 3: Region-wide Acreage Containing Sage-grouse Habitat
Core Area Low Density
Total
% Habitat (Core and Low D.
Federal Land Non-Federal Land Federal Land Non-Federal Land Federal Lands Non-Federal Lands
Deschutes 182,482 66,723 132,946 55,836 437,987 72.02% 27.98%
Baker 78,279 186,816 12,605 70,391 348,090 26.11% 73.89%
Crook 152,709 271,017 47,530 92,604 563,860 35.51% 64.49%
Harney 1,403,221 353,931 1,581,277 428,175 3,766,604 79.24% 20.76%
Lake 896,071 138,788 687,350 85,455 1,807,664 87.59% 12.41%
Malheur 2,122,160 580,438 1,495,039 392,890 4,590,527 78.80% 21.20%
Union 1,002 20,285 0 7,954 29,240 3.43% 96.57%
Total 4,835,924 1,617,997 3,956,748 1,133,304 11,543,973 76.17% 23.83%
100
Figure 1: Total County Size by Federal and Non-Federal Land
(In Millions of Acres)
Figure 2: Total County Size as Portion of the Region
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Baker County Crook
County
Deschutes
County
Harney
County
Lake County Malheur
County
Union County
NonFederal
Federal
County Totals
Baker County 7.7 %
Crook County 7.6 %
Deschutes County 7.6%
Harney County 26%
Lake County 21%
Malheur County 25%
Union County 5%
101
Figure 3: Sage Grouse Habitat by Type and Land Ownership
County Land Use Planning Programs
Land Use Planning History
All seven of Oregon’s affected counties have land use planning programs that consist of comprehensive plans and
implementing ordinances. In several cases, these programs originated as far back as the 1960’s or early 1970’s.
Each local land use planning program has been acknowledged to be in compliance with Oregon’s Statewide
Planning Goals since the late 1970s or early-mid 1980s. Changes to local land use programs have occurred
through Post Acknowledgment Plan Amendments (PAPAs) or through an official Periodic Review process required
by the State of Oregon. Any amendment to an acknowledged plan must be found to be consistent with the
applicable Statewide Planning Goals, as well as any applicable state statutes or administrative rules. Counties
have a legal obligation to amend their local programs to reflect changes or updates to state law (Goals, statutes or
rules). In most instances new laws are directly applicable until local programs have been updated. In other
instances the new law includes prescribed time frames for compliance.
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Land Use Designations within Sage-grouse Habitat
The preceding elements of this report identify that local comprehensive plans designate most all of the region,
nearly the entire territory, for protection of farming, ranching and forestry activities under Statewide Planning
Goals 3 (Agricultural Lands) and 4 (Forestlands). The comprehensive plan designations are carried out by a variety
of Exclusive Farm Use or Forestland zoning districts.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Baker County Crook
County
Deschutes
County
Harney
County
Lake County Malheur
County
Union County
Core Fed
Core NonFed
LD Fed
LD NonFed
102
Exclusive Farm Use and Forest Use zoning districts are collectively known as “resource” zones. They implement
the policy objectives of Statewide Planning Goals 3 and 4, as well as a host of legal provisions included in ORS
Chapter 215 and OAR Chapter 660, Divisions 6 & 33. Over time, many of the state’s legal requirements have been
interpreted by the Oregon Courts. The resulting case law is also applicable and binding upon local decision
makers. As mentioned before, resource zoning requirement are characterized by very large minimum parcel size
requirements and strict limitations on activities that are not farm, ranch or forest related.
