Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout92-041REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES C06NTY, OREGON An Ordinance Amending PL -20, the Deschutes * t:a„�y County Year 2000 Plan, as Amended, to Adopt * � 'AU P I 1 1 Inventories, Conflict Analysis and ESEE Determinations for Fish and Wildlife * r} Resources and Declaring an Emergency. 92-264cs ORDINANCE NO. 92-041 WHEREAS, Statewide Planning Goal 5 requires that local governments inventory, identify conflicts with, and analyze the Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy consequences of protecting or not protecting certain resources, including fish and wildlife resources pursuant to Statewide Planning Goal 5, and determine to what extent, if at all, such resources should be protected. WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (LCDC) the County has been required to review and update its Comprehensive Land Use Plan and implementing ordinances, including for fish and wildlife resources, to assure continuing compliance with Statewide Land Use Planning Goals; and WHEREAS, public hearings have been held in furtherance of this objective in conformance with state law before the Deschutes County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners for Deschutes County; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has considered the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the public; now therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. REPEAL OF EXISTING RESOURCE ELEMENT. The existing Plan Fish and Wildlife resource element, found at pages 59-79 of the Resource Element of the Plan, is hereby repealed. Section 2. ADOPTION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCE ELEMENT. Ordinance No. PL -20, the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, (hereafter referred to as "the Plan") is further amended by adoption as part of the resource element of the Plan the inventory, conflicts analysis and ESEE analysis of inventoried resources concerning fish and wildlife resources in the County attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by{ PAGE 1 - ORDINANCE NO. 92-041 (8/5/92) V. 11, -.- ,,,CM1�5 FiL'MM ,"C,1 A9 z Those ESEEs address the following specific resources: Fish Habitat Deer Winter Range Deer Migration Corridor Elk Habitat Antelope Habitat Habitat Areas for Sensitive Birds Habitat Areas for Townsend's Big -Eared Bats Upland Game Bird Habitat Furbearer Habitat Wetlands and Riparian Areas Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat Section 3. FINDINGS. The Board of County Commissioners adopts as its findings and conclusions in support of the amendments set forth herein the Findings attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference. Section 4. SEVERABILITY. The provisions of this ordinance are severable. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance or any Exhibit thereto is adjudged to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance or any Exhibit thereto. Section 5. EMERGENCY. This Ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this Ordinance takes effect on its passage. DATED this day of August, 1992/. BOARD OF qOUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESC�7 ES COUNTY, OREGON 1'V1'KUUY, Cmmlssl h1 A E T: NANCY OP S IJANGEN, Commis ecording Secretary D K MAUDL N, ehairman PAGE 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 92-041 (8/5/92) 0119-0191 ORDINANCE NO. 92-041 - EXHIBIT "A" DESCHUTES COUNTY YEAR 2000 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RESOURCE ELEMENT FISH AND WILDLIFE INVENTORIES CONFLICT ESEE ANALYSES FISH AND WILDLIFE AREAS AND HABITATS 01.19-0192 Because fish and wildlife are such a common part of rural life, the importance of this resource, and its sensitivity to human development can be easily overlooked. Perhaps less obvious, but just as important, is the economic significance of this resource to the local population. The need to protect this critical natural asset has been recognized. For this reason, State Land Use Goal 5 has been developed to ensure fish and wildlife needs are considered in the development decisions of each local jurisdiction. Deschutes County is fortunate to have resident within its area not only large populations of game animals (such as antelope, deer, elk, sage grouse, etc.) but also a variety of non -games species. The purposes of this plan element is to provide some information about the numbers, locations, and importance of the fish and wildlife resources of the county. This resource element also includes the Environmental, Social, Economic and Energy (ESEE) analysis required by Goal 5 and OAR 660-16-000. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has provided inventory information on the mammals, birds and amphibians and reptiles found in Deschutes County. Table 1, Deschutes County Wildlife Inventory, identifies all species found in the county, identifies the time of year they are found and their relative abundance. The county has inventoried, provided information on the quality, quantity and location and completed and ESEE analysis in accordance with OAR 660-16 for the species and habitat areas listed below. The county finds that the other species and their habitat are not significant under Goal 5. This chapter contains the inventories of significant fish and wildlife habitat areas and the ESEE analysis for the habitat. The chapter is organized in the following order: Fish Habitat Page 12 Deer Winter Range Page 22 Deer Migration Corridor Page 26 Elk Habitat Page 32 Antelope Habitat Page 38 Sensitive Birds Page 41 Waterfowl Habitat Page 56 Upland Game Bird Habitat Page 60 Furbearer Habitat Page 66 Townsend's Big -eared Bat Habitat Page 69 Wetlands and Riparian Areas Page 73 Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat Page 77 Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 1 1 0-0.93 The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has provided the following information on big game populations in the County. Big Game Population Estimates, Deschutes County, 1992 Species Number Mule Deer 25,000 Elk 800 Antelope 1,000 Cougar -- 10 Bear 40 Silver Grey Squirrel 500 NON -GAME WILDLIFE Because of the large diversity of nongame wildlife species, their habitat requirements vary considerably depending on the individual species concerned. Habitat requirements outlined for the inventoried wildlife groups are applicable for many species of non -game wildlife. One of the most important values of non -game wildlife is the non -consumptive use they provide. Numerous hours of bird watching, photography nature studies, etc., are spent on non -game wildlife. It is estimated that 2/3 of all wildlife use is non -consumptive. A 1974 survey shows that during a one year period in Oregon an estimated 719,000 people watched birds or other wildlife, 688,000 fed birds, and 245,000 put up bird houses or nest boxes. IThe importance of non -game wildlife cannot be over emphasized. Parks are extremely important, particularly in urban areas, because they provide the habitat for small non -game mammals and birds. Deschutes County contains important populations of hawks, owls, songbirds, small mammals, and numerous other non -game wildlife species. Most of the non -game birds found in Central Oregon are protected. Non -game wildlife is found throughout sensitive habitat areas outlined for big game, upland game, and waterfowl in Deschutes County. Sensitive habitat within the urban and suburban areas is found in parks, both city and county, and adjacent water areas. Another sensitive habitat type is the snag tree which is used by a variety of cavity nesting birds and mammals. The land use conflicts listed in the ESEE analysis for the elk, deer, upland game birds, furbearers, sensitive birds, Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 2 0119-019 waterfowl and riparian and wetland habitat also affect non -game wildlife since they are found throughout the same habitat. In addition, land use activities in the urban setting that eliminate open space are also in conflict with non -game wildlife. ECONOMIC VALUE OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Often overlooked is the significant contribution to the economy made by people who come to hunt and fish in the county. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife reports that the most current data available (1989) indicates that a hunter day in Oregon's economy -is worth 46.69 for deer and $48.94 for elk. Deschutes County encompasses all or portions of the Metolius, Paulina, Grizzly, Maury, and Upper Deschutes Big Game Management units. Collectively, all these units generate a total of 75,885 hunter days for deer and 10,108 hunter days for elk. This represents a value of approximately $3,453,100 for deer and $494,690 for elk. The estimated worth of a hunter day does not include the money generated from game bird hunting or furbearer trapping. Data from these are not listed by local areas. However, a 1980 estimate showed that small game and game bird hunters contributed $70.84 per participant on a state wide basis. The value of angler days is estimated by zones within the state. Deschutes County is located within the Central Zone and the majority of the angling occurs in Deschutes County. In 1991 resident and non-resident anglers combined spent 1,071,135 days angling in the Central Zone. This represents a total economic value within this zone of $25,392,965. Resident anglers contributed $28.07 per day and non-resident anglers contributed $21.94 per day. Obviously, a considerable number of dollars could be added to the total if data were available on the money spent by people who come only to view or photograph the wildlife. Apparently, fish and wildlife are an important part of our local economy, particularly if a figure was added for the many times that initial outside money is respent in the community, each time adding to local incomes. CONCLUSION The fish and wildlife resources of Deschutes County have an important role to play in the maintenance of the environment that so many local residents enjoy, and which attracts so many visitors each year. The role of this resource in the local economy also must not be overlooked. And finally, our responsibility as guardians of this increasingly rare and irreplaceable resource cannot be forgotten. Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 3 FISH AND WILDLIFE TABLES 0119-0195 Table 1 Deschutes County Wildlife Inventory Table 2 Fish Inventory Table 3 Minimum Stream Flows Table 4 Instream Water Rights Table 5 Bald Eagle Nest - Non -Federal Inventory Table 6 Bald Eagle Nest - Federal Inventory Table 7 Golden Eagle Nest - Non -Federal Inventory Table 8 Golden Eagle Nest - Federal Inventory Table 9 Prairie Falcon Nest- Non -Federal Inventory Table 10 Osprey Nest - Non -Federal Inventory Table 11 Osprey Nest - Federal Inventory Table 12 Heron Rookery - Non -Federal Inventory Table 13 Heron Rookery - Federal Inventory Table 14 Great Grey Owl - Non -Federal Inventory Table 15 Great Grey Owl - Federal Inventory Table 16 Sage Grouse Lek - Federal Inventory Table 17 Sage Grouse Lek - Non -Federal Inventory Table 18 Townsend's Big -Eared Bat - Non -Federal Inventory Table 19 Townsend's Big -Eared Bat - Federal Inventory Table 20 Townsend's Big -Eared Bat - 111B" Inventory Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 4 A- 11-L1 L." 1 DESCHUTES COUNTY WILDLIFE Q119-0196 Deschutes County Planning Unit, 1992. *Selected List Use Releative Period Key Abundance Key R = Rare F = Few X=Year Around C = Common Use Relative S=Summer A = Abundant Species Period Abundance W=winter U = Unknown American Avocet S F American Bittern S F American Coot X C American Goldfinch S C American Kestrel X C X Anna's Hummingbird S F Ash -throated Flycatcher S F Bald Eagle X F Bank Swallow S F Barn Owl X C Barn Swallow S C Barred Owl X U Belted Kingfisher X F Bewick's Wren X F Black -chinned Hummingbird S F Black -crowned Night Heron S F Black -headed Grosbeak S F Black -throated Grey Warble S F Blue Grouse X F Blue -winged Teal S F Bohemian Waxwing. W F Boreal Owl X F Brewer's Blackbird X C Brewer's Sparrow S F Brown Creeper X F Brown -headed Cowbird S C Bufflehead X C Burrowing Owl S R California Valley Quail X C e Hummingbi Canada Goose X C Canyon Wren X C Tern Cassin's Finch X C Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 5 DESCHUTES COUNTY WILDLIFE Deschutes County Planning Unit, 1992. 9-0197 *Selected List Use Releative Period Rey Abundance Key R = Rare F = Few X=Year Around C = Common Use Relative S=Summer A = Abundant Species Period Abundance W=Winter U - Unknown Cedar Waxwing X C Chipping Sparrow S "C Chukar Partridge X R Claifornia Gull X C Clark's Nutcracker X C Cliff Swallow S C Common Bushtit X C Common Crow X R Common Loon S R Common Merganser X C Common Nighthawk S C Common Raven X C Common Snipe S F Coopers Hawk X C Dark -eyed Junco X A Dipper X F Double -crested Cormorant S C Dusky Flycatcher S F Eared Grebe W F Eastern Kingbird S F Fox Sparrow S C Franklin's Gull S F Gadwall W F Golden Eagle X F et Goldeneye X C Goshawk X F Gray Jay X C Great Blue Heron X C Great Gray Owl X F Great Horned Owl X C Greater Yellowleg S F Green Heron S R Green -tailed Towhee S F Green -winged Teal X F Hairy Woodpecker X C Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 6 1L "LI 1: L DESCHUTES COUNTY WILDLIFE 09.19-0198 Deschutes County Planning Unit, 1992. *Selected List Use Releative Period Key Abundance Rey R = Rare F• = Few X=Year Around C = Common Use Relative S=Summer A = Abundant Species Period Abundance W=Winter U = Unknown Hammond's Flycatcher S F Hermit Thrush S F Hooded Merganser X F Horned Lark X F House Finch X C House Sparrow X C House Wren S F Killdeer X C Lark Sparrow S F Lazuli Buntina S F Least Lesser Goldfinch X R Lesser Scaup W C Lewis' Woodpecker S F MacGillivray's Warbler S F Mallard X C Merlin W R Mountain Bluebird X C Mountain Chickadee X C Mourning Dove X C Nashville Warbler X F Northern Harrier X F Northern Oriole S F Three - Olive -sided Flycatcher S C Orange -crowned Warbler S F Osprey S C Peregrine Falcon X R Pileated Woodpecker X F Pine Grosbeak X R Pine Siskin X C Pinon Jay X C Pintail W C Prairie Falcon X C Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 7 1"L.r• 1 DESCHUTES COUNTY WILDLIFEO 1 9-01 99 Deschutes County Planning Unit, 1992. *Selected List Use Releative Period Rey Abundance Key R = Rare F - Few X=Year Around C = Common Use Relative S=Summer A = Abundant Species Period Abundance W=Winter U = Unknown Purple Finch X F Pygmy Nuthatch X C Pygmy Owl X F Red Crossbill X F Red -breasted Nuthatch X C Redhead W F Red -shafted Flicker X C Red-tailed Hawk X C Red -winged Blackbird X C Ring -billed Gull X C Ring -neck Duck W F Ring-necked Pheasant X F Robin X C Rock Dove X C Rock Wren S C Rosy Finch X R Rough-lecaed Hawk W C Ruby -crowned Ringlet - X F Ruffed Grouse X F Rufous Hummingbird S F Rufous -sided Towhee X F Sage Grouse X F Sage Sparrow S R Sage Thrasher S C Sandhill Crane S F Savannah Sparrow S C Saw -whet Owl X F Say's Pheobe S F Screech Owl X F Shoveler W F Snowy Egret S F Solitary Vireo S F Song Sparrow X F Sora S F Spotted Owl X F Spotted Sandpiper S F Starling X C Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 8 DESCHDTES COUNTY WILDLIFE Deschutes County Planning Unit, 1992. 0119-0200 *Selected List Use Releative Period Key Abundance Key R - Rare F - Few X=Year Around C = Common Use Relative S=Summer A s Abundant Species Period Abundance W=Winter U a Unknown Steller's Jay X F Swainson's Hawk S R Swainson's Thrush S F Townsend's Solitaire X C Tree Swallow S C Turkey X C Turkey Vulture S C Varied Thrush X F Vaux's Swift S F Vesper Sparrow S F Water Pipit X F Western Bluebird S F Western Flycatcher S F Western Grebe S C Western Kingbird S F western meadowlark S C _ tern Western Tanager S F Western Wood Pewee S F White -breasted Nuthatch X F White -crowned Sparrow S F White -headed Woodpecker X F Williamson's Sapsucker X F Willow Flycatcher S R Wilson's Phalarope S R Wilson's Warbler S F Winter Wren X F Wood Duck S F Yellow Warbler S F Yellow -bellied Sapsucker X F Yellow -headed Blackbird S F Yellowthroat S F Amphibians and Reptiles Bullfrog X F Cascades Frog X F Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 9 TABLE 1 01.19.0201 DESCHUTES COUNTY WILDLIFE Deschutes County Planning Unit, 1992. *Selected List Use Releative Period Rey Abundance Key R = Rare F = Few X=Year Around C = Common Use Relative S=Summer A-- Abundant Species Period Abundance W -Winter U - Unknown N. Grasshopper Mouse X- F Northern Water Shrew X F Norway Rat X F N. Pocket Gopher X U Ord's Kangaroo -Rat X C Pacific Mole X U Pallid Bat S U Pine Marten X C Pinon Mouse X F Porcupine X C Pronghorn Antelope X C Raccoon X C Red Fox X F River Otter X C Rocky Mtn Elk X C Roosevelt Elk X C Sagebrush Vole X C Shorttail Weasel X F Silver -haired Bat S U Small -footed Myotis S U Snowshoe Hare X F Striped Skunk X C Townsend Ground Squirrel X C Townsends Big -eared Bat X F Trowbridge Shrew X F Vagrant Shrew X U Water Vole X C Western Gray Squirrel X C 'Western Harvest Mouse X C Western Jumping Mouse X F stern P Whitetail Jackrabbit X R Wolverine X R Yellow Pine Chipmunk X C Yellow -bellied Marmot X F Yuma Myotis X F Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 10 TABLE 1 DESCHUTES COUNTY WILDLIFE Deschutes County Planning unit, 1992. 