2003 WHEELER COUNTY COMPREHENSNE PLAN ANDTEC~CALREPORT JClHZUA . ~ ••_. tfemo.N ......... ........ ..... 't!o* .... ,'_'- I, I I l " , r, • •, 4 • i '. I\/ w"t:em.~,. , ,", *",' c~\. ~a;tS income from fnrm uses in the amount provided in subsection (2) of this f,{'ction. As U.coL'<1 in this scct.ion, 'gross income' includes the v;11ue of My crop or livestock that is u.'led by the owner personally or in his fanning opemtion, but shall not include the value of any crop or livestock so used unless records accu.r,dcly reflectinG both vnlue and U3e of the crop or livestock nrc kept by the owner in a rr.rtnncr consistent with generally uccepted accounting prinriplf's. Thr burden of proving the brross income of the faml unit for the years dc.~cribcd in this subsection is upon the person claiming' s[x--ciul n:<-'>C~rnent for the land. '.'(:2) (n) If the faml uni t consists of less thnn five ncres, the /-"l'05S income amount required by subsection (1) of this section shall be at least $500. "(b) If the flllol unit consisL~ of five acres but dOBs not consist of more thnn 20 ncrrs, the gro,s income ~mount required by subsection (1) of this S<'clion t;hall be at least cqunl to the product of $100 times the number of ncrcs and !l."1y fraction of an ncre of l!l."1d included. "(c) If the fann unit coMists of more thun 20 acres, the gross income umount required by subf;cct.:on (1) of this BCction shall be'at JeMt $2,000. 1000' ·'·ends u. Benton County their future commercial productivity. The incorpora- tion in Goal 3 of the statutory prerequisite of ORS 215.203 that the lands be capable of "obtaining a profit in money" docs not change the meaning of the basic Goal 3 planning objective. Indeed it is clear that mar6rinally productive land can qualify for exclusive fann use zoning under ORS 215.203. We held in Ruthelford u. Armstl'Olig supra} that even though a five-acre parcel "could not support an economically profitable fann unit," it neve1iheless could be sufficiently profitable to qualify for "farm use" under ORS 215.203. In that case we traced the legislative,history of OH.S 215.203, pointing out that from 1967 to 1973 the statute required only that "the whole parcell' produce a "gross income from farm uses. of $500 per year" to satisfy the requirements of "obtaining a profit in money." The $500 test was deleted from the statute in 1973. In 1977 the legisla- ture enacted OrtS 308.372, Oregon Laws 1977, ch 399,4 50HS 308370 pro\'ides for two types of property tax treatment for farm Innds. If.lnnd.q llre cont.ained within [In exclusive f•. "G---..._._-~_ .. June 23, 1978 ;/ I·lr • and I'irs. , / 2nd Hrs .. Hr. v· I-lr . and I1rs . ./ l1r . and !'Irs. /Hr. and Hrs. /1-1r. and !-lrs. Lyle Cole Dale Cole Fran Cherry Fred Hanson Charles I,ja::-..~tlell Bill Clark " Elmer Jackson :/ Audrey Jackson '/Bob Collins jBill Smi th !-Charley Miller vCharles Mecartea Ranch house meetings are being held in local areas to get more of your views on how you would like to see Wneeler County develop over the next ten years. Your ideas will go into the development of wl1eeler County's Comprehensive Plan. A ranch house meeting in your area will 7:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. at the Bill Clark home. attend on this short notice. be held Monday evening, June 26, I hope you will be able to As a ranch owner you al-e being planned for. Hake your vie\vs knov.':1 before the plan is finalized. Some of the questions will be: should we stay in agriculture and forestry; want more 40-160 acre subdivisions, if so should they be in a certain area, located close to towns for services, \'mat about horne sites around the county? Do you understand Exclusive Farm Use Zoning (EFU). Should we set aside some land for recreation? I need your help. Please try to come to this meeting. If you have any questions before the meeting, I can be reached at the Planning COJTunission office, 763-2911 or my horne, 763-2130. I welcome any interest you have. Sincerely, Bea Donnelly, Coordinator \meeler County's Comprehensive Plan : ...... y ... ·O '_." VVhccler COui1t-j-Pianning C01111DiSSi0l1 ~? ~:J.~;7~~;~:~~{:~.~. ": WHEELEH-00UNTY COURT HOUSE ~.. t-} [ -r L F. / Fossil. O~('~on 97823/"' 'C~c':_~: .~~ v1"red [·1urre11 / -', a r 1 ey 1-1i 1 ] e r D Humphr-eys Jim Collins' l/Zack T. Keys /'50b Helms rI'lob Keys [/Lou Bratten -Ch~r]es ~ax~ell, ~·Yl'.:m Che:rry /Bill Clark /1\. G. Clark 130b ColI ins /Clint Harris Jr." --- .. , _.__._, L..__._., July 31, 1978 Dear Ranch Q\-Jner in Richmond/v~aternan/JI.ntoneareas: A ranchhouse meeting will be held at the Jim and Georgia Collins home in Waterman on Thursday, August 3, 7:30 P.M. A series of ranchhouse meetings have been held around the county to gather information on how the landowners of Wheeler County would like to see the county develop for the next 10 years or so. I am interested in yourvie~s about the county. Would you please make the effort to try to attend? I realize this is one of your busy, more busy, time of the year but your ideas are of real value in writing the Comprehensive Plan for Ivheeler County. Should we try to maintain our present ranches and forestry ~rowth? Subdivisions? Locatedany,·.-here or should they be planned for? Do we need more recreational areas set aside for public use? Do we need to protect scenic and historic areas? Should we have Exclusive Farm Use Zones where, if it didn't bother farming, non-farm homes could be built? As you can see, your ideas will h~ welcome. These meetings usually last about 2 hours. I :hope you Hill find the time to make your feelings known. Sincerely, REPORT ON WHEELER COUNTY LAND-USE PL\~NING SURveY AUGUST 1977 Prepared for the h'heeler County Planning Commission by Joseph S. Olexa Oregon Research Institute 1059 Willmnette Street Eugene, Oregon (503) 484 - 2123 nrrRODUCfJON Sllf,NARY TI-IE SURVEY Question A: Question B: Question C: Question D: Question E: Question F: Question G: Question H: Question I: Question J: TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1 3 For/Against Land-Use Planning 5 WilJingness to Serve on Connnittee 7 Problems Facing \Vheeler County 7 Land-Use Restrictions 7 Building Permits 8 Septic Tank Approvals 8 Minimum Lot Size in TO\VTls 8 ~tinimlml Lot Size in Rural Areas 9 Recreation 10 Parks Along the John Day 11 Scenic Rivers System 12 Special Measures for Wildlife 13 New Industry 13 Housing and Income 16 Choice of Housing 17 Sewers and Septic Tanks 19 Transportation 19 Home Heating Source 20 Subdivisions and Industry 21 APPENDIX A: COIlments Regarding Planning APPENDIX B: Problems Facing Wheeler County APPENDIX C: Location of New Industry APPENDIX D: QuestiOlmaire 23 34 39 40 Introduction Thc Wheeler County land-use SUITcy is an effort to engender citizen participation in the development of the comprehensive county plan required by the Land Consenration Development Ccnunission (LCOC). This is in keeping with the legislative intent for providing avenues for citizen involvement in the planning process. At the local level, the cities and counties are the bodies gIven the paramount responsibility for the preparation of coordinated comprehensive plans which are In accord with state wide planning goals and guidelines promulgo.ted by LCDC. LCDC does not itself do any comprehensive planning except \o;hen a city or county is in default. The planning scheme envisioned by the legislature consists of state wide planning goals expressing the state's interests administered by the LCDC. The goals impose planning objectives as standards for all state agencies, cities, counties, special districts und regional planning districts to fo11O'.\J in developing their respective comprehensive plans and in taking actions effecting land-usc. CompJicmce ,vi th the goals must be achieved by the various planning agencies. The state \\,ide planning goals constitute the basic authority at the state level for assuring coordin3tcd comprehensive plmming in Oregon. "Guidelines" are suggested directions t]lat would aid local governments in activating the "Goals." They are intended to be instructiYe, directional and positive and not limiting local govern- ment to a single course of action when sane other locally conceived course would achieve the same result. The first planning Goal requires the local plunning body: "To develop a citizen involvement program that. insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process." The guidelines for citizen involvement goals requires that the general public" have the opportunity to be involved in inventorying, recording, mapping, describing, analyzing and evaluating the elements necessary for the develop- ment of the plans." The intent of this land-use planning survey IS two-fold. First, it is intended to convey infonnation to the citizens of Wheeler County about the state-wide planning goals and secondly, it is designed to provide a vehicle ,\'hereby citizens could express their opinions about the p13nning process and pro\'ide infonnation to the planning comm- ission \~hich could be used in the development of the comprehensive plan. page 1 An effort was made by the Wheeler COW1ty Planning Commission to distri.bute copies of the questionnaire as widely as possible throughout the county. The 426 returned questionnaires represent about half of the population of the county of all ages (see appendix for ag<:) distribution). Respondents here ' much choice of housing IS there for new residents in 11J'heeler COlmty?" 0% Quite a bit 4% A moderate amount 30% Little 61% Almost no choice 5% No opInion page 17 Question F-29: fall into each 141 158 56 173 172 1Sl 146 15 1012 Question F- 27: ''How many years have you 1ived in your present location?" 8% Less than one year 9% One to two years 18% Three to five years 12% Six to ten years 50% Over ten years 3% No opinion . Question F-28: "How long do you plan to remain in your present location?" 5% Less than one year 3% One to two years 7% Three to five years 4% Six to ten years 51% Over ten years 30% No opinion "How many people living in your household now of the following age groups?" Age under 10 14% 10 - 17 16% 18 - 22 6% 23 - 35 17% 36 - 50 17% 51 - 64 15% 65 and over 14% No opinion 1% Question F-30: "Do you 0\\111 land or are you noh' buying land in \\11ee1er County?" 57% Yes 39% No 4% No opinion Question F-31: "If yes to the above question, hm... many acres do you mill?" 47% Less than one 19% 1 to 10 4% 11 to 50 1% 51 to 100 6% 101 to 500 15% Over 500 page 18 Question G Goal eleven requires a plan for the provIsIon of public facilities and services to meet expected growth. This includes developing plans for the extension of sev,rer and utility lines and solid-waste disposal sites. Ordinances are required to plan for the extension of these services and tax policies to pay for them. The survey found that half the respondents are now on a septic tank and only one in five is willing to pay additional property taxes for an extension and hook-up. Question G-32: "Is your household presently on a sewer line, septic tank, or other?" 46% Sewer line 50% Septic tank 2% Other 2% No opinion Question G-33: "If you are not on a sewer line nOH, would you be willing to pay additional property taxes for an extension and hook-up?" 19% Yes 53 96 No 28% No opinion Question H Goal twelve calls for the development of a transportation plan which considers all modes of transportation including mass transit, air, water, pipeline rail, high- way, bicycle, and pedestrian. Question 34 asked respondents to estimate how far they drove each day to work, shopping, and recreation. Unfortunately most respondents were unable or unwilling to make the necessary approximations and the question was uncodeable. A second question asked about public transportation versus highways. Seventy percent of the respondents favored better highways. page 19 Question H-35: "Asswning each could be provided at about the same cost, would you prefer to see money spent to improve heavily traveled routes, or develop a public transportation system'?" 70% Better Highways 15% Public Transrortation System 15% No Opinion Question I Goal thirteen deals with energy conservation and will effect the kinds of uses to which particular land can be put. One of the major fonns of energy consumption for households is in heating. The survey sought to detennine the kinds of energy sources used in home heating. Electricity (49%), wood (47%), and oil (37%) were the major sources of home heating in Wheeler County and many households reported using a combination of sources. Question 1-36: "What kind of energy sources are you currently using to heat your house?" Yes Answers 49% Electricity 47% Wood 37% Oil 6% Bottled Gas 1% Other 1% No Opinion . (Totals more than 100% because of multiple answers) Heating by Area Fossil Electricity 48% Oil 42% Wood 37% Bottled Gas 4% Spray Electricity Wood Oil Bottled Gas 57% 50% 21% 0% Kinzua Wood 67% Electricity 42% Oil 38% Bottled Gas 0% Mitchell ( Wood 68 9" Electricity 47% Oil 44% Bottled Gas 6% Heating by Area, Cont. Other Wood 75% Oil 56% Electricity 25% Bottled Gas 19% page 20 Question J Goal fourteen seeks to achieve an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. More people means a greater need for public services. The survey sought infonnation on b'o possible routes by which the population of \-IJheeler COW1ty might increase rapidly in the ncar futurc. The first askcd about the subdivision of parcels to make land available for retired people and summer homes. A slight majority of respondents were opposed to this option. Question J-37: "Land developers may buy large ranches and sub- divide them into smaller parcels for retired people and summer homes. HOH do you feel about the comprehensive plan cncourage- ing thlS possible option?" 3H Favor 52% Oppose 17% No Opinion Only a plurality from Spray (47%) favored encour~iging the above option. Encourage Suhdivisions ? Fossil Spr~ Kinzua ~!itchel1 Other Favor 25% 47% 379< 25% 27%_0 Oppose 56% 40% 51% 61% 60% No Opinion 19% 13% 17% 14% 13% The second possible route to a rapidly increasing population is through attracting nc\\' industry. TIle last question asked about various types of industry which might be attracted to \\11eeler COW1ty. page 21 Question J-38: "New industry might be encouraged to move to Wheeler COLmty. What sorts of industry do you think the comprehensive plan should encourage or do you think the plan ought not to encourage new industry?" Yes Answers 46% Light manufacturing 27% Agricultural 16% Commercial 23% Specialized (for example, an atomic power plant or other industry which required a remote location or other condition nat- ural to Wheeler County) 8% Other types of industry 8% No industry whould be encouraged to come to Wheeler County 14% No opinion (Totals more than 100% because of TIRlltiple options) page 22 c .•.. ;. Appendix A Con~ents Regarding Planning Fossil - Opposed " Not interested " " I pay seHer &taxes on my land &can't rent it for trailer space " State and federal control land enough already " " The foundation of our legal system is persons' property rights - land use planning not only ignores, but tramples this concept" " Hwnan nature being what it is - no fair way has been found to administer such a policy .1 " I bought and paid for my property and I pay the taxes so I don't feel anyone has a right to tell me Hhat I can or can't do with it " " Infringement in personal rights - not nece.::;sary " " To many exceptions - deviate from policy for certain people " " Land use planning was primarily designed for larger cities \\'ith more incoming population and industry. I Cffil't see that it is needed here. " " I feel that anything I do to my property is an improvement and I feel that any restriction is an infringement upon my freedoms and not say much for my intellegents " " I think the landowner should have the right to manage his land as he sees fit" II because I think we should have some rights about are land " II too much government " " I think folk got along fairly '.;ell before all this land use planning ever begun " " because the government does the planning " " I bought this property and pay taxes on it'every year. It's mine so 'oJhy can't I do ''lith it as I please 11 " if some one pays money for land they should be left alone, after all its there land " page 23 Fossil - Opposed, cant. II If we' own the land it should be ours to do as we please" " He buy the land, pay the taxes (not to mention intrust) then have someone tell us \\'hot we can a'1d can't do on our own lanel. Thi.s definitely infringes on our rights. " " I oppose government taking away individuals' rights" " 1'm against having any more government. controls over the people" " because I think Salem meddles too much in Wl1eeler Co. business already. Too much government" " I think people should be able to do what they prefer with their own land" " discriminates against the poor " " I feel they have too much control In some areas " II I feel every one has a right to do as they please m regards to their O\m 1and " " I figure you should be able to do Hhat you want with your 0 .....'Il propert.y " " Taken citizens rights " II I feel that a person should be able too do what he Hants with his 0\v11 land II 11 with proper zoning l3\"S we don't need government or a few people in power te11 ing us \~hat we can & can't do. " " I feel it infringes on individual rights and gives government one more control over individuals " " The planners use the planning for their own profit" " sparsely populated like Wheeler County don't need it " 11 I feel that I have a right of my own to decide what I want to do wi th my land " 11 If older people can only afford a trailor or smaller they should be able to put it where they want" " Its there land they should be able to do as they like " " We should be able to do as we wish on our own property " II It takes away the rights of the private property O\mer II page 24 ( Fossil - Opposed, cant. " People have little say as to \\That they \vant to do on their mm property " " Interfers with a persons liberty" " what you do on or with your property IS your 0\\11 business" " Salem gives to much goven1JTlent already" " Too much meddling " " \vaste of money- hire people that are il}eXpericnced in many fields such as forestry, agricultural, they do not protect anything" " land planning is to some extent infringing on the rights of property mmers " " Because it encroaches more and more in our personal lives " " There is to much interference into the personal lifes of the public " " In a small town you don t t need all these regulations telling \'ihat we can and can I t do " " it is not. fair" " If a person buys and pays for something they should have the right to do what t.hey want. Hith it. " " Too much beaurocatic red tape ¬. enough" horse sense." " It needs a lot of refinements and reorganization " Fossil - Favor " Protect the weak " " lIm partial to having t.oo lTIany people too close together having inadequate living space " _II Prevent individuals from using land t.o the detriment of other land owners and future generations " " To control undesirable building and projects" " In order to help our prime ,agricultural lands all together, \\Te need some plmming. " page 2S fossil - Favor, cont. " Since planning ahead is necessary to protect the natural resources of the county for future generations' use let's make the decisions at the local level h'ith state gUidance and as Id.ttle federal inter- ference as possible " " Good productive fann land in the past has often been covered with asphalt for roads when the highway could have used other right of ways ,. " Planning 1S better than haphazardly according to property mmers " " I believe this protects my property rights by zoning out undesired business or development " 11 If plan is for development of well regulated industries or subdivision and not to maintain status quo so to speak. 11 " Some plmming is inevitable and necessary ; the less the better; and the more local control the better. No plmming Hould result in damages to the county's agricultural and scenic assets" " a means to stop subdivision like the 40 acre plots out of Mitchell " " It would protect property owners from till.vanted developments nearby" " It would make little sense to have a steclsmelter established by a nursery t11at was there perviously. " " Land use planning allows residents to participate m planning the future development of their area " " I have lived in the East where poor planning or no planning was the rule- thats why I moved ~ " 11 We like our property to be nice and h'ould like nice surroundings 11 " To protect against neighbors who do things to suit them" " I think while we are restricted some-what the other person is too and we are protected as a result" " Some planning 1S necessary - but in the past LCOC has been completely out of hand II " To make better use of marginal land and protect the better fann lands from buildings etc. " page 26 Fossil - Favor) cont. " To maintain the orderly development of the available resources. To protect and preserve our way of life." " Nonnally land use planning is used to provide safe residential areas and wise industrial development .. .. Overall intelligent planning will enhance est.hetic fl material values of our land. II " Protects the value of adjoining property II II There are good points and bad. I favor it more than oppose it .. II The land IS too valuable to use only for making money i'lith no reference to using it best. " II Protect investment of my property .. .. If there was no land use planning you wouldn't be able to stop things on land that good for everyone not just one person .. " Everyone has their land to do whatever they wish) not just aU the land belonging to one person .. II I feel land use planning is a sensible way for the county to plan growth II .. Every person should consider his neighbors rights \~·hether a block aw.ay or a mile away. II II Because the citizens must become aware and get involved .. To control spending on services II , " II Some planning is needed to protect the environment we love. Over regulation &planning causes resentment! .. II Because we need help from experts to insure our agricUltural areas .. .. Because restrictions are needed to keep property values up and to protect the homeowners from shabby mobil homesand houses that would devalue ours " " So growth is planned and organized to maintain a better quality of life " " I feel no planning could result in harming our countys' beauty and liveability ... page 27 Fossil - Favor, cont. " It gives equal protection to a11 " It because j t can stop the gToh'th of the area so those ,·;ho live here because of the small tmvll can keep it that way" " we have to plan for future generations - - this is a fair way" " It \lechanic If there is a second wage-earner m the household, what is his/her present occupation? 