Table 4: Local Resource Zoning Districts Implementing Statewide Goals 3 and 4
County Exclusive Farm Use or Forest Use Zoning Districts
Baker Exclusive Farm Use
Timber Grazing
Crook Exclusive Farm Use 1
Forest Use – F1
Deschutes Exclusive Farm Use – Horse Ridge Subzone
Forest Use 1
Harney Exclusive Farm & Range Use – EFRU-1
Exclusive Farm & Range Use – EFRU-2
Forest Use - FU
Lake Exclusive Farm Use – A-1
Agricultural Use – A-2
Forest Use – F-1
Malheur Exclusive farm Use – C-A1
Exclusive Range Use – C-A2
Exclusive Forest Use – C-A3
Union Exclusive Farm Use – A-1
Agriculture Grazing- A-2
Timber Grazing – A-4
Figure 4: Resource Zoning of Sage Grouse Habitat
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Baker County Crook
County
Deschutes
County
Harney
County
Lake County Malheur
County
Union County
T/G or Forest
EFU
103
Figure 5: Resource Zoning
Zoning categories other than Exclusive Farm Use or Forest Use (“Resource Zoning”) make up less than 2% of lands
mapped by ODFW as Sage-grouse habitat. The majority of these areas are unincorporated communities. These
areas resemble small towns in that they include a combination of residential, commercial or employment uses but
have no municipal government structure. Examples of unincorporated communities include Fields in Harney
County and Brogan in Malheur County. It is very possible that closer examination of unincorporated communities
would reveal that their longstanding settlement pattern makes them unavailable to serve as valuable wildlife
habitat for Sage-grouse or any other species.
Existing Habitat Conservation Measures and Zoning Designations
“Goal 5” and Wildlife Mapping and Protection within Habitat Areas
Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Open Space, Scenic, Historic and Natural Areas) directs local government to inventory,
among other things, significant wildlife habitat. With assistance from ODFW counties are to consider the location,
quality and quantity of a potential resource and determine if it is “significant.” If a resource is determined to be
significant the jurisdiction is to identify possible uses that require land use approval and could be in conflict with
the resource. From there a process to consider the Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy Consequences
(ESEE) of fully allowing, partially allowing or not allowing conflicting uses is conducted, which finally results in a
program to achieve the goal by protecting the resource or not.
All seven counties have acknowledged programs to protect wildlife habitat. In m ost cases these local programs
focus on the value of mule deer, rocky mountain elk or pronghorn antelope. Two counties – Crook and Deschutes
have adopted programs specific to Sage-grouse. The Deschutes County Sage-grouse program furnishes special
protections to lekking areas on private property. The exact components of the Crook County Sage Grouse
program are less clear.
Zoning Totals
Resource Zoning
Other Zoning
104
Table 5: Region-wide Zoning and Protection Programs
Resource Zoning Big Game Protection Program Sage Grouse Protection Program
Baker X X
Crook X X X
Deschutes X X X
Lake X X
Harney X X
Malheur X X
Union X X
Flood Plain Zone Overlay
All counties in Oregon employ some type of flood plain program to discourage investment and human habitation
from areas prone to flooding. Special flood hazard areas are identified by the Federal Insurance Administration.
Although Sage-grouse habitat is primarily a desert landscape flood plain areas do exist. For example, in Harney
County a Special Flood Hazard Area is present on 9,557 acres of Core Habitat and 11,359 acres of Low Density
Habitat.
Public policy steering development from flood hazard area contributes to maintaining an open landscape and
provides benefits to wildlife habitat, including Sage-grouse.
Built Environment and Development Activity
Housing Units
The number of residential housing units in Oregon’s Sage-grouse habitat reflects the wide open landscape and is
reminiscent of a frontier settlement pattern. An estimated 900 existing homes (exact information for Crook and
Malheur Counties not available) are present across over 11.5 million acres in portions of seven counties. The
dramatic absence of residential activity is well illustrated by the population distribution of Deschutes County,
which is consistently been among Oregon’s fastest growing jurisdictions. Anchored by the region’s largest
population centers of Bend (pop.77,455) and Redmond (pop. 26,345) and with a total population of over 160,000
citizens in 2012 Deschutes County is far and away the most populous county in central and eastern Oregon.
However, despite strong growth levels along the Hwy 97 corridor, just 63 citizens make their home in the county’s
nearly 438,000 acres of Sage-grouse habitat.