019-0202 *Selected List Use Releative Period Key Abundance Key R = Rare F = Few X=Year Around C = Common Use Relative S -Summer A = Abundant Species Period Abundance -W -Winter U - Unknown Common Garter Snake X F Ensatina X•- R Great Basin Spadefoot Toad ' X F T.nntt-MAA Salamander X F Night Snake X U Northern alligator Lizard X F Pacific Tree Frog X C Racer X F Red -legged Frog X F Roughskin Newt X R Rubber Boa X F Sagebrush Lizard X F Sharp -tailed Snake X U Short -horned Lizard X R Side -blotched Lizard X U Spotted Frog X F Striped Whipsnake X U Tailed Frog X F Western Fence Lizard X C Western Rattlesnake X F Western Skink X F Western Toad X F Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 11 019-0203 FISH HABITAT The many streams, lakes and reservoirs found in Deschutes County provide not only for a large fish population, but also for great variety in species. Each year many hundreds of thousands of angler days are spent in the pursuit of an equally huge number of fish. East and Paulina Lakes alone produced 154,027 fish during 1968. Table 2 identifies the local fish species and how they are distributed throughout the county. Naturally spawning populations of native rainbow trout and whitefish along with introduced populations of rainbow, brown and brook trout and kokanee salmon are present in streams and reservoirs. Most natural lakes were historically barren of fish populations but today nearly all suitable lakes are stocked annually with fingerling or legal sized rainbow, brook, brown and cutthroat trout and kokanee, coho and Atlantic salmon. Lake trout have been introduced into Big Cultus Lake and have established a natural producing population. Most lakes do not provide suitable spawning habitat and populations can only be maintained by continued stocking. Stocking and management programs are designed to provide a diverse array of opportunities for resident and visiting anglers. It is important to sustain the naturally producing populations and to balance stocking programs with the proper habitats. One native species, the bull trout, has disappeared from the county due to a combination of habitat degradation, overfishing and competition from introduced species. Historically, summer steelhead that spawned in the upper reaches of Squaw Creek were the only anadromous populations that reached Deschutes County. A series of natural barriers west of Terrebonne blocked access to the Upper Deschutes River. The construction of Round Butte Dam in the 1960's created an additional barrier and blocked the runs into Squaw Creek. An illegal introduction, the Tui Chub or roach, has prospered in Big and Little Lava Lakes, David Lake, East Lake, Paulina Lake, Crane Prairie Reservoir and Wickiup Reservoir and competes vigorously with the desirable trout populations. Control efforts have been attempted, but have generally provided only short term relief. Warmwater game fish such as bass and bluegill have been introduced into numerous private ponds but provide little recreation to the general public. An illegal, release (early 19801's) of largemouth bass into Crane Prairie Reservoir has Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 12 prospered and provides a popular fishery. FortuitUIP, 0904 introduction appears to have had little adverse effect on the premier trout fishery in the reservoir. Some fish habitat has been lost or damaged by man's activities. Most of the damage has occurred along the Deschutes River with lesser damage along the Little Deschutes River. Dredging, filling, riparian vegetation removal, and some types of stream bank protection have resulted in major loss of fisheries habitat. A large wood structure was removed from the river in the early 1900's to facilitate log drives. Cattle grazing has damaged riparian vegetation with most damage occurring along the Little Deschutes River. Four dams within Bend's city limits impede fish passage and considerable fish loss occurs when fish pass through the Pacific Corporation hydro plant turbines. However, the major fish production loss is related to the water flow manipulation associated with the Deschutes River irrigation system. Between Wickiup Dam and Bend (62 river miles) the extreme low winter flow (20 cfs) and the wide range of flow fluctuations (20 cfs to 2100 cfs at Wickiup Dam) have resulted in dewatered spawning areas, reduced rearing habitat, high turbidity levels, decreased fish food production, stranding losses, and elimination of several cover components (large wood, undercut banks, and riparian vegetation). The most drastic impacts are in the first 27 miles above Fall River (River Mile 200). Tributary inflow from Fall River, Little Deschutes River (River Mile 193) and Spring River (River Mile 190) has moderated the impacts of the present flow regime to some degree in the remaining 35 miles down to Bend. Wickiup and Crane Prairie Dams have blocked access to high quality spawning areas and cut off the downstream transfer of gravel into lower spawning areas. While the reservoirs have created popular fisheries and recreation areas, the extreme fluctuations arising from irrigation withdrawal/storage detracts from their potential. At Bend nearly all of the remaining flow is diverted into the irrigation system from early April through Mid -October. Summer flows below Bend are about 30 cfs until major springs add considerable volume below Lower Bridge. Natural summer flows were 1400 - 1600 cfs. The low summer flow results in very high water temperatures (high 70's to low 80's degrees F) and greatly reduced rearing areas in the 35 stream miles above Lower Bridge. Trout populations appear to be maintaining themselves at a low level, while populations below the spring inflow are excellent. Other streams with major irrigation driven impacts are Squaw Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 13 @119-0205 Creek, Indian Ford Creek, Tumalo Creek and Paulina Creek. Sections of all of these streams are completely dewatered during the irrigation season. Unscreened and inadequately screened irrigation diversions are another major source of fish production loss. Any fish entering these diversions is lost when the canals are dewatered at the end of the irrigation season. There are hundreds of miles of main canals and lateral ditches within the county and the extent of the fish loss is unknown. A recent (1991) study did estimate a loss of over 2600 trout in 13 miles of one major diversion canal off the Deschutes River. The canal was screened, but obviously the screen design was inadequate. Historical fish populations were thought to be some on the best in the Pacific Northwest. Lake stocking programs have expanded the fishery resource throughout the county, but river populations have been greatly degraded. Improvement in the extreme low flows and modification to the widely fluctuating flow regimes are critical to restoration efforts. Table 2 provides minimum recommended stream flows. These recommendations are not being met in any of the streams where flows are being diverted for irrigation. The need for water conservation actions, improved irrigation systems, and alternative water sources is widely recognized. Recent state legislation facilitates developing and implementing such programs. A pilot project to evaluate irrigation canal lining is currently being implemented. A substantial reduction in the loss of fish entering irrigation diversion canals is a key element in fish population restoration. Existing state laws require screening and recent legislation has expanded this to include the smaller diversions. . This same legislation provides funding and technical assistance for implementing a screening program. Alteration of stream banks and riparian areas continues to erode fish habitat. Existing state and county laws and ordinances provide considerable protection for stream banks and beds, wetland and flood plains. A 10 -foot strip of streamside vegetation is protected by county ordinance. However, since all violations are not recognized and/or reported, prevention is a better means of protection than enforcement. Recent joint agency efforts have attempted to notify riverfront landowners and the real estate industry. There is considerable support to restore the degraded fish habitats. ODFW and the U.S. Forest Service are active in planning, funding and implementing a variety of restoration projects. There is an unusually large number of active, dedicated volunteers willing to donate time, money and services toward restoration efforts. Some private landowners Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 14 have expressed a commitment to restore or enhance habitat on their property. A unique mitigation plan tied to the Central Oregon Irrigation District hydro project will provide a substantial funding base for Deschutes River restoration efforts. FISH HABITAT INVENTORY AND ESEE ANALYSIS o 19-0206 6 Inventory, Location, Quantity and Quality: The inventory of the fish resource is contained in Table 2. Table 3 identifies the minimum_ stream flows necessary for fish in the Deschutes River Basin. The Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study has been incorporated by amendment into this portion of the Resource Element (Ordinance 86-019). Chapter 5 of the River Study contains a detailed inventory of the fish habitat resource. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has applied for instream water rights for the benefit of fish .on the Deschutes River, Fall River, Indian Ford Creek, Squaw Creek, and Tumalo Creek. Table 4 describes the specific location of the instream water rights. Conflicting Uses: The major conflicts with the fish resource are removal of riparian vegetation, fill and removal activities within the bed and banks of streams or wetlands, hydroelectric facilities, rural residential development and water regulation. The Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study identifies development of hydroelectric facilities as a potential conflict with fish habitat. Dredging, or fill and removal within the bed and banks of rivers and streams, removal of riparian vegetation and some types of stream bank protection cause loss of fish habitat. The major fish production loss is related to the water flow manipulation associated with the Deschutes River irrigation system. The fluctuation of water levels results in dewatered spawning areas, reduced rearing habitat, high turbidity, increased sediments in spawning gravels, decreased fish food production, stranding losses and elimination of several cover components including large wood, undercut banks, and riparian vegetation.. Lack of screening on irrigation diversions also causes a loss in population of fish. Rural residential development adjacent to streams and wetlands can cause conflict by increasing the impermeable surfaces, increasing sewage runoff, disruption of natural Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 15 01 19-020' hydroelectric patterns, depletion of the water table and increasing erosion. Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy Consequences of conserving significant fish habitat For an analysis of the ESEE consequences see the following documents which are hereby incorporated by reference: a. Deschutes CountyfCity of Bend River Study, April 1986, Chapter 3, pages 3-1 through 3-33; Chapter 4, pages 4-1 through 4-50; Chapter 5, pages 5-1 through 5-23; Chapter -7, pages 7-1 through 7-30; and Chapter 13, pages 13-1 through 13-42. b. River Study Staff Report, May 1986. Conclusion: Based on the ESEE analysis, the county finds that the identified fish habitat and the conflicting uses are important relative to each other. Therefore, the county determines that conflicting uses should be specifically limited and the resource should be protected through a 113C" designation. Program to Achieve the Goal (Conserve Fish Habitat) The Deschutes County City of Bend River Study in April 1986. The Board of Commissioners amendments to the comprehensive plan and ordinances to implement the River Study protection for fish habitat. Ordinance No. 86-018 amended Ordinance prohibit hydroelectric facilities i stretches of the Deschutes River and its and to allow hydroelectric facilities stretches of the Deschutes River and its and to allow hydroelectric facilities a uses in designated zones and stretches of River. (Title 18.96 and 18.116.130 and Deschutes County Code). was completed has adopted the following and provide No. PL -15 to n designated tributaries, in designated tributaries, s conditional the Deschutes 18.128.040(W), Ordinance No. 86-056 amended Ordinance No. PL -15 to require a conditional use permit for any fill and removal, including removal of.vegetation, within the bed and banks of any stream or wetland. The bed and banks of a stream is defined to include 10 feet on either side of the container of the waters of a stream. (Title 18.128.040(W), Deschutes County Code). Ordinance No. 86-054 amended Ordinance No. PL -15 to require conservation easements as a condition of Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 16 approval for land use actions on property adjacent to certain rivers and streams. (Title 18.116.310, Df�F0208 Ib County Code). Ordinance No. 86-053 amended PL -15 requirements for rimrock setbacks. (Title 18, all zones). Ordinance 89-030 amended the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan for Flood Hazard zones. Ordinance 88-031 amended PL -15 to establish a new Flood Plain zone and use restrictions. (Title 18.96, Deschutes County Code) Ordinance 89-009 established specific restrictions for boat docks, slips, piers or houses in the Flood Plain zone. (Title 18.96 and 18.116.070, Deschutes County Code) . All zones in Title 18 have a stream setback provision to protect fish and wildlife areas. IThe setback requirement is 100 feet from the ordinary high water mark along all streams or lakes. The provision applies to all structures and sewage disposal installations. These ordinances along with the Landscape Management Zone, the Oregon State Scenic Waterway and the Federal Wild and Scenic designations on segments of the certain rivers and streams are the implementing measures to protect the fish habitat Deschutes River, its tributaries and inventoried lakes. The county notifies the Department of Oregon Department of Fish" and Wildlife of all requests for fill and removal or development proposals in the flood plain zone, Wildlife Area Combining Zone, or along any designated river or stream. Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 17 TABLE 2 - FISH SPECIES DISTRIBUTION IN DESCHUTES COUNTY 1 - Native, naturally reproducing 2 - Introduced, naturally reproducing 3 - Introduced, periodic stocking required to maintain population * - 1 and 3 # - 2 and 3 Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 18 ca 4J 0 4J 4J 0 4 4J 64 41 44 4J 43 Tyee Creek Hell Creek OPIUM Satan Creek Crater Creek Goase Creek Trout Creek - Alder Creek Pole Creek Snow Creek Park Creek Sink Creek - peer Creek Duinn River Cultus Creek Cultus River Moore Creek Charlton Creek Browns Cre Fall River Cache Creek --�--�--ass---�-s Wickiu Reservoir Devil's Lake Hosmer Lake 1 - Native, naturally reproducing 2 - Introduced, naturally reproducing 3 - Introduced, periodic stocking required to maintain population * - 1 and 3 # - 2 and 3 Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 18 G tGn f- < K G (a K (D G C (D K H cn K (D x 4� 7y µ (D K (D N- rt OQ fes'- C K O K (D O K A K A N N O A (D (D tG't W N K t0 -r to (a K to (D K N N N K N G (r N <D K N G tr N N K In W N P- O co W 41- V x O. 0o O O O O O ?4 O, O N O to W O to G v W 0119-02 w W' A N lJf N N Y V co O w Y N A Oo O a. O tJn _O O O N O O O In A O O O O O O O O Y _ w 10% A N W _ O tr O O O tI( O O O to W NO O O O O O O O CT N (a tj m � n O O� O N to �' t+ In W N P- O - W 41- V W W O O. 0o O O O O O ?4 O, O N O to W O to G v W O *= 1` p - b M 03 K b Y w F' - W W :r CT N (a tj m O O O� O N to �' t+ In W N N O Oo O O 41- V W W O Y O� O O 0o O O O O O ?4 O, O N O to O O to O v W O *= 1` - b Y w W O O Cd C U 0 0 OM O In b (� y Lr w N N O O O A W w -O Y O O O O O O O 7� O N O to O O O V ... VSz x COD CT N (a tj m Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 19 W 0% . Ca W O O to O A Y 47, to O O, UN 9 pn U O O to O v W O *= 1` Y w O O Cd C U 0 0 o 0 0 o w w N o Y O A O O o 0 0 o in (.N O 4A VSz x m Y W N Al. 4M W O O% C% A O N to C4 C N o o o o o W o 0 0 0 n w t" G Cr Y Y A O O rn O N W 0 9 lY 0 0 0 0 OO O Co Y O w 0° 0 0 0 0 0 o w o 40 ra \ \ \ W C% A N t4. b o O O Co w A Y O N O O% O O o O 0 C, o O O U O H 0 0 thin o " o A Y w 0%00 0 C% 0 to O N tNn o O O V O O O O O O O O H Y N 4i C% O W O O� rn A O N U x O 0 0 0 ttA o o O twin A O O Co O Co O O O C Y Co o o w Y N 40\ w o tT o to Vj V O N O N O N to O O O to X, O O O O O O O O n Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 19 Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A11 Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 20 i� O r a r 0 O £ ap m J b7 ON :ro UI o Xp :4 W 0 N t-4 1--' N r a m (t1 F� G : m (D c) n n �. � 0 a `.3 (0 Q. O 0 0C7 n K � � H (D Cn O O C 7 Y N ¢' `� w£ a N (D n n E £ (n (D r N rt D (Ha m (D O ('1 � K m m o G� t7 to 03 0 µ N ti (D (D G 03 X O 'd b G] tf1 (D cr N t1 K O Y 0 N r r0 rt o w to CA 0) W 01.19-02 1 W (D it q3r (D (0 10 CL w o P t (D (t (D O ct (D H• !D Y O O O tZ O `G N O 1 .� CD o t7 cn f.. 0 (° p Ln vw+ o o z a (Da �+ v - R O00 iC !