18- 1 .B1-_LLDnber industry 18- 2 4% Agriculture 18- 312% Education 18- 4 1% Construction page 4S 18- S 8% Clerical/retail trade 18- 6 8% Professional/managerial 18- 7 21% Retired 18 - 8 10% Other (Please identify) 18- 9 7% No Opinion 18-10 21% Unemployed In or nearest to what. area does the head of the household \\Iork? 19- 1 24% Fossil 19- 2 13% Spray 19- 3 1% Service Creek --- 19- 4 32% Kinzua 19- S Rjchmond 19- 6 19% KJmberly 19- 7 Dayville 19- 8 1% Prineville 19- 9 2% Twickenham 19-10 7% Mitchell 19-11 Antone 19-12 9Q. Other (Please specify)'0 19-13 6% Unemployed 19-14 4% No Opinion If there is a second wage-earner in the household, where does he/she \vork? 20- 1 379.: Fossil_0 20- 2 12% Spray 20- 3 Service Creek 20- 4 8% Kinzua 20- S Richmond 20- 6 Kimberly 20- 7 Dayville 20- 8 Prineville 20- 9 1% Twickenham 20-10 4% r-li tche11 20-11 Antone 20-12 7% Other (Please specify) 20-13 27% Unemployed 20-14 9% No Opinion page 46 .., In what town do you buy most of the follmving? Spray Fossil Mitchell ServiRe Kinzua Otherree -- Zl=t Clothes 2% 10% 2% 86% 21-2 Gasoline 17% 56% 8% 8% 11% --- 21-3 Groceries 11% 38% 6% 9% 36% 21-4 Purniture 3% 1% 96% 21- 5 Hardware ~ Building Supplies 3% 12% 3% 1% 81% "-- 21-6 Autos 1% 45% 1% 53% 21-7 No Opinion Question F Goal ten requires the comprehensive plan to provide for the housing needs of the county. It asks for a description of existing housing and "a comparison of the distribution of the existing population by income with the distribution of available housing units by cost." To meet this goal, the planners must know the average income per household unit and preferences for more and/or lower-cost housing. l\~1at was your combined household income last year? 22-1 10%. Less than. $4,000 22-2 11% $4,000 - $5,999 22-3 13% $6,000 - $9,999 22-4 25% $10,000 -$14,999 22-5 28% $15,000 and over 22- 6 13% No Opinion Please describe your living quarters .. 23-1 67% CAmel' 23- 2 31% Renter 23-3 2% No Opinion 24-1 83% House 24-2 l~ Apartment'0 24-3 1% Duplex page 47 24 -4 13% Mobile I lome 24-5 1% Other 24-6 1% No Opinion In your opinion, \\'hat kind of new housing is most needed in Mleeler County? 25-1 27% Houses to buy under $15,000 25-2 35% Houses to buy from $15,000 to $20,000 25-3 6% Houses to buy over $20,000 25-4 6% Apartments Totals more than 100% because 25-5 35% Houses to rent of mult :iple responses 25-6 4% Duplexes 25-7 10% Mobile Homes ( 25-8 9% No Opinion Hmv' much choice of housing is there for neh' residents in \\'heeler County? 26-1 0% Quite a bit 26- 2 4% A l~~oderate amoun.t 26-3 30% Little 26-4 61% Almost no choice 26- 5 5% No Opinion Hmv many years have you lived in your present location? 27-1 8% Less than one year 2]. - 2 9% One to two years t; 27-3 18% Three to five years .... 27-4 12% Six to ten years 27-5 50% Over ten years 27-6 3% No Opinion ~ ... Hmv long do you plan to remain in your present location? 28-1 5% Less than one year 28- 2 3% One to two years 28-3 7% Three to five years 28-4 4% Six to ten years 28- 5 51% Over ten years 28-6 30% No Opinion page 48 How many people living in your household no\\' fall into each of the following age groups? 29-1 141 Age under 10 14% 29-2 158 10 - 17 16% 29-3 56 18 - 22 6% 29-4 173 23 - 35 17% 29-5 172 36 - 50 17% 29-6 151 51 - 64 15% 29-7 146 65 and over 14% 29-8 15 No Opinion 1% N=10l2 Do you own land or are you nm.,; buying land in W11eeler County? 30-1 57% Yes 30-2 39% No 30-3 4% No Opinion . If yes to the above question, how many acres do you own? 31-1 47% Less than 1 31-2 19% 1 to 10 31-3 4% 11 to SO 31-4 1% 51 to 100 31-5 6% 101 to 500 31-6 15% Over 500 31-7 No Opinion Question G Goal eleven requires a plan for the provision of public facilities and services to meet expected growth. This includes developing plans for the extension of sewer and utility lines and solid-waste disposal sites. Ordinances are required to plan for the extension of these services and tax policies to pay for them. Is your household presently on a sewer line, septic tank, or other? 32-1 46% Sewer Line 32-2 50% Septic Tank 32-3 2% Other 32-4 2% No Opinion page 49 If you are not on a sewer line nO\-: , -would you be willing to pay additional property taxes for an extension and hook-up? 33-1 19% Yes 33- 2 53% No 33-3 28% No Opinion Question H Goal tv.lelve calls for the development of a transportation plan which considers all modes of transportation including mass transit, air, water, pipeline rail, high\'iay, bicycle, and pedestrian. To meet this requirement, the planners need to know hm,; much Wheeler County residents travel to hork, shopping, and recreation. AppToximately hOH far do you drive each day to -- 34-1 Work --- 34-2 Shopping 34-3 Recreation 34-4 Other 34-5 No Opinion Responses uncodeable Assuming each could be provided at about the same cost, would you prefer to see money spent to improve heavily travelled routes, or develop a public transportation system? 35-1 70% Better highways 35- 2 15% Public transportation Systems 35-3 15% ~o Opinion Question I Goal thirteen deals \'lith energy conservation and will effect the kinds of uses to which particular lands can be put. What 36-1 36-2 36-3 36-4 36-5 36-6 kind of energy sources 49% Electricity 6% Bottled Gas 37% Oil 47% Wood 1% Other 1% No Opinion are you currently using to heat your house? page 50 Question J Goal fourteen seeks to achieve an orderly and efficient transItIon from rural to urban land use. More people means a greater need for public services. Should more people be encouraged to move to \Vhee leI' County? If so, \v'hat sort of people? (Job holders vs. retired, skilled vs. unskilled, etc.) Below are two possihilities of hoh' the population of hl1eeler CmUity might increase rapidly in the ncar future. Do you favor or oppose encouraging either or both of them? Land developers may buy large ranches and subdivide them into sffiuller parcels for retired people and swmner homes. HO\v do you feel about the comprehensive plan encouraging this possible option? 37-1 31 % Favor 37-2 52% Oppose 37-3 17% No Opinion (For example, an atomic pO\ver plGnt or other industry which requires a remote location or other conditions natural to \\11eeler County.) 38-1 46% Light Manufacturing 38-2 27~\gricultural 38-3 16%_~ommercial 38-4 23% Specialized New industry might be encouraged to move to Wheeler County. What sorts of industry do you think the comprehensive plan should encourage or do you think the plan ought not to encourage neH industry? Totals nlore than 100% because of multiple nnSh'ers 38-5 8% Other types of Industry (Please give examples) 38-6 8% No industry should be encouraged to come to Wheeler County 38-7 14% No Opinion THk~K YOU fOR YOUR COOPERATION! page Sl r-·;7--_·········i ~ \ ~.~~: -0 L_.-, Wheeler County-'Planning Commission )"i.?;,,:?,,(1'~~~: WHEELE){?~itJ~1t~?~RrBOUSE '/ ; F~~J :......-.."__R._' L__-, L ... j Apri 1 3, 1980 NOTICE OF MEETING: Who: Wheeler County Planning Commission Members Members of the Wheeler County Court District Attorney, ECOAC Planner, Chip Davis Where: Mitchell School When: Thursday, April 10, 1980, 7:30 P.M. This meeting is for the purpose of the commission members, county court members, DA, to voice any changes, questions, omissions, etc, concerning the first draft of the County Comprehensive Plan. All of the above have received copies of the plan and its technical report. What comes out of this meeting will be put into the final draft to go . before the people of Wheeler County. Bea Donnelly, Secretary/Coordinator cc: John Misener, Chairman Jane Woodward Charley Miller Zack Keys Bob Abbott Jim Stirewalt Orval Ladd Edwin Asher Denzil White Buck Leckie, County Judge Jack Collins, Commissioner Lee Hoover, Commissioner Pat Wolke, D.A. Charles 'Chip' Davis, ECOAC Planner \JVHEELER COUNTY FOSSIL, OR~GON 97830 PUBLIC NOTICE Hearings on the Proposed Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdi- vision Ordinance, Spray Urban Growth Area Joint Management Agreement, and Technical Report of Wheeler County, Oregon. This notice was sent by first class mail to all Wheeler County Property Owners (outside cities) on April 22, 1980. Public hearings·'dill be held by the I-Jheeler County Planning Commission and County Court on May 29, 1980 at 7:30 PM, in the County Courthouse, Fossil, Oregon. The purpose of the hearing is the review and adoption of proposed Wheeler County Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdi- vision Ordinance, Spray Urban Growth Area Joint Management Agreenlent, and Technical Report. Copies are available for l~evieVi at the County Planliing Commission office, \~heeler County Courthouse, Fossil, beginning April 22, 1980. If you would like to comment on these documents, please attend the public hearing or send your written comments to Bea Donnelly, Wheeler County Planning Coordinator, County Courthouse, Fossil, Oregon, 97830; or call Bea at 763-2911 if you have any questions. The technical report presents the background information, facts, and considerations upon which the proposed comprehensive plan, zoning, and subdivision ordinances are based. The purpose of the Co~prehensive Plan is to establish County policy in th~ areas of citizen involvement, land use plannin~, agricultural lands, forest lpnds, open spaces, scenic and historic areas and natural re- sources, air/water/land resource quality, areas subject to natural dis- asters and hazards, ~ecreational needs, economic development, housing, public facilities and services, transportation, energy conservation, and urbanization . . The plan is intended to protect the County's resource based economy and encourage residential, commercial, and industrial development to locate in the Cities of Fossil, Mitchell, and Spray. New County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances have been prepared to implement the plan. An urban growth area joint management agreement has been developed for use by the City of Spray and Wheeler County as a means of coordinating land use regulations for those areas outside the city limits but within the urban groVith boundary. All land outside the Cities of Fossil, Mitchell, and Spray is designated as farm, grazing, forest, and open space on the proposed comprehensive plan map and for exclusive farm use or open space on the proposed zoning map. If you feel that other land uses (in addition to those listed be- low) should be allowed, please testify at the pLolic hearing or submit written comments. The need to allow other land uses must be supported by facts which demonstrate the need. Page 1 of 4 Pages Exclusive Far~ Use Zon~ Farm uses include: -Crops, livestock, poultry, fur-bearing animals, honey bees, and dairying; -Preparation, storage and marketing of products raised on farm land; -Soil bank or land lying fallow for one year; -Orchards or other perennials prior to maturity; -Woodlot less than 20 acres contiguous to land in farm use; and -Cultured Christmas trees. Land uses permitted outright include: a. b•. c. d. e. f. g. Public or private schools. Churches. The propagation or harvesting of a forest product. Utility facilities necessary for public service, except commercial facil~ties for the purposeofgeneratingpowerfot~publicuseby sa-Ie. The dwelling and other buildings customarily provided in conjunction with farm use. Operations for the exploration of geothermal resources as defined by ORS 522.005. A site for the disposal of solid waste that has been ordered to be established by the Environrr:ental Quality Commission together' I-lith equipment, facilities, 01 buildings necessary for its operation. Land uses which require approval by.the County Planning Commission include: a. Corrmercial activities that are in conjunction with farm use. h. Operations conducted for the mining and processing of geothermal re- sources as defined by ORS 522.005 or exploration, mining, and process- ing of aggregate and other mineral resources or other subsurface re- sources. c. Private parks, playgrounds, hunting, and fishing preserves and camp- grounds. d. Parks, playgrounds, or community centers owned and operated by a governmental agency or a non-profit community organization. e. Golf courses. f. Commercial utility facilities for the purpose of generating po\'/er for public use by sale. g. Personal use airports for airplanes and helicopter pads, including associated hangar. maintenance, and service facilities. Page 2 of 4 Pages h. Home occupations carried on by the resident as an accessory use within their dwelling or other buildings customarily provided in conjunction with farm use. i. A temporary (one-year, renewable) facility for the primary process- ing of forest products. j. The boarding of horses for profit. k. A site for the disposal of solid waste approved by the governing body of a city or county or both arid for which a permit has been granted under ORS 459.245 by the Department of Environmental Quality together \'Jith equipment, facilities or buildings necessary for its operation. 1. Single-family residential dwellings, not provided ih conjunction with farm use, may be established in any area zoned for exclusive farm use upon a finding that each such proposed d\'/elling: 1. Is compatible with farm uses described in subsection (2) of ORS 215.203 and is consistent with the intent and purposes set forth in ORS 215.243; and 2. Does not interfere seriously with accepted farming practices, as defined in paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of ORS 215.203, on adjacent lands devoted to farm use; and 3. Does not materially alter the stabilHy of the overall land use pattern of the area; and 4. Is situated upon generally unsuitable land for the production of farm crops and livestock, considering the terrain, adverse ·soil or land conditions, drainage and flooding, vegetation, location and size of the tract; and 5. Will meet the following conditions: a. Direct access (abutting or adjoining) to an all weather road, and b. Availability of water onsite of sufficient quantity and quality to meet domestic needs, and c. Suitability of the site for disposal of domestic sevlage, and d. Availability of phone and electric utility services to the site, and e. Demonstration that the site is not subject to flooding or other hazards, and f. The site is setback at least one-quarter (~) mile from the John Day River. Page 3 of 4 Pages Permanent Open Space Zoning The purpose and intent of the Permanent Open Space Zone is to protect fish and wildlife habitat, maintain scenic qualities, and to permit the establishment of only those new uses which are compatible with preservation activities. The Permanent Open Space Zone is also intended to allow for continued use of the· land for farm and grazing ~lhi1e qualifying the land for special tax treatment under ORS 308 (Assessment of Property for T2xa- tion). The zone will be located for ~ mile on each side of the John Day River from Service Creek downstream. No permanent structure may be built and the following uses are per- mitted outright: a. Farming, including crop cultivation, truck gardening, or plant nursery.enterprises and livestock grazing. b. Natural areas, including wildlife refuges. c. Outdoor recreational facilities, including restroom facilities. Division of Land within the County a. Land may be subdivided as defined in ORS 92.010(12) when each lot or parcel created will be equal to or greater than 160 acres in size. b~ Land may be partitioned as defined in ORS 92.010(8) when: 1. Each lot or parcel created will be equal to or greater than 160 acres in size, or 2. Each lot or parcel created, if less than 160 acres in size, can and is intended to be used for a permitted use as given in Section 2.050 of this Ordinance, or 3. Each lot or parcel created, if less than 160 acres in size, is intended to be used for a conditional use as given in Section 2.100 of this Ordinance and such use has been approved by the County Court as given in Article 13 of this Ordinance prior to the consideration of the partition appli- cation. THE HHEELER COUNTY COURT AND PLANNING CO~lf~ISSION HANT TO ADOPT A PLAN HHICH WILL SERVE TO GUIDE THE FUTURE OF WHEELER COUNTY. YOUR PARTICI- PATION IN THIS PLANNING EFFORT IS ESSENTIAL FOR ITS SUCCESS. Apri 1 22, 1980 Page 4 of 4 Pages. WHEELER COUNTY FOSSIL,ORI:;GON 97830 PUBLI C NOT ICE Apri 1 22, 1980 Property: Dear Property Owner: Your property has been included in the proposed urban gro\'.fth boundary for the City of Spray. If the proposed boundary is jointly adopted by the City of Spray and vihee1er County, it wi 11 have the fo 11 o\'/i ng effects on your property: 1. Annexation to the City may be requested without the need to amend the City and County Comprehensive Plans first, and . 2. The County \·lill follm·J the City improvement standards when revie\'l- ing future development proposals. If you would like to comment on this proposal, please attend one of the public hearings listed below or submit written comments to Bea Donnelly, Wheeler County Planning Coordinator at the County Courthouse, Fossil, OR 97830. City of Spray Public Hearing - May 30,1980 at 7:30 PN at Spray City Hall. Wheeler County Public Hearing - r1ay 29, 1980 at 7:30 Pi·l at the County Courthouse, Fossil. Please call me at 763-2911 if you have any questions or would like additional information. Sincerely, ~ Bea Donnelly Wheeler County Planning Coordinator BDjCDjmh 'VVHEELER COUNTY FOSSIL,OR[GON 97B30 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING .~.: ", The Spray City Council and Planning Commission \',i11 hold a public hearing a"'.: 7:30 P.l·1. > Friday, t'lay 30, 1980, at the City Hall> Spray, Oregon, concerning review and adoption of: 1. Spray Comprehensive Plan 2. Zoning Ordinance 3. Subdivision Ordinance 4. Mobile Home Park Ordinance 5. Wheeler County Technical Report 6. Spray Urban Growth Boundary Joint Management Agreement The technical report presents the background information, facts, and considerations upon which the proposed comprehensive p~an, zoning, subdivision, and mobile home park ordinances are based. The purpose of the comprehensive plan is to establish city policy in the areas of citizen involvement, land use planning, open spaces, scenic and his toric areas and natural reSOUl'ces, a i r/wdter/l and resource quality, areas subject to natural disasters and hazdl'ds, recreational needs, economic development, housing, public facilities, and services, transportation, energy conservation, and urbanization. The plan is intended to encourage residential> commercial, and industrial development to locate in the City of Spray and new zoning, subdivision, and mobile home park ordinances have been prepared 'to implement the plan. The urban grown area joint management agreement has been.developed for use by the City of Spray and ~Jheeler County as a means of coordinating land use regulations for those areas outside the city 1imits but within the urban growth bounda ry . Copies are available for revie\'J at the Spray City Hall; County Planning Commission office, Wheeler County Courthouse, Fossil; the East Central Oregon Association of Counties (ECOAC) office, Pendleton, Oregon; and at the Department of Land Conservation and Development office in Salem, Oregon. Anyone who has questions or comments concerning the dl'aft plans, technical report, or ordinances, may contact Bea Donnelly, Wheeler County Planning Coordinator, County Courthouse, Fossil, OR 97830 (503) 763-2911, or Charles Davis, Comprehensive Planner, ECOAC, P.D. Box 1207, Pendleton, OR 97801 (503) 276-6732. Spray City Council Spray Planning Commission WHEELER COUNTY FOSSIL, OREGON 97830 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING .. The Fossil City Council and Planning Commission \'lill hold a public hearing at 7:00 P.t·1., ~Jednesday, r1ay 28, 1980, at the City Hall, Fossil, Oregon concerning review and adoption of: 1. Fossil Comprehensive Plan 2. Zoning Ordinance 3. Subdivision Ordinance 4. Mobile Home Park Ordinance 5. Hheeler County Technical Report The technical report presents the background information, facts, and consider- ations upon which the proposed comprehensive plan, zoning, Subdivision, and mobile home park ordinances are based. The purpose of the comprehensive plan is to establish city policy in the areas of citizen involvement, land use planning, open spaces, scenic and historic areas and natural resources, ait~/vlater/land resource quality, areas subject to natural disasters, and hazards, recreational needs, economic development, housing, public facilities and services, transportation, energy conservation, and urbanization. The plan is intended to encourage residential, commercial, and industrial development to locate in the City of Fossil and nevI zoning,subdivision and mobile home park ordinances have been prepared to implement the plan. Copies are available for review at the Fossil City Hall; County Planning Commission office, Wheeler County Courthouse, Fossil; the East Central Oregon Association of Counties (ECOAC) office, Pendleton, Oregon; and at the Department of Land Conservation and Development office in Salem, Oregon.. Anyone who has questions or comments concerning the draft plans, technical report, or ordinances, may contact Bea Donnelly, Wheeler County Planning Coordinator, County Courthouse, Fossil, OR 97830 (503) 763-2911, or Charles Davis, Comprehensive Planner, ECOAC, PO Box 1207, Pendleton, OR 97801 (503) 276-6732. Fossil City Council Fossil Planning Commission \JVHEELER COUNTY FOSSIL, OR~60N 97830 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING .. The t~itchell City Council and Planning Commission Vlill hold 2' public hearing at 7:00 P.t~., Tuesday, Hay 27,1980, at the ComfTlunity Hall, r'1itchell, Oregon, concerning review and adoption of: 1. Mitchell Comprehensive Plan 2. Zoning Ordinance 3. Subdivision Ordinance 4. Mobile Home Park Ordinance 5. Wheeler County Technical R~port The technical 'report presents the background information, facts, and considerations upon Vlhich the proposed comprehensive plan, zoning, subdivision and mobile home park ordinances are based. The purpose of the comprehensive plan is to establish City policy in the areas of citizen involvement, land use planning, open spaces, scenic and historic areas and natural resources, air/water/land resource qual ity, areas subject to natural disasters and hazards, recreational needs, economic development, housing, public facilities and services, transportation, energy conservation, and urbanization. The plan is intended to encourage residential, commercial, and industrial development to locate in the City of ~'1itchell and neH zoning, subdivision, and mobile home park ordinances have been prepared to implement the plan. Copies are available for review at the Hitchell City Hall; County Planning Corrmission office, ~'Iheeler County Courthouse, Fossil; the East Central Oregon Association of Counties (ECOAC) office, Pendleton, Oregon; and at the Department of Land Conservation and Development office in Salem, Oregon. Anyone who has questions or comments concerning the draft plans, technical report, or ordi nances, may contact Bea Donnelly, Wheel er County Pl anni"ng COQl'dinator, County Courthouse, Fossil, OR 97830 (503) 763-2911, or Charles Davis, Comprehensive Planner, ECOAC, P.O. Box 1207, Pendleton, Oregon 97801 (503) 276-6732. Mitchell City Council r1itchell Planning Commission \VHEELER COUNTY FOSSIL, OR~GON 97830 NOTICE Apri 1 22, 1980 Dear Sir: The Draft Technical Report, Comprehensive Plans, and Implementation Measures for Wheeler ~ounty and the Cities of Fossil, Mitchell, and Spray, Oregon are now available for review at the t~heeler County Courthouse, Fossil, the East . Central Oregon Association of Counties, Pendleton, and the Department of Land . Conservation and Development, Salem. Copies of these five documents may be obtained by contacting Charles Davis, Comprehensive Planner at the East Central Oregon Association of Counties, Pendleton, Oregon 97801 (503) 276-6732. We are requesting that your agency review these documents to encourage inter- governmental coordination and cooperation. Comments on the activities of your agency which affect land use in Wheeler County, the accuracy and completeness . of the technical report, and the appropriateness of the proposed plan policies and implementation measures will be appreciated. A thirty (30) day period ha~ been reserved for citizen and agency review of the documents. Hearings have been scheduled as follows: City of Fossil - May 28, 1980 at 7:00 PM, Fossil City Hall City of Mitchell - May 27, 1980 at 7:00 PM, Mitchell Community Hall City of~ - May 30, 1980 at 7:30 PM, Spray City Hall Wheeler County - May 29, 1980 at 7:30 PM, County Courthouse, Fossil Pl ease send any \·Jri tten comments to Bea Donnelly, Wheeler County Pl anni ng Coordinator at the County Courthouse, Fossil, OR 97830. If no comments are received from your agency by the date(s) of the hearing(s), we shall assume that your agency has determined that the technical report, plan(s), and im- plementation measures are consistent with the requirements of Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197 and the Statewide Planning Goals. Bea Donnelly Wheeler County Planning Coordinator BD/CD/mh AGENCY RESPONSE FORM Wheeler County and the Cities of Fossil, Mitchell, and Spray Technical Report, Comprehensive Plans and Implementation Measures. instructions: Please check all spaces which apply to your response and fill in information as appropriate. DATE NAME AGENCY PHONE We would like to receive the following do~uments for review: _____ Technical Report _____ Wheeler County Plan and Implementation Measures _____ Fossil Plan and Implementation Measures _____. Mitchell Plan and Implementation Measures _____ Spray Plan and Implementation Measures We will not be able to revie\v these documents or attend the public hearings. We feel that the activities of our agency do not affect land use in Wheeler County and, as such, will not make comment on the documents. Please return to: Bea Donnelly Wheeler County Planning Coordinator County Courthouse Fossil, OR 97830 4/80 \;V'HEELER COUNTY FOSSIL, OR~GON 97830 NOTICE April 22, 1980 Dear Sir: Please find enclosed for your review the following documents: \~heeler County and the Cities of Fossil, Mitchell, and Spray (Draft) Comprehensive Plan Technical Report, April, 1980. Wheeler County, Oregon (Draft) Comprehensive Plan and Impiementation Measures, April, 1980. City of Fossil, Oregon (Draft) Comprehensive Plan and Implementation Measures, April, 1980. City of fvlitchell, Oi'egan (Draft) Comp}~ehensive Plan and Implementation Measures, April, 1980. . City of Spray, Oregon (Draft) ·Comprehensive Plan and Implementation Measures, April, 1980. Wheeler County and the Cities of Fossil, Mitchell, and Spray are requesting your review of the documents to encourage intergovernmental coordination and cooperation. Your comments on the activities of your agency which affect land uses in t·lheeler County, the accuracy and completeness of the technical report, and the appropriateness of the proposed plan policies and implemen- tation measures will be appreciated. A thirty (30) day period has been reserved for citizen and agency review of the documents. Hearings have been scheduled as follows: City of Fossil_ - fv1ay 28, 1980 at 7:00 P~I, Fossil City Hall City of l~itchell - fv1ay 27,1980 at 7:00 pr-l, ;'litchell Comnunity Hall City of Spr~ - ~lay 30, 1980 at 7:30 Pt'1, Spl-ay City Hall Whee1er County_ - r1ay 29, 1980 at 7: 30 pr1, County Coul~thouse, Fossil Please return the enclosed response form as soon as possible so we will know what action your agency plans to initiate (if any). If no comments are received from your agency by the date{s) of the hearing(s), we shall NOTICE April 22. 1980 Page 2 assume that your agency has determined that the technical report. plan(s). and implementation measures enclosed are consistent with the requirements of Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197 and the Statewide Planning Goals. Pl ease send any written comments to Bea Donnelly. ~·Iheel er County Pl anni n9 Coordinator. at the County Courthouse. Fossil. OR 97830. If you should have any questions. or t'equire additional information, please contact my- self at (503) 763-2911, or Charles Davis at the East Central Oregon Associ- ation of Counties. Pendleton. Oregon (503) 276-6732. Sincerely, ~~7" Bea Donnelly Wheeler County Planning Coordinator BDjCDjmh Enclosures AGENCY RESPONSE FORM Wheeler County and the Cities of Fossil, t1itchell, and Spray Technical Report, Comprehensive Plans and Implementation Measures. Instructions: Please check all spaces which apply to your response and fill in information as appropriate. DATE NANE AGENCY ADDRESS ---------------------------- PHONE We will review the following documents: Technical Report Wheeler County Plan and Implementation Measures Fossil Plan and Implementation Measures Mitchell Plan and Implementation Measures ____ Spray Plan and Implementation Measures We will not be able to review these documents or attend the public hearings. Our comments are enclosed. We will send written comments by the May 27-30 meeting deadlines. We \'Iill not be able to complete our reviev.J and send our \'/ritten comments unti 1 . ------------ (Date) We plan to attend the following hearings: ------------- Page 1 of 2 Pages Agency activities which affect land use in ~:heeler County include ----- (please specify and attach additional information as necessary): rhe following report(s) contain(s) information which should be added to the technical report (please specify and attach additional infor- mation as necessary): Please return to: Bea Donnelly Wheeler County Planning Coordinator County Courthouse Fossil, OR 97830 Page 2 of 2 Pages 3/80 N(,TICE OF PUBLIC HEt.RINc; Thf" MlfC~f"lI City (OLT:"'cll an" P:l'l",nlng Comml50~IC1~ will hole b Pub'lL r,£:o"Jr.c at 7:00 PM. Tue~day. May '17. 1lW'9:· a' fh~ Community Hall. Mitcnell. O"~gon, conct-rninQ re-vl("w a"d l!Oop'lon of: c .ifiDU'uit of lJllhliczltiDlt STATE OF OREGON, ) ) COUNTY OF CROOK, ) Janes 0 Smith b · fi d 1I, ~ ; emg rst u y sWCJrn, depose 2nd qy that I am the owner, editor, pub- lisher, m;}J~2~~er, ad\"C'rtising manager, principal clerk of the CE~T}{AL OHEGO?\IA!\', printer or his foreman of ti1e CE~,TRAL OHEG01'\IA..... , a newspaper of gener· al circulation, as defir.ed by ORS 193.010 and 193.020; printed and published at Prineville. in the aforesaid . notice county and state; that the __ _ __.. _ a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was publish· 1. N,l1ch~1I Cornpre~en'lve Plan 2. Zoni,,~ Ol"dir.ance J. SUbdivi~;on Ordinance ... Moolle Home Park :>rdinance 5_ Wheeler County Teo-chnleal Report Copies. are available for review 1'1 the N.itc.heli City Ha:J; County Pla!')~in';;) Comrr-.i~~ion office. '1/r,eeler Count.,. Courlhol,:'!.t, Fo!>!.i1; the Eas1 Ce-n~ral Oreo=>n to '!.~o<;a~ion of C01J!""tfie50 IE (OAe) ofl.:e. Pendieton, Ore-oon; and af 'he De-parr;-,E.!"'tt of li!lnd CO~50~rv~~;on and Dl:"vf'l~pment office in $.alC'm, Oreoon. Anyone ......ho he~ que-stions or co:nmenh c.oncernir,w the draft plans. 1e:h;,ic&1 re~rt. or vrd;nanc~. may con~act Be-I Dor,nelly. Wr'le-eler County' Planning Coordir,ator, COlJ:1fy Courthou~. Fc~sil. OR 97a30 15(3) 763·2911, or cr.o·i., Davl,. COf"r\pr~hE-,,!!.ivePlar'lner. ECO.~C. ~o Sox 1107, Pen:lielon. OR 97801 /5031 276·6732. ,"'.i!chell Clt)l Council MitChell Planning Commis,s.ion ed in the entire issue of said newspaper for .....9.P:.~..... successive and consecutive weeks in the following issues . 1'lay 15,1980Issue date . Issue date _ . Is~ ate . " date . Issue·date . the above pliblication wasThe fee Subscribed and s:'iorn to before me this..._.~2.~.!?-_ ~ J.1.ay ::: _........• 19 8.0 .,,-" , , ,r •. ~__ ~/._ 1_ , .-~. "..1__ ") .................. _·············i,i~t~·~y··p·~bli~·"io·~··6i:ego·~···_·_-- ~1y Commission e'(pire~ .3.:::-.12.:::.83 _ AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON County of Grant } ss. I, -Ted Becher..... .. ,being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the owner, editor, publisher, manager, principal clerk of THE BLUE MOUNTAI:--I EAGLE, a newspaper of general circulation, as defined by ons 193.010 and 193.020; printed and published at John Day, in the aforesaid county and state; that the .notice oLpublic hearing for the Mitchell Cit}' . ·Council and Planning.CC"lTlmtssion .................................... , a printed copy of which is hereto attached. was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for one. . successive and consecutive weeks in the following issues: . Subscribed and sworn to before me this ..16th ... day of....-',Iloy.........• 19.-80-............. ~./ ~ .._ ~kaL{() \--. ,../~l-1fJ VL!. Notary Publ' . r Oregon My commission expires Feb.~ ..J., 19.3.3.. Cost of this publication was $ ..10..83. . Public r~{)tites Public rJotices (Seal) NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING The Mitchell City Council and Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, May 27, 1980 at the Community Hall. Mitchell. Oregon. concerning review and adoption of: 1. Mitchell Comprehensive Plan 2. Zoning Ordinance 3. Subdivision Ordinance 4. Mobile Home Park Ordinance 5. Wheeler COUnty Technical Report Copies are available for review at the Mitchell City Hall; County Plann- ing Commission office, Wheeler County Courthouse. Foss.il; the East Central Oregon i1.S50ci:Hion of Coun- ties (ECOAC) office. Pendleton, Oregon; and at the Department of Land Conservation and Developmenr office in Salem. Oregon. Anyone who has questions or com- ments concerning the draft plans.. technical repoft. or ordinances. may conract Bca Donndlv, \X!heelei" coun- ty Planning Coordinator. Counry Courthouse. Fossil. OR 97830 (503)763-2911. or Charles Davis. Comprehensive Planner. ECOAC. P.O. Box 1207, Pendleton. OR 97801 (503)276-6732. Mitchell Cit\' Council Mitchell Planning Co~mLssion May 16 and 26, 1980 20-21 IN THE COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR UMATILLA COUNTY AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION OF Equity Law } No., _ STATE OF OREGON. County of Umatilla }~ I _-,,:rl'/ f~rostir;-- .-------'---------------------- being first duly sworn. depose and say that I am the principal clerk of the publisher of the East _'pgonian. a newspaper of general circulation. as defined by ORS 193.010 ..lnd 193.020; printed and published at Pendleton in the aforesaid county and state; that the .; i; r."', \:.- , ~L \ E05.'l-I NorlCE OF PUBLIC HEARiNG a printed copy of which is hereto annexed. was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ..:c=:...'__ successive and consecutive :: ;, ': '.:T t i ~, riin day of The 1\~irch~'?11 City (ollrlci: and Plannifli] Lamm;ssion ',Aid I r:oLj a public hearing at 7. Wpm. Tl.ies· day. May 27, 1980 01 CommO":"1 Hall, N.iicl''',~!J. Cri:gcr:, COrle ern· ing review emu adoption cL . L Mitchell Comprehensive Plan.. 2. Zoning Croinance 3. SubdiVision Orornance 4. Mob"e Home Par. Ord:nJnce. 5. Wheeler Counly Technicai Re· part Copies are available for re- view at the N,itcnell City Hall; Coun1v Pianning ComrniSStXl of· ficC', v't',~e~~r Counf." COl:,'~i:Jjus.c. Fossil; r:-:f' E":;;jt CF:nfrdl Cr-:C;~:1 Associar;on of CC'unfi~5 (ECOAC) office. Pendleron. Oregon; and at the Department of Land Con:;er- 'Vat ion and Devp.lopment oHice in Salem, Oregon. Anyone ..... ho has ques.tions (lr commenfS CO!lc~rnjng tt:e draft plan. tect".nical report. or ordi· nances, mC!y contact Bea Donnel- ly, Wheeler Coun'y Plan~ing Co· ordinator, Ccunty CClJrthouse, Fossil. O~ 97530 !50)~ 76) 211 L ~r CharlelJl, Davis, Comprehensive Plann",". ECOAC. P.O. 60.( 1207, Penolelon. OR 97601 (503) 276· 6732. Wheeler County Courl 1 Wheeler County Planning Com· mission MY CO~H?!SSIG: May 15.1980 5 EPT. 8. \:) <3C"Oc::-------'------1 ___:::==:;9~ , ./ -,' t";~ \/ ., ~~. , ~ /, .t/".... . . ,X..:,, "- ~-;7( I v,<.( ('.?.L/ ~ .£i" / C:: ,/!(.c.") 7 Notary Public of Oregon Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~l"-,[c.:"-I.t...l ..., _ the following issues: AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON County of Grant } ss. J, 1 edB.echar. . ,being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the owner, editor, publisher, manager, principal clerk of THE BLUE MOUNTAIN EAGLE, a newspaper of general circulation, as defined by ORS 193.010 and 193.020; printed and published at John Day, in the aforesaid county and state; that thenoti ceofpublic hearing Jor the FossiLCityCouncH ond.PlqnningCommissiQ!'l . . .................................... , a printed copy of which is hereto attached, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ona . successive and consecutive weeks in the following issues: . .......................•.•.•..~:=;~c=;~(ir ••...•~'~\:15,19M. Subscribed and sworn to before me this J6th day of... /Yay. , 19.8.0.............. I ) ............... ........fstt,r.b..O..D{LLfo~ .... Notary pu~or Oregon My commission expires Feb J.., 19..3.3. Cost of this publication was $ i .1 •.71 . Public rJotices (Seal) NOTICE OFPUBLIC HEARING The rossil City Council and PI2.nn- ing Commissio~ will hold a public hearing at 7:00 p.m., Wednesday, Mav 28, 1980;H the City Hall, Fossil, Or~gon, concerning revi~w and adop- tion of: I. Fossil Comprehensive Flan 2. Zoning Ordinance 3. Subdivision Ordinance 4. Mobile Home Park Ordinance ~. Wheeler County Technical Repon Cclpies are 3VJibble for review at the Fos.sil City Hall; COUnty Planning Commission office, \X1heelcr COUnty Courthouse. Fossil; the East Central Oregon Association of Counties (ECOAC) office, Pendleton, Oregon; Public rJntices and at the Department of Land Con- servation and ·Development office in: Salem, Oregon. Anyone who has questions or com- ments concerning the draft plans, technical repon, or ordimnccs, may contact Bea Donnellv. \Vheeler County Planning Coordi~a[Qr, Coun- ty courthouse, fossil, OR 978,)0 (~03)763-2911, or Charles Da Comprehensive Pbnner, ECOA,-" P.O. Box 1207, Pmdkwn, OR 97801 (~03)276-6732, . Fossil City Council Fossil Planning Commission May 16·26,1980 20-21 (~\ffioCtl1it of lJ~tbli cafion STATE OF OREGON, ) ) COUNTY OF CROOK, ) I, .:r~~~.?.9.· ?.rn.t~h: being first duly sworn, dcpose and SilY that I am the owner, editor, pub- lisher, maD;,ger, ad\"(,rtising manager, principal clerk of the CE~THAL OREGO~IA.l'l", printer or his foreman of tne CENTHAL OREGO~IA....~. a newspaper of gener· al circulation. as defjr.ed by ORS 193.010 and 193.020; printed and published at Prineville, in the aforesaid county and state; tbat tbe _ n.o.t.ic.B. _ a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was publish- ed in the entire issue of said newspaper for QA~ . successive and consecutive weeks in the following issues Issue da te tl?-.Y. l5.,..l..9.8.'O _ Issue da te . 15 1ate .. ( .••... c1e da te . Issue da te .. The fee charged for the above pliblication was ubscribed ..nd sworn to before me this.......~.~~.~_. day Of _ ~;::._ ~.~Y. _. 19 J?.9_.. , or :~.: __ '" ... .........:.,.I : ..:.(~ :~.~..:~.~:/ : ~ ' '.:'..!...:..~;!. .. Notar:;- Public for Oregon C .. . 3-12-83om miSSIOn expl'es .. ,"OTIC" OF PUBLIC >jEt.I1I~G The Fo'ull C"y Counctl enC PI~:'lnln9 Cor.-\m;~s.io"" wl:l t':o!c b publIc "'.e!lring at 7:00 PtI., WeC'Tes.~bY. N,lJy n. 198~ lJt ''''e C"y Hall. J:o~,i1. Orf'con. concerning revIew 8nO lJooption of: ,. Fos.sil Comprehensive Pl!ln 2. Zonino Ordinance. J. Subdivision Ordinance ... Moblie HC;Tie Perk Ordinance 5. Wr.eeler County Technical RepOrt COpi~s. ere lJv!lil&~le for revie-w, at thr- Fo,s." City HlJlI; CounTy PlanninQ Com' mis!>ion office. Wht'f'ler County (our- t~c)·.J!.oe. Fossil; the £~!>t Cer,trlJl O~econ A~s.vciatjon of Cou"t;es. (ECOAC) offic!. Pf'rI~leton. Ore;oo; end at the D~j:)&rt. men' of Land Con,c-rv03fion bod Deve~O;iment office in Saiem. Orf"~on. An"y'c.ne who hlJS c.L,e-sfions. or comments, CO:lcemlnQ The crlJf! p:&n5., 1f"Chnni~al report. or crdi/lp;')CM. m&y c:mt<"ct Bee Donnelly, \~;heejer County Planning Coordin~~or. Ccu~ty Cc.vrt~C':J!>-e', F05~1I, OR 97830 (503) 763·~911. or Charl~s DaVis. Cornpreher=,Sive P1a'lr:er. ECOAC. PO eox 11:)7. Pendleton. OR 97801 (503) 276·6732. FOS50il City Council Fossil Plan nine Commission ············· .. ······ .. ·,······· ~.c IN THE COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR UMATILLA COUNTY AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION OF Equity Law No. -_ STATE OF OREGON. County of Umatilla Beverly KrostingI. being first duly sworn.1depose and say that I am the principal clerk of the publisher of the East Or('gonian. a newspaper of general circulation. as defined by ORS 193.010 1d 193.020; printed and published at Pendleton in the aforesaid county and EO·531 r-iOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Subscribed and s'.vorn to before me this the following issues: a printed copy of which is hereto an~oxed. was published in the entire issue The 'Fossil City (OL:ncH and Pldnr.inq ((\I)ll;li:.s:~n ""'ill t".01..1 a r-ublic he~ifing aJ 7"l:C.Jn,. WednE-5C3',', May 28, 1y80 Clf me City Halt, F(;·s~~il. Oregon, (cn· ccrning (C"·.Iie....., and adoplion of: 1. Fossil Comprehe:'i1sive Plan. 1. Zoning Ordinance 3. SLIt"divisicn Ord;n:}oce 4. J't,o!:)ilc Home Park. Orcinance. 5. Wheeler County Techn;cal Re' port . Copies are available lor reo view at the F0ssil City Hali: County Pl2nning ComA1i~·sion ot· fice. Wne~ler COL:n1y Co~rthouse • . Fossil; the Easl CeMra' Oregon Association OT C:lUnties 'ECOAC) oHice. Pe:"\:':lIetan. Oregon; ana af the D2'P:?":(!":e~"; (\t L.