Roads and Utilities
State highways and county roads are present in each county, as are overhead transmission lines. Local electrical
distribution lines are generally placed in existing road right-of-ways and have not been considered for the
purposes of this report. Not all counties have reported the exact amount of either type of feature. Harney
105
County has reported 105 miles of transmission lines in Core and Low Density habitat areas . Lake County
estimates about 150 miles of transmission lines traversing Sage-grouse habitat. Overhead transmission lines in
Crook County exist primarily in the western portion of the county outside of most Sage -grouse habitat. Figures for
roads appear proportional with Deschutes County reporting 115 miles of county facilities in Sage -grouse habitat
and Baker County reporting about 125 miles. Union County, with the least amount of habitat has reported about
five miles of state highway and about 10 miles of county roads. No new roads or transmission lines have been
developed in the period between 2003 and 2013. No new roads are called for in local Transportation Systems
Plans (TSPs) and none are expected to be constructed, especially in light of severe funding constraints.
Idaho Power is planning a major transmission line that would run from Hemingway, Idaho to Boardman, Oregon.
The B2H line, as it is commonly called could run through Sage-grouse habitat in Malheur and Baker Counties. BLM
and ODFW are working with Idaho Power to identify wildlife issues with regard to potential routes. The Captain
Jack line, which is under consideration by PacifiCorp would extend through southeastern Oregon from Malin,
Oregon to Hemingway, Idaho has not advanced to any detailed planning stages and is not expected to move
forward during the next 10 years. The Ruby Pipeline is a 42 inch natural gas line that will run from Malin, Oregon
to Opal, Wyoming as an interstate transporter. The project route runs through about 86 miles in Oregon,
including a portion of southern Lake County. The Oregon portion of the project has been completed. The Ruby
Pipeline was approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 2010. Natural gas is not generally
available to areas of identified Sage-grouse habitat, nor is rail service.
Surface Mining Sites
Permitted mining appears limited to aggregate extraction and processing activities. Although gold mining was
common in portions of the region during the two proceeding centuries no large commercial mines are currently in
operation. The Grassy Mountain project has been proposed by the Calico Company on a site in northern Malheur
County. The applicants have been working in coordination with ODFW and several other state agencies as they
work through the permitting process required by Oregon’s Department of Geologic and Mineral Industries
(DOGAMI).
There are about 120 existing aggregate quarries present in Oregon Sage-grouse habitat. Many of the quarries are
in ODOT or local government ownership and almost all of them are in close proximity to a state highway or county
road. Most quarries operate only during road maintenance projects and often go unused for years at a time.
Only a single new quarry received local land use approval between 2003 and 2013 (Baker County).
106
Table 6: Land Use Decisions in Sage Grouse Habitat
Dwellings Quarries Energy Project Roads Misc. Other
Core LD Core LD Core LD Core LD Core LD
Baker 9 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Crook 1 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Deschutes 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 5
Harney 21 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lake 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
Malheur 8 (6 RD) 0 (3 RD) 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0
Union 6 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Totals 88 1 3 0 16
Impact Analysis
Risk Assessment
The FWS was tasked by its Director with the development of conservation objectives for the sage-grouse.
Recognizing that state wildlife agencies have management expertise and retain management authority for this
species, the FWS created a Conservation Objectives Team (COT) of state and FWS representatives to accomplish
this task. The Sage-Grouse Conservation Objectives Draft Report, created by the COT identifies risk levels and
priority areas throughout the range. The final COT report was released in February 2013.
Oregon is included in two of the seven Management Zones identified in the COT Report. Management Zone IV
Snake River Plain includes Baker and Union Counties in its Baker subarea (17) and portions of Harney and Malheur
Counties in its Northern Great Basin subarea (26a). Management Zone Northern Great Basin includes Crook and
Deschutes Counties in its Central Oregon subarea (28) and portions of Harney and Malheur Counties in its
Western Great Basin subarea (31). Lake County appears to be substantially located in the Western Great Basin
subarea as well.
The Baker subarea (17) and the Central Oregon (28) subarea includes lands in Oregon only. The Northern Great
Basin subarea (26a, as opposed to Management Ares V Northern Great Basin) includes lands in Oregon, Idaho,
Nevada and Utah. The Western Great Basin subarea (31) includes lands in Oregon, California and Nevada.