� O G. Y 4M tom' F' d r* *■f �C (D IM M (A A V V w N N Y o o to t+7 at N A. K to d E n C K (gyp 1 zr O IO (D W H y M 1+ O r't t- C co R (oi o 0 o 0 o ao9 o 'Ct to a rt'na~'o. N ] _ (D K (0 W rt p• p6?km µ v N oo,oaod p rOt W 9 rtt (D.tIt O. rt K H 1+'d V3 O N N 0 U (D a µ w rt O r o Cl Y Q. O Q(0 m `G 1-'- K `Y X rt =s rt =s o H o r _ Vt K rt K %0 t0 m rt K d M t0 0 M 4 O K YotOa 34 X r t Sr :S m 0. '0 :r VT rt (D O O c.. R O� U r C � tL Q' N 'P O _N •'C �O O Q t0 (0 K M O O M O K Ct:: v K OQ K K :04 r OK y f o zw (0 rt (0 K b t]. ( Y U tb to O Mb v �( U O O y K aM0 O tt (0 K t0-• O CCT O p r w w wo y A 0 o rn ►� w z t. r W w wo O O r v+ CO v d v o Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A11 Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 20 03/11/92 BN STREAM > PARENT STREAM ** BASIN 05 05 DESCHUTES R > COLUMBIA R 05 DESCHUTES R > COLUMBIA R 05 DESCHUTES R > COLUMBIA R. 05 DESCHUTES R > COLUMBIA R 05 DESCHUTES R > COLUMBIA R 05 FALL R > DESCHUTES R 05 INDIAN FORD CR > SQUAW CR 05 LITTLE DESCHUTES R > DESCHUTES R 05 KETOLIUS R > DESCHUTES R 05 SNOW CR > DESCHUTES R 05 SQUAW CR > DESCHUTES R 05 JUMALO CR > DESCHUTES R TABLE 4 INSTREAM WATER RIGHT PROGRAM DATABASE SUMMARY REPORT UPSTREAM LIMIT DOWNSTREAM'LMT SPECIES 0,119-02,12 APP NO CERT # DATE CRN PRAIRIE RES WICKIUP RES RB,BT,BR,CO,K, 070764 LITTLE LAVA LK CRN PRAIRIE RES RB,BT,K,WF, 070763 193.0 190.0 MPS 227.0 193.0 MPS 190.0 165.0-- MPS GAGE 14057500 MOUTH RB,ST,BR,WF, 070762 HEADWATERS MOUTH RB, 070760 CRESCENT CR MOUTH RB,BT,BR,WF, 070757 METOLIUS SPRING CANYON CR BUT,K, 070699 HEADWATERS MOUTH RS,BT, 070756 S FK SQUAW CR INDIAN FORD CR RS,ST, 070754 S FK TUMALO CR MOUTH RB,BT,SR, 070752 Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 21 10/11/90 10/11/90 59777 11/03/83 59776 11/03/83 59778 11/03/83 10/11/90 10/11/90 10/11/90 09/24/90 10/11/90 10/11/90 10/11/90 DEEWINTERANGE 0119-0213 R R Inventory Information: The deer winter range boundaries are mapped on the Big Game Habitat Area Map. Location. Quantity and Quality: The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) identified the Metolius, Tumalo and North Paulina deer winter ranges during the initial comprehensive planning in the county. The boundaries of these winter ranges are shown on the Big Game Sensitive Area map in the Comprehensive Plan (1978) and have been zoned with the Wildlife Area Combining Zone since 1979. The Tumalo Winter Range Study, 1977, includes detailed information about the plant communities, physiological needs of deer and use of the habitat area. ODFW has reviewed the boundaries of the Metolius, Tumalo and North Paulina deer winter ranges and does not recommend any changes to the boundaries at this time. ODFW reports that the deer populations in the county are currently stable. The habitat is important to provide winter feeding areas, thermal and hiding cover and isolation from conflict with human activities. The winter ranges support a population of approximately 15,000 deer. The deer winter ranges are mostly zoned EFU or Forest with minimum lot sizes ranging from 20 to 80 acres. There is a small amount of land zoned Rural Residential or Multiple Use Agriculture with a 10 acre minimum lot size. The deer winter range is contains Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, State, County and private land. On February 27, 1992, the Ochoco District Office of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife provided information to the planning staff regarding deer winter range in the north east corner of the county, north of the Crooked River, in the Smith Rock State Park area. This area is part of deer winter range that has been identified by ODFW since the late 1970's. It was not identified in the initial comprehensive plan because it is under the jurisdiction of the Ochoco District Office. The area is part of the Grizzly Wildlife Management Unit. The Ochoco District did not participate in Deschutes County's original comprehensive planning process. ODFW recognizes this area as significant deer winter range and recommends that it be included in the Deschutes County inventory and protected with the same measures applied to other deer winter range in the county. The area has been included in the inventory and mapped on the Big Game Habitat Area and Wildlife Area Combining Zone Map. Ordinance No. 92-040 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 22 Conflicting Uses: 01-19-0214 Researchers and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife have identified dwellings, roads and dogs as the major conflicts with wintering deer. Actions which cause deterioration of forage quality and quantity or cover are conflicting uses. Fences that do not allow safe passage of deer are also a conflicting use. Limiting conflicting uses greatly enhances the chances of survival for deer during the winter when they are gathered in the winter range and are competing for forage. The Department of Fish and Wildlife Land Use Planning Guide (1989) states that destination resorts, because of their intensity and scale of use, can result in direct loss of habitat, interference with migration routes, increase in stress on animals through harassment, increase game caused damage, reduction in overall population levels and curtail recreational hunting opportunities. Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy Consequences of conserving significant deer winter range 1. Economic Consequences: The positive economic consequences of limiting conflicts in deer winter range habitat are the reduction in staff time of ODFW attempting to resolve conflicts between rural residents and wildlife. Deer hunters depend on the survival of healthy deer populations. Deer hunters spend an average of $46.69 per hunter day; in Deschutes County there are 75,885 deer hunter days per year in the county for a value of $3,543,100. The negative economic consequences of applying regulations to limit conflicts in deer winter range are generally borne by individuals prevented from doing an activity such as building a home or road, or dividing land or developing a use which would cause increased traffic or a change in the vegetation which could decrease the quality of the forage or cover. 2. Social Consequences: The positive social consequences of limiting development to protect deer winter range are the retention of the stable deer populations for hunters and the public which enjoys viewing wildlife. Negative social consequences are restriction of residential uses and resorts which could provide recreational opportunities. The opportunities to live in rural areas may be somewhat reduced by limiting partitions which would otherwise be allowed by the underlying zoning. Siting standards to protect habitat could result in a property owner not being able to locate a dwelling in the preferred location; however, flexibility can be provided in siting standards to balance the need to protect irrigated farm land and still provide habitat protection. Ordinance No. 92-040 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 23 01 19-0215 3. Environmental Consequences: Opportunities for big game to flourish in a habitat without repeated interference or disturbance from man would be a positive environmental consequence. Other species of wildlife benefit from large open space environment and a low density of development. Requirements to cluster dwellings or site them near existing roads would limit disturbance of vegetation which provides cover and forage. 4. Energy Consequences: The energy consequence from limiting development in deer winter range is a reduction in trip generation associated with development located.in rural areas. As a result, development should occur closer to urban areas where services are more available and can be provided with less energy cost. For additional ESEE consequences see the discussions in the following documents which are hereby incorporated by reference: a. The Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study Chapter 6, pages 6-1 through 6-16; Chapter 7, pages 7-1 through 7-30. b. River Study Staff Report, May 1986, pages 21-26. C. ODFW Central Region Administrative Report No. 86-2 and 92-1. d. Tumalo Winter Range Study, 1977. 5. Conclusion: Based on the ESEE analysis, the county finds that the identified deer winter range habitat and residential and other conflicting uses within the deer winter range are important relative to each other, and that the conflicts should be balanced by restricting or regulating certain uses and prohibiting others. Therefore, the county determines that conflicting uses should be specifically limited and the resource should be protected through a 113C" designation. 6. Program to Achieve the Goal (Conserve Deer Winter Range): The Wildlife Combining Zone, Title 18.88, (WA) is applied to all areas designated as deer winter range on the Big Game Habitat Wildlife Area Combining Zone Map. The WA zone requires a 40 acre minimum lot size for all new land divisions, prohibits certain conflicting uses (i.e. golf courses, churches, schools etc.), establishes siting and fencing standards, and requires that all land divisions in the Rural Residential (RR -10) or Multiple Use Agriculture (MUA-10) Zone be cluster or planned developments. The underlying zoning in most of the deer winter range is resource zoning: EFU-20, EFU-40, EFU-80, Forest (F-1, F-2), Flood Plain. These resource zones provide for large lot sizes Ordinance No. 92-040 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 24 and limit uses that are not compatible with farm or forest uses. Because of the low density of development in these zones and the limitations on uses, the resource zones themselves provide considerable protection to wildlife habitat. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is notified of any land use action in the WA zone and provides comments on development proposals. The requests of ODFW are usually incorporated into the conditions of approval. Destination Resorts have been identified as a conflicting use with significant big game habitat. The Board of County Commissioners has adopted a _policy (Ordinance 92-040) to prohibit siting of destination resorts in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone pending completion of the Goal 8 mapping process which shall be accomplished by December 31, 1992. Ordinance No. 92-040 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 25 DEER IYIIGRATION CORRIDOR 0119-0217 Inventory Information: The Bend/La Pine migration corridor was identified in the original comprehensive plan resource element and mapped on the Big Game Sensitive Area map included in the Fish and Wildlife Chapter of the Resource Element of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan. Based on on going inventory and study of the corridor by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife which is reported in ODFW Central Region Reports 86-2 and 92-1 the location is more accurately mapped and the --rate of use of the corridor has been more accurately identified. The County has mapped the Bend/La Pine deer migration corridor Big Game Habitat Area - Wildlife Area Combining Zone Map. Location. Ouantity and Quality: The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife identified the Bend/La Pine deer migration corridor which was mapped on the Big Game Sensitive Area Map in the Resource Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The corridor is approximately 56 miles long and 3 to 4 miles wide and parallels the Deschutes and Little Deschutes Rivers. The corridor is used by deer migrating from summer range in the forest along the east slope of the Cascades to the North Paulina deer winter range in Deschutes County and the Hole - in -the -Ground and Devil's Garden winter ranges in north Klamath County. ODFW has conducted a survey of deer tracks to determine the level of use in the corridor during the migration period. The results of the study are published in the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Central Region Administrative Reports No. 86-2 and 92-1. The reports identify areas of high, moderate and low frequency of use. The La Pine Area Wildlife/Subdivision Study, 1977, describes the geology, soil hydrology, vegetation, migration routes and other characteristics and conflicts in the migration corridor area. The underlying zoning in most of the Bend/La Pine deer migration corridor is Rural Residential 10 (RR -10). Although the zone has a 10 acre minimum lot size, much of the development in the La Pine area occurred prior to zoning in the county. There are extensive areas of preexising subdivisions with lots ranging in size from less than an acre to 5 acres. Most of the RR -10 zone is made up of lots less than the 10 acre minimum lot size. The planned community of Sun River is located in the migration corridor. The Mule Deer Track Count Study found that the frequency of deer migration in the Sunriver area was low. Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chaper Page 26 The migration corridor includes some EFU-80, Forest and Flood Plain zoned land. The La Pine State Park is zoned Open Space Conservation. These resource zones provide for large lot sizes and limit uses that are not compatible with farm, forest or open space uses. Because of the low density of development in these zones and the limitations on uses, the resource zones themselves provide considerable protection to the migration corridor. Conflicting Uses: Researchers and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife have identified dwellings, roads and dogs as the major conflicts with migrating deer. The ODFW mule deer track count studies document the conflict between dogs and migrating deer through data indicating that when dog tracks increase deer tracks decrease. Fences that do not allow safe passage of deer are also a conflicting use. The areas which are relatively undeveloped with residential uses are the areas that have the highest frequency of deer passage. Conflicting uses are documented in the ODFW Central Region Administrative Report No. 86-2 and 92-1 and in the La Pine Area Wildlife/Subdivision Study, 1977. These documents are incorporated herein by reference. Additionally, the ESEEs for surface mines in the deer migration corridor identify the migration corridor as a conflicting use with the surface mining activity. There are four surface mines in the migration corridor (Sites 342, 426, 427, and 432) Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy Consequences of conserving significant deer winter range 1. Economic Consequences: A positive economic consequences of limiting conflicts in the deer migration corridor is the reduction in staff time of ODFW attempting to resolve conflicts between rural residents and wildlife. Deer hunters depend on the survival of healthy deer populations. Deer hunters spend an average of $46.69 per hunter day; in Deschutes County there are 75,885 deer hunter days per year in the county for a value of $3,543,100. The negative economic consequences of applying regulations to limit conflicts in deer migration corridors are generally borne by individuals prevented from doing an activity such as building a home or road, or dividing land or developing a use which would cause increased traffic or a change in the vegetation which could decrease the quality of the forage or cover. Limiting surfacemining activity could increase the cost of operation of the surface mine. Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chaper Page 27 01.19-0219 2. Social Consequences: The the positive social consequence of limiting development to protect deer migration corridors is the retention of the stable deer populations for hunters and the public which enjoys viewing wildlife. Negative social consequences are restriction of residential uses and resorts which could provide recreational opportunities. The opportunities to live in rural areas may be somewhat reduced by limiting partitions which would otherwise be allowed by the underlying zoning. Siting standards could limit the ability of people to site their dwellings in their preferred location. 3. Environmental Consequences: Opportunities for big game to travel freely without undue disturbance, obstacles or harassment would be a positive environmental consequence of protecting deer migration corridors. Other species of wildlife benefit from undeveloped habitat and a low density of development. Requirements to cluster dwellings or site them near existing roads would limit disturbance of vegetation and provide more open space. Limiting the area available for extraction of aggregate resources provides more area for the deer to pass through in their migration. 4. Energy Consequences: Energy consequences from limiting development in the deer migration corridor winter range will be a reduction in vehicle trip generation associated with development located in rural areas. As a result, development should occur closer to urban areas where services are more available and can be provided with less energy cost. For additional ESEE consequences see the following documents incorporated herein by reference: a. The Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study Chapter 6, pages 6-1 through 6-16; Chapter 7, pages 7-1 through 7-30. b. River Study Staff Report, May 1986, pages 21-26. C. ODFW Central Region Administrative Report No. 86-2 and 92-1. d. La Pine Area Wildlife/Subdivision Study, 1977. 5. Conclusion: Based on the ESEE analysis, the county finds that the identified deer migration corridor and residential and other conflicting uses within the corridor are important relative to each other, and that the conflicts should be balanced by restricting or regulating certain uses and prohibiting others. Therefore, the county determines that conflicting uses should be specifically limited and the resource should be protected through a 113C" designation. Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chaper Page 28 010-0220 6. Program to Achieve the Goal (Protect Deer Migration Corridor) The Bend/La Pine deer migration corridor has been added to the Wildlife Combining Zone by Ordinance 92-040 which adopts comprehensive plan policies regarding the corridor, by ordinance 92-041 which adopts these ESEE findings as part of the Resource Element of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, and by Ordinance 92-046 which amends the zoning map to include the migration corridor as part of the Wildlife Area Combining Zone. The Wildlife Area Combining Zorie, Title 18.88, (WA) has been amended by Ordinance No. 92-042 to require cluster development for all land divisions in the RR -10 zone in the Bend/La Pine migration corridor. A 20 acre parcel is the minimum size required for a cluster development. Although much of the land is already divided into lots less than 5 acres, the 20 acre minimum lot size and the requirement for cluster developments will retain the much of the limited open space important for the passage of deer. The siting standards and fencing standards in the WA zone apply in the deer migration corridor. The fencing standards are those recommended by ODFW to allow for safe passage of the deer. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife shall be notified of any land use action in the migration corridor and will have the opportunity to comment on development proposals. The county has created a map of the migration corridor that shows the parcelization pattern in 5 size categories. Most of the land is already divided into parcels 5 acres or less. The county and ODFW will work together to identify priority areas for land acquisition and work with Federal agencies to assure that land important for migration is retained in federal ownership or protected with conservation easements to retain the limited amount of open space in the corridor. Ordinance 92-040 amended the Comprehensive Plan add the following policies to the Fish and Wildlife Resources chapter: 14. The county shall maintain an inventory of county owned property in the Bend/La Pine deer migration corridor. Prior to sale or exchange of county owned property in the corridor, the county shall consult the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to determine the value of the land for deer migration. 15. The county shall work with ODFW to identify specific areas where the county and ODFW shall encourage public retention and acquisition of land or seek conservation easements for the protection of the migration corridor. Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chaper Page 29 0119-0221 The conflicting use of surface mining activity is limited by Title 18.52.110(K) which limits the extraction area to five acres, excluding access roads, equipment storage areas, processing equipment sites and stockpiles. Destination Resorts have been identified as a conflicting use with significant big game habiat. The Board of County Commissions has adopted a policy (Ordinance 92-040) to prohibit siting of destination resorts in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone pending completion of the Goal 8 mapping process which shall be accomplished by December 31, 1992. Metolius Deer Migration Corridor -- The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has provided the county with a map showing the overall boundary of the migration corridor used by deer to move between the summer range and the Metolius and Tumalo winter ranges and between the two winter ranges. The general corridor boundary is identified on the attached 111B" Deer Migration Corridor Map. However, ODFW is not able at this time to provide the the County with documented evidence of the precise location or quantity of the resource. Migration occurs throughout the identified area, however ODFW does not have specific information on the numbers of animals, or density of use except for Oregon Department of Transportation road kill reports. ODFW may be able to study the migration corridor with the use of radio collars. However, budget constraints may limit the study. Because there is insufficient information on the location, quality and quantity of the resource for the Metolius deer migration corridor, the County is designating the corridor as a "iB" Goal 5 resource. Ordinance 92-040 adopted Policy 13 which requires the county to review the 111B" Metolius migration corridor during the next periodic review or as additional information on the location, quality and quantity of the resource becomes available. Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chaper Page 30 ELK HABITAT 0,119-0223 "9— 2 Description: Elk habitat significant for calving, summer and winter range. Inventory. Location. Quality and Quantity: The Land and Resource Management Plan for the Deschutes National Forest identifies 6 key elk habitat areas in Deschutes County. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife also recognizes these areas as critical elk habitat for calving, winter or summer range. Except for the Ryan area, ODFW confirms the boundaries of the habitat areas identified -by the Forest Service. In the Ryan area, ODFW has expanded the boundary north to Forest Service Road 4601. The following areas are mapped on the Big Game Habitat Area Map and in maps in the Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Appendix 16. Tumalo Mountain Kiwa Ryan Fall River Crane Prairie Clover Meadow Biologists from the Deschutes National Forest and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife have also identified two additional areas which are presently.used by elk; however, there is not sufficient information to establish that these areas are significant habitat which require additional protection. The ODFW has not conducted population surveys of these areas to determine the extent of use or the importance of the Goal 5 habitat. Therefore, these two areas will be included in the inventory as 1B habitat areas and will be addressed through the Goal 5 process in the next periodic - review, or prior to that time as post acknowledgement plan amendment if sufficient information on the location, quality and quanity is avialble to complete the Goal 5 review process. The first 1B area is adjacent to the Fall River habitat area and is located between the Deschutes and Little Deschutes Rivers in -townships 21S, 22S, and 235. The second area is adjacent to the Ryan habitat area and extends north from the Inn of the 7th Mountain and includes the area between the forest boundary and the east boundary of the Tumalo deer winter range. These two areas are identified on the maps entitled La Pine 111B" Elk Habitat Area and Bull Flat 111B" Elk Habitat Area. Conflicting Uses: Tumalo Mountain, Kiwa and Crane Prairie, and Clover Meadow Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 32 01.19-0224 are located entirely within the national forest and are managed under the Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan to protect their value as elk habitat areas. The zoning on these areas is Forest (F-2 or F-1), Landscape Management Combining Zone - LM, Open Space Conservation - OS&C, or Flood Plain - FP. Ryan and Fall River habitat areas are adjacent to and include some private land; the areas contain F-1, F-2, LM, Surface Mining - SM, and FP zoning. Except for the surface mining site, there are no other identified significant Goal 5 resources which would conflict with elk habitat. The major conflict is the loss ---of habitat due to increased residential densities in the habitat areas. Increased human disturbance (i.e. snowmobilers, cross county skiers, dogs, residential development, new roads) can cause conflict with elk. The use of land which necessitates the removal of large amounts of vegetative cover can also alter the quality of elk habitat. Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy Consequences of conserving significant elk habitat 1. Economic Consequences: The positive economic consequences of limiting conflicts with elk habitat are the reduction in staff time of ODFW attempting to resolve conflicts between rural residents and wildlife. Hunters depend on the survival of healthy elk populations. Elk hunters spend an average of $48.94 per hunter day and in Deschutes County there are 10,108 elk hunter days, per year with a value to the local economy of $494,690. The negative economic consequences of applying regulations to limit conflicts in sigificant elk habitat are generally borne by individuals prevented from doing an activity such as building a home or road, or dividing land, or developing a use which would cause increased traffic or a change in the vegetation which could decrease the quality of the forage or cover. However, since the elk habitat is generally zoned for forest use, the restrictions to protect forest land require relatively large minimum lot sizes and dwellings are not an outright permitted use. Protection of vegetation for habitat and cover could limit the harvest of commercial tree species. 2. Social Consequences: The positive social consequences of limiting development to protect elk habitat are the retention of the elk populations for the enjoyment of the public. The negative social consequence is limited to the small amount of private land identified as significant elk habitat. In order to limit the density of development, private land owners may be prohibited Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 33 from dividing their land and constructing a `� n"�"V08C rh5 a new arcel. 6TI -, 3. Environmental Consequences: Opportunities for big game to flourish in a habitat without repeated interference or disturbance from man would be a positive environmental consequence. Other species of wildlife benefit from large open space environment and a low density of development. 4. Energy Consequences: The energy consequence from limiting development in elk habitat will be a reduction in trip generation associated with development located in rural areas. As a result development should occur closer to urban areas where services are more available and can be provided with less energy cost. For additional ESEE consequences see the following documents which are hereby incorporated by reference: a. The Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study Chapter 6, pages 6-1 through 6-16; Chapter 7, pages 7-1 through 7-30. b. River Study Staff Report, May 1986, pages 21-26. 5. Conclusion: Based on the ESEE analysis, the county finds that the identified elk habitat and residential, recreational and other conflicting uses of lands within the habitat are important relative to each other and that the conflicts and the value of the habitat should be balanced by regulating or restricting certain uses and prohibiting others. Therefore, the county determines that conflicting uses should be specifically limited and the resource should be protected through a 113C" designation. 6. Program to Achieve the Goal (Conserve Significant Elk Habitat): The Wildlife Area Combining Zone, Title 18.88 (WA) zone will be applied to all areas identified as significant elk habitat. The county WA Zone has been amended to require a 160 acre minimum lot size for areas identified as significant elk habitat. Certain uses normally allowed in the underlying zones are also prohibited in the WA zone, and siting standards to minimize the conflict of residences with habitat protection are required. The underlying zoning in the elk habitat areas is either Flood Plain, Forest, or Open Space and Conservation. These resource zones restrict high density residential development and prohibit industrial and commercial uses. Most of the elk habitat is managed by the Deschutes National Forest. The Deschutes National Forest Land and Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 34 V7,19-0226 Resource Management Plan establishes specific elk habitat management objectives for each identified area. A comprehensive plan policy to require review of the two 1B elk habitat areas in the next county periodic review shall be adopted. Destination Resorts have been identified as a conflicting use with significant big game habitat. The Board of County Commissioners has adopted a policy (Ordinance 92-040) to prohibit siting of destination resorts in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone pending completion of the Goal 8 mapping process which shall be accomplished by December 31, 1992. Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 35 AN ANTELOPE HABITAT 0 119-0229 Inventory Information: The Bend and Ochoco District offices of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife have provided maps of the antelope range and antelope winter range. The available information is adequate to indicate that the resource is significant. The antelope habitat is mapped on the Big Game Habitat -Wildlife Area Combining Zone Map. Location, Ouantity and Quality: In 1978 the Oregon Department of -Fish and Wildlife identified antelope range in the eastern part of Deschutes County. This area is known as the North Paulina antelope range. The area is mapped on the Big Game Habitat -Wildlife Area Combining Zone Map. The antelope winter range areas are Millican and Kotzman Basin in the Bend ODFW District and the Hampton/Brothers area in the Ochoco District. These areas are where the antelope typically congregate in herds during the winter months. During the spring, summer and fall the animals are more dispersed throughout the range. These winter ranges are zoned EFU 320. ODFW has provided new information on expansion of the North Paulina antelope range. The expanded habitat area includes land in T18S, R14E; and T19S, R14E and R15E. The area is predominately Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land. The land is zoned EFU 40. Most of the antelope range is zoned EFU-320. The area inside of the Deschutes National Forest boundary is zoned Forest (F-1) with an 80 acre minimum lot size. The communities of Brothers, Millican and Hamilton are located within the antelope range. These communities have limited area zoned Rural Service Center (RSC). Millican also and Hamilton also have approximately 15 acres zoned Rural Service Center - 5 (RSR -5). The area zoned RSC and RSR -5 is less than 40 acres for each center. The vegetation in the antelope range is sage, juniper and bitterbrush plant community. In the summer antelope require rather open terrain with a good supply of forbs and grasses coupled with some rather thick stands of sage brush for concealment of young. Winter habitat requires extensive flat areas of mainly forbs, low sage and grasses. Conflicting Uses: Land uses or development activities which would result in the loss of habitat, and animal harassment and disturbance associated with human activity. Except for the rural service centers, the antelope habitat is zoned Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 38 EFU-40, EFU-320 or F-1. The uses permitted and conditionally permitted in the EFU and Forest zone are listed in Title 18.16 and 18.36 and 18.40. Agricultural use (grazing) practiced in the area is not a conflicting use according to ODFW. Antelope are currently causing agricultural damage to a pivot irrigated alfalfa operation during the late fall and winter months. 0,119-0230 Residential development at a density greater than 1:320 could be a conflicting use. High use recreational facilities, or uses which would cause congregation of people such as churches or schools could be conflicting uses. The ODFW Wildlife Guide for Land Use Planning recommends an acceptable density of development in the antelope winter range of 1:320. acres. The uses permitted in the RSC and RSR -5 zone are listed in 18.64 and 18.72. Because the extent of the commercial, tourist and residential uses in the RSC and RSR -5 zones are limited to small, compact area of the rural service centers, within the extensive habitat area, they should not be a conflict with the antelope habitat. There are 19 sites zoned for surface mining in the antelope range. The ESEEs for the surface mining recognize the antelope use in the vicinity of the surface mining. The mines are mostly located along the highway and the rock extraction is of limited duration. According to ODFW, the mining activities will not cause a significant conflict with the antelope.. Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy Consequences of conserving significant antelope habitat 1. Economic Consequences: The positive economic consequence of limiting conflicts with antelope habitat are the reduction in staff time attempting to resolve conflicts between residential uses and wildlife. Antelope hunters contribute to the economy of the county and they depend on the survival of stable antelope populations. The negative economic consequences of applying regulations to limit conflicts in antelope range are generally borne by individuals prevented from doing an activity such as building a residence or road, or dividing land, or developing a use which would cause increased traffic or a change in the vegetation which could decrease the quality of the forage or cover. 2. Social Consequences: The positive social consequences of limiting development to protect antelope populations and habitat are the retention of open space and the populations of antelope for the enjoyment of the public. The negative social consequence is limited to the private land identified Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 39 0.19-0231. as antelope habitat. In order to limit the density of development private land owners could be prohibited from dividing land and constructing a dwelling on a new parcel. 