~nd C0nS0r· vallon an~ DevcI00!TI~r.! o,hc~::! In Sair:m. Ori.'?g()nian. a newspaper of general circulation. as defined by ORS 193.010 the following issues: .nd 193.020; printed and published at Pendleton in the aforesaid county and a printed copy of which is hereto annexed. was published in the entire issue I. =::::::: 1'0·535 \ NOTICS OF PUBLIC ~if.,\RiNG \ The V'l"t'ieE-it:'r C0U:1ty (ourT 2nd I Planninq ccmm;-::,s:::"f"\ ,...·iil t"rOld a I public hPearing at 7; 3::am. Tr,u~s' . day. N,zY '29. 1:;030 ar ~lle W~L-~'Ier County (ourfr.cuse. Fo~s.d. Ore· oon concerning r(·'.';E"W and dCOP- lion of: 1. Wh?eler County ComorE"hen- sive Plan, 2. Zoning Ordi:lance 3. Subdi .... ision Orc:;n-3!"ce 4. Spray Urban Growth Area Joint .management ,.:\gre-e-' ment, s. V/he~ler CouP.ty Tcch!'lical Re· porI CDOles ar~ c·Jc:~3tde lor rf:: .... ie ...... at the C(;u~r',. r'la:lflli'l9 Commission office. V,'tH"~ler county Co~rt!lo'J'Se. Fos'",i1: ~!":e East Central Oreq::r: Assoc:at!cn of CQunTies (=CO,\C' .JP~c'2. Pen' al~ron. Oregon; c1!"'ld a: the De' partment ot Land Cor,serv.]fiJp. and D€'velopm('n~office ;11 Salem. Orecon. Anyone wtlO t'.as que~IiGns or . comments concerni"9 lh~ ~r3ft plan. techn;cal r~o{'rf. or ordl' nances. rna", conioet Se.a Denrlel· Iv. Wheeler Counly Planning Co· ordinator. County Courfhouse. Fossil. OR 97530 (503) 763·291 Lor Charles Davis. ComprehensIve Planner. ,,(QAe. P.O. Box 1207, Pendlefon, OR 'i7801 (503) 276' 6732. \\tH~e:er Cc,-,:'!t'/ (curi Wher:!cr CoJunl', PIMln,ng Com" mission May 15. 1980 19~ ;> p ,- Notary Public of Oregon :-.1Y CO~.;~,~IS~~:ON EXPIRES SEPT. 8. 1930 Subscribed and sworn to before me this -------=::----f[---:-.;+-L+l,-, day of 1 ~ _. -'---, -.; •.:..J ,-- _ {if (t 'LLl=-j-/-~--'c.7I--1.--~0!..\~-=-::L.-==_-c_.-'------\/-~~-t\---- state; that the of said newspaper for -= successive and consecutiv~ :.:'~ !" \- ~ r n in AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION ...._ , a printed copy of which is hereto attached, was successive and consecutive weeks in the following issues: _ __ . published in the entire issue of said newspaper for O'!:1.~ . the .n':)ti.ce.oJ.oub'Jcheori'lR. for the$pray..City.C.ounc.iJ 9D.~..p'.!~nni.rlg C:()m.mis~i9!" . Public Notices The Spray City Council and Plann- ing Commission wiil hold a public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Frid3.\·, May 30, 1980 at the City Hall, Spra}', Or~gon, concerning review and adoption of: 1. Spray Comprehensive Plan 2. Zoning Ordinance 3. Subdivision Ordinance 4. Mobile Home Park Ordinance 5. \"X'heeler COUnty Technical Report 6. Spray Urban Growth Boundary Joint Management Agreement NOTICE OF punuc HEARL~G ss.}County of GrantSTATE OF OREGON I, Te.ct Becher ,being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the owner, editor, publisher, manager, principal clerk of THE BLUE MOUNTAIN EAGLE, a newspaper of general circulation, as defined by ORS 193.010 and 193.020; printed and published at John Day, in the aforesaid county and state; that Subscribed and sworn to before me this ..1 qth day oL. MQ)'. , 19...60. .....__.. ) ........_._ t6-{{{ '~J- ..b)~LL~~~:iy . NotarY"Public for Oregon V My commission expires _ Feb~.._l, 19..83. Cost of this publication was $.. lL.ZO.._ _ _ . Copies are available for review ar the Spray City Hall; COUnty Planning Commission office, Wheeler COUnty Courthouse, Fossil; the East Central Oregon Association of Counties (ECOAC) office, Pendleton, Oregon; and at the Department of L1nd Con- servation ahd Development office in Salem, Oregon . Anyone who has questions or com- ments concerning the draft plans, rechnical report, or ordinances, may contact Bea DonnellY, Wheeler County Planning Coordi~alOr,Coun- ty Courthouse, Fossil, OR 97830 (503)763-29] 1, or Charles Davis. (Seal) Comprehensive Planner, ECOAC, P.O. Box 1207, Pendleton, OR 97801 (503)276-6732. Spray City Council Spray Planning Commission May ]6 and 26. 1980 20-21 Plan I J..?..pe..?. Q ~.';l~~.~ being first duly sworn, depose "nd say that I am the owner, cditor. pub- lisher, m;,n:,ger. ,,(herti~ing manager, principal clerk of the CE:'>iTHAL OH!::GOKIAN, printer or his foreman of tne CENTRAL OREGONIA,1'{. a newspaper of gener· al circulation, as defir.ed by ORS ]93.010 and ]93.020; printcd and published at Prineville. in the aforesaid notice county and state; that the.. __ .....__._. . ._. _ a printed copy of which is hereto annexed. was publish· d · th tir' . f'd f on~e In e en e Issue 0 sal newspaper or _ . successive and consecutive weeks in the following issues STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF CROOK, ) ) ) "C1IC£ OF PlJ5LtC "E "KING The s.pr~., City Cownclr and Plonnino (omm·u·v!"t will ho:c l!l P~!bliC lIt"brrnc a~ 7:){, PN.• FriCbY. fI.bY)C 198-:' aT ttlt (ITy Hall. SprbY, Vrtl;Jon. conCe-rnl"lJ review and lJ::l<'~~jon 01 : 1. SprlJY Com.,rtt\e-~!Iv·t 1. Zoining Or;j;!ibnCe 3. Subdivi~ion OrC'jn6nce- ... Mobi:e- Home- Pbrk ordl".,nce S. Yr'~It"tler County Ie-chnical Repcrt 6. Spray Urban Gro.vth Boundary JoInt N.bnage-me-nt Agre-ement Copie-s ore 2 .....ail~vlt for revif:W 8t the S~rt.y City Hall; COU!11y P:a;-;,,;:;g Com- rr:.~s.;on cHiCt. 'Nr.eeltr County Cour. rr-,:>\.,~. ~O~!il; the Ea!l.! (eMfal Orto",on I- ~!>vc'btlon of (ou:1t:es (~5-QAC) office. Ptnd1tto". OrecQO; bnd '~e D~par1me~tof LI!!I~d .Cot'":!l.trvaHon and D~\le;o;:>menl office In Salt-m, Oregon. Ar-,yont whO he3 CUMo1io..... ! or comments conce-rning the- draft P:trts.. 'e-:hnicel r~POr1, or o=--d;nbnce-s.. r:"":-,y contact B~& Donne.By, V"'~,eeler Cou~ty Plbr:ning CUJrGlf'latOr. Cc.un'y CC;)r1~0use. rC3sll, CR >7830 (5-:3J 763'2911,0' U.orlos Davis, Comp"f'he~~ivePlann-er, ECOAC, PO 80x 1207, Pon:Ji.'"", OR 97&01 (S03) 276'6732. I Spray Clly Council Spr-,y Plllnnir:g Commis.sion Issue date hf3,y l.5 .l9.8.'o .. Issue date c.. I ::;;;;.:.~ date __ .. 'le da te : .. Iss ue da te · __ .. The fee charged for the above ptfDlication was $....7.~~.f?9.-- . /L ~ /. ..':tk42(7l~~li;h;;~: Ls~n~d and sworn to before me thIS _ .. day oL. }!.9.-.Y. _ 19 .§.Q .. ' . . I ",-, ~- .....,.!.:~L.\ ..~~<.... >:~:~.!::.:::-:. __.~~_.~!..~:.~ .. /:: ..'!.-,..) ... Nctary Public for Oregon ."y Commission i'xpires... ...3.:-::l.2:-::8.3 .. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF GILLIAM, ss: J2~ct L. 3t~~ch~ie2dI. . . being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the .............. r:',:?.J~~~~.c;);, of the GILLIAM-WHEELER TI:V1ES-JOURt~AL, a newspa- per of general circulajon as defined by Sections 1-509. 1-510, Oregon Code; rrLlted and published at Condon in the aforesaid county and state; that the ~:'?:,.1<;? .....• n"'" ':)lJr:l-j" :':P~"""';'r""IrT • ••••• •-.'•••• '., .'.-.,< •••'.~'~'.n"Vo"""""""'" a pnnted copy of which is, hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for .... ?::~.. '" .. , .... successive and consecutive weeks in the following is- sues: :'~aY 1" 1980 . •••••••••• J:' '.' C)md>:1~;f!# Subscribed and sworn to before me this .?;.+.~ .. d f '~~., cOay 0 :;~.; 19.. :-: .. /ft!X4.~~'~~'.[·.c/-t;:'.'~-:'.;):.?~. 19. B.~ ..) ""....~":"~ Legal Notice") _..,...."""'·~~-s:z.'9~·0?t,; ,j !'iOT/CE OF PliBLlC HEAR/:'oIG The Spray City Council ~nd Pbnnin u Commi\\ion will h"/d ~ public hcarin~ ~~ 7:,30 p.m.. Friday. ,\fa\ 30. 1980 at inc ~lty Hall. Spray, Orcgon. conccrning rc- new and actopeion of: I. Spray Comprehcn\i\'e Plan 2. Zoning Ordinance 3, Subdivision Ordinance ~. Mobile Home Park Ordinance ::>. Wheeler Count\' TL'ch,:ical Repon 6. Spray Urban Growth Boundan' Joint Management Agreement . Copie:s arc available for review at the ~p~ay City Hall; County Planning Comm- Ission office. Wheeler Coumv Court- house. Fossil; the East Centra-' Oreoon Association of Counties (ECOAC) offi"ce Pendleton. Oregon; and at the Depan: l1ICII\ of Land Conservation Jnd Develoo- mene office in Salem. Oregon. . Anyone who has questions or comm- Cllts concerning the draft plans. techni- cal report. or ordinances. may comacl Bea Donnelly. Wheeler COlintv Plannin o Coordinator. County Counho~se. Fossit OR ,97830 (503) 763-2911. or Charle~ DaVIS. Comprehensive Planner. ECOAC ; PO Box 1207. Pendleton. OR 97801 (503) 276·6732. Spra\' Cit\' Council Spra;' Pla'nning Commission Published May 15. 1980 TJ/IOI IN THE COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR UMATILLA COUNTY AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION OF STATE OF OREGON. County of Umatilla }~ Equity Law }No. _ I. ____-=8'-'e=-;-'-v_'e~_'__r...:l"__1.'/_'_'f~:..:.i"__'_'(;_'::."_,_'=t'_'i=...:..n'__r:l.: . being first duly sworn. depose and say that I am the principal clerk of the publisher of the East .·pgonian. a newspaper of general circulation. as defined by ORS 193.010 and 193.020; printed and published at Pendleton in the aforesaid county and state; tha t th e __........;..:.;:'---- r'-'..l.I..:.,~l'-,.,.:.-.;;'-'c'-----_-l-i·...:,nc;..:..~-'-'I'-"_;'-, J-c...:r,-:,_'---,-_'-_...:...,_,~,'----'-_~_..~-.,,'_' _ a printed copy of which is hereto annexed. was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ~ successive and consecuti,Je-1 .~:-: i" +- inn in the following issues: ~1JL]. ': tfJ ~\\\ b~ Subscribed and sworn to before me this EO·53J ~IOTlC2 CF PUBLIC HEARING The Spray City Co~;ncil and' Pfan.ning CNnrn:ssic:n 'Niij r,old d public hearir.1~' 7;JJp:n, Frida~', May 30, 1nO ilt the Cit"! Holl. S~rcJYI Oregon, concerning reo VIew and adopfion ot: 1. Spary Compret1'!'~sive Plan 2. Zoning Ord;nance . J. Subdivision Ordinance 4. Mobile Home Park Ordinance. 5. Spray Urban Growt~ BOUndary Joint Management Agree- ment. . Copies are available for reo VIew at the Spray City Hall; County Planning Commi,sion ot. fice, .\\'hf:?eler County Courthouse, FO"".; the Ea,t Cenlra! Oreg0n A~~Cldr,on of C0unti~s i ECG.\C} Ofd(C', Pendleton.. Oregon. and at the. Deoarfmenf of Lana COnser. vatlon and Development office in . Salem, Oregon. Anyone who tlas questions or comments concerning the oraft plan, technical reporr. or ordi. nances. may contact Bea Donnel- _ Iy. Wheeler County Planning Co- , ord,nato,. County Courthouse Fossil. OR 97830 (503) 76329) 1.0; ; Charles Davis. Comprehensive! Planner. ECOAC, P.O. [lo, 1207. ' Pendleton. OR 97801 (50) 276'1 6732. Wheeler County Court Wheeler County Planning Com.. miSSion May 15. 1?80 MY COMMISSION eXPIRES:---------- SEPT.e.1980 WHEELER COUNTY FOSSIL, OREGON 97830 PUBLIC NOTICE Hearings on t1e Proposed Comprehensive Plans, Implementation Ordinances, Spray Urban GrO\'/th f\rea Joi nt tlanagement Agreement and Techni ca1 Report for Wheeler County and the Cities of Fossil, Mitchell, and Spray have been continued to the following dates: Fossil: June 16, 1980 at Fossil City Hall, 7:00 P.M. Spray: June 17, 1980 at Spray City Hall, 7:30 P.M. Wheeler County Planning Commission: June 19, 1980 at the County Courthouse Fossil, 7:30 p.n. Mitchell:June 20, 1980 at Community Hall, Mitchell, 7:00 P.M. The meetings have been continued to provide additional time for public review and to allow planning staff to amend the draft documents in response to review comments received. A public hearing before the Wheeler County Court has been scheduled for 7:00 P.r1. at the County Courthouse in Fossil, Oregon concerning the review and adoption of: 1. Wheeler County Comprehensive Plan 2. Zoning Ordinance 3. Subdivision Ordinance 4. Spray Urban Growth Area Joint Management Agreement 5. Whee12r County Technical Report Anyone having questions or comments concerning the draft plan, technical report, or ordinances is urged to attend the meetings or contact Bea Donnelly, Wheeler County Planning Cordinator, County Courthouse, Fos~il, Oregon 97830, phone (503)763-2911. WHEELER COUNTY FOSSIL, OR~GON 97830 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Wheeler County Court will hold a public hearing at 7:00 PM, Tuesday, June 24, 1980 at the \'!heeler County Courthouse, Fossil, Oregon concerning review and adoption of: 1. Wheeler County Comprehensive Plan 2. Zoning Ordinance 3. Subdivision Ordinance 4. Spray Urban Growth Area Joint Management Agreement 5. Wheeler County Technical Report . Copies are available for revievJ at the County Planning COJl1mission office, Hheeler County Courthouse, Fossil; the East Central Oregon Association of Counties (ECOAC) office, Pendleton, Oregon; and at the Department of Land Conservation and Development office in Salem, Oregon. Anyone who has questions or comments concerning the draft plan, tech- nical report, or ordinances, may contact Bea Donnelly, Wheeler County Planning Coordinator, County Courthouse, Fossil, OR 97830 (503) 763-2911, or Charles Davis. Comprehensive Planner, ECOAC, POBox 1207, Pendleton, OR 97801 (503) 276-6732. Wheeler County Court June 12, 1980 CD/bjb IN THE COURT OF THE 5TATE OF OREGON FOR UMATILLA COUNTY AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION OF Equity Law }No. _ sworn, depose and say that I am the principal clerk of the publisher of the East Orl"gonian, a newspaper of general circulation. as defined by ORS 193.010 a printed copy of which is hereto annexed. was published in the entire issue eO-613 NOTICe OF PUBLIC HEARING The Wheeler County Court will hold a public hearing at 7:OCpm. Tuesday. June 24. 1980 at the Wheeler County Courthouse, Fos- sil, Oregon conerning review and adoption of: 1. Wheeler County Comprehen' . sive Plan 2. Zoning Ordinance 3. Subdivision Ordinance 4. Spray Urban Growlh Area Joint Managemenl Agree- ment 5. Wheeler County Technical Re- port Co~ies are available for reo view at the County' Planning Commiss;on oifice, Wheeler County COIJrthouse, Fossil; t:te East Ce.1rral Oregon Assccia:;on of Counties (ECOAC) office. Pen- dleton, Oregon; and at the De- partment of Land Conservalion and Development ott ice in Salem, Oregon. Anyone who has questions or comments concerning the dra!- plan, technical report, or ordi· nances, may conlact Bea Donnel- ly, Wheeler County Planning Co- ordinator. County Courthouse, Fossil. OR 97830 (503) 763-:m 1. or Charles Davis, Comprehensive' Planner, ECOAC P.O. Box 1207, Pendleton, OR 97801 (503) 276- 6732. Wheeler County Court June 12, 1980 _ . 19~1L r~o t i ce 0 f PIl b 1 L~ He aci4-no2~ _ I, ~_t.anL----'l_Yp.J.b-<:e,-,-c-,k,,-.ec..Lr being first duly County of Umatilla STATE OF OREGON. state; that the ----LO-:::-bJ.3 of said newspaper for ]...., successive and consecutive ins e r t i 0 rIn Subscribed and sworn to before me this --t.ni.cie.en.r.....ub'-- day of __J.LlluIHl£-----..-/?7.-=j9~ ., (, :z2eL /£:<.6.."./ Q ::;;{ 12-::/( :?i . ~l' ~ Notary Public of Oregon MY COM~.~:SS:C::EXPIRES SEPT. 8. 1930 r,. .-C Wheeler Coui~PS;'piallllil!..gC0111111issiol1 ") 'j·..-:....~~;.~:-:·:·~<..t, .. WH EELE'Ri:'OC'~,ncYCOURT'HOUSE 1'r-i;-r.Lrp ., '-/ ~ - I Fossil. Orc£?,oll 97823 ./~ _.n· 'C--- . ~--~.~ ...._, L_~ l __ . _ June 30, 1980 Notice of Joint l'leeting \Vi th the \'lheeler County Court !1embers and the Wheeler County Planning Commission Members. A joint meeting has been scheduled for TUESDAY, July 8th, 2:00 P.M. at the Wheeler County Courthouse, County Court Room, Fossil, Oregon It is important that you attend . .... -' '-~-' '.:c?-- Bea Donnelly, Secretary cc: County Court Members County Planning Commission /·lembers l\fficlauif rtf JIublitafion ••••• S5; .----., , I ''---.. h 'e. ( (: STATE OF OREGON. r;OUNTY OF GILLJAlvf. Janet L. Stinchfield1, . _ bcing first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the ___P_u_b_l_i_s_h_e_r ofthe Gilliam- Wheeler Times-Journal. a newspaper of general circulation as defined by Sections 1-509, 1-510, Oregon Codc; printcd and published at Condon in thc aforesaid county and state; that the Noti ce -:.o::..:f=--.=P--=u~b::..:l~i--=c:.-.::I'..::..;1e-=---e_t_i_n-'g>--<--- , a printed copy of which is hereto annexed. was published in the 1tire issue of said ncwspaper fbr __o_n_e _ successlvc and consccutive weeks in the following Issues: July 31, 1980 t ~31stSubscribed and sworn to before me this _ day of J_u_l_y . 1eP0 l.==.·.lli!It.l ~~~~ NOTICE OF PUBliC I\1EETING The Wheeler County PlanningComm- ission will hold a public meeting to dis- cuss the Wheeler Co;)nty Comprehensive Plan,' the J60 acre minimum lot size and the open zone disignation on the John Day Ri\'cr. The mceting will be held. Tuesday. August 5. 1950 at 7:30 p.m. at thc Wheeler County COllrthollse. John Misener. Chairman Wheeler County Plann;ng Commission Published July 31. 1980 TJI156 ''''y commission expires February 20 t; '<~'. ... X:~l':'i~ ~ ••••• NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Chapter IV Natural Environment A. Geology Although some remnants of pre-Tertiary. Age (pre-60 million years before the present (MBP)) geology may be found in Wheeler County, the majority of visible geologic formations in the county originated during the Tertiary Age of the Cenozoic Era i.e., 60 MBP to 3 MBP. Two small areas in southern Wheeler County represent metamorphosed, sedimentary rocks of the Paleozoic Era (oldest rocks). Cretaceous marine sandstones of a pre-Tertiary age Ulesozoic Era) lie in the valley of West Branch Creek, and in the Hudspeth and Gable Creek Formations. These marine sandstones are the remains of an ancient sea that once covered portions of the Wheeler County area. Older Tertiary formations of volcanic and continental sedimentary rocks lie in the west and central portions of Wheeler County. These formations resulted from geolo9ic activity during the Eocene Epoch (60 MBP to 40 MBP), the Oligocene Epoch (40 MBP to 25 MBP) and the early Miocene Epoch (25 MBP to 12 MBP). Younger Tertiary formations of Columbia River Basalt, andesite flows and minor continental sedimentary rocks cover older layers along the county's north and south borders and along parts of the John Day River. These younger formations oriqinated during the later Miocene Epoch (25 MBP to 12 MBP) and the Pliocene Epoch (12 MBP to 3 r~BP). Particular points of interest in Wheeler County include geologic formations found in the Clarno Formation between the Ochoco Summit and Clarno (western Wheeler County), the John Day Formation near ~1itchell and the Painted Hills State Park (southwest county area) and in the Thomas Condon-John Day State Park (east county), Devil's Post Pile formations found in Columbia River Basalt areas of the county (northern county), the Rattlesnake Formation (extreme eastern edge of county near Picture Gorge) and the Mascall Formation. The Clarno Formation contains several layers of fossil and plant remains from the late Eocene age. These remains lie in sandstone and siltstone deposited in rivers and lakes. Lava flows, mudflows, volcanic breccias, beds of volcanic ash and flows of the basalt, andesite, dacite and rhyolite type, show evidence of volcanic activity in this formation. The John Day Formation in Wheeler County is best exposed in the Painted Hills area, northwest of Mitchell. The formation is several thousand feet thick in this area and was exposed by faulting, landslides and erosion. The colorful layers characteristic of the Painted Hills result from the presence of trace minerals. The lower beds are from an early age and are generally colored red from the presence of hematite or iron oxi de. The mi ddl e, younger 1ayers are green, indicating the presence of clinoptilolite, a mineral. The top, white colored layers are of a more recent age. The presence of fossil remains in this formation makes Wheeler County a good place to study Oligocene and early Miocene Paleontology and Paleobotany. Portions of both the Clarno Formation and the John Day Formation are now included in the John Day Fossil Beds National Monument. The Rattlesnake Formation near Picture Gorge is noted mainly for its mammalian fossils (Hipparion, a Pliocene horse). It is composed of alluvial gravel's and dates back about 3 million years. The Mascall Formation shows some signs of local volcanic activity and alluviation. It is most noted for its fossil remains of a three-toed Miocene horse. IV -1 B. Mineral s and Aqre9.Q.te Resources Map B-1 summarizes mineral resources found in ~'Jheeler County including chromitt:, gold, silver, mercury, clay, pumicelpumicite, potassium feldspar, zeolites, coal, petroleum and natural gas. Minerals present in the adjacent counties are numerous, particularly in relatively exotic metals. Metallic Minerals 1. Chromite, (Cr 0 ) - most existing prospects are concentrated in Grant County ~n~ar John Day and Fields Creek), but the western edge of the knov.Jn district extends into vJheeler County. Assays test high-chromium (55% Cr203; CrlFe ratio of 3.25:1) to high-alumina(32% Cr 0 ; CrlFe ratto of 1.75:1). Relatively low purity hasdiscour~g~d development of this resource in Oregon, although the U.S. is highly dependent on foreign sources. Uses: Metallurgy (in manufacture of stainless and other ferroally steels) and refractory linings for high-temperature furnances. 2. Gold and Silver - Quartz fissure veins in pre-Tertiary greenstones, argillite, and limestone. The veins contain pyrite, sphalerite, galena, and gold. History of mining activity in Spanish Gulch District (Spanish Peak in the County's southeast corner), but no records of yield are available. Nearby mines of significance are: Howard District (in Crook County, 15 miles SW of Mitchell) which produced $80,000 in gold during 1885-1930; and Oregon King Mine (Jefferson County, 35 miles SW of Fossil) that yielded 300,000 ounces of silver, 3,000 of gold. Discovered in 1898, the mine's most recent activity was during 1962-1965. 