107
Table 7: Populations
COT Management Zone Sage Grouse Population Counties
IV. Snake River Plain Baker (17)
Northern Great Basin(26a)
Baker & Union
Harney & Malheur
V. Northern Great Basin Central Oregon (28)
Western Great Basin (31)
Crook & Deschutes
Harney, Lake & Malheur
Table 8: Ratings
Land Use Related
Risk Levels Threat Rating
Agriculture Conversion
Present but localized (26a)(28)(31)
Present and widespread(17)
Energy Present but localized (17)(26a)(28)(31)
Mining
Present but localized (26a)(31)
Present and widespread (17)(28)
Infrastructure
Present, but localized(17)(28)(31)
Present and widespread (26a)
Urbanization
Not known to be present (31)
Present but localized (17)(28)
Present and widespread (26a)
Findings
It is clear that the COT report did not take into account Oregon’s local planning programs required by state law.
For example, on page 76, the COT Report makes the following statement with regard to the Baker population:
“Most (68%) of the sage-grouse habitat for the Baker population is in private ownership and 31% is
administered by BLM (Hagen 2011b). This is the largest proportion of privately managed sage grouse habitat
for any population in Oregon. Consequently, there are limited regulatory mechanisms in place, making it
uncertain as to whether state-recommended conservation measures and practices will be applied on the majority
of lands within this population.”
The statement is correct regarding the proportion of private lands identified as Sage-grouse habitat in Baker and
Union County. However, it misses the mark with respect to the extent and applicability of regulatory mechanisms
residing in local comprehensive plans. Oregon is unique among other states with regard to its land use planning
programs. We do things different here. This report has identified the overarching protections and land use
safeguards that currently apply in all seven of Oregon’s Sage-grouse counties – Urban Growth Boundaries to
contain urban development, resource zoning that requires very large parcel sizes and limits development that is
not related to farm, ranch or forest activities, and wildlife protection programs, some specific to Sage-grouse. The
COT report also understandably overlooks the fact that changes to statewide planning law is directly applicable to
the subject jurisdictions in most instances.
108
The following assessments have been done with the benefit of data and local knowledge that was not available to
the authors of the COT Report. Areas outside of Oregon and activities on federal lands have not been identified
or considered. Naturally, the combination of greater, more detailed information and a smaller area of inquiry
have led to some different findings in some cases. This is not a criticism of the COT Report, it is instead an
attempt to provide a more complete picture with regard to Oregon’s Sage-grouse habitat on nonfederal lands.
Conversion to Agriculture
Converting rural land to cultivated agriculture is not generally regulated by state or local planning programs.
According to the COT report this activity is present but localized in Sage Grouse Populations including Crook,
Deschutes, Harney, Lake and Malheur Counties. More surprising, the COT Report indicates that conversion to
agriculture is widespread in Baker and Union Counties. This report reaches a different finding.
The Forests, Farms and People Report completed by the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) identified on pages
11-14 tracked actual, on the ground changes in land use activities from 1974 to 2009 by viewing and interpreting
tens of thousands of photographic points. Over this 35 year period only a very small amount of the region was
observed to convert from a wildland range category to intensive agriculture. Furthermore, lands that did convert
where located in Harney County not Baker and Union Counties.
While there is no doubt that lands have been converted to agriculture, most all of those conversions would have
happened in the distant past and not since 1974. The ODF data specific to this issue shows that there has been no
significant conversion to agriculture in any of Oregon’s Sage-grouse habitat. Information obtained from the
Oregon Water Resource Department (OWRD) indicates that new water rights in the foreseeable future will not
result in any significant conversions of Sage-grouse habitat to cultivated agriculture.
Key Findings:
1. Conversion to Agriculture is not generally regulated by state and local land use regulations.
2. There has been no substantial conversion to agriculture in Oregon’s identified Sage-grouse
habitat since at least 1974.
3. Future conversions to agriculture appear unlikely based on water rights information and
availability. New sources of irrigation must be permitted by OWRD.
Energy Development
State and local land use laws apply to the siting of new energy facilities, particularly as they occur on lands zoned
for resource uses. Projects that would occupy more than 12 acres of high-value farmland or 20 acres of non-high-
value farmland, including rangeland, are subject to a detailed land use process known as an “exception”. Among
other things, the exceptions process requires an alternatives analysis and a demonstration of need. An exception
also requires an amendment to the local comprehensive plan, which requires giving notice to the state of Oregon.