3. Environmental Consequences: Opportunities for antelope to flourish in a habitat without repeated interference or disturbance from man would be a positive environmental consequence. Other species of wildlife, including sage grouse, benefit from a large open space environment and a low density of development. 4, Energy Consequences: The positive energy consequences of limiting certain development inithe antelope range are the reduction in trip generation associated with residential or other non resource related development in the EFU or forest zones. There are no identified negative energy consequences. 5. Conclusion: Based on the ESEE analysis, the county finds that the identified antelope habitat and the conflicting uses are important relative to each other. Therefore, the county determines that conflicting uses should be specifically limited and the resource should be protected through a 113C" designation. 6. Program to Achieve the Goal (Conserve Antelope Habitat) Based on the ESEE analysis the county finds that the uses conflicting with antelope habitat should be specifically limited by the application of the Wildlife Area Combining Zone (Title 18.88). This zone limits specific conflicting uses including schools, golf courses and churches. In the antelope range the minimum lot size is be 320 acres. The rural service centers of Millican, Hamilton and Brothers shall be excluded from the Wildlife Area Combining Zone. The siting and fencing standards in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone apply in the antelope habitat. Destination Resorts have been identified as a conflicting use with significant big game habitat. The Board of County Commissioners has adopted a policy (Ordinance 92-040) to prohibit siting of destination resorts in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone pending completion of the Goal 8 mapping process which shall be accomplished by December 31, 1992. Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 40 HABITAT AREAS FOR SENSITIVE BIRDS 0119-0232 Description: Nest sites for for northern bald eagle, osprey, golden eagle, prairie falcon, great grey owl, and great blue heron rookeries. Inventory: The information presented in Tables 5 - 20 has been provided by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Oregon Department of Forestry, Oregon State University Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit and the Oregon Natural Heritage Data Base. The inventory is divided into three categories for each species: 1) sites on federal land (U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management), 2) sites on non-federal land and sites where the sensitive area around the nest site could extend onto non-federal land, 3) 111B" sites where there is insufficient locational information. The sites located on federal land are not analyzed further in the Goal 5 process as they protected through the management and planning process for federal lands. Location, Quality and Quantity: The location of the sites is either specifically located and identified on the Sensitive Bird and Mammal Habitat Map as a known location site. If the site is identified only to the nearest quarter section, the site is identified on the Sensitive Bird and Mammal Combining Zone Map as a general location site. When the locational information is available only to the nearest quarter section, ODFW will specifically identify exact habitat site location at the time of a development proposal near the habitat site. Sites which are not located to at least a quarter section are listed as 111B" sites because there is insufficient locational information for the site. The quality of the habitat sites is good as the sites are currently being used for nesting purposes. However, the Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study (p. 6-9) notes that the number of active nest sites for golden eagles has decreased 75 percent in the 20 year observation period 1965 - 1984. This decrease is attributed to the increase in land development and human activities. The Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study, Chapter 6 provides detailed information on the habitat needs of the sensitive bird species. The area required for each nest site varies between species. The minimum area required for protection of nest sites has been identified by the Oregon Department of fish and wildlife in their management guidelines for protecting colony nesting birds, osprey, eagles and raptor nests. The area recommended for eagle, osprey and prairie falcon nests is a radius of Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 41 1320 feet from the nest site. The recommended radius from a great blue heron rookery is 300 feet and 900 feet from a great gray owl nest site. Conflicting Uses Determination and Analysis: The nest sites are found in forest, exclusive farm use and Open Space Conservation zones in the county. The uses permitted in these zones that could conflict with the habitat site are surface mining, residential use, recreation facilities including golf courses and destination resorts, roads, logging, air strips. In general, any activity which would disturb the nesting _.-birds, including intensive recreational use or removal of the trees or vegetation that make the site desireable, could conflict with the habitat site. Chapter 6 of the Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study contains additional information on the location, quality and quantity of the sensitive birds and their habitat and identifies conflicting uses and ESEE consequences. Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy Consequences of Conserving sensitive bird sites 1. Economic Consequences: Limiting the extraction of aggregate to protect sensitive bird nest sites could make a potential aggregate resource site unavailable. The economic consequences of protecting sensitive bird nest sites from residential conflicts could prohibit the development of a property for residential use which would lower its value. Regulating or prohibiting conflicting uses associated with intensive recreational use or resort development could restrict the area available for such development. The positive economic consequences of limiting conflicts are the protection of the birds which are an important amenity for tourists to the area. 2. Social Consequences: The negative social consequence of limiting residential or recreational development near sensitive bird nest sites could be the be inability to locate a residence or development in the desired location. Limiting recreational opportunities would cause those activities to be channeled to other areas. However, by limiting such conflicting uses bird watchers would have enhanced opportunities. 3. Environmental Consequences: The environmental consequences of limiting development near sensitive bird nest sites are positive. Opportunities for birds to nest in a habitat without repeated interference or disturbances from man should be a positive consequence. Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 42 r Restricting vegetation removal through a manag plan will retain habitat features which are necess� birds. Limiting residential, recreational and res development in the vicinity of a nest would limit disturbance which could cause the birds to leave the habitat site. 4. Energy Consequences: There are no significant energy consequences associated with protection of nest sites. 5. Conclusion: Based on the ESEE analysis, the identified consequences should be balanced so as to allow the conflicting uses but in a limited way so as to protect the resource to a desired extent. 6. Program to Achieve the Goal (protect sensitive bird sites) For supporting Findings, Goals and Policies see the Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study pages 13-17 through 13-20, and the River Study Staff Report page 1 through 99. Ordinance 86-019 adopted goals and policies to implement the Deschutes County City of Bend River Study to protect wildlife resources. Ordinance 92-042 adopted the Sensitive Bird and Mammal Combining Zone for the sensitive birds and the Townsend's big -eared bat. The zone requires that a management plan be developed with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife if a development is proposed within the inventoried habitat site. The zone does.not regulate forest practices which are regulated by the Forest Practices Act. Ordinance 92-046 adopted the Sensitive Bird and Mammal Habitat Combining Zone Map. Ordinance 92-040 amended the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan to adopt Policy Number 7 in the Fish and Wildlife Chapter to require protection of sensitive bird and mammal species with the Sensitive Bird and Mammal Habitat Combining Zone. The Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and the Bureau of Land Management Brothers/LaPine Resource Management Plan identify the habitat needs of the sensitive birds and require management to protect the nest sites on federal lands. The Forest Practices Act also has provisions to protect sensitive nesting, roosting and watering sites. Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 43 Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 44 0119-0235 TABLE 5 BALD EAGLE NEST SITE INVENTORY NEST SITES ON NON-FEDERAL LAND OR WITH POTENTIAL NON-FEDERAL HABITAT AREAS Township Range Section Quarter General Location 15S 10E 23 NWNE Cloverdale NE 15S 10E 23 NENE Cloverdale SE 17S 11E 26 NW Shevlin Park 20S 10E 34 NESW Bates Butte 22S 09E 04 NE Wickiup Reservoir 22S 09E 04 SW Haner Park 22S 09E 06 SW Wickiup Dam Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 44 TABLE 6 BALD EAGLE NEST SITE INVENTORY 0119-0236 NEST SITES ON FEDERAL LAND Township Range Section Quarter General Location 18S 08E 32 NE Elk Lake 18S 08E 33 NE Hosmer Lake 19s- 08E 27 SW -- Lava Lakes - W 19S 08E 27 SE Lava Lakes - E 20S 07E 35 SW Lemish Butte 20S 07E 35 S 1/2 Lemish Butte 20S 08E 08 SE Benchmark Bu - W 20S 08E 09 SW Benchmark Bu - SE 20S 08E 09 SW Benchmark Bu - NE 20S 08E 33 SE Crane Pr Res NE -S 20S 08E 33 SE Crane Pr Res NE -NE 20S 08E 33 SE Crane Pr Res NE 20S 08E 33 NE Crane Pr Res NE - NW 21S 07E 01 SE Crane Pr Res W 21S 07E 01 SW Crane Pr Res W 21S 07E 01 SE Crane Pr Res W 21S 07E 01 NW Quinn River 21S 08E 05 SE Crane Pr Res E 21S 08E 04 NW Crane Pr Res E 21S 08E 04 W 1/2 Crane Pr Res E - SE 21S 08E 04 W 1/2 Crane Pr Res E - NW 21S 08E 07 SE Crane Pr Res S 21S 08E 08 SW Crane Pr Res S Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 45 Township Range Section Quarter 21S O8E 08 SW 21S 08E 20 SE 21S 08E 32 NE 21S 08E 32 NE 21S- 08E 34 SW -- 21S 08E 34 SE 21S 08E 34 SE 21S 08E 34 SE 21S 08E 34 SE 21S 08E 34 SE 21S 09E 13 NE 21S 09E 34 NE 21S 13E 19 SE 21S 13E 19 SW 21S 13E 19 S 1/2 22S 07E 26 SW 22E 07E 26 SW 22E 07E 34 SW 22S 07E 34 SW 22S O8E 07 NE 22S 08E 06 SE 22S 08E 06 SE 22S 08E 06 SE 22S 08E 15 SW 22S 08E 15 SE Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 46 Iq ..- c? 3-7 General Location Crane Pr Res S Browns Mountain Browns Creek - W Browns Creek -E Wickiup Res N Wickiup Res N Wickiup Res N Wickiup Res N Wickiup Res N Wickiup Res N Tetherow Mdw Deschutes R Ox East Lake E East Lake SW East Lake SE Davis Lake NW Davis Lake NW Davis Lake W - W Davis Lake W - E Davis Creek - S Davis Creek - N Davis Creek Davis Creek - E Wickiup Res W - W Wickiup Res W - E Township Range Section Quarter General Location 22S 08E 23 NE Wickiup Res S - E 22S 08E 23 N 1/2 Wickiup Res S - S 22S 08E 23 NW Wickiup Res S - W 22S 08E 23 NW Wickiup Res S - N 22S` 08E 25 NE-- Round Swamp - E 22S 08E 24 S 1/2 Round Swamp - NE 22S 08E 25 NE Round Swamp - S 22S 08E 24 SE Round Swamp - N 22S 09E 06 SE Wickiup Dam - E 22S 09E 20 SW Eaton Butte 22S 09E 20 SW Eaton Butte 22S 09E 20 SW Eaton Butte Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 47 TABLE 8 GOLDEN EAGLE NEST SITE INVENTI'ORY NEST SITES ON FEDERAL LAND 19S 13E 05 Center Coyote Butte Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A” Comprehensive Plan - Fish & WIldlife Chapter Page 48 TABLE 7 �✓„119—®239 GOLDEN EAGLE NEST SITE INVENTORY NEST SITES ON NON-FEDERAL LAND OR WITH POTENTIAL NON-FEDERAL HABITAT AREA Township Range Section Quarter General Location 14S 11E 03 NENW Squaw Creek Rimrock Ranch 14S 11E 23 NWSW McKenzie Canyon 14S 11E 24 NWSE Deep Canyon 14S 12E 29/28 line Buckhorn Canyon 14S 12E 23 SWNW N. Odin Falls 14S 13E 11 NENE Smith Rock State Park French Tent Nests 14S 13E 11 NENE Smith Rock State Park Monument Nests 14S 13E 11 NENW Smith Rock State Park Little Three Fingered Jack Nest 14S 13E 11 SENW Smith Rock State Park Misery Ridge Nest 14S 13E 11 NESW Smith Rock State Park Red Wall 15S 11E 17 SENW Fryear Road - 1 15S 11E 16 SWSW Fryear Road - 2 TABLE 8 GOLDEN EAGLE NEST SITE INVENTI'ORY NEST SITES ON FEDERAL LAND 19S 13E 05 Center Coyote Butte Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A” Comprehensive Plan - Fish & WIldlife Chapter Page 48 TABLE 9 Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & WIldlife Chapter Page 49 01-19-0240 PRAIRIE FALCON NEST SITE INVENTORY NEST SITES ON NON-FEDERAL LAND OR WITH POTENTIAL NON-FEDERAL HABITAT AREA Township Range Section Quarter General Location 14S 13E 11 NENE Smith Rock State Park French Tent Nests 14S 13E 11 NWSW Smith Rock State Park Monkey Face 14S 13E 11 SWSW Smith Rock State Park Asterisk Pass Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & WIldlife Chapter Page 49 TABLE 10 OSPREY NEST SITE INVEN`I.'ORY NEST SITES ON NON-FEDERAL LANDS OR WITH NON-FEDERAL HABITAT AREA Township Range Section 20 11 07 0-7-19-0241 Quarter General Location NENW Sunriver/Meadowland Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 50 TABLE 11 OSPREY - NEST SITE INVEN`T'ORY 01119-0242 NEST SITES ON FEDERAL LAND Township Range Section Quarter General Location 18S 11E 04 Desch Ri/Dillon Fall 18S 11E 34 Desch Ri .2 mi W 18S 11E 35 Desch Ri 1.2 mi W 19S 08E 09 Lava Lake .5 mi S 19S 08E 14 Lava lake 1.1 mi SW 19S 08E 23 Lt Lava Lake .2 mi W 19S 08E 27 Lt Lava Lake .2 mi N 19S 08E 33 Lt Lave Lake 2.2 mi N 19S 09E 15 Lava Lake .3 mi SW 19S 10E 18 Desch River 19S 11E 09 Desch Ri/Benham Fall 2 19S 11E 09 Desch River 19S 11E 10 Desch Ri 1.1 mi W 19S 11E 16 Desch River 19S 11E 19 Desch River 20S 08E 03 Lt Lava Lake 2.3 mi N 20S 08E 08 Crane Pra Lake 4.6 MS 20S 08E 14 Crane Pra Lake 3.1 MS 20S 08E 23 Crane Pra Lake 3.1 MS 3 20S 08E 27 Crane Pra Lake 2 20S 08E 28 Crane Pra Lake 3 20S 08E 29 Crane Pra Lake Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 51 Township Range Section Quarter 0.119-0243 General Location 5 20S 08E 31 Crane Pra Lake 4 20S 08E 32 Crane Pra Lake 7 20S 08E 33 Crane Pra Lake 3 20S 08E 34 Crane Pra Lake 2 20S- 08E 36 _._ Crane-Pra Lake 20S 10E 02 Desch Ri 1.0 mi W 20S 10E 30 Fall River .6 mi S 3 21S 07E 01 Crane Pra Lake 21S 07E 02 Crane Pra Lake 2 21S 07E 14 Crane Pra Lake 21S 07E 25 Crane Pra Lake 4 21S 08E 04 Crane Pra Lake 4 21S 08E 05 Crane Pra Lake 5 21S 08E 08 Crane Pra Lake 3 21S 08E 09 Crane Pra Lake 3 21S 08E 16 Crane Pra Lake 21S 08E 17 Crane Pra Lake 2 21S 08E 21 Crane Pra Lake 2 21S 09E 01 Fall River 21S 09E 02 Fall River 21S 09E 09 Desch Ri 2.1 mi SE 21S 09E 11 Desch Ri 1.3 mi S 21S 09E 13 Desch Ri 1.0 mi S 21S 09E 15 Crane Pra Lake 4 ME 21S 09E 15 Desch River Ordinance No. 92-041,- Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 52 0A 10-0244 Township Range Section Quarter General Location 3 21s 09e 22 Desch River 2 21S 09E 23 Desch River 2 21S 09E 26 Desch River 21S 09E 27 Desch River 21S- 09E 28 __ Desch -River 2 21S 09E 33 Desch River 3 21S 09E 34 Desch River 21S 10E 29 Desch Ri 4.0 mi W 21S 10E 30 Desch Ri 3.5 mi W 21S 11E 36 Paulina Lk 3 mi E 21S 12E 18 Paulina Lk 1.9 mi SE 5 22S 07E O1 Crane Pra Lake 3 MW 22S 07E 02 Wickiup Lake 3 22S 07E 10 Wickiup Lake 2 22S 07E 11 Wickiup Lake 22E 07E 12 Crane Pra Lake 22S 07E 15 Wickiup Lake 3 22S 07E 16 Wickiup Lake 3 22S 07E 22 Wickiup Lake 22S 07E 23 Wickiup Lake 3 22S 07E 28 Wickiup Lake 22S 08E 09 Crane Pra Lake 22S 09E 04 Desch River 2 23S 09E 08 Wickiup Lake Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 53 Township Range 14 09 0119-0245 4 TABLE 12 HERON ROOKERY SITE INVENTORY ROOKERY SITES ON NON-FEDERAL LANDS OR WITH NON-FEDERAL HABITAT AREA Section Quarter General Location 10 SWNE Black Butte Ranch TABLE 13 HERON ROOKERY SITE INVEN`T'ORY ROOKERY SITES ON FEDERAL LANDS Township Range Section Quarter General Location 21 08 03 NENW E. of Crane Prairie Reservior Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 54 A 19._(3945 TABLE 14 GREAT GRAY OWL SITE INVEN'T'ORY HABITAT SITES ON NON-FEDERAL LANDS OR WITH NON-FEDERAL HABITAT AREA Township Range Section Quarter General Location 22S 09E 36 SESW Wagon Train North 21S 10E 14 SE Burgess Road TABLE 15 GREAT GREY OWL SITE INVENTORY SITES ON FEDERAL LANDS Township Range Section Quarter General Location 22S 09E 09 SESW Dorrance Meadow Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 55 WATERFOWL HABITAT Inventory: Habitat areas for waterfowl include all of the rives, streams and lakes in the county as well as the perennial wetlands and ponds identified on the 1990 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Wetland Inventory Maps. The riparian areas associated with these water features are also important habitat for waterfowl. The City of Bend sewage treatment ponds (Hatfield Lake) has also been identified as a significant habitat area for waterfowl. The map in the original 1979 comprehnsive plan entitled "Wildlife Habitat Sensitive Areas" identified the following especially sensitive areas for waterfowl: 1. Benham Falls nesting area 2. Sparks Lake 3. Crane Prairie Reservoir 4. Wickiup Reservior 5. Davis Lake These 5 areas are all under federal ownership and management and are protected under the Deschutes National Forest aLnad and Resource Management Plan. They are included in the inventory as waterfowl habitat but are not subject to the Goal 5 process because they are federally managed. Location Quality and Quantity: The significant habitat includes nesting feeding and resting areas with nesting habitat being the most critical need. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has provided a list of all bird species in the county which identifies the time of year they are present in the county and their relative abundance. Waterfowl are included in this inventory. This information is displayed in Table 1. The ODFW has also provided a list of birds found at the City of Bend sewage treatment ponds. The Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study, Chapter 6, provides information on waterfowl habitat location, quality and quantity. Conflicting Uses Determination and Analysis: Future resort and vacation home development, human activity associated with recreation rivers and lakes, timber -cutting around sensitive habitats, fill and removal of material in wetlands and within the bed and banks of rivers and streams and removal of riparian vegetation are conflicting uses with waterfowl habitat. Fluctuating water levels are also a conflict as they may flood nest sites and/or allow them to be exposed to predators. Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy Consequences of Conserving Waterfowl Habitat areas. Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 56 1. Economic Consequences: The positive economic consequences of limiting conflicting uses are the protection of habitat which will maintain or increase waterfowl populations and the natural quality of the areas. Abundant waterfowl and other wildlife attract tourists and hunters to the region. The maintenance of riparian and wetland habitat required for waterfowl may increase the value of property because of the aesthetic values often associated with natural areas and wildlife. 2. Social Consequences: By limiting residential development or other development or restricting fill and removal, including --removal of vegetation, owners -of the affected parcels may be negatively restricted from developing their property in the way they desire. However, there are land owners who consider the habitat and presence of waterfowl to be an amenity which increases the value of their property. 3. Environmental Consequences: The environmental consequences of limiting development in waterfowl habitat areas are positive. Opportunities for birds to mate, nest and fledge their your in a habitat without repeated interference or disturbances from man is a positive consequence of conservation. 4. Energy Consequences: Restricting development of hydro- electric development is a negative energy consequence. This consequence is discussed thoroughly in Chapter 4 of the Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study ESEE findings and conclusions. Additional information and ESEE analysis is provided in the Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study, Chapter 6 and the River Study Staff Report. 5. Conclusion: Based on the ESEE analysis, the identified consequences should be balanced so as to allow the conflicting uses but in a limited way so as to protect the resource to a desired extent. 6. Program to Achieve the Goal (protect waterfowl habitat) The findings of the Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study resulted in the adoption of the Deschutes River Corridor Chapter in the Comprehensive Plan. This chapter was adopted by Ordinance 86-19. The adopted goals and policies protect the water, fish and wildlife, open space, recreation, archaeologic, energy, historical and cultural resources of the and resources of the Deschutes River and its tributaries. The ordinances implementing the River Study goals and policies which either directly or indirectly protect waterfowl habitat are: Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 57 0 19=0249 Ordinance No. 86-018 amended Ordinance No. PL -15 to prohibit hydroelectric facilities in designated stretches of the Deschutes River and its tributaries, and to allow hydroelectric facilities in designated stretches of the Deschutes River and its tributaries, and to allow hydroelectric facilities as conditional uses in designated zones and stretches of the Deschutes River. (Title 18.96 and 18.116.130 and 18.128.040(W), Deschutes County Code). Ordinance No. 86-056 amended Ordinance No. PL -15 to require a conditional use permit for any fill and removal, including removal of vegetation, within the bed and banks of any .-stream or wetland. The bed and banks of a stream is defined to include 10 feet on either side of the container of the waters of a stream. (Title 18.128.040(W), Deschutes County Code). Ordinance No. 86-054 amended Ordinance No. PL -15 to require conservation easements as a condition of approval for land use actions on property adjacent to certain rivers and streams. (Title 18.116.310, Deschutes County Code). Ordinance 89-030 amended the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan for Flood Hazard zones. Ordinance 88-031 amended PL -15 to establish a new Flood Plain zone and use restrictions. (Title 18.96, Deschutes County Code) Ordinance 89-009 established specific restrictions for boat docks, slips, piers or houses in the Flood Plain zone. (Title 18.96 and 18.116.070, Deschutes County Code). All zones in Title 18 have a stream setback provision to protect fish and wildlife areas. The setback requirement is 100 feet from the ordinary high water mark along all streams or lakes. The provision applies to all structures and sewage disposal installations. Title 18.84, Landscape Management Zone requires retention of existing vegetation to screen development form the river or stream. The retention of vegetation can provide a buffer between development and the nesting and feeding sites of waterfowl. Ordinance 92-040 added the following policy to the fish and Wildlife policies of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan: The county shall work with the ODFW and the Deschutes Basin Resource Committee to review existing protection of riparian and wetland area vegetation and recommend comprehensive plan and ordinance amendments, if necessary, by December 31, 1993. Ordinance 92-045 adopts the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 58 National Wetlands Inventory maps for Deschutes County as the inventory of wetlands in the county. (1-11 Ordinance 92-042 adopts the Combining Zone, Title 18.90. plan prior to development with blue herons, and osprey. Sensitive Bird and Mammal This zone requires management in the impact area of great These goals, policies, and ordinances along with, the Oregon State Scenic Waterway and the Federal Wild and Scenic designations on segments of the certain rivers and streams are the implementing measures to protect waterfowl habitat on the Deschutes River and its tributaries --and perennial wetlands and ponds. The Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management plan also contains provisions to protect identified waterfowl habitat. In addition, the forest and EFU zones require large minimum lot sizes which limits the potential density of development in the areas adjacent many of the rivers, streams, wetlands and ponds used for waterfowl habitat. The county notifies the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife of all requests for fill and removal or development proposals in the flood plain zone, Wildlife Area Combining Zone, or along any designated river or stream or wetland. For additional supporting Findings, Goals and Policies see the Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study and the River Study Staff Report. Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 59 UPLAND GAME BIRD HABITAT Inventory 119-0251 The following upland game birds are found in Deschutes County: Estimated upland game population in 1980 (ODF&W 1985): Ring-necked Pheasant 200 Valley Quail 10,000 Mountain Quail 50 Chukar Partridge 300 Turkey 50 Blue Grouse 900 Sage Grouse 1,800 Ruffed Grouse 100 Mourning Dove 8,000 Location, Quality and Quantity The habitat for upland game birds is dispersed throughout the county in the riparian, forest, agricultural and rangeland areas of the county. Valley quail and mourning doves are the most common upland game birds. Pheasants, and to a lesser extent valley quail, are truly products of and dependent upon agriculture for their existence. Ideal habitat includes a varied patchwork of seed -producing crops interspersed with brushy fence rows, ditches, streams and woodlots. This type of land cover pattern provides their basic needs of food, water and cover. These birds are primarily found in the Terrebonne and Alfalfa areas. Since pheasants are products of agriculture, they are generally found on farmlands, with no area being essentially more critical than another. However, in many places, riparian vegetation is the only cover available and these thin strips are considered as sensitive areas. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has not identified critical habitat areas for any of the upland game species except for the sage grouse. Sage grouse inhabit the sagebrush -grass areas in the eastern portion of the County. The population of sage grouse has shown considerable fluctuation over the years. Present populations are somewhat below average. Areas of particular concern for the sage grouse are the strutting grounds, known as leks. Strutting grounds are flat areas with vegetation less than six inches high on which the males exhibit a breeding display called strutting to attract the females. The sage grouse range and known strutting grounds are shown on the Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 60 Sensitive Bird Habitat Map. The leks is also listed in Tables 12 Bird section of this chapter. inventory of sage grouse and 13 in the Sensitive Ruffed grouse and turkey are found mostly on the Deschutes National Forest in forested and riparian habitat. Blue grouse are also mostly on the national forest and are frequently found on ridge tops. Chukars live in grass land habitat and in grassy canyons and also rely on riparian habitat. Conflicting Uses Determination and Analysis: Pheasant and quail are affected whenever agricultural land is taken out of production through urban sprawl, road construction, industrial development, and other land clearing activities. Farming practices on existing agricultural lands also have an impact. The trend today is to farm as much land as possible. Brushy fence rows, woodlots, and riparian vegetation are constantly being removed at the expense of upland game bird use. Reduced acres of agricultural land combined with clean farming techniques (burning fence rows and removing brush areas) has significantly reduced the ring-necked pheasant population in Deschutes County. The Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study identifies conflicting uses with upland game bird habitat (Chapter 6) and is incorporated here by reference. Sage grouse depend on large areas of undeveloped rangeland habitat. Activities or development which would interfere with the strutting grounds or displace the birds from the areas used for strutting are conflicting uses. These activities could include road construction, surface mining, or any structural development. Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy Consequences of Conserving riparian and wetland habitat 1. Economic Consequences: The positive economic consequences of limiting conflicting uses are the protection of habitat which will maintain or increase the upland game bird populations in the county. Abundant wildlife and natural areas are a main reason tourists visit the county. The maintenance of riparian and wetland habitat may increase the value of property because of the aesthetic values often associated with natural areas and wildlife. 2. Social Consequences: The positive social consequence of limiting conflicting uses is the the protection of habitat which has aesthetic qualities appreciated by Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 61 0119-0253 residents of the area and tourists. Limiting conflicting uses could prevent someone from developing their property in a manner they desire. However, the county does not regulate accepted farming practices which could cause destruction of some habitat outside of riparian areas. 3. Environmental Consequences: The environmental consequences of limiting conflicts with upland game bird habitat are positive. The habitat would be retained or enhanced which results in stable upland game populations. There are no significant negative environmental consequences; -- 4. Energy Consequences: Except for the possible limits on development of hydroelectric facilities, the energy consequences are not significant. The consequences of hydroelectric development are described in detail in the Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study. Additional information and ESEE analysis is provided in the Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study, Chapter 6 and the River Study Staff Report which are hereby incorporated by reference. 5. Conclusion: Based on the ESEE analysis, consequences should be balanced to allow the conflicting uses but in a limited way in order to protect the resource to the desired extent. 6. Program to Achieve the Goal (protect upland game birds): For all of the upland game birds except sage grouse, the habitat is adequately protected by the existing exclusive farm use and forest zoning and the provisions to protect wetlands and riparian areas. The habitat for upland game birds is in the farm and forest zones which provide for minimum lot sizes greater than 20 acres to limit the density of development and the consequent conversion or deterioration of habitat. Any residential development in either the EFU or forest zone requires a conditional use permit. Agriculture is a permitted use in the exclusive farm use zone and the county does not regulate ordinary farming practices which could cause some loss of cover habitat. The county provisions to protect riparian areas and wetlands protect one of the most significant components of upland game habitat. The Oregon Forest Practices Act also contains provisions which regulate forest activities in riparian areas. Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 62 Most of the ruffed grouse, blue grouse, and turkey are found on National Forest lands where the habitat is managed andr �r.. the Deschutes National Forest Land and Management Pla"' ,t� Conflicts with sage grouse habitat are limited by exclusive farm use zoning with a 320 acre minimum lot size throughout their range. In sage grouse habitat the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is notified of any conditional use permit and provided an opportunity to identify any conflicts. However, because of their sensitivity and importance, the sage grouse leks or strutting grounds need additional protection. Therefore, the leks identified in Table 14 and on the Sensitive Bird and Mammal Habitat Combining Zone Map are included in the Sensitive Bird and Mammal Combining Zone. The combining zone requires a habitat management plan for any activity located within a 1,320 foot radius of the lek which may cause the lek to be abandoned or destroyed. Because new leks may be established over time, it is possible that mining activities proposed in the future could conflict with a lek not yet established in the sage grouse range. Therefore, prior to expansion or operation of a mining activity, the Goal 5 program to protect surface mining requires consultation with ODFW to develop adequate setback and closure period restrictions to protect any new lek that is not on the inventory. This consultation will assure that the conflicting surface mining activity will not adversely affect the lek. Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 63 Township Range 19E- 14E 20S 17E 20S 18E 20S 19E 21S 15E 21S 16E 21S 17E 21S 17E 21S 18E 21S 18E 22S 16E 22E 17E 22S 17E 22S 17E 22S 18E 22S 18E TABLE 16 SAGE GROUSE T. INVEN'T'ORY SITES ON FEDERAL LANDS Section Quarter 26 S ESE._ 05 NWSW 05 SW 13-24 12 NENWSW 22/24 NESW 18 NE 28 NENE 22 NENE 24 SWSE 11 SWSE 02 SENW 16 NW 32 SWSW 06 SWNE 11 SENEW Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 64 0119-0255 General Location Millican Borrow Pit County Line/ Audobon Site Circle F Reservoir Todd Well Kotzman Basin Mahogony Butte/ The Gap Whiskey Springs Moonshine South Well Viewpoint Antelope Butte Spicer Flat The Rock Jaynes Well Little Mid Lake Squaw Lake Township Range 20S 14E 20S- 16E 20S 16E 22S 17E 22S 19E TABLE 17 61,J 19-0r3b SAGE GROUSE LEK INVEN`T'ORY LEKS ON NON-FEDERAL LANDS OR WITH NON-FEDERAL HABITAT AREA Section Quarter General Location 10 NENW Evans Well 25 NWSW Mof f it Ranch 26 NWNW Moffit Ranch Satellite 06 SWSW 4-Corners/Dickerson Well 18 NENE Nweshal Well Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 65 FORBEARER HABITAT e 19-0 5 Inventory Estimated furbearer population in Deschutes County (ODF&W 1985): Beaver 250 Muskrat 1,000 River Otter- 100 Mink 500 Marten 300 Fisher 5 Coyote 2,600 Red Fox 50 Bobcat 400 Wolverine 6 Raccoon 430 Skunk 100 Badger 250 Weasel 500 Yellow -Bellied Marmot 200 Ground Squirrels 15,000 Snowshoe Hare 1,000 Blacktailed Jackrabbit 5,000 Cottontail 2,000 Porcupine 750 Location, Quality and Quantity The nongame furbearing animals are broadly distributed throughout the county in various habitats including forest, open rangeland, agricultural land and land that is developed. These habitats are found in most zones in the county especially forest and exclusive farm use zones. However, some of the animals thrive in developed, and even urban areas, where habitat still exists. Riparian habitat is especially important for many of the species including beaver, muskrat, otters and mink. Most of the other species also use riparian habitat to some extent. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has not identified any specific habitat sites other than riparian and wetland areas that are critical for the listed species. Conflicting Uses Determination and Analysis: The conflicting uses are those activities or development which would degrade or destroy habitat or disturb the animals causing them to relocate. Conflicts between furbearers and other land uses are minimal in the county. However beavers cut down desired trees, block road culverts, and build dams at the head of irrigation ditches. Other Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 66 species can prey on livestock (coyote) or cause damage to forests (porcupine) or agriculture and landscaping (ground squirrels, rabbits) . 1 1�.��s q, pis Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy Consequences of Conserving riparian and wetland habitat 1. Economic Consequences: The positive economic consequences of limiting conflicting uses are the protection of habitat which will maintain or increase the diversity of nongame wildlife in the county. Abundant wildlife and natural areas are a main reason tourists visit the county.' -The maintenance of riparian and wetland habitat may increase the value of property because of the aesthetic values often associated with natural areas and wildlife. The negative economic consequence of protecting the habitat some of the species is the damage that they cause to livestock, agriculture, forests, and landscaping. 2. Social Consequences: The positive social consequence of limiting conflicting uses is the the protection of habitat which has aesthetic qualities appreciated by residents of the area and tourists. Limiting conflicting uses could prevent someone from developing their property in a manner they desire. However, the county does not regulate accepted farming practices which could cause destruction of some habitat outside of riparian areas. Some of the furbearing nongame animals, including rabbits, ground squirrels and porcupine can cause damage to forest and agriculture, and residential landscaping and gardens. 3. Environmental Consequences: The environmental consequences of limiting conflicts with furbearer habitat are positive. The habitat would be retained or enhanced which results in stable and diverse furbearer populations. There are no significant negative environmental consequences. 4. Energy Consequences: There are no significant energy consequences. Additional information and ESEE analysis is provided in the Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study, Chapter 6 and the River Study Staff Report which are hereby incorporated by reference. Additional analysis of conflicts is also included in the following documents: a. Wildlife Resources of Deschutes County, (ODFW Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 67 1985). 0 19-0259 b. Oregon Non -Game Wildlife Management Plan, (ODFW 1984) pages III -61 through III -82, and pages IV -1 through VI -3. 5. Conclusion: Based on the ESEE analysis, consequences should be balanced to allow the conflicting uses but in a limited way in order to protect the resource to the desired extent. 6. Program to Achieve the Goal (protect furbearers) The furbearer habitat is adequately protected by the existing exclusive farm use and forest zoning and the provisions to protect wetlands and riparian areas. The farm and forest zones require large minimum lot sizes and many uses are permitted only as conditional uses. The large minimum lot size and limited development retains much of the habitat and restricts the density of development which reduces the possibility for harassment from human activity. The measures to protect riparian and wetland habitat are detailed in this plan in the Riparian and Wetland Habitat section. Agriculture is a permitted use in the exclusive farm use zone and the county does not regulate ordinary farming practices which could cause some loss of cover habitat. The Oregon Forest Practices Act regulates forest management activities on private forest land and also contains provisions which regulate forest activities in riparian areas. The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management manage furbearer habitat under their land management plans. For supporting Goals and Policies see the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan page 114 through 138; Deschutes County/ City of Bend River Study, pages 13-1 through 13-45; Oregon Non -Game Wildlife Management Plan, pages IV -1 through VI -3. Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 68 HABITAT AREAS FOR TOWNSEND'S BIG-EARED BATS` om Description: Caves and other sites used by the Townsend's big -eared bats for hibernating, roosting and nursery. Inventory: The inventory information presented in the following tables has been provided by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Oregon State University Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit and the Oregon Natural Heritage Data Base. The sites are used by Townsend's big - eared bats as nursery and hibernating habitat. The inventory separates sites located on federal land from those on private land. The federal sites are not analyzed further in the Goal 5 process as they protected through the management and planning process for federal lands. The sites located on private land are mapped on the Sensitive Bird and Mammal Map. The federal sites are not included on the map unless the impact area around the habitat site extends into private land. One site is listed as 111B" because there is insufficient information to precisely locate the site. TABLE 18 TOWNSEND'S BIG -EARED BAT HABITAT SITES INVEN'T'ORY PRIVATE LAND SITES Township Range Section Quarter General Location 15S 13E 21 SE Redmond Cave 19S 13E 13 E 1/2 Stookey Ranch TABLE 19 TOWNSEND'S BIG -EARED BAT HABITAT SITES ON FEDERAL LAND Township Range Section Quarter General Location 19S 09E 14 SE 1/2 Edison Ice Cave 19S 11E 26 SE 1/4 Lava River Cave 19S 13E 04 SW 1/4 Skeleton Cave 19S 13E 08 SENW Boyd Cave Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 69 TABLE 20 0.119-0261 General Location Wind Cave Pictograph Cave Charley the Cave Charcoal Cave DEG Cave Lees Cave LQM Cave TOWSENDIS BIG -EARED BAT HABITAT "1B" SITE INSUFFICIENT LOCATIONAL INFORMATION 18 12 21 5 miles SE of Deschutes River The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife non -game biologist recommends that the impact area around the cave site where Townsend's big -eared bats are found should be a radius of 1,320 feet. The biologist recommends that prior to approval of any development within the radius of the cave that a management plan be developed to protect the habitat needs of the bats. Researchers are currently studying the bats to learn more about the extent of the habitat. Location, Quality and Quantity: The location of the habitat sites is described above in Tables 1, 2, and 3. Information on the number of bats is available in a report by J. Mark Perkins, Summary of Fort Rock District Use by Bats With Emphasis on Plecotus Townsendii - 1985-1991. The Townsend's big -eared bat is listed as an Oregon sensitive species with a vulnerable classification. The bat is classified as a Federal Category 2 sensitive species. The Category 2 species need additional information in order to be proposed for federal listing as a threatened or endangered species under the federal Threatened and Endangered Species Act. Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 70 TABLE 19 - Continued Township Range Section Quarter 19S 13E 14 SE 1/4 19S 13E 14 SE 1/4 19S 13E 23 SW 1/4 19S 13E 27 NENW __ 19S 13E 23 W 1/2 22S 15E 07 22S 15E 16 SW 1/4 TABLE 20 0.119-0261 General Location Wind Cave Pictograph Cave Charley the Cave Charcoal Cave DEG Cave Lees Cave LQM Cave TOWSENDIS BIG -EARED BAT HABITAT "1B" SITE INSUFFICIENT LOCATIONAL INFORMATION 18 12 21 5 miles SE of Deschutes River The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife non -game biologist recommends that the impact area around the cave site where Townsend's big -eared bats are found should be a radius of 1,320 feet. The biologist recommends that prior to approval of any development within the radius of the cave that a management plan be developed to protect the habitat needs of the bats. Researchers are currently studying the bats to learn more about the extent of the habitat. Location, Quality and Quantity: The location of the habitat sites is described above in Tables 1, 2, and 3. Information on the number of bats is available in a report by J. Mark Perkins, Summary of Fort Rock District Use by Bats With Emphasis on Plecotus Townsendii - 1985-1991. The Townsend's big -eared bat is listed as an Oregon sensitive species with a vulnerable classification. The bat is classified as a Federal Category 2 sensitive species. The Category 2 species need additional information in order to be proposed for federal listing as a threatened or endangered species under the federal Threatened and Endangered Species Act. Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 70 62 Conflicting Uses Determination and Analysis: 0 1-1 9 ® ' The Redmond Cave site is zoned Exclusive Farm Use -40. The Stookey Ranch site is zoned Exclusive Farm Use -320. The uses permitted in these zones that could conflict with the habitat site are surface mining, recreation facilities including golf courses and destination resorts, roads, logging, air strips. The report identified above cites recreational conflicts at most of the caves located on federal land. Large numbers of visitors can disturb the bats. The Deschutes National Forest has also identified the removal of nearby riparian vegetation where the bats feed as aconflicting use. - - Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy Consequences of Conserving sensitive bird sites 1. Economic Consequences: Limiting aggregate extraction as a conflicting use does not have an economic consequence at this time because there are not any identified aggregate sites adjacent to the identified bat habitat sites located on non-federal land. There are no identified aggregate sites with in the impact area of the identified habitat sites on private land. The economic consequences of protecting sensitive bat habitat sites from residential conflicts could prohibit the development of a property for residential use which would lower its value. However, both of the identified sites are located on large parcels where a residence could be located outside of the habitat site. Regulating or prohibiting conflicting uses associated with intensive recreational use or resort development to protect could restrict the area available for such development. Caves are visited by tourists who are interested in geology and natural history. By limiting development and vegetation removal around the bat caves, the caves retain their natural characteristics and attraction to some tourists. If tourist use is limited to reduce conflict with the bats, there could be a minor negative economic consequence. 2. Social Consequences: The negative social consequence of limiting recreational use in or near an identified significant bat cave would cause those activities to be channeled to other areas. Limiting such recreational use on federal lands is not within the jurisdiction of the county. By limiting conflicting uses people interested in wildlife would have enhanced opportunities for viewing the bats in their natural habitat. 3. Environmental Consequences: The environmental consequences of limiting development near sensitive bat Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 71 caves are positive. Opportunities for bats to thrive in a habitat without repeated interference or disturbances from man should be a positive consequence. Restricting vegetation removal through a management plan will retain habitat features which are necessary for the foraging bats. Limiting residential, recreational and resort development in the vicinity of a cave would limit disturbance which could cause the bats to leave the habitat site. 4. Energy Consequences: There are no significant energy consequences associated with limiting conflicts with bat habitat sites. 5. Conclusion: Based on the ESEE analysis, the identified consequences should be balanced so as to allow the conflicting uses but in a limited way so as to protect the resource to a desired extent. 6. Program to Achieve the Goal (protect sensitive bird sites) Ordinance 92-042 adopted the Sensitive Bird and Mammal Combining zone for the sensitive birds and the Townsend's big -eared bat. The zone requires that a management plan be developed and reviewed by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife if a development is proposed within the 1,320 feet of an inventoried Townsend's big -eared bat habitat site on private land. The zone does not regulate forest practices which are regulated by the Forest Practices Act. The Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan has provisions for cave management which prohibit clear cutting within 250 feet of the entrance of caves with significant bat populations. The plan also requires a 150 to 200 foot wide forested corridor between the entrance of the cave and the nearest foraging area. If the foraging area is a nearby stream, trees will not be harvested for 75 to 100 feet on either side. The Forest Service has a guideline which states that significant and potentially significant caves will be protected and managed in accordance with the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988. Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 72 1 ./ WETLANDS AND RIPARIAN AREAS Inventory The 1979 Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan Resource Element identified riparian areas on a map titled Wildlife Habitat Sensitive Areas. However, the mapping is at a such a small scale that it is impossible to determine anything more than the general location of riparian areas along the identified streams. -The Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study inventoried the riparian areas associated with the following rivers and streams as significant: Deschutes River, Little Deschutes River, Crooked River, Squaw Creek, Tumalo Creek, Fall River, Spring River, Indian Ford Creek and Paulina Creek. The River Study inventory was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on June 30, 1986. The county has not conducted an inventory of riparian areas adjacent to lakes and ponds on private land; however, many of these areas are included in the National Wetland Inventory Maps. Riparian areas adjacent to the many lakes on federal lands are managed and protected under the federal land and resource management plans and are not included in the county inventory. Ordinance 92-045 adopted all wetlands identified on the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Maps as the Deschutes County wetland inventory. Location, Quality and Quantity The location and description of wetlands is shown on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Wetland Inventory Maps. Riparian areas are located adjacent to the rivers and streams listed in the inventory adopted in the Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study. The extent of the riparian area varies depending on the soil, terrain, vegetation and hydrology of the area. The riparian area ranges from a narrow band of vegetation directly adjacent to the stream to an extensive area including a broad flood plain and associated wetlands. The wetlands and riparian areas are essential habitat for waterfowl and significant habitat for upland game birds including grouse, quail, mourning doves and pheasants. Many non -game species also depend on the riparian habitat. The riparian vegetation is also an important component of fish habitat to stabilize stream banks and provide shade to maintain desireable water temperatures. Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 73 0 '19-0265 Conflicting Uses Determination and Analysis: Conflicting uses include fill and removal of material, including vegetation which could cause reduction in the size or quality or function of a wetland or cause destruction or degradation of the riparian habitat and vegetation. Locating structural development in wetlands or riparian areas would reduce the habitat and the use of the structure could cause conflicts such as harassment or disturbance of wildlife dependent on the habitat. Cutting of riparian vegetation can remove important shade for streams, eliminate habitat for various waterfowl, furbearers, and nongame bird species and can also increase the potential for erosion or bank instability in riparian areas. Hydroelectric development could alter or destroy riparian habitat. Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy Consequences of Conserving riparian and wetland habitat 1. Economic Consequences: The positive economic consequences of limiting conflicting uses are the protection of habitat which will maintain or increase the fish and wildlife populations and diversity and the natural quality of the areas. Abundant wildlife and natural areas are a main reason tourists visit the county. The maintenance of riparian and wetland habitat may increase the value of property because of the aesthetic values often associated with natural areas and wildlife. 2. Social Consequences: The positive social consequence of limiting conflicting uses is the the protection of habitat which has aesthetic qualities appreciated by residents of the area and tourists. Limiting conflicting uses could prevent someone from developing their property in a manner they desire. 3. Environmental Consequences: The environmental consequences of limiting conflicts with wetland and riparian habitat are positive. The habitat would be retained or enhanced which results in stable and diverse fish and wildlife populations and high water quality for fish. There are no significant negative environmental consequences. 4. Energy Consequences: Limiting hydroelectric development as a conflicting use could reduce the opportunity for hydroelectric energy production and require that power be produced from other sources. Additional information and ESEE analysis is provided in the Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 74 019-00266 Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study, Chapter 6 and the River Study Staff Report which are incorporated herein by reference. 5. Conclusion: Based on the ESEE analysis, consequences should be balanced to allow the conflicting uses but in a limited way in order to protect the resource to the desired extent. 6. Program to Achieve the Goal (protect riparian and wetland habitat) Policies and Goals: The Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study resulted in the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan to include a chapter entitled Deschutes River Corridor (Ordinance 86-019). Goals and policies in the Water Resource, Open Space, Recreation, Fish, and Wildlife sections address riparian habitat protection and enhancement. The public has expressed concern that the County is not adequately protecting riparian vegetation with the existing provisions adopted as a result of the River Study. In order to review the adequacy of riparian area vegetation protection, the County has adopted the following Comprehensive Plan policy in the Fish and Wildlife chapter of the comprehensive plan (Ordinance 92-040): The county shall work with ODFW and the Deschutes Basin Resource Committee to review existing protection of riparian and wetland area vegetation and recommend comprehensive plan and ordinances amendments, if necessary, by December 31, 1993. Zoning Ordinance: In all zones, the county zoning ordinance requires a 100 foot setback from the ordinary high water mark of all streams or lakes for all sewage disposal installations and structures. Title 18.96, Flood Plain Zone - protects riparian habitat and wetlands by requiring a conditional use for any development. One of the specific purposes of the zone is to conserve riparian areas and maintain fish and wildlife resources. The Flood Plain zone also regulates docks and piers and requires a finding that the structure will not cause the deterioration of destruction of wildlife habitat. Title 18.128(W), Fill and Removal - requires a conditional use permit for any fill and removal, including vegetation, in wetlands or within the bed and banks of any streams or river. The bed and bank of a stream includes the container of the Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 75 stream at bank full stage plus 10 feet. Title 18.84.080(1), Landscape Management Zone requires retention of vegetation to screen development from the river. The zone includes land within a state scenic waterway or within 660 feet of the other rivers and streams identified as landscape management. Title 18.84.080.(10), Landscape Management Zone, requires conservation easements for all site plan reviews adjacent to the landscape management rivers and streams. The conservation easements shall not require public access. Title 18.116.220 requires a conservation easement as a condition of approval for all land use actions adjacent to rivers and streams in order to protect natural resources, natural values and water quality. Title 18.128(V) requires conditional use permits for development of hydroelectric facilities. This provision resulted from the Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study (Ordinance 86-018). The regulations require river enhancement and maintenance or enhancement of existing fish and wildlife habitats. Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 76 01-19-0268 HABITAT AREAS FOR THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES The State of Oregon has listed the northern bald eagle, the northern spotted owl, and the wolverine as threatened and the the peregrine falcon as endangered. The inventory, ESEE and program to protect the eagle nest sites is located in the Sensitive Bird Habitat section of this chapter. The northern spotted owl and wolverine habitat are located exclusively on national forest lands. The Deschutes National Forest has inventoried northern spotted owl nest sites and habitat areas and has developed a program to protect the species in accordance with federal requirements. The county has not inventoried or mapped habitat areas for northern spotted owl and wolverine because they are protected by Federal regulations and the Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and/or the Oregon Forest Practices Act and are therefore not subject to the Goal 5 process. There are no known spotted owl or wolverine habitat sites on private land in the county. There are no identified peregrine falcon nest sites in the County. Therefore, in conformance with OAR 660 Division 16, the county has analyzed the data and determined that the northern spotted owl, wolverine and peregrine falcon should not be included on the plan inventory (1A) at this time. During the next periodic review the county will re-examine the available information on threatened and endangered species to determine if they need to be included in the plan inventory and protected as significant Goal 5 resources. Ordinance No. 92-041 - Exhibit "A" Comprehensive Plan - Fish & Wildlife Chapter Page 77 EXHIBIT "B" -10(1-00PV9 FINDINGS OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUPPORTING ADOPTION OF RESOURCE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 18.88 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE. Purpose 1. The purpose of these findings is to support the adoption by the Board of County Commissioners (Board) of: 1) a new Fish and Wildlife Chapter to the Resource Element of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan including the inventory, conflicts analysis and the analysis of the economic, social, environmental and energy (ESEE) consequences of protecting or not protecting County fish and wildlife resources; 2) amendments to the Goals and Policies in the Fish and Wildlife Chapter of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan; 3) amendments to Title 18.88 Wildlife Area Combining Zone of the Deschutes County Code; 4) Title 18.90 Sensitive Bird and Mammal Combining Zone; 5) the National Wetland Inventory Maps for the Wildlife Area Combining Zone and the Sensitive Bird and Mammal Combining Zone. 2. The wildlife inventory, and ESEEs are required to comply with Statewide Planning Goal 5 and its implementing administrative rule OAR 660-16-000. The adoption of the inventories and amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Title 18 have been conducted pursuant to the periodic review of the County's comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances required by ORS Chapter 197 and OAR 660-19-000. Procedural Backuround 3. On November 1, 1979, the Board of County Commissioners adopted its County Comprehensive Plan, including goals and policies for protection of fish and wildlife resources. The Fish and Wildlife chapter of the Resource Element of the Comprehensive Plan contains inventories and discussion of fish and wildlife resources in the county. On November 1, 1979, the Board adopted PL -15 which containing the provisions for the Wildlife Area Combining Zone. 4. On June 30, 1986, the Board adopted the Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study as an amendment to the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan. The River Study contains inventories of fish and wildlife resources and ESEEs analyzing the uses conflicting with the fish and wildlife resources in the Deschutes River corridor and its tributaries. On the same date, the Board adopted amendments to the Comprehensive Plan regarding fish and wildlife resources in the river corridor and implementing ordinances to implement programs to protect the river corridor and its fish and wildlife resources. 1 - EXHIBIT "B" FOR ORDINANCE NO. 92-041 (8/5/92) 0110-0 70 5. The County submitted a draft periodic review order to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) in 1989. The draft periodic review order contained fish and wildlife inventories and ESEEs. On August 27, 1990, DLCD submitted comments to the County on the draft periodic review order. The comments identified deficiencies in the ESEE analysis, conclusions and program to implement Goal 5, and also, identified criteria in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone that were not clear and objective as required by OAR 660-16-010(3). 6. The Deschutes County Planning Commission conducted two public hearings on March 11 and April 22, 1992, to take testimony on the draft fish and wildlife element of the Comprehensive Plan and draft amendments to Title 18 and the Deschutes County Zoning map for the Wildlife Area Combining Zone and Sensitive Bird and Mammal Combining Zone. The Planning Commission conducted work sessions on the Goal 5 wildlife amendments on February 12 and March 25, 1992. On May 13, 1992, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed fish and wildlife changes to the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan and Title 18 to the Board of County Commissioners. 7. The Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on May 26, 1992, to consider testimony on the recommendation of the Planning Commission on the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Title 18. Compliance with Goal 5. 8. Goal 5 is met through (a) the adoption of Goals and Policies in Ordinance 92-040 reflecting Goal 5 requirements; (b) the adoption of Ordinance 92-041, which pursuant to the Goal 5 rule amends the comprehensive plan to inventory each Goal 5 resource, analyze conflicting uses, and analyze the ESEE consequences of protecting or not protecting inventoried fish and wildlife resources, (c) the adoption of zoning ordinance provisions in Ordinance 92-042, as applied to inventoried sites by the map adopted by Ordinance 92-046, which together constitute the County's program to meet the Goal, and (d) the adoption of specific timelines in Ordinance 92-040 for revisiting resource sites inventoried as so-called "1B" sites under the Goal 5 rule. 9. To comply with the requirements of Goal 5 and OAR 660-16-000, the County worked with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to obtain the most recent inventory information on fish and wildlife resources in the county and to identify uses conflicting with the fish and wildlife resources. This inventory information was used to update the inventories in the draft periodic review order and amend the draft ESEE 2 - EXHIBIT "B" FOR ORDINANCE NO. 92-041 (8/5/92) 0119-0271 analyses. In addition, ODFW provided information to support zoning ordinance provisions to resolve conflicts between fish and wildlife resource protection and development. 10. The Board finds that the Goal 5 analysis contained in Ordinance 92-041 for each resource is sufficient to meet the Goal 5 requirements without requiring additional findings here. Compliance with Other Goals 11. GOAL 1 - CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT. The Board finds that Goal 1 is complied with by the notice given and public hearings, as detailed in the findings set forth herein, held both before the Commission and before the Board during this Goal 5 process and by the provisions for citizen participation under the County's Development Procedures Ordinance, codified at Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code. 12. GOAL 2 - LAND USE PLANNING. The purpose of Statewide Planning Goal 2 is the establish a land use planning process and to assure an adequate factual base for land use decision-making. The goal is satisfied in this case by: (a) the adoption of an inventory of fish and wildlife resources as part of the County's comprehensive plan; (b) the conflicts and ESEE analysis for each resource; (c) the existence of a zoning ordinance that, as amended, will implement the ESEE decisions through clear and objective standards; (d) by the adoption of maps showing wildlife areas; and (e) by the extensive factual record generated by the inventory and ESEE process and the site specific treatment of each site. 13. GOAL 3 - AGRICULTURAL LANDS. This ordinance does not conflict with Goal 3. It does not promote new non-farm uses on farm lands. Where there have been conflicts identified with farm uses, such as with the fencing standards found in Chapter 18.88 or the siting standards of Chapter 18.88, those conflicts have been recognized and accommodated. It does not preclude continuation of any existing farming practices. Consequently, adoption of the County's historic resources package does not conflict with Goal 3. 14. GOAL 4 - FOREST LANDS. The Goal 4 analysis with respect to forest lands is the same as that set forth under Goal 3 with respect to farm lands. 15. GOAL 6 - AIR, LAND, AND WATER RESOURCES. Preservation of inventoried fish and wildlife resources does not conflict with Goal 6, since protection of such resources does not promote additional development. 3 - EXHIBIT "B" FOR ORDINANCE NO. 92-041 (8/5/92) 1=7 16. GOAL 7 - AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL DISASTERS AND HAZARDS. Not applicable. 17. GOAL 8 - RECREATION NEEDS. Providing for recreational needs is important to the Deschutes County economy. Enjoyment of fish and wildlife resources is an integral part of outdoor recreational experiences. With respect to destination resorts, the Board finds that the decision on the siting of destination resorts in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone should be delayed and be considered at the time the Board completes the Goal 8 destination resort mapping for irrigated agricultural lands. Goal 8 prohibits siting of destination resorts in areas identified as "especially sensitive big game habitat". The County has inventoried and mapped significant big game habitat as a Goal 5 resource; and to specifically limit conflicting uses on this identified habitat. Under this package, such inventoried lands are zoned with the Wildlife Area Combining Zone (Title 18.88). The County inventoried big game habitat is more extensive than the area identified as "especially sensitive big game habitat". Until the Board reconciles the difference between the Goal 8 "especially sensitive big game habitat" and the Goal 5 inventoried significant big game habitat, no applications will be accepted for any part of a destination resort in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone. The Goal 8 requirement precluding siting of destination resorts in the especially sensitive big game habitat is met by this interim bar to applications in all the County's wildlife areas. 18. GOAL 9 - ECONOMY OF THE STATE. Preservation of fish and wildlife resources contributes to Oregon's increasingly important tourism industry. The Board finds that the restrictions set forth in the wildlife provisions in the zoning ordinance will further the preservation of fish and wildlife resources by providing for a review of proposed alterations and demolitions of historic structures. The restrictions on siting of structures does not prevent structures from being built on any lot or parcel. 19. GOAL 10 - HOUSING. This Goal is not implicated by the fish and wildlife policies adopted as part of this package. The Plan to implement the Goal applies wildlife restrictions in designated Wildlife Area overlays. These overlays apply only outside Urban Growth Boundaries. Under the Goals, housing needs are to be addressed chiefly by measures taken inside the urban growth boundary. 4 - EXHIBIT "B" FOR ORDINANCE NO. 92-041 (8/5/92) Q-0273 20. GOAL 11 - PUBLIC FACILITIES. Not particularly applicable, as the proposal does not propose new development. The provisions encourage clustering, which can make the delivery of public services more efficient. 21. GOAL 12 - TRANSPORTATION. Not particularly applicable, as the wildlife package does not propose new development. The provisions encourage clustering, which can make for more efficient transportation. 22. GOAL 13 - ENERGY CONSERVATION. Not applicable, as no new development is proposed by the package. The promotion of clustering and siting of development close to existing roads will result in energy conservation. 23. GOALS 14 - 19. Not applicable. ordina\92-040.exb 5 - EXHIBIT "B" FOR ORDINANCE NO. 92-041 (8/5/92)