3. Mercury - Found mostly in the margins of riolitic volanic plugs and dikes of the Clarno and John Day formations as cinnabar (HgS). A 1arge mercury-ri ch area centered in Jefferson and Crook Counti es overlaps into southwestern Wheeler County. Oth~r nearby mines are: Horse Heaven Mine (Jefferson County, the second largest producer in Oregon); Ochoco Creek and Johnson Creek Hi nes (both in Crook County); and Canyon Creek Mine (Grant County). Uses: Measuring instruments, electronics, paints, fungicides, and as an agent in production of chlorine. 4. Uranium - The map indicates the presence of Uranium just northwest of Mitchell. At present, this site is not known to have large enough amounts of the metal to be of economic value. Nonmetallic Minerals 1. ~ - Clays suitable for red-firing brick and tile are present in widespread areas of eastern Oregon. Although no clay deposits have been specially located on Map B-1, historical evidence indicates that a pit (red clay) once was located just north of Fossil. Potentials of clays from the John Day Formation need to be evaluated IV -2 JOHN DAY DRAINAGE BASIN) WHEELER COUNTY MINERAL DEPOSITS 15 R25ER24E SCALE OF MILES ------------- o I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R22ER21ER20ER19E Tl2S T11S T6S T8S T7S T9S LEGEND t METALS 2 Chromite 11 Coal 5 Gold 14 Limestone 7 Mercury 17 Helded Tuff (Qui cks i 1ver) 18 Pumice, Pumicite Silver 19 Potassium Feldspar Urani um 20 Zeolites RoadroGk throughout basin, Sand and Gravel along major streams. Dry hole drilled for oil- numbers indic~te depth !STATE WATER RESOURCES BOARD SALEM. OREGON No... 1960 Map B-1 for suitability as white-firing clays, which are apparently somewhat rare. The presence of high-alumina and high-silica materials such as chromite, pumice, potassium Feldspar·, basalt, zeolites, etc. indicates the probable presence of refractory clays. Uses: Building and decorative brick, refractory brick, pottery tile. Extremely old clays of small particle size (2-5 microns) are used for cuating and filling fine papers, and as a filler material to provide stability to molded platic products. 2. Pumice, Pumicite - A large area of these high-silica volcanic products is located in east central Wheeler County. Uses: Abrasives, paints, plastics, rubber, refractory brick, soil conditioners, concrete products. Perlite is made by synthetically expandi ng, or "poppi ng" pumi cite. There is a perl i te plant in Portland. 3. Potassium Feldspar (KA1Si 108) - Found in tuffaceous clayst5ne inlower parts of the John DctY Formation, up to 8% purity, over at , least 600 square miles. Relatively low purity has discouraged development to date. the Uses: Glass and ceramics, abrasives, soil conditions, fertilizers. 4. Zeolites - Crystalline hydrated aluminosilicates, occur as bedded deposits of ~linoptilolite in the lower part of the John Day Formation near Deep Creek and the Painted Hills. Uses: Purification and drying of liquids and gases; chemical separation catalysts; ¢econtamination of radioactive wastes; soil conditions. 5. Coal - Widely-scattered exposures of bituminous coal occur in the Clarno Formatinn across northern Uheeler County and into Morrow County. The coal found near the John Day River in central Wheeler County represents the best quality in the Clarno Formation. Beds are thin and di sconti nuous, and contain 1arge amounts of impuriti es. 6. Petroleum and Natural Gas - Surface indications of petroleum have been found in volcanic rocks-5urrounding unmetamorphosed pre-Tertiary marine rocks in northwest Wheeler County. Several test wells have been drilled in this area, but test results are not available. Mineral aggregate, used primarily for road bUilding and construction is extracted at nunlerous sites throughout the County by private, ' county and state concerns. Table B-1 lists the mineral aggregate sources within vJheeler County which the Oregon State Highway Division has used or plans to use in the future. The protection of these and other sources for mineral aggregate from enroachment by adjacent development which would prevent future removal is a concern expressed by the Dregon Department of Transportation (refer to appendix). IV -3 TABLE B-1 Oregon State Highway Division - Mineral Aggregate Sources Section) fownship &Range ·Sec. 8. T. 125. R. 20E W.M. Sec. 3. T. 12S) R 20E H.M. Sec. 25. T. llS. R. 20E HJ1. Sec. 21. 22 &28. T. 115) R. 21E H.M. .li;'Sec. 33. T. 115. R. 22E H.r·1. Sec. 2. T. 125. R. 22E H.M. Sec. 18. 1. 12S. R. 24E H.!·1. Sec. 4, T. 125. R. 24E H.M. Sec. 15 &16. T. 125) R. 25E H.M. Sec. I. T. lOS. R. 22E and Sec. 6. T. lOS. R. 23E H.M. Sec. 32. T. 105) R. 22E H.M. Sec. 7. 8 &17. T. 115) R. 22E H.M. Sec. 23. T. 115) R. 21E H.M. Sec. 16. T. 65) R. 21E H.M. Sec. 20. T. 75. R. 21E H.M. Sec. 19. T. 75. R. 21E H.M. Sec. 31. T. 7S) R. 20E H.M. Sec. 2. T. 7S) R. 21E H.M. Sec. 35. T. 65,' R. 21E H.M. Sec. 2, T. 7S) R. 21E H.M. Sec. 29. T. 75) R. 22E H.M. Sec. 4 &5) T. 85) R. 22E H.M. Sec. 10 &11, T. 85) R. 22E H.M. Sec. 36. T. 85, R. 22E H.M. Sec. 9. T. 95) R. 23E H.M. Sec~ 18. T. 95. R. 23E H.M. Sec. 1 &12. T. 95) R. 23E H.M. Sec. 35) T. 85, R. 24E H.M. Sec. I. T~ 95, R. 24E H.M. Sec. 8. T. 95, R. 25E H.M. Sec. 4 &9, T. 95, R. 25E H.M. Sec. 10, T. 95. R. 25E H.M. . Sec. 23.1. 9S. R. 25E H.M. Sec. 10. T. 7S) R. 25E H.M. IV-4 r'latericl QU2:rry Quarry Que.rry Quarry Quarry Que.rry Quarry Que.rry .Quarry Quarry Quarry Gravel Quarry QUerry Quarry Quarry Quarry Quarry . Quarry Quarry Talus Quarry Quarry ,Quarry Gra\!~l Gravel Quarry Gravel Gre.ve1 Gravel Talus Quarry Quarry Quarry Source Identification 35-12-4 35-13-4 35-14-4 Not Assigned 35-16-4 35-17-4 35-21-4 35-22-4 Not Assigned 35-29-4 35-30-4 Not Assigned 35-31-4 35-1-4 35-27-4 35-26-4 35-24-4 35-36-5 35-3-5 35-4-5 35-37-5 35-5-5 35-6-5 35-39-5 35-38-5 35-7-5 35-8-5 35-9-5 35-35-5 35-41-5 35-40-5 35-34-5 35-10-5 35-28-5 C. Topography The northern half of \~heeler County is high plateau country, broken by deep canyons along creeks and rivers. It is here that most of the County's dry land agricultural crops are grown and private timber holdings occur. The County's southern half, from the John Day River to the Ochoco National Forest, is Inountainous, with abrupt hills, vulleys and ridges, created by massive buckling of the earth's crust during periods of often violent volcanic activity. This area contains the historic geological attractions and mineral deposits, and is devoid of most agricultural activity except cropping along fertile river bottoms and livestock grazing in the uplands. Elevations vary widely, ranging from a high at 6,885-foot Spanish Peak in the County's southeast corner, to a low of approximately 1,100 feet on the John Day River at the northwest corner. Elevations of the County's three incorporated cities are: Feet Above Sea Level Fossil Mitchell Spray 2,654 2,785 1,700 . Source: Wheeler County, Oregon, Industrial Development Factbook, Business Economic, Inc., 1978. IV-5 ,I ~ t' I o 6 SCALE IN MILES FOSSIL MITCHELL SOURCE: U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MAPS. TOPOGRl.\Pi;Y O~c CiTIES \Y~J~~t~l~:lt~l~ l0~JOO[~!IW9 WW~[®®l~ S.PRAY g IU 2000 iite SCALE IN FEET Map No. C-2 D. Cl imate Wheeler County's climate is characterized by hot, dry summers and cold winters. Most of the precipitation occurs during the winter months (November-March) as snow in higher elevations. Much of this precipitation is available for irrigation in spring runoff or may be stored in impoundments. Table D-l summarizes monthly precipitation averages at three Wheeler County 1oca ti ons.. Table D-2 shows monthly average temperatures recorded at the same three stati ons. The number of frost free days in Wheeler County varies from the north to the south. The northwestern corner of the County lies in the Columbia Plateau region. The average frost-free period ranges from 140 to 175 days in this region. Fossil, Mitchell and Spray all lie within the Upper Snake River Lava Plains and Hills region which stretches across central Wheeler County. The average frost-free period ranges from 90 to 150 days in this region. Northeastern and southern Wheeler County lie in the Northern Rocky Mountains region. The frost-free period for this area ranges from 60 to 135 days. No data is now available concerning the number of cloudless days and wind velocities in Wheeler County. In general, many parts of the County experience a large number of sunny days which would make the use of solar energy very feasible in the County. IV-6 Table D-1 Monthly Precipitation Averages Wheeler County, Oregon (Measured in Inches) Fossil Mitchell Spray - 30-Year 27-Year 1971 Month 1971 Average 1971 Average Only January 1.43 1.65 1.28 0.91 2.04 February 0.54 1.24 0.19 0.91 0.87 March 1.31 1.26 1.16 0.97 1. 71 April 1.15 1.03 1.14 0.97 1.15 Hay 2.07 1.'25 0.92 1.19 1.62 June 0.45 1.38 0.99 1.13 0.76 July 0.28 0.19 0.64 0.27 u.75 August 0.56 0.09 0.25 0.13 0.20 September 0.59 0.61 0.41 0.56 0.67 October 1.34 1.09 1. 32 0.69 2.22 November 2.28 1.92 2.00 0.74 2.92 December 1.35 1.61 1.35 0.85 3.38 Annual Average 13.35 13.32 11.65 9.32 18.29 Source: Whe~ler County, Oregon, Industrial Development Handbook Buslness Economics, Inc., August, 1978. IV-7 Table 0-2 Wheeler County, Oregon MEAN DAILY TEMPERATURE AVERAGES Table 1 BY MONTH . '11/ Mitchell.!! sprayYFoss~ - Max. 1'-1 in . Avg. Max. ~in. ~ Max. Min. Avg. -- January 41.3 22.9 32.1 42.S 24.7 33.6 N.A. N.A. 37.6 February 46.0 26.2 36.1 46.5 27.0 36.8 II II 39.9 March 50.5 26.1 38.3 50.7 28.3 39.5 II " 42.2 April 60.0 30.2 45.1 60.0 33.2 46.6 " " 50.0 May 68.4 36.0 52.2 67.1 39.2 53.2 " " 59.4 June 74.5 40.5 57.5 75.5 45.6 60.6 II " 63.91-4 c:::: July 86.4 53.6 70.0 87.3 51. 2 69.3 It to 74.1I co August 83.1 42.0 62.6 82.3 48.6 65.5 II II 77.7 September 76.8 38.7 57.8 76.5 44.3 60.4 " " 60.3 October 66.0 33.2 49.6 64.3 36.4 50.4 ,. " " 50.1 November 50.4 26.7 38.6 49.2 28.2 38.7 1111 " 42.5 December 44.6 25.4 35.0 44.0 26.3 35.2 u .. " 34.5 -- -- -- -- Annual 62.3 32.6 47.5 62.2 36.1 49.2 N.A. 52.7Average N.A. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1/ Ten year average, 1950-1960. 2/ Calendar year 1971 only. N.A. = Not Available. E. Soils Soil conditions are one of the most important features related to land use planning. Soils concerns are twofold: (1) capability or produc- tivity potential, and (2) limitations related to development. These limitations can be overcome, althou~h in many instances substantial ex- penditures will be required. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Con- servation Service definitions for the various soils capabilities are given below. Capability Classes. Capability classes show the suitability of soils for most kinds of field crops iricluding soil limitations, risk of soil damage, and soil response to various treatments. Roman numberals I through VIII indicate capability classes with progressively greater limitations and narrower choices for practical use. They are defined as follows: Class I soils have few limitations that restrict their use. Class II soils have moderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants, require moderate conservation practices. Class III soils have severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants, require special conservation practices, or both. Class IV soils have very severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants, require very careful management, or both. Class V soils are not likely to erode, but have other limitations, impracticable to remove, that limit their use largely to pasture, range, woodland, or wildlife. Class VI soils have severe limitations that make them generally unsuited to cultivation and that restrict their use largely to pasture or range, woodland, or wildlife. Class VII soils have very severe limitations that make them un- suited to cultivation and that restrict their use largely to pasture or range, woodland, or wildlife. Class VIII soils and landforms have limitations that preclude their use for commercial plants and restrict their use to recreation, wildlife, water supply, or to esthetic purposes. Letter designations are often added to the capability numerals, and indicate the following: (e) Shows that the main limitation is risk of erosion unless close-growing plant cover is maintained. (s) Shows that the soil is limited mainly because it is shallow, droughty, or stony. IV-9 rating given soils that have properties This degree of limitation is minor and performance and 10\'/ maintenance can be (w) Shows that water in or on the soil interferes with plant growth or cultivation (in some soils the wetness can be partly corrected by artificial drainage. (c) Shows chief limitation is climate that is too cold, too dry, or too cloudy for production of many crops. The soil marping unit boundaries (see sons map) are determined by soil scientists digging pits and auger holes into the soil studying road cuts, measuring slopes and soil depths, estimating percent gravel , cobbles, sand, silt, and clay and considering any limiting or en- hancing features of the various soils. A combination of stereoscopic study, aerial photograph interpretation, and walking over the land is used to determine kinds of land forms and. soils present. Limitation Rating Each soil mapping unit has definite limitations for specific uses. The limitations are rated as follows: Slight soil limitation is the favorable for the rated use. can be overcome easily. Good expected. Moderate soil limitation is the rating given soils that have properties moderately favorable for the rated use. This degree of limitation can be overcome or modified by special planning, design, or maintenance. During some part of the year the performance of the structure or other planned use is less desirable than for soils rated slight. Some soils rated moderate require treatment such as artificial drainage, run-off control to reduce erosion, extended sewage absorption fields, extra excavation, or some modification of certain features through manipula- tion of the soil. For these soils, modification is needed for those construction plans generally used for soils of slight limitation. Modification may include special foundations, extra reinforcements, sump pumps, and the like. Severe soil limitation is the rating given soils that have one or more properties unfavorable for the rated use, such as steep slopes, bedrock near the surface, flood hazard, high shrink-swell potential, a seasonal high water table, or low bearing strength. This degree of limitation requires major soil reclamation, special design, or intensive mainten- ance. Some of these soils, however, can be improved by reducing or re- moving the soil feature that limits use, but in many situations, it is difficult and costly to alter the soil or to design a structure to com- pensate for a severe degree of limitation. Some of the specific uses evaluated include: Dwellings with and without basements, as considered here, are for struc- tures not more than three stories high that are supported by foundation footings placed in undisturbed soil. The 'featu·res that affect the IV~10· rating of a soil for dwellings are those that relate to capacity, to support load and resist settlement under load, and those that relate to ease of excavation. Soil properties that affect capacity to sup- port load are wetness, susceptibility to flooding, density, plasticity, testure, and shrink-swell potential. Those that affect excavation are wetness, slope, depth to bedrock, and content of stones and rocks. Small commercial buildings, as considered here, have the same require- ments and features as described for dwellings. The main difference for commercial buildings is a reduction of slop~limits for each limi- tation class. Canneries, foundries, and the like are not considered here because foundation requirements generally would exceed those of ordinary three-story dwellings. Local roads and streets, as rated here, have an all-weather surface expected to carry automobile traffic all year. They have a subgrade of underlying material; a base consisting of gravel, crushed rock, or soil material stabilized with lime or cement; and a flexible or rigid surface, commonly asphalt or concrete. These roads are graded to shed water and have ordinary provisions for drainage. They are built from soil at hand, and most cuts and fills are less than six feet deep. A soils analysis is a basic part of a comprehensive plan. Unfortunately, no complete soil survey has ever been conducted for Wheeler County. Some soils data are available from ranch plans prepared by the Soil Conser- vation Service, and if persons are interested in a specific site anal- ysis, it is suggested they contact the SCS office in Fossil. The SCS has completed soil surveys with capability classes and limita- tion ratings for the Cities of Fossil, Mitchell, and Spray which were initiated at the request of the Wheeler County Planning Commission and ECOAC in 1979. All maps and tables in this section refer to areas within and adjacent to those Cities. Boundaries delineated by the soil mapping units (maps E-l, E-2, and E-3) are seldom sharp or clear-cut. Since soil type boundaries are transitional or grade into each other, the map delineations shown may include up to 15 percent other soil types Careful examination of the soils information presented here will aide in general decision making, but does not preclude the need for specific onsite data. Information included here will: 1. Provide preliminary estimates of soil limitations for general planning of buildings sites, highways, drainage systems, and other community developments. 2. Indicate potential sources of topsoil, sand, or gravel. 3. Aid in developing land use regulations. 4. Aid in planning locations for dev~lopm~nts~ IV-II 5. Indicate areas particularly susceptible to erosion or flooding. 6. Supplement the information obtained from other published maps and reports. The soil survey tables summarize information associated with each soil mapping unit is shown on the soil map (Tables E-1, E-2, and E-3) IV-12 Map No. E·1 Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1979. ! "\' 12E J 'I'WL..L.. ;".'. "" ~ .f..1!l'.21:. Fossil ~ ..! ·,,;tation Ratin~ Septic Tank and Dwellings Without ~iellings With Small Commercial Loca1 Streets La~d. Absorption Fields Basements Basements Buildings and Roads cat9~~~'ty lC Ukiah Cobbly Silty Severe (6,1) Severe (5,7) Severe (1, 5, 7) Severe (1, 5, 7) Severe (5, 7) IVeClay Loam 8-15% slopes 10 UKiah Cobbiy Silty Severe (I, 6, 8) Severe (8, 5, 7) Severe (8, 1, 5) Severe (8, 1, 5) Severe (8, 5, 7) VIe _-:::.C~laLloam, Hi· 30% slopes 2C Ukiah Stony Silty Clay Loam, 8-15% slopes . Severe (6, 1) Severe (5, 7) Severe (1, 5, 7) Severe (1, 5, 7) Severe (5, 7) IVe 20 Ukiah Stony Silty Clay Loam, 15-30% slopes Severe (I, 6, 8) Severe (8, 5, 7) Severe (8, I, 5) Severe (8, 1, 5) Severe (8, 5, 7) VIe 2E Ukiah Stony Silty Clay Loam, 30-60% slo2...es Severe ~_81 ~_gv.. fr~-,-5, 2L_ Seve~8,_~ Severe (8, .1,--5) Severe (8, 5, 7) VIe 38 Hack Loam 2-8% slopes Moderate (6) Moderate (3) Slight Moderate (8, 3) Moderate (3, 5) 111 e 3C Hack Loam 8-15% slopes Moderate (8, 6) Moderate (8) Moderate (8) Severe (8) ~10derate (8, 3, 5) 1Ve 5B Powder Silt Loam Moderate-severe (2) Severe (2) Severe (2) Severe (2) Severe (3) 11c·1Iw0-3% slopes Severe (6) Severe (7) Severe (7) Severe (7) Severe (7) I IIe Severe (9) Severe (2) Severe (2, 9) Severe (2) Severe (5, 3) II c - Severe (6, 8, 4) Severe (8, 7) Severe (8, 7) Severe (8, 7) Severe (8, 7) VIIe-V:I s Severe (8, 1, 6) Se ve re (8, 1) Severe (8, 1) Severe (8, 1) Severe (8, 1) VI Is Severe (8, 1, 6) Severe (8, 1) Severe (8, 1) Severe (8, 1) Severe (8, 1) VIIs 68 Tub Clay Loam 2-8:~:; s10.o:p;:..es"-- _ 7B LaGrande Silt Loam 0-3~ slooes 80 Day-Simas Complex _____L5-30% slop~ 9D Gwin-Rockly Complex 15-30% slopes (b) 9E Gwin-Rockly Complex ----lQ:~0~ slope (b) 10 Cut and Fill Land (c) 11 Du~p (d) ..... < I I-' W LIMITATION FACTOR KEY Depth to Rock (1) Floods (2) Frost Action (3) Large Stones (4) Low Strength (5) Percolates Slowly (6) Shrink-Swell (7) Slope (8) Wetness (9) NOTES: (a) This unit consists of approximately 60% Day Clay, and 40% Simas very stony clay loam. These soils were so interminqled that it w~s not oractical to separate them in mapping. The interpretations for both soils are similar. (b) These mapping units consist of approximately 50% Gwin very cobbly silt 10am, 40% Rock1y very cobbly 10am, and lOX rock outcrop. The interpretations for both soi1s are simi1ar with severe 1imitations for most uses on the entire unit. (c) This mapping unit consists of 1and which. has been disturbed by man's activities. The natural soi1 is so a1tered that identification is not feasible. (ct) This mapping unit consists of the Fossi1 City Dump. The soils have been so a1tered that identification is not feasib1e. SOURCE: 1979 Soi1 Survey, Soi1 Conservation Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Fossi1, Oregon. Map No. E-2 'P'~-". E-2 City of l1itche11 .,)oj I .