This process is referred to as a Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendment (PAPA).
More specific rules have been established regarding wind and solar power projects. Wind projects on farm or
ranchlands are excused from the ordinary size thresholds but any other requirements, including wildlife
protection standards remain intact. Commercial solar projects proposed for dry rangeland areas operate under a
250 acre threshold. Solar projects on these lands are also subject to a specific rule provision that ensures any
important wildlife issues will be recognized and accounted for during the review process. The policy objective
109
behind the solar rules is to encourage solar projects to site on lands with the poorest capacity for farm and ranch
activities and with the lowest value for wildlife.
Small and medium sized energy facilities are reviewed by local government. A project may not be approved
unless it is found to comply with the applicable provisions of law. Large energy projects are reviewed by the
state’s Energy Facility Siting Council (EFSC) who apply state and local land use provisions in addition to their own
legal tests. The COT Report indicates that Energy Development is a present but localized threat throughout the
four subareas that include Oregon’s identified Sage-grouse habitat. This report reaches a different finding.
Oregon’s energy portfolio includes multiple energy sources. Base load plants – plants that generate a consistent
supply of power day in and day out, are often dependent on the presence of natural gas, transportation facilities
such as rail road spurs or developed truck routes, or both. Consequently, most of Oregon’s base load plants are
located inside urban growth boundaries or other areas identified for industrial development where such services
are available.
Between the years of 2001 and 2011 some areas of Oregon experienced high levels of renewable energy
development. State policy requirements, favorable tax conditions and subsidies and access to strong outside
markets combined created a rewarding environment for energy developers. Wind energy development received
nearly all of the focus and occurred almost exclusively at locations with access to high voltage transmission
facilities near the Columbia River and along the Interstate 84 freeway.
Oregon’s Sage-grouse habitat has experienced almost zero energy development. As of this writing, the Elkhorn
Valley project in Union County is the only developed wind energy generation facility in any of the seven counties.
With 25 of 61 turbines located in Low Density habitat it represents the only form of energy development in any of
Oregon’s Sage-grouse areas. Possible future projects include the West Butte Wind project permitted by Crook
and Deschutes County, and the Echanis Wind Project permitted in southern Harney County. Both wind projects
encountered difficulties in gaining access to transmission. Neither project would impact core sage grouse habitat.
Baker County has recently approved two small wind projects near Huntington, Oregon that if constructed would
place a limited amount of towers within Core habitat.
Currently, many of the factors spurring renewable energy growth in Oregon in the last decade are no longer in
place. Incentives like the Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC) have been retired or substantially revised, Oregon’s
investor owned utilities have largely satisfied their obligations under the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard
(RPS) and access to the California market has been severely constrained by energy policy in that State. An
absence of rail and natural gas to most all of this area effectively precludes traditional, nonrenewable forms of
energy generation.
Key Findings:
1. Developing new energy facilities is subject to state and local land use r equirements.
2. There is virtually no energy development existing in Oregon’s identified Sage -grouse
habitat.
3. Limited potential exists for three permitted wind projects to be developed.
4. Future energy development is unlikely because either the necessary infrastructure,
government policy or market conditions are not available.
Mining
State and local land use laws apply to the siting of new Mining activities, particularly as they occur on lands zoned
for resource uses. The COT Report indicates that Mining is present but localized in the Northern Great Basin (26a)
110
and Western Great Basin (31) Sage Grouse Populations. These Sage Grouse Populations include Harney, Lake and
Malheur Counties. The data collected by Oregon’s seven counties to describe existing circumstances appears to
support this assessment. There are, in fact, aggregate quarries present throughout the region. No new quarries
have been established in the period from 2003 to 2013. In other words, what is there is there.
However, the COT Report also indicates that Mining threats are present and widespread in the Baker (17) and
Central Oregon (31) Sage Grouse Populations that include the identified Sage-grouse habitat of Baker, Crook,
Deschutes and Union Counties. This report reaches a different finding
Aggregate quarries are present in these four counties. Although other materials have been mined in the past
(precious metals in Baker County and Mercury in Crook County) such activities have been abandoned. To the
extent that they may have ever operated in Sage-grouse habitat they are no longer being conducted. A total of 87
aggregate quarries, 49 of which are in Baker County, are identified by the preceding county elements of this
report. Only a single new quarry was permitted during the period between 2003 and 2013 (Baker County).
Many of the quarries are in ODOT or local government ownership and almost all of them are in close proximity to
a state highway or county road. In fact, nearly all quarries are located within close proximity to a state highway or
county road. The economics of hauling aggregate tends to discourage quarry development in areas distant from
transportation facilities.
Most quarries operate only during road maintenance projects and often go unused for years at a time. With no
significant state or local road projects planned for the future it is unlikely that there will be a demand f or
additional quarry expansion or development.
Key Findings:
1. Mining activity is subject to state and local land use requirements.
2. Aggregate quarries existing prior to 2003 represent most current mining activities in the
region. Only one new quarry was approved between 2003 and 201 3.
3. Aggregate quarries are almost always located within close proximity to state highways or
county roads and may not be used for extended periods of time due to scheduling of road
projects.
4. With no significant state or local road projects planned for the future it is unlikely that
there will be a demand for additional quarry expans ion or development.
Infrastructure
State and local land use laws apply to the siting of new infrastructure facilities, particularly as they occur on lands
zoned for resource uses. For purposes of this report, Infrastructure is identified as road systems and transmission
lines. New roads that accommodate only local traffic may be considered through a conditio nal use process at the
local level. Larger transportation facilities are subject to a detailed land use process known as an “exception”.
Among other things, the exceptions process requires an alternatives analysis and a demonstration of need. An
exception also requires an amendment to the local comprehensive plan, which requires giving notice to the state
of Oregon. This process is referred to as a Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendment (PAPA). Transmission
facilities are subject to the provisions of ORS 215.275, which are similar to the exceptions requirements but do
not require a PAPA.
The COT Report indicates that Infrastructure is present but localized in the Baker (17), Central Oregon (28) and
Western Great Basin (31) Sage Grouse Populations. These Sage Grouse Populations include Baker, Crook,
111
Deschutes, Lake and Union Counties, as well as portions of Harney and Malheur Counties. The data collected by
Oregon’s seven counties to describe existing circumstances appears to support this assessment. There is, in fact,
large scale infrastructure present in the form of state highways, county roads and overhead transmission lines
throughout the region. No new facilities have been constructed in the period from 2003 to 2013. In other words,
what is there is there. Furthermore, no new local facilities are planned for the future.
However, the COT Report also indicates that Infrastructure threats are present and widespread in the Northern
Great Basin (26a) Sage Grouse Population. This report reaches a different finding. The Northern Great Basin Sage
Grouse Population includes portions of Harney and Malheur Counties. The majority of this Sage Grouse
Population is located outside of Oregon and takes in portions of Idaho, Nevada and Utah. Harney and Malheur
counties contain some of Oregon’s most remote areas. Development activities in other states have not been
assessed. However, the reported Oregon conditions are no different than those present in Oregon’s other Sage-
grouse areas. Road and overhead transmission lines are present. The amount of overhead transmission lines
reported by Harney County is consistent with the amount estimated for Lake County (Western Great Basin Sage
Grouse Population). No new facilities have been developed in the period from 2003-2013. The Idaho Power B2H
transmission line, should it be built, would traverse the northern portion of Malheur County. An exact route has
not been determined.
Key Findings:
1. Developing new facilities is subject to state and local land use laws requirements.
2. Large scale infrastructure is present in all seven counties and does traverse Sage-grouse habitat.
3. No new state or local facilities are planned.
Urbanization
State and local land use laws regulate urban development proposals. In Oregon, urban development is directed
into the urban growth boundaries of incorporated cities. The COT report indicates that Urbanization is not known
to be present in the Western Great Basin Sage Grouse Population (31) of Management Zone V. This area includes
lands in Lake County and the southwest portions of Harney and Malheur Counties. Everything in this report
supports the COT assessment with regard to Urbanization in Oregon’s portion of the Western Great Basin Sage
Grouse Population.
However, the COT Report also indicates that Urbanization is present but localized in the Central Oregon (28) and
Baker (17) Sage Grouse Populations and is present and widespread in the Northern Great Basin Sage Grouse
Population (26a). This report reaches a different finding.
The Central Oregon and Baker Sage Grouse Populations are located entirely in Oregon and include the Sage-
grouse habitat in Baker, Crook, Deschutes and Union Counties. The available information regarding settlement
pattern, new land use approvals and monitoring conditions indicate that urbanization has not occurred on these
lands.
Identified Sage-grouse habitat is located 20 miles or more from the population centers in Deschutes and Crook
Counties (Bend, Redmond, Prineville) and it is located a greater distance and an entire watershed away from
Union County’s population center at the City of La Grande and the communities of the Grande Ronde Valley. In
Baker County, the population center at Baker City is in closer proximity to identified Sage-grouse habitat but
largely remains within the confines of the Baker Valley and has not encroached into the sagebrush landscape used
by Sage-grouse. All of these cities have acknowledged urban growth boundaries to contain urban development
over a 20 year planning horizon.
112
As mentioned above, while Deschutes County has the highest population in all of central and eastern Oregon, just
63 of its residents make their home on lands identified as Sage-grouse habitat. Across the four identified counties
(Baker, Crook, Deschutes, Union) a total of about 350 dwellings are present, suggesting a resident human
population of about 700 citizens over a total of 1,379,598 acres (average of one dwelling per 3,942 acres). A local
planning frame work characterized by a variety of resource zoning and wildlife habitat protection does not
provide for new rural residential development. No Sage-grouse habitat within these Sage Grouse Populations
have been identified by ODF as having converted to more highly developed land use classification between 1974-
2009.
The Northern Great Basin Sage Grouse Population (26a) includes portions of Harney and Malheur Counties. The
majority of this Sage Grouse Population is located outside of Oregon and takes in portions of Idaho, Nevada and
Utah. Harney and Malheur counties contain some of Oregon’s most remote areas. Development activities in
other states have not been assessed. However, the available information regarding settlement pattern, new land
use approvals and monitoring conditions indicate that no form of urbanization has occurred on Oregon’s portion
of this Sage Grouse Population.
Malheur County’s primary population centers of Ontario (pop. 11,415), Nyssa (pop. 3,270) and Vale (pop. 1,890)
are located in Oregon’s portion of the Treasure Valley and well outside of identified Sage-grouse habitat. Most of
Harney County’s 7,315 citizens reside in and around the Burns/Hines population center (pop. 2,835 and 1,565
respectively), which is also outside of identified Sage-grouse habitat. All of these cities have acknowledged urban
growth boundaries designed to contain urban development over a 20 year planning horizon.
Because the Sage Grouse Population includes portions of two counties it is difficult to identify the exact number
of existing dwellings. It may be suffice to say that it is a small number. A local planning frame work
characterized by a variety of resource zoning and wildlife habitat protection does not provide for new rural
residential development. No Sage-grouse habitat within this Sage Grouse Population was identified by ODF as
having converted to more highly developed land use classification between 1974 and 2009.
Across the seven county region a total of just 88 new dwellings have been reported between 2003 and 2013. This
is roughly equivalent to a new dwelling for each 124,000 acres or one additional resident per 77 square miles of
federal and nonfederal land. These numbers do not account for vacant or abandoned home sites within existing
inventories.
Key Findings:
1. New development is subject to state and local land use requir ements.
2. There has been no new urbanization activity in Oregon’s identified Sage-grouse habitat
since at least 1974.
3. Future urbanization opportunities are not available because urban uses are directed to
occur inside of urban growth boundaries and exist ing zoning arrangements do not provide
for rural residential development.
113
Final Conclusion
Oregon’s statewide land use planning program as implemented by local comprehensive plans and zoning
ordinances has succeeded in discouraging habitat fragmentation in central and eastern Oregon. The existing
framework of state and local laws are ideally equipped to guarantee the adequate regulatory mechanisms
necessary to provide continued protection of Sage-grouse and Sage-grouse habitat from anthropogenic threats
associated with energy development, mining, infrastructure and urbanization. Furthermore, local land use
approvals may serve as the primary factors to require mitigation relative to Oregon’s primary Sage-grouse threats
such as invasive species, conifer infestation and wildfire.