-:~llitation· Ratings Septic Tank and Absorption Fields Dwellings Without Dwellings With Basements Basements Srr.a 11 Corrmerci a1 Buildings Local Streets and Roads Land Capability Class NOTES: . (a) This mapping unit consists of variable soil materials and rock outcroppings. The map unit is not suitable for urban uses mainly due to very steep slopes. (b) This map unit includes fill material on which construction has occurred. (c) This map unit consists of approximately 60% Ventor very shaly loam, 30% rock outcropping and 10% inclusions of deeper soil on foot slopes and in drainage ways. SOURCE: 1979 Soil Survey, Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Deparunent of Agriculture, Fossil, Oregon. Severe (1) Severe (1) Severe (7) Severe (7) Severe (7) Severe (7) VIe VIe IVe VIe VIs -VIIs VIe Vrre IIIe VIe II Ie Severe (5,7) Moderate (3,5) Severe (8,5,7) Severe (8,1) Severe (1,5) Severe (8,7) Severe (8,5,7) Severe (7) Severe (7) Severe (2) Severe (8,7) Severe (5,1,7,8) Severe (1) Moderate (8,3) Severe (8,1,5) Severe (8,1,5) Severe (8,1) Severe (8,7) Severe (7) Severe (8,7) Severe (8,7) Severe (2) Severe (8,1) Severe (2) SlightMod erate (3) Severe (8,5,7) Severe (8,1,5) Severe (5,7) Severe (5,7,1) Severe (8,5,7) . Severe (8,1,5) Severe (8,7) Severe (8,7) Severe (8,7) Severe (8,7) Severe (8,1) Severe (2) Severe (6,1) Severe (6,1) Severe (6,1,8) Moderate (6) Severe (6) Severe (6,1,8) Severe (8,6) Severe (8,6) Severe (6) Severe (8,1) Severe (2) Ie Fopiano, Silty Clay Lo~m, 8 to 15~ Slopes 2C Uki~h Cobbly Silty Clay Loam, 8 to 15% Slopes 20 Ukiah Cobbly Silty Clay Loal;), 15 to 30% Slopes 2E Ukiah Cobbly Silty Clay Loam, 30 to 60% Slopes 38 Tub C1 ay Loam, 2 to 8~ Slopes 3C Tub Cl ay Loam, 8 to 15% Slopes 30 Tub Clay Loam, 15 to 30::: Slofles 3E TIJb Clay ;'(IJm. 30 to 60;~ Slopes ...... <: 4F Terrace Escarpment,I ~ 45 to 70% Slopes (a)~ 513 Vealie Loam, 2 to 8;; Slopf::s (b) 68 Hack Loam, 2 to 8% Slo[)es _. 7E Ventor Very Shaly Loam, 15 to 45% Slopes -- 8F Ventor - Rock Outcro~ Complex, 45 to 70% S ope (d LIMITATiO~ FACTOR KEY Depth to Rock (1) Floods (2) Frost Action (3) Large Stones (4) LO\'i Strength (5) Percolates Slowly (6) Shrink-Swell (7) Slope (8 ) Wetness (9) Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1979. " Map No. E-3 (a) (b) (c) (d) NOTES: This map unit consists of exposed sediments of the John Day Formation. No soil has formed in these areas or has been eroded away. This map unit consists of outcrops of hard basalt. Little or no soil has formed. The map unit is not suitable for urban development. This map unit consists of fill material. The original soil surface is so obscured that the soil is not identifiable. The area is probably subject to rare or occasional flooding. This map unit consist5 of stratified silty, sandy and gravelly ~Iater laid materials or terrace scarps. It is severely limited by ,steep slopes. SOURCE: 1979 Soil Survey, Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Fossil, Oregon TABLE E-3 City of Spray Soil Limitation Ratings Septic Tank and ~Iellings Without D\~e 11 i ng s With Small Commercial Loca 1 Streets Land Absorption Fields Basements Basements Buildings and Roads Capability Class Slight Slight Slight Slight-Moderate (8) Moderate (5) IVc Slight Slight Slight Slight-Moderate (8) ~10dera te (5) IVc Severe (2) Severe (2) Severe (2) Severe (2) Moderate (5) IIw Severe (6) Severe (7) Severe (7) Severe (7) Severe (7,5) VIe Severe (6) Severe (7) Severe (7) Severe (7) Severe (7,5) VIe Severe (6,4) Severe (7,8) Severe (7,8) Severe (7,8) Severe (7.5,8) VIIs IB Court Rock Gravelly Loan, 2 to 8% Slopes 28 Court Roc k Loam, 2 to 8:': Slopes 3A Kimberly Loam, o to 3% slopes 4B Simas Clay Loam 2 to 8% Slopes 4C Simas Clay" Loam 8 to 15% Slopes 4E Simas Very Stony ....... Clay. 30 to 60% slopes <: I 5 Raw Sediments (a)I-' U'"l 5 Ro ck 0lJ tc ro p (b) 7 Filled Land, 9 to 3% Slopes (c) 8 Terrace Escarrment, 30 to 50% Slopes (d) LI~:lTATIONFACTOR KEY Depth to Rock (1) Floods (2) Fros t Ac t ion (3) Large Stones (4 ) Low Streng th (5) Percolates Slowly (6) Shrink-SI'lell (7) Slope (8 ) Wetness (9) F. Natural Vegetation Natural vegetation refers to the vegetative species that become dominant under lInormal natural conditions - that. is, in the absence of major human disturbance," according to the Atlas of Oreqon. Natural vegetation reflects climate, topography, soils, biotic interaction, incidence of fire and evolutionary history of an area. Because mans activities have altered th~ natural cover through agriculture, looging, livestock operations and burn- ing, the naturally dominant species may not be the presently dominant species. Oregon contains three vegetation provices - Forest, Shrub-Steppe and Alpine that include thirteen veoetation zones. A zone may occupy a broad area of relatively level land or may extend finaer-like projections into other zones at different elevations. Various plant associations are found in each zone depending on local site conditions. Wheeler County includes two Forest Province Zones, the Ponderosa Pine (Pinus ponderosa) zone and the Grand Fir (Abies grandis) Zone. The Pon- derosa Pine Zone, the larger of the two, is found in three parts of Wheeler County,in the north east portion, ari east central area, and in a wide band alon~ the southern boundary of the county. This zone is the most drought tolerant of the forest types in Oregon. Understory cover is primarily dense or open mats of bitterbrush and ceanothus with some meadows of Idaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass. The Grand Fir Zone is located in a narrow strip within the wider Ponderosa P·ine Zone along the County's southern border, south of Mitchell. It is a coniferous zone found where moisture and temperatures are not extreme. Douglas fir is found on the warmer, drier sites while western larch and lodgepole pine are the early successional species, particularly following fires. Wheeler County also contains three Shrub-Steere zones, the Big Sagebrush (Artemisia tridentala), Western Juniper (Juniperous occidental is) and Steepe zones. The Big Sagebrush zone is probably the most widespread zone in Oreoon and includes several other subspecies of saoe. Other shrubs or grasses include rabbit brush, spiny hopsage, Idaho fescue and blue- bunch wheatgrass. This zone extends from the northwest corner of the county along the John Day River, south alon~ \·Jheeler County's ··..:estern border, to the Jefferson/Crook County boundary, and then east across the county in a wide belt that extends from Spray to south of Mitchell. The central Ponderosa Pine zone described earlier, lies like a kidney shaped island near the center of this broad belt. The second Shrub-Steepe zone, the Western Juniper zone, 1 ies like an elonpated "c" along the southern edge of this Ponderosa pine area and reaches southeast towards the John Day Fossil Beds State Park. The Western Juniper zone is primarily open woodland and is dominated by big sagebrush usually with an understory of Idaho fescue. Juniper may grow in open stands or in rimrock habitats in the zone. IV-16 The third Shrub-Steppe zone is the Steppe zone that covers the northern county boundary (and nearly all of Gilliam County). It narrows to form a rough triangle near Twickenham and then extends east as a narrow finger along the John Day River (and north of Spray) to Grant County. This zone encompasses drought tolerant grasslands that once mantled much of north central and eastern Oregon. Under pristine conditions, this area was dominated by Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheat~rass, Sandberg's bluegrass and several non-grassy herbs. However, since the area is suited to dryland farming, much of the ori~inal steppe has been altered and undisturbed regions are difficult to find today. ~1aps that more clearly portray vJheeler County's natural vegetative cover can be obtained from the USDA Soil Conservation Service or are found in the Atlas of Oregon. IV-I? G. Land Resource Management Introduction Land resource management deals with land and the four broad categories of land use in Wheeler County: cropland, grazing land, timberland, and urban or developed land. The county has 1,092,480 acres of land area with about 710,000 acres ~65%) held in farms. A breakdown of total acreage by land ownership is discussed first in this chapter and is followed by a discussion of land use. Land Ownership Table G-l shows Wheeler County land ownershi.p. Table G-l Land Ownership, January 1977 Owner or Agent Acres Federal Government 264,439 Forest Service 166,209 Bureau of Land Mgt. 87,200 National Park Service 2,867 Other 8,163 State Government 13 ,498 County Government 2,043 City Ovmed Land 115 School District 31 Municipal Corps 90 TOTAL Public Land 280,216 TOTAL Private Land 812,203 TOTAL Land Area 1,092,480 Percent of Total 24% 15% 8% 1% 1% 26% 74% 100% Source: Wheeler County Assessor, January 1, 1977, and the Soil Conservation Service, Inventory and Monitoring Division, 1977. IV-18 The u.s. Forest Service is by far the largest public land owner in Wheeler County. Parts of two national forests lie within the county boundary; the Umatilla National Forest extends into the northeast corner of the county and the northern edge of the Ochoco National Forest lies along the southern edge of the county. These two areas are included in the Heppner. Ochoco-Crooked River and South Fork John Day Planning' Units and are being planned according to Forest Service procedures. About 127,450 acres of the Ochoco-Crooked River Planning Units and about 17,970 acres of the South Fork John Day unit are in Wheeler County. The Bureau of Land Management has holdings distributed throughout the Most of its largest holdings are located in the west central and east parts of the county and most parcels are one section or less in size. BU1 ovms about 8% of the total land in Wheeler County. (See t1ap G-l) county. central The The State of Oregon owns about 13,500 acres in Wheeler County, most of which is found in six relatively large parcels. Two parcels are located at Painted Hills State Park and one west of the park, near Pass Gulch. The other three units are located north of the John Day River at the base of the Sourdough Ridge. These are on Mathas Creek. Rock Creek and Harper Creek, and near Massacre Mountain. Other smaller parcels are scattered throughout the county. Private land owners own about three quarters of the land in Wheeler County. Of the total 812,203 acres of private land, about 706,191 acres (or 87%) were held in farms in 1974 according to the Census of Agriculture. About 61 acres were owned by charitable, fraternal or cemetary organizations and churches. Most, if not all of the remaining privately held land is comprised of farms having a significant portion of their sales from forest products . .Land Use Generally, Wheeler County land can ,be classified in four broad land use categories. These are cropland, timber land, grazing land and urban or developed areas. The latter category comprises the least amount of land in the county. Crop and Grazing Land According to the 1974 Census of Agriculture, about 29,223 acres in Wheeler County were used as cropland "lith about 17,308 acres harvested. Of the 11,915 acres not harvested. about 3,150 acres were used only for pasture or grazing and 8,765 acres were classified as "other cropland" and were in cultivated summer fallow, soil improvement crops. or were idle. Table G-2 provides a profile of Wheeler croplanrl~ the existing land use map shows the approximate location of this land. It should be noted that the "total woodland" category is the amount of woodland located on places that meet the requirements of the 1974 census definition of a farm and also derive less than half of their income from the sale of forest products. Consequently, industrial tree farms are not included in this category, but are counted as part of "Other Land". IV-19 ______":..- '~-----.. ---'-1 I, ? i I I i Il ~ U.S. FOR EST SERVICE """"''''''~~iiii·=RiiiiMiiSl-iii~.~"~P!~.~~, : IPUBLIC LANDS , ~ORTH :i,~~!iiJ ~ ~ ~~ [~ [~@ l\J [(my? [OJ [2 ~~@w ISLJJ I - ---------------IM~ap No. G-1 Table G-2 1974 Farms, Land in Farms, and Land Use Wheeler County (FARMS WITH SALES OF Farm Category (ALL FARMS) $2500 AND OVER) No. of Acres No. of Acres Farms Farms Total Land Area 1,092,480 1,092,480 Land in Farms 98 706,191 80 697,542 Total Cropland 94 29-,223 77 28,411 Harvested Cropland 88 17,308 74 17,083 Cropland used only for pasture or grazing 33 3,150 29 2,937 Other Cropland 40 8,765 36 8,391 Cropland in cover crops, legumes, etc., and not harvested or pastured 5 373 Cropland on which all ·:0~ crops failed 5 369 Cropland in cultivated surruner fallow 32 6,703 Cropland idle 8 946 Tota1 \~oodl and 39 69,627 37 69,329 Woodland Pasture 34 60,375 Woodland not Pastured 8 8,954 Other Land 89 607,341 72 599,8b2 Pastureland &rangeland other than cropland and woodland pasture 68 593,882 Improved pastureland & rangeland 12 29,608 Unimproved pastureland and rangeland 61 564,274 Land in houselots, barnlots, ponds, roads, wasteland, etc. 46 5,920 Source: 1974 Census of Agriculture Oregon State and County Data, U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Census IV-20 Table G-3 shows the amount of land irrigated and water applied in 1974 and 1969 in Wheeler County. It seems that someltlhat fewer acres were i rri gated in 1974 than in 1969 (6,010 and 6,631 acres respectively), with more water applied per acre (3.1 ac. ft. in 1974 compared to 2.2 ac. ft. in 1969). Most of the irrigcted land in the County is located along streams where land is relatively level and soils are deep. (See Map H-4, Chapter H, Hydrologic Resources.) Areas along Butte Creek near Fossil, Bridge Creek, West Branch Creek, Mountain Creek and parts of the John Day River provide most of the county·s irrigated cropland though irrigated land is found in other parts of the county as well. Table G-3 Irrigated Land ~Jhee 1er County Total Land Irrigated (acres) Average per Farm (acres) Cropland Irrigated (Farms) (Acres) Harvested Cropland Irrigated (Farms) (Acres) Cropland Pasture Irrigated (Farms) (Acres) Other Cropland Irrigated (Acres) Pasture Irrigated other than Cropland Pasture (acres) Estimated Quantity of Irrigtation Water Applied (ac. ft.) Average per acre Irrigated (ac. ft.) Land Irrigated by Furrows or Ditches (Farms) (Acres) Land Irrigated by Self Propelled Sprinkl ers (Farms) (Acres) Land Irrigated by other Sprinkler Systems (Farms) (Acres) Source: 1974 Census of Agriculture. 1974 6,010 125.2 48 6,010 48 5,335 10 675 o o 18,828 3.1 8 622 2 130 29 1,981 1969 6,631 112.3 59 6,631 57 5,701 12 625 3 302 14,292 2.2 NA . NA NA NA NA NA Grazing land is dispersed throughout the county. Much of the range land in the county is in deteriorated condition and would benefit from range improvement programs. Sheet and rill erosion are critical problems in much of this area. IV-21 Table G-4 shows farm land use for Wheeler County and several of its neighboring counties. Only 4 percent of total land in farms is cropland in Wheeler County. This is comparable with Gilliam and G~ant Counties, but is much less than Jefferson (19%) and Morrow Counties (37%). About 84% of Wheeler County's farm land is pasture and rangeland, a substantially higher proportion than any of the other counties shown in the table experience. This high percentage of pasture and rangeland provides the basis for the county's agricultural economy-- cattl e grazi ng. Table G-4 Farms, Land in Farms, and Land Use, for Central Oregon Counties All Farms, 1974 Land Use Wheeler Gilliam Grant Morrow Jefferson 1: Total Land Area (AC) 1,092,480 773,056 2,899,200 1,318,592 1,147,648 2. Land in Farms (AC) 706,191 744,653 1,087,736 1,107,480 458,304 3. Number of Farms (NO.) 98 169 272 328 341 4. Avg. Size Farm (AC) 7,206 4,406 3,999 3,376 1,344 ( 5. Total Cropland (AC) 29,223 298,647 68,212 418,084 91,658 (% 5 is of 2) 4% 4% 6% 37% 19% 6. Harvested Cropland (AC) 17,308 154,467 42,710 226,909 67,346 7. Total Woodland (AC) 69,627 23,150 137,730 26,255 8,714 (% 7 is of 2) 9% 3%· 12% 2% 1% 8. Other Land (AC) 607,341 422,856 881,794 663,141 357,932 9. Pas ture & Range Land (AC)* 593,882 407,962 827,802 611,741 235,165 (% 9 is of 2) 84% 54% 76% 55% 51% 10. Irrigated Land (AC) 6,010 7,169 31,987 59 ~238 52,655 * Acreage shown is for farms with sales of $2,500 and over. Source: 1974 Census of Agriculture Oreson State and County Data, U.S. Departl~lent of Conncrce, Cureau of Ce:lsu,,; IV-22 In 1976, gross farm sales totaled $4,106,000. About 81 percent of this amount was provided by livestock sales. The remaining 19 percent was comprised of revenue from sales of grain, hay and seed (13%) field and other crops. Table G-5 shows 1976 farm sales. Table G-5 1976 Gross Farm Sales Wheeler County Commodity Grains, Hay and Seed Field Crops Other Crops Livestock Poultry Products Total Farm Sales Wheeler County $ 549,000 172,000 50,000 3,333,000 2,000 $4,106,000 Per Cent Of Total 13.4% 4.2% 1.2% 81.2% neg. 100.0% Per Cent of State 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 1.6% ~. 0.4% .Source: "Wheeler County, Oregon, Industrial Development Factbook," prepared by Business Economics, Inc. and ECOAC, August, 1978. IV-23 Timber Land. Wheeler County's commercial forest zone comprises some 328,000 acres (30% of the county) and lies in three major blocks in the northeast, east-central and southern portions of the county. About 193,000 acres (19% of the county), located in the southwest portion of the county, are classified as unproductive forest. Approximately 570,000 acres (or 52% of the total land area) are classed as non-forest and 2,000 acres of higher elevation land are considered productive reserved. According to Forest Service definitions, commercial forest land is "the land which is producing or is capable of producing industrial wood and is not withdrawn from timber utilization." Productive-reserved land is "public forest land withdrawn from timber utilization through statute, ordinance, or administrative order, but which otherwise qualifies as commercial forest land." Unproductive forest land is "land incapable of yielding crops of industrial wood products (usually sawtimber) because of adverse site conditions." The majority (53%) of commercial forest land, about 176,350 acres) is privately owned. The U.S. Forest Service owns about 143,000 acres (43%) and the BLM about 7,903 acres (3%). The State of Oregon has scattered holdings through- out the County which amount to less than 1,000 acres. Of the 176,350 acres of forest in private hands approximately 95,100 acres are owned and managed by the forest industry. These lands are under intensive timber management programs which include precommercial thinning, slash disposal, site preparation and planting, and salvage harvesting. Intensive management is proceeding at a lower level on the 81,200 acres of small woodlands and young growth management operations are needed to maintain optimum growth rates and insure continued timber production. Some 20,000 acres of non-industrial private forests operate under timber management plans, however, implementation of these plans depends on continued technical and financial assistance available through the Department of Forestry and the Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization Conservation Service (ASCS). Table G-6 summarizes forest land ownership. IV-24 Table G-6 Forest Land Ownership, 1971 ~Jhee ler County Acres 1Percent Total Land Area 1,093,000 100% Commercial Forest 328,013 30% Nati ona1 Forest 143,000 43%* BLM 7,903 3%* State 760 -- * Private 176,350 54%* Productive Research 2,000 -- * Unproductive Forest 193,000 18% Non-Forest 569,987 52% 1 figures shown are percent of Total Land except those designated by * whtch are percent of Commerci'al Forest Land.· Source: liThe Forest Resources of Wheeler County, Oregon" by Pierre Authier, Oregon State Forestry Department, Apri 1, 1971. The volume of growing stock is more indicative of forest productivity and future yield than are acreage figures alone. Table G-7 shows volume of all growing stock and Table G-8 shows volume of sawtimber in Wheeler County as well as other central Oregon counties. Sawtimber is comprised of commercial species (11.0 inches d.b.h. and larger) that contain at least one 12 foot coniferous saw log with a top diameter not less than 6 inches inside bark and not less than 25% of the volume of the tree free of defect. Ponderosa pine comprises about 44% of the growing stock in the county, with Douglas fir and White fir providing 29% and 15%, respectively. Western larch, Lodgepole pine and Englemann Spruce make up much smaller shares of total growing stock. It is apparant from these tables that Wheeler County's timber resources are not a major part of the total central Oregon supply. It is important to remember, however, that these resources have figured strongly in the county's economic history - both in times of prosperity and slumps, as harvest has fallen off and as mills have closed. The economic implications of timber land and the lumber industry are discussed in the chapter on socio-economic environment. IV-25 " J TABLE G-I Volume of All Grow{ng Stock on Commercial Fot'est Land, by Species and County, Central Oregon, January 1, 1965 (In million. cubic feet) Species Total Crook Deschutes Jefferson Klamath Lake Wasco \~heeler 11 - Softwoods: Vol % Ponderosa Pine 5,603 660 692 459 1,850 1,441 246 225 44% Douglas Fir 1,574 144 18 227 372 -- 647 166 29% Sugar Pine 73 -- -- -- 66 7 Western White Pine 126 -- 15 4 70 14 23 -- 3% Lodgepole Pine 2,334 6 604 28 1,307 348 23 18 Whitebark Pine 21 -- 9 3 4 5 (?J ) ~Jhite Fi r 1,843 95 130 74 703 580 174 87 California-Shasta ..... Red Fir 435 -- (?J ) 430 5<: -- I N Grand Fir 182 1 13 53 6 1 104 40'1 Pacific Silver Fir 101 -- I 21 14 -- 65 Noble Fir 111 -- 12 -- 27 1 71 Subalpine Fir 87 -- 39 8 37 -- I 2 Engelmann Spruce 160 (?J ) 10 102 27 -- 11 10 Mountain Hemlock 825 -- 278 16 421 7 103 Western Hemlock 126 -- -- (?J ) 6 -- 120 Incense-Cedar 113 -- -- 15 56 40 2 Western Redcedar 14 -- -- -- -- -- 14 Western Larch 109 32 -- 8 -- -- 29 40 Total Softwoods 13,837 938 1,821 1,018 5,396 2,449 1,633 582 Total Hardwoods 12 1 -- -- I 7 3 Total All Species 13,849 939 1,821 1,018 5,397 2,456 1,639 582 11 Includes Gilliam County. Source: IITimber Resource Stati sti cs for Central Oregon, II ?J Less than 500,000 cubic feet. John M. Berger, U.S. Forest Service Bulletin PNW-24, 1968. TAt G-8 Volume of Saw-Timber on Commercial Forest Land, by Species and County, Central Oregon, January I, 1965 (Scribner Rule) (In milliDn board feet) Species Total Crook Deschutes Jefferson Klamath Lake Wasco WheelerlJ %. Softwoods: Ponderosa Pine 28,598 3,490 3,620 2,337 8,891 7,804 1,171 1,285 53% Douglas Fir 7,517 569 97 1,083 1,995 -- 3,172 601 25% Sugar Pine 344 -- -- -- 308 36 Western White Pine 606 -- 66 25 344 72 99 Lodgepole Pine 3,964 7 780 50 2,377 708 28 14 1% Whitebark Pine 47 -- 21 4 11 11 White Fi r 7,093 308 407 279 2,826 2,276 723 274 11% California-Shasta Red Fir 1,854 -- I -- 1,832 21 ...,.. < Grand Fir 613 3 43 161 28 6 364 8I N '-J Pacific Silver Fir 277 -- I 58 56 -- 162 Noble Fir 455 -- 45 -- 110 1 299 Subalpine Fir 248 -- 88 15 137 -- 3 5 Engelmann Spruce 786 2 35 537 123 -- 42 47 2% Mountain Hemlock 3,080 -- 1,033 46 1,568 . 25 408 Western Hemolock 601 -- -- (y) 17 -- 584 Incense-Cedar 391 -- -- 46 198 139 8 Western Redcedar 55 -- -- -- -- -- 55 Western Larch 497 169 -- 13 -- -- 109 206 8% Total Softwoods 57~026 4,548 6,237 4,654 20,821 11 ,099 7,227 2,440 Total Hardwoods 17 3 1 -- -- 3 10 Totall All Species 57,043 4,551 6,238 4,654 20,821 11, 102 7,237 2,440 1/ Includes Gilliam County Source: "Timber Resource Stati'sti'cs for Centra1 Oregon," John M. Berger, y Less than 500,000 board feet U.S. Forest Service Bulletin PNW - 24, 1968 Table G-9 shows the annual growth of species found in Wheeler County. Table G-9 Net annual gro~th of all gro~!n3 stock 2~~ sa~ei~~~~ O~ cc=r-~rci~l rorest land, bv sp~cte9 and cou~t~. ce~tral Ore~on. 19~~ IDeSChutes Jeffersonl I 11Sped cs Crook Kla=th I Lake Vasco It:neeler- CROUn;C STOCK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Thousa",d cub i.e fe~t. - - - - - - - - - - So ft\JOods : Ponderosa pine 74,010 8,021 10,803 7,296 30,263 10,557 3,029 1.,041 Douglas-fir 23,404 3,245 82 2,462 3,243 5,2!o4 6,128 Lodgepole pIne 41,310 155 13,623 604 22,501 3,555 426 446 Other so ftuoods 57,277 2,072 4,303 5,247 23,535 9,279 10.754 2,027 Total soft=ods 190,001 13 ,493 28,811 15,609 79,592 23,391 22,463 12,642 Tota 1 hard..oods 87 -33 2" 99 '''otal all. spectes 190,068 13,493 23,511 15,609 79,554 23,417 22,562 12,542 SA~MBER - - - - - - - Thousand b0ard r,=,et. Interr.atL:~~31·llc.-i:"!c~ ru le - - - - - - Soft...oods: Ponderosa pine 342,441 26,323 4~1874 23,S15 147,597 71,977 5,465 20,390 Douglas-fir 72,714 4,554 ~ -49 9,024 5.597 33,739 14,539 Lod3ep01e pi.ne 120,760 370 21,051 3,903 85,454 5,1001 930 943 Other softuoods 243,601 5,230 21 r 924 20.329 102.579 32.051 57,646 3.532 Total so ft.-ocds 779,516 36,787 86,500 57,071 3!o4,227 109,147 105,750 39,704 Total hardlo'Oods 210 5(, 155 Total all spectes 779,726 30,841 . 80,800 57,071 344,227 109,147 105.935 39,704 1/ Includes Gilliam County 2/ Negative growth is result of annual mortality exceeding annual growth Source: "Timber Resource Statistics for Central Oregon," by John M. Berger, U.S. Forest Service Resource Bulletin PNW - 24, 1968 IV-28 "'''"..... • ~~·~ ....._:.:e__ ,_~ w_.w"--'---=~-_:"-"~---"'''''~"..------=--~~.e;:....ut!"t1 f III Map No. G-2 For the six years from 1953-1958, most of the timber harvested in Wheeler County was on private, state and BLM land. Then in the early seventies, the harvest shifted to primarily forest service holdings. The only harvest from state land in this decade occurred in 1973, when 2,180,000 BF were cut. Harvest levels from state land were much higher during the 1950's and early sixties when the volume removed varied from 10 MBF to about 100 MBF. In fact, Wheeler County timber harvest reached its peak in 1952 when 120 million board feet were harvested, primarily from private holdings. Harvest dropped in 1953 and 1954 to somewhat over 100 MMBF. Since that time, total cut has decreased and from eight to ten mills have closed as logs became more difficult to obtain. Table G-10 provides insight into the source of timber resources for the past twenty-five years. Table G-10 Timber Volume Removed by Ownership (In Thousand of Board Feet, Scribner Log Scale) Wheeler County, Oregon Private State BLM Total Non-USFS USFS Total MBF % MBF % MBF % MBF % MBF % MBF % I 1953 NA -- 99,828 88 "NA -- 99,828 88 13 ,300 12 113,128 100 ..~ ........ 16,000 22 74,000 1003-58 NA -- NA -- NA -- 58,000 78 - yr. Avg. 43,894 I 1001960 --- -- 22,994 52 -- -- 22,994 52 20,900 48 1963 13,648 68 -- -- 90 -- 13,738 68 6,400 32 20,138 100 1967 10,839 63 1,170 7 -- -- 12,009 70 5,100 30 17,109 100 1960-69 11,702 35 4,095 12 "16 -- 15,813 47 17,949 53 33,762 100 10 yr. Avg- 1970 2,831 8 -- -- 52 -- 2,883 8 33,115 92 35,998 100 1971 17,312 41 -- -- -- -- 17 ,312 41 25,350 59 42,662 100 1972 16,429 36 -- -- -- -- 16,429 36 29,615 64 46,044 100 1973 19,133 25 2,180 3 1,524 2 22,837 30 54,567 70 77 ,404 100 1974 34,350 39 -- -- 6 -- 34,356 39 52,655 61 87,011 100 1975 30,034 59 -- -- 203 1 30,237 60 20,563 40 50,800 100 1976 31,825 68 -- -- 3,720 8 35,545 76 10,922 24 46,467 100 NA - data not available Source: "Approximate Acres Logged and ~1BF Vol ume Removed, II State of Oregon, Department of Forestry, General File 1-0-4-500, 1970-1976; "Log Production in Oregon by County, Region and Ownership," Oregon Economi c Stati sti cs, 1972; and liThe Forest Resources of l~heeler County, Oregon," Pierre H. Autheir, Oregon State Forestry Department, April, 1971. IV-29 The county has been involved in reviewing Forest Service Unit Plan and resource plans for the two national forests in the County, the Ochoco and Umatilla. Much of the timber land in the county is intermixed with marginal agricultural land and is important for cattle grazing. There are three roadless areas in Wheeler County (in addition to the Ochoco Divide Research Natural Area) that were evaluated through the RARE II process and are included in the Croohed River Planning Unit. These are Bridge Creek (6325 ac), Broddway (8680 ac) and Rock Creek (9286 ac). A fourth roadless area, Canyons (24,422 ac) stradles the Wheeler/Grant County boundary and is included in another Forest Service planning unit. About half of this areR was recommended for wilderness designation as a result of RARE II. The Final Environmental Statement for the Crooked River Planning Unit, issued in February, 1979, does not call for wilderness designation for any of the other three areas and is in accord with the results of the RARE II decision. The Bridge Creek area contains a portion of the Mitchell City watershed which is to be protected by "minimizing road construction in those areas where logging is appropriate to produce desired wildlife habitat. Logging Systems would be used which minimize impacts on watershed ... resources," according to the Final Environmental Statement. In general, management direction contained in the plan calls for deer and elk habitat management and timber production in the Bridge Creek, Broadway and Rock Creek roadless areas. The pine beetle infestation, which began about 1970 in Oregon, has spread from lodgepole pine to ponderosa and white pines. In Wheeler County, acute infestation is primarily located in the eastern part of the county and covers about 950 acres of private timber in late 1977. Lower level infestations occur in varying intensities throughout the Ponderosa pine zone. In heavily infested areas annual losses are estimated at 723 board feet/acre/year, about 700,000 board feet/year county wide. Annual losses vary greatly from year to year, however, the present trend seems to be an increase in infected area of 200-300% per year. A twofold treatment is needed to deal with the bark beetle problem: 1) An intensive salvage harvesting program for infested and high risk trees. 2) Commercial and precommercial thinning to reduce stocking levels and improve crop tree resistance. The beetle bores into trees, infecting the cambium layer with a virus that is transported in the sap. This virus kills the tree and stains the wood a blue-gray color. If the trees are salvaged within three to four years, the lumber is usable and strength is not impaired if the tree is processed before rot sets in. The Forest Service and BLM are letting salvage contracts to harvest the damaged trees before they lose all value and become a fire hazard. About 40% of Wheeler County's forest land supports dense, stagnated stands of ponderosa pine and associated species. This condition reduces the stands resistance to attack by pine beetles and other diseases and also severely reduces the growth rate. Precommercial thinning is the most usefool tool for reducing stocking levels. Where overstocked stands occur along with merchantable timber, some level of harvest may be indicated as well as thinning operations. Urban and Developed Land. Urban and developed land use is mapped and discussed in the Chapters pertaining to the three incorporated cities and rural settlement in the county. It is estimated that total urban development comprises about 1,000 acres. IV-30 H. Hydrologic Resources Surface Water Inventory. Most of Wheeler County lies within the John Day River Basin while only the extreme southwest and southeast corners of the County lie within the Deschutes River Basin. The John Day Basin is located in north central Oregon and drains about 8,010 square miles or 5,126,400 acres. This is approximately 8% of the state. The John Day River bisects Wheeler County into nearly equal northern and south- ern portions and then forms the western boundary of the County. (See Map H-l. John Day Drainage Basin) Due to the varying physical characteristics, needs and uses of water and levels of economic development throughout the area, the basin has been divided into three generally recognized sub-basins. These are: The North Fork of the John Day and its watershed; the Upper John Day, which encompasses the entire drainage of the main stem of the John Day above the mouth of the North Fork; and the Lower John Day which includes the remainder of the drainage below the mouth of the North Fork. All of Wheeler County is located in the Lower John Day Subregion except the southeast portion (extending from Kimberly southwest to a few miles south of Mitchell). This area is part of the Upper John Day as the two major streams, Mountain Creek and Rock Creek flow into the mainstem of the John Day. Table H-l shows the characteristics and extent of the Basin and its Sub-Basins. Table H-l - John ~Basin Water Production Percent Percent Average Flow in Percent Drainage of r'1iles National Annual Acre-Feet of Area Basin of Forest Flow Per Sq. Total Sq. Mi. Area Streams* Land Acre Ft. Mile Basin Flow Lower John Day Sub-Basin 3,260 41 4,000 4 83,000 25 5 Upper John Day Sub-Basin 2,120 26 2,550 39 432,000 204 30 North Fork John Day Sub-Basin 2,630 33 2,950 57 935,000 355 64 Entire John Day River Basin 8,010 100 9,500 31 1,450,000 181 100 *Determined from SWRB Map No. 6.7014 Sources: John ~ River Basin, State Water Resources Board, March 1962. John ~ Basin Study, USDA, Forest Service, August 1971. IV-31 JOHr~ DAY DRAINAGE BASIN) HHEELER COUNTY T6S TlS T8S T9S TlOS TlIS Tl2S 1 2 3 SUB-BASINS h Fork JohnNort hn DayUpper Jo Lower John Day Day DESCHUTES BASIN T 145 R24E R25E T 15 5 . RCES BOARDTER RESOUSTATE WA OREGONSALEM. Nov. 1960 Map H-l The John Day River heads in the Blue Mountains southeast of Prairie City in Grant County and in general, the headwater sections are char- acterized by relatively steep gradients of from 100 to 300 feet of drop per mile. Smaller drops. of from 20 to 40 feet per mile are found in valleys. Through the lower sections, many streams experience an increase in gradients to about 100 feet per mile while a few level off (to under 10 foot drop per mile) near their mouths. A list of major Wheeler County streams, th~ir flow and fish species, is shown in Table H-2. Flow characteristics are typical of rivers of semi-arid regions in that extreme differences exist in seasonal flows as well as in annual yields. Flows on most larger streams peak in April and Mayas a result of snow melt and spring rains. They drop quite rapidly in the summer months and reach their lows in August and September as a result of naturally low flows and extensive diversion, primarily for irrigation. There is no storage of significance in the area, so flows are largely the result of natural conditions and direct diversions. The same pattern holds true on most smaller streams, with slightly different timing on streams originating at higher elevations. These streams peak later in the year, usually in June, as a result of later snowmelt. Table H-3 details an inventory of existing reservoirs, their location and primary use. Map H-2 shows the hydrological stations in Wheeler County's share of the John Day Basin and the average annual precipitat~on of the area. The only active stream gauging system and water quality station on the John Day in Whee"ler County is located at Service Creek. Clima- tological stations are distributed throughout the County. Most of the county receives from 10 to 20 inches of precipitation annually, though the Clarno area and land south of Kimberly receive somewhat less moisture while the higher elevations in the northeast and extreme southern parts of the county receive 30 or more inches. In most of the agricultural area, the County receives less than 20 inches of precipitation per year and less than two inches fall during July, August and September,the three driest months of the year. IV-32 Table H-2 Wheeler County Inventory of Major Streams Stream Flov! cfs) Game Fish Location Low High Miles by Species John Day Ri ver IMi 1e 96 200 8.000 88 Ch. St. Rb. to 184 Butte Creek Mouth 1 26 St. Rb. Deep Creek Mouth O. 1 5 St. Rb. West fk. Butte Mouth 2 6 St. Rb. Cottonwood Creek Mouth 6 Rb. Pine Creek Mouth 13 Rb. Rowe Creek Mouth 8 Rb. Bridge Creek Mouth 6 60 25 St. Rb. Bear Creek Mouth 1 20 7 St. Rb. West Branch Mouth 1 11 8 St. Rb. Shoofly ·Creek Mouth 7 Service Creek Mouth 0.2 2 7 St. Rb. Alder Creek Mouth 0 11 7 St. Rb. Lake Creek Mouth 0 3 6 St. Rb. Horseshoe Creek Mouth 0 2 7 Rb. Kahler Creek Mouth 0 13 5 St. Rb. Tamarack Creek Mouth 4 St. Rb. Henry I s Creek Mouth 4 St. Rb. Parish Creek Mouth 9 St. Rb. Rock Creek Mile 2 5 100 16 St. Rb. Mountain Creek Mouth 1 50 22 St. Rb. Sixshooter Creek Mouth 5 Rb. Thirty-mile Creek Mil e 31 7 St. Rb. IV-33 Table H-2 (continued) Stream Flow cfs) Game Fish Stream Location Low High Miles by Species Buckhorn Creek Mile 1 5 St. Rb. (tributary of Rock ICreek in Gilliam)Brown Creek Mile 1 5 St. Rb.I(tributary of Rock Creek in Gilliam) IDodds Creek St. Rb.I Hefl i n Creek I St. Rb.Slide Creek St. Rb. Bologna Creek St. Rb. Johnson Creek St. Rb. E. Fk. Johnson Creek St. Rb. W. Fk. Johnson Creek St. Rb. Squaw Creek St. Rb. Indian Creek St. Rb. Birch Creek St. Rb. Fort Creek St. Rb. Fry Creek St. Rb. Keeton Creek St. Rb. Marshall Creek St. Rb. Badger Creek St. Rb. Milk Creek St. Rb. Hoffman Creek St. Rb. Bug Creek St. Rb. Pine Hollow Creek ; St. Rb. Fir Tree Creek St. Rb. Baldy Creek St. Rb. Windy Creek St. Rb. Black Canyon Creek St. Rb. Stahl Creek St. Rb. Rb. - Rainbow Trout~ St. - Steel head Trout~ Ch. - Spring Chinook Salmon There are many rough fish not included. Source: "An Appraisal of Potentials for Outdoor Recreation Development~" USDA Soil Conservation Service, Wheeler County, 1973 and the "Fish and Wild- life Protection Plan for Wheeler County," Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife~ September 1978. IV-34 JOHN DAY DRAINAGE BASIN~ WHEELER COUNTY HYDROLOGY AND PRECIPITATION RI9E R20E R2IE R22E R23E R24E R25E (precip only) (precip & air temp) Station Station Map H-2 STATE WATER RESOURCES BOARD SALEM. OREGON Nov. 1960 SCALE OF MILES ___-~a- I o I 2. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 Snow Survey Course Snow Survey Course and Soil Moisture Station Stream Gaging Station Water Quality Station Cl imatological Cl imato1ogi ca1 Tl2S TlIS TlOS T9S ns T8S T65 ACTIVE INACTIVE A 6. A ~ • 0 -e- -0- • 06\ 6 Table H-3 Existing Wheeler County Reservoirs Reservoir Stream Storage Name Twnsp Range Section Name AF Purpose Hoover Creek 6 S 21 E 22 Hoover Creek 112.6 AF Irrigation Unnamed Creek 6 S 22 E 31 Unnamed Creek IrrigationI 2 AF Kinzua 7 S 22 E 12 Wil dcat Creek 23 AF Municipal Clark Lake 8 S 23 E 9 Lake Creek 89 AF Recreation Muleshoe Creek 8 S 23 E 20 4.8 AF Irrigation Lofton Brothers Dam 9 S 21 E 11 Rowe Creek 387 AF Irrigation Payne's Pond 11 S I 21 E 36 Bridge Creek 5 AF Recreation Blann Meadows 11 S 23 E 14 Willow Creek 269 AF Irrigation Fopiano 11 S 23 EI 27 North &South 200 AF IrrigationFopiano Creek White Butte 12 S 21 E 28 Nelson Creek 20 AF Irrigation John Collins Dam 12 S 23 E 28 Fry Creek 255 AF Irrigation Fort Creek 12 S 24 E 19 Fort Creek 150 AF Irrigation Maxwell 12 S 21 E 27 1 Acre Nelson 12 S 21 E 28 1 Acre Rock Creek Lake 13S 24 E 22 West Fork 2300 AF Irrigation Rock Creek Keys 10 S 23 E 6 Tributary of 9 Irrigation Tamarack Creek Rock Creek Lake 13 S 24 E 34 Irrigation Wetmore Lake 7 S 24 E 5 Irrigation Fry Creek 12 S 23 E 32 Irrigation Source: Wheeler County Planning Commission, 1978. IV-35 Recreational Use. Water-based recreation is primarily limited to white water float trips on the John Day in the spring and fishing. The fisheries resource will be discussed in the next section. Float trips have become increasingly popular on the John Day in recent years. Local and non-local outfitters offer guided trips of from one to three days and many individuals float the river without guide services. The section most often floated extends from Service Creek to the Condon/ Wasco Highway Bridge. The National Park Service has estimated usage of this river section at 5000 recreation days per year. Of this total, about 1000 recreation days involve utilization of guides or outfitters (according to Bureau of Land Management commercial permit records) and the remaining 4000 recreation days are due to family and individual, non-commercial usage. There are no large developed lakes or ponds in Wheeler County, though there are several small lakes and reservoirs. Table H-4 inventories those lakes and reservoirs most often used for recreation and fishing. Proposed National Scenic River Status. In June, 1979, the U.S. Depart- ment of the Interior issued their draft study "John Day Wild and Scenic River Report and Environmental Assessment." The following summary is based on "Chapter III, Findings and Conclusions" of the report. The Final Report, September 1979, contains essentially the same recommendations. The study found that the John Day River from Service Creek to Tumwater Falls meets the criteria for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems. The principal elements contributing to this finding are the river1s free-flowing and undeveloped condition, the pleasant scenic qualities along much of the 147 miles, the potential for wild- erness-type float trips, camping, fishing, hunting, nature study, and photography, and the existance of important archeological and geological values. The study also found that the appropriate classification for the entire study segment is "scenic." A scenic river area is free of impoundments with shorelines or waterbeds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped but accessible in places by road. The study recommends that the John Day River from Service Creek to Tu~~ater Falls be added to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Such action wi1l recognize the outstanding scenic and recreational values of this 147-mile segment and serve to protect the river and its in~ediate environment from uses which will diminish those values. No dams or other major water development projects could be constructed, the development or use of adjoining lands for other than agricultural or livestock purposes would be carefully controlled, and the kinds and extent of recreation use would be managed so as to conform with the area's recreation carrying capacity. There is a prohibition on licensing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the curtail- ment of Federal water development projects, the imposition of stricter mining and mineral leasing regulations, and a mandate that Federal agencies manage their lands in accordance with the purposes of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. IV-36 Addition of the John Day to the National System would involve a sharing of responsibilities by the Oregon Parks and Recreation Branch, which administers the State's Scenic Waterways System, and the Bureau of Land Management, which has jurisdiction over 47 percent of the lands adjoining the 147-mile segment. Under the Oregon Scenic Waterways System, any developments or changes of use on non-Federal lands within a quarter mile on either side of the are river regulated. Plans for construction, tree cutting, pros- pecting, mining, or other changes of land use must be submitted to the State Scenic Watenlays Coordinator. If the State determines that a proposal would substanially impair the natural and scenic beauty of the waterway, the landowner may not proceed for 1 year. During that period, the State may negotiate modification of the unacceptable plan or, if this is not possible, acquire the land involved, by con- demnation if necessary. If the State does not acquire the land, the landowner may proceed with his plan after 1 year. The Bureau of Land Management and the State of Oregon have sufficient authority to manage or protect the lands under their jurisdiction along the John Day. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act specifically would re- quire the BLM to manage and protect the river in accordance with the purposes of the Act. The overall management objective woul d be to pl'otect and enhance the values which qualified the river for inclusion in the National System, without limiting other uses which do not substanially interfere with public use and enjoyment of these values. Primary emphasis will be given to protecting the river's aesthetic, scenic, historic, archeo- logic, and scientific features. Specific management recommendations necessary to achieve this objective address recreation, fish and wildlife, land resource use, water re- sources, and utilities. For example, the study suggests that efforts would be made to encourage local units of government to maintain zoning controls on lands adjacent to the riverway and in nearby de- veloped areas whi~h will complement the efforts of the BLM and the State to protect the river environment. Fisheries Resource. When the area was first settled, the John Day Basin produced large runs of chinook and silver salmon and steel head trout. The system still has a very high fish producing potential though runs of the past magnitude are no longer probabl~ because of fish habitat destruction and water diversion for irrigation. However, with proper management, it is possible to realize substantial increases in the size of present fish runs. There are 509 miles of stream capable of providing fish habitat and production in Wheeler County. Chinook salmon are presently produced in 88 miles, steelhead in 181 miles, resident trout in 328 miles and warm water species in 89 miles. Table H-2 lists game fish by species and the streams in which they are found and M~p H-3 shows major anad- romous fish habitat. IV-37 JOHN DAY DRAINAGE BASIN 1 WHEELER COUNTY ANADROMOUS FISH LIFE R19E R20E R21E R22E R23E R24E R25E T15S 15 T14S SCALE OF MILES ---------- o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 DESCHUTES BASIN Steel head Trout Spawning Area Migration Route Fish Screeno T6S )S TlS T8S T9S T11S 112S STATE WATER RESOURCES BOARD SALEM. OREGON Nov. 1960 Table H-4 Inventory of Lakes and Ponds Wheeler County - Approx. Size Game Fish TWP RNG SEC (Surface Acres) Species Use Rowe Creek Reservoir 9S 21E 11 9 Rainbow Trout Public Fishing Rock Creek Lake 13S 24E 34 90 Rainbow Trout Private; Irrigation Fishing Fopiano Reservoir 11S 23E 27 34 Rainbow Trout Private; Irrigation Clark Lake 8S 23E 9 7 Rainbow Trout Private; Recreation Wetmore Lake 7S 24E 5 9 Ra i nbow Trou t Private; Irrigation Recreation -< .I Fry Creek Reservoir 12S 23E 32 . 19 Rainbow Trout Private; Irrigationw 00 Hubbel Lake 7S 23E 34 Fishing Black Lake 8S 23E ~ Fishing Dollarhide Ponds 12S 21E 13 Fishing Sources: IIJohn Day River Basin,1I State Water Resources Board, March 1962 and IIFish and Wildlife Protec- tion Plan for Wheeler County,1I September 1978. Sport angling in Wheeler County primarily focuses on rainbow trout, steelhead trout and smallmouth bass. These three species provide about 99% of the total fish caught and about 95% of total angling days in the County according to Department of Fish and Wildlife data. Public access to recreational waters is adequate at the present time through future access is questionable due to the large amount of stream- bank that is privately owned. Table H-5 shows streambank ownership and public access in the County. Table H-5 Streambank Ownership and Public Access Wheeler County Ownership Public Federal State County Private Total for County Miles Controlled 146.5 ·1.0 .5 576.4 724.4 Mil es Open for Public Access 85.5 1.0 .5 460.4 547.4 Source: "Fish and Wildlife Protection Plan for \~heeler County," by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, September 1978. The fisheries resource is of direct economic importance to Wheeler County as well as to commercial salmon (Chinook) fishers who depend on freshwater spawning and rearing areas. It is estimated that Wheeler County sport fisheries had a value of $273,620 and provided 12,335 angler days in 1977. Table H-6 details the value of this resource . . IV-39 Table H-6 Estimated Catch, Angler Days, and Net Economic Value of the Sport Fishery in Wheeler County, 1977 Annual Catch· Angler Days Provided Value of' One Angler Day Total Recreational Value Chinook 35 35 $ 57 $ 17,850 Steel head 1,000 3,000 51 153,000 Trout 20,950 6,460 12 77 ,520 Warm-Water Species 4,750 2,500 10 25,000 Other Speci es 50 25 10 250 TOTAL 26,785 12,335 $140 $273,620 Source: "Fish and Wildlife Protection Plan for Wheeler County," by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, September 1978. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has included in their 1978 Wheeler County plan several specific recommendations for enhancement of fish habitat. These recommendations are listed in the appendix. They provide land and stream management guidelines that will prove val- uable for effective streamside management and will be evaluated along with other economic and resource concerns, in development of the county plan, policies and implementing ordinances. Table H-7 shows the Department's suggested minimum monthly flows for major county streams. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife goals for streams, reservoirs and headwater areas i ncl ude: "protecti ng water quality and quantity, reduci ng erosion and turbidity problems along all water areas, retaining land adjacent to all water areas in as near natural conditions as possible, and stream channel integrity." These actions would ensure a viable fisheries resource in Wheeler County. IV-40 Table H-7 Minimum Flow Levels for Streams in Wheeler County as Recommended by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Flow* by Month Stream Location Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec John Day River Below North Fork 390 390 390 390 390 390 390 390 390 390 390 390 John Day River Bridge Creek Below Bear Creek 25 25/40 40 40 40 25 15/6 6 6 6 25 25 Bridge Creek Above West Branch 10 10/15 15 15 15 10 7/3 3 3 3 10 10 Bear Creek Mouth 10 ·10/15 15 15 15 10 7/3 3 3 3 10 10 ..... Alder Creek Mouth 8 8/12 12 12 12 8 4/1 1 1 1 8 8< I ~ Kahler Creek Mouthf-I 8 8/12 12 12 12 8 4/1 1 1 1 8 8 Rock Creek Below Mtn. Creek 35 35/50 50 50 50 35 20/10 10 10 10 20 35 Rock Creek Above Mtn. Creek 15 15/20 20 20 20 15 15/8 8 8 8 8 15 Mountain Creek Mouth 25 25/36 36 36 36 25 10/5 5 5 5 10 25 *Flow measured in cubic feet per second. Source: II Fi sh and· Wil dl He Protecti on Pl an for Wheeler County, II by the Oregon Department of Fi sh and Wil dl He, September, 1978. Irrigation and Potential Reservoir Sites. Irrigation in the John Day basin began in the 1860's, soon after early settlement. It was impor- tant then, as it is now, for production of hay for winter cattle feed. The principal irrigated crops are grass hay, alfalfa and clover. Map H-4 shows the irrigated land in Wheeler County. Figure H-l shows the trends in irrigated acreage in Wheeler, Grant and Gilliam Counties. The amount of land suitable for irrigation from stream diversion is limited and much of this land was developed prior to 1919. Although additional land has been developed since then, this was offset somewhat by abandonment of irrigation on other land due to inadequate water supplies and high operation and maintenance costs for canals, flumes and diversions. Direct pumping from streams has replaced lengthy canals and flumes in some cases. Figure·H-l TRENDS IN IRRIGATED ACREAGE BY COUNTIES 1909-1974 v 1\ V ~/' ./ V \ ;/~~ Grant Wheeler ~~ -- /~ --- ./ .... -"' v Gill iam ~ I-" 50 40 tf) Q) 30s... u c:e lr- a tf) "'0 C to tf) 20 ::l a ...c I- 10 o en o en .-f en .-f en .-f en N en .-f en C"") en .-f IV-42 en '<:T en .-f '<:T LO en .-f en LO en .-l JOHN DAY DRAINAGE BASIN J WHEELER COUNTY R19E R20E IRRIGATED R21E R22E LAND R23E R24E R25E 165 175 185 T95 ";"115 1125 SCALE OF MILES ~- 15 STATE WATER RESOURCES BOARD SALEM. OREGON Nov. 1960 Table H-8 shows the acres irrigated in the three counties in recent years. TABLE H-8 Total Acres Irrigated County 1964 19G9 1974 Grant 45,893 40,640 30,841 Wheeler 7,934 6,631 6,010 Gilliam 4,438 5,232 7,149 In Wheeler County, about 14,292 acre-feet of water were used for irri- gation of 6,631 acres in 1969, for total irrigation per acre of 2.2 acre-feet. In 1974, a total of about 18,828 acre-feet were utilized to irrigate 6,010 acres, for total per acre application of 3.1 acre- feet. It seems that more water was used for irrigation, but fewer acres were irrigated thus a110wing more water per irrigated acre. Pump and sprinkler irrigation from streams account for the largest share of irrigation, owing primarily to the avai1ability of relatively cheap REA power. If all irrigation rights in the John Day Basin were used to their max- imum legal limit, about 313,000 acre-feet would be diverted from streams and 2,600 acre-feet would be pumped from ground water each year. This is based on John Day River adjudication of water rights which provides for a duty of five acre-feet per acre per season for diversions from the main stem, North Fork and Middle Fork, and four acre-feet from all other tributaries. The actual water consumption is much smaller because not all rights can be exercised to their legal 1imit because of seasonal deficiencies in water supply and because return flows are reused by downstream users. If it is assumed that two acre-feet per acre are used for consumptiveir- rigation, then about 100,000 acre-feet would be needed annually to sup- ply the consumptive requirements of existing irrigated acreage in the Basin. Since the annual yield of the John Day River is about 1,410,000 acre-feet at its mouth, the current use of irrigation water equals less than 10 percent of the gross basin water yie1d. However, there are many serious local seasonal shortages of water. From April th~ough September, the main irrigating season, the water yield equals about 45 to 75 percent of the total annual yield. The problem is that the monthly yield progressively diminishes through the irrigation season until the September yield ordinarily is less than one percent of the total annual yield. Consequent1y, all irrigated land, even that along main rivers, can experience late season shortages. Along smaller tributaries, late summer flows are particuarly low or non- existent. IV-43 ..... <: I .+::0 .+::0 TABLE H-9 POTENTIAL RESERVOIRS Dam Reservoir Location Max. Pool Total Drainage Reservoir Stream Crest Crest Area Storage Area *Map # Name Name Purpose Height Length (Acres) (AF) Twps Rng Sec (Sq. Mi. 1 Alder Creek John Day River P 90 260 9S 24E 6 2 Alder Creek Alder Creek I-R 75 330 81 2,205 8S 23E 13 30 Badger Lake Badger Creek I-R 10 13S 22E 17 5 Bear Cr.-Lower Bear Creek I-R 115 900 199 6,570 lOS 20E 35 81 6 Bear Cr.-Upper Bear Creek I . 125 530 199 7,180 llS 20E 4 73 8 Berry John Day River P 50 725 9S 25E 6 15 Butte Cr.-Lower Butte Creek I-FC 50 350 24 332 7S 21E 4 31 16 Butte Cr. -Upper Butte Creek I-FC 45 860 121 1,450 7S 21E 12 19 24 Clarno John Day Ri ver I 3,100 7S 19E 18 Cole Lake Crystal Creek 7 13S 20E 5 Dollarhide Site Off Bridge Creek 23 130 12S 21 E 13 Elkhorn Lake West Bridge Cr. 11 13S 20E 3 32 Fort Creek Fort Creek I-R 45 700 97 1,165 12S 24E 18 36 Henry Creek Henry Creek I 85 520 19 582 7S 25E 20 5 Hibner Site Wi 11 ow Creek 42 175 l1S 24E 19 ..... <: I ~ (J'l TABLE H-9 POTENTIAL RESERVOIRS (continued) Dam Reservoir Location Max. Pool Total Drainage Reservoir Stream Crest Crest Area Storage Area *Map # Name Name Purpose Height Length (Acres) (AF) Twps Rng Sec (Sq. Mi.) 37 Hicks John Day River P 225 640 8S 19E 26 39 Hoover Creek Hoover Creek I 35 530 8 68 6S 2~E 15 6 40 Horseshoe Creek Horseshoe Creek I-R 30 750 74 740 lOS 23E 24 4 Jackson Lake Deep Creek 8 13S 23E 35 48 Kahler Cr.-Lower Kahler Creek I 65 400 50 900 8S 24E 13 38 49 Kahler Cr.-Upper Kahler Creek I-R 40 280 12 153 8S 25E 4 16 56 Mountain Creek Mountain Creek I-R 55 460 178 3,560 125 22E 13 29 64 Rock Creek Rock Creek P 120 400 70 2,240 12S 25E 21 83 68 Sixshooter Creek Sixshooter Creek I 55 700 53 807 11S 23E 12 4 Sixshooter Creek Sixshooter Creek 2,300 11S 24E 29 71 Spray John Day River 73 . Straw Fork . Straw Fork I 30 380 9 130 7S 22E 17 76 Twickenham John Day River 95 20E 36 77 . Wi 11 ow Creek Willow Creek I-R 45 330 149 2,333 11S 24E 30 32 78 Unnamed Bridge Creek I 35 290 8 131 12S 21E 24 * See Map H-4, Damsites Key to Reservoir Purpose - P-Power; I-Irrigation; R-Recreation; FC-Flood Control Source: 1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service 2. U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers 3. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation 4. Oregon State Engineer 5. Oregon Cooperative Work, U.S. Department of the Interior in cooperation with the State of Oregon. Compiled from Oregon Water Resource Board data in 1978. JOHN DAY DRAINAGE BASIN) WHEELER COUNTY DAr1SITES R19E R20E R21E R22E R23E R24E R25E o ~ CD T6S Map H-5 STATE WATER RESOURCES BOARD SALEM. OREGON Index numbers refer to SWRB Potential Damsite Survey Watershed with projects possibly feasible under Public Law 566 Area not studied Numbers refer to Watershed Reconnaisance Data Summary C Storage Dam , JS TlS T8S T9S T11S T12S Reservoir storage would provide modification of the runoff pattern and would be essential to provide a fully adequate water supply for the presently irrigated land. Reservoirs could function to distrib- ute the water presently used during the high flow months, over a longer period, into the later, drier months. Table H-9 and Map H-5 show a list of potential reservoirs, their lo- cation, size and purpose. They were compiled by the U.S. Department of Ag ri cu 1tur,=. Reconnaissance data by sub-basin is listed in Table H-10. Most of the arable land in the Basin is in the Rock Creek watershed in the lower John Day sub-basin, but only a small part of this is considered economically feasible for irrigation under Public Law 566, Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act. TABLE H-10 WATERSHEDS WITH PROJECTS POSSIBLY FEASIBLE UNDER P. L. 566 GROSS ARABLE PRESENTLY ADDITIONAL SUB-BASIN WATERSHED AREA LAND IRRIGATED IRRIGABLE 1 North Fork Camas Creek 205,000 2,000 900 800 Long Creek 126,400 2,500 500 1,000 ~ ·Upper John Day Mountain Creek 107,500 2,100 1,100 300 Upper South Fork John Day 164,400 4,200 2,600 400 ~ Lower John Day Butte Creek 117,800 8,900 500 200 Kock Creek 267,500 85,500 2,200 1,300 TOTAL 105,200 7,800 4,000 All values in acres Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture as shown in the "John Day River Basin", WRD, i~a rch 1962. Improvements in water management would also help alleviate irrigation shortages. Better land shaping and leveling and improved diversion and control structures would aid efficient water supply management. Excessive water loss from ditch systems can be eased by improving, relocating or lining ditches. Factual data is also needed on the water holding capacity of soils and their intake rates to facilitate more efficient use of the available water supply. The Soil Conserva- tion Service is preparing a detailed soil survey and 'classification that should help to meet this need. . IV-46 Power Generation. Water rights for power total 128 cfs in the John Day River Basin, but less than 50% have been used in recent years. Most small hydroelectric power plants discontinued generation after cheaper power from sources outside the Basin began serving the area. The only major hydroelectric development now existing is the Fremont power plant owned by California Pacific Utilities Company. It obtains water from Lake Creek, Lost Creek, and storage in Olive Lake and has installed caracity of 1,100 kw. Its annua1 generation equaled 5 mil- lion kwh from 1951 to 1960. During dry years, there is insufficient water to fully utilize the generation facilities. The John Day River contributes to the Columbia River power pool. The John Day Dam, located just downstream from the confluence of the John Day and Columbia Rivers, is a major power generation plant. Water Quality. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality recently completed an inventory of nonpoint source problems throughout Wheeler County and the state as a whole. This inventory was in response to the Federal Clean Water Act of 1972, and specifically to Section 208. The report is based on the professional judgment of local agency per- sonnel and the management experience of landowners and thus is quite qualitative in nature. It is therefore useful for general planning but is unsuitable for site specific use. Streams were evaluated on the basis of six individual problems: stream- bank erosion, sedimentation, excessive debris, water withdrawals causing stream quality problems, elevated vlater temperatures and nuisance algae or acquatic plant growths. The John Day Basin was only identified as having one regional "hot spot" (an area where a considerable portion of streams or water bodies have severe nonpoint source problems.) This problem was caused by streambank erosion in the northern part of the Basin (in Gilliam County). This area is identified by the Depal~tment of Environmental Quality as being in need of: "1. detailed studies of the cause, impact and control of the problem. 2. Remedial action programs." The general findings of the report are summarized here by the six prob- lem areas as they were identified on major Wheeler County streams. Streambank Erosion - Moderate problem along the John Day River with a small area near Clarno identified as having a severe problem. Lower Birch Creek and Kahler Creek were also classed as severe problems. Sedimentation - Moderate problem along the John Day River with a severe problem identified on lower Bridge Creek. Excessive Debris - No problems identified on the John Day River with a moderate problem shown on Bridge. Creek and Rock Creek. IV-47 Water Withdrawals Causing Stream Quality Problems - Moderate problem along John Day River and several tributaries with severe problem identified on lower Bridge Creek and Muddy Creek. Elevated Water Temperature - Moderate problem along the John Day River, Rock Creek and upper Bridge Creek with severe prob- lem shown on lower Bridge Creek and Mountain Creek. Other tributaries showed no problems. Nuisance Algae or Acguatic Pla~ Gro~/ths - No problems identified in the County except for a stretch of the John Day River extend- ing from the mouth of Kahler Creek to just below the mouth of Cherry Creek. This area was identified as a severe problem. The composite nonpoint source problem map, prepared by the Department of Environmental Quality to summarize the study, shows river segments rated according to a point system outlined here: 1 point was assigned for each moderate nonpoint problem 2 points were assigned fer each severe nonpoint problem a points = no problems 1-3 points = relatively few problems 4-6 points = moderate problems 7-8 points = moderate to severe problems 9-12 points severe problems The John Day River, upper Thirtymile Creek, lower Bridge Creek, Moun- tain Creek and Rock Creek were the only streams with from 4-6 points. Streams that fell in the 1-3 point classification included Rowe Creek. lower Service Creek, Alder Creek, Kahler Creek, Girds Creek, Parrish Creek, a small portion of Shoofly Creek, and upper Bridge Creek. Other streams in the County generally showed no non-point source problems. Other information relating to water quality, particularly the Department of Environmental Quality's proposed water quality plan and discussion of point pollution, is discussed in the air, water and land quality section of the technical report. Ground Water As of February. 1979, there were 163 wells recorded with Wheeler County's watermaster in Canyon City (Grant County). Of these, 32 were drilled in 1978. Nearly all of these wells are used for domestic purposes, as there is not sufficient g~ou~d w~ter for irrigation in most parts of the County. There are a few lrrlgatlon wells located along Butte Creek, according to the watermaster. IV-48 The City of Fossil drilled a well to serve the city's needs in 1978, that air tested about 300 gpm. This is probably the largest producing well in the County. One other 9,ood irrigation well was air tested at 110 gpm. All but a few of the other wells are estimated to yield an average of 10 gpm or less though some wells may yield 20 to 30 gpm. It is not foreseen that Wheeler County will experience any severe drop in ground wa~er level because there are so few wells and none are ex- tremely large. However, if the County's population were to drastically increase, this outlook could change. Map H-6 shows the ground water geology and Map H-7 shows filed water rights of Wheeler County. Map H-6 was developed from graduate theses from Oregon State University and the University of Oregon and from maps from the U.S. Geological Survey and the Oregon State Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. The best known ground water source is the alluvium, especially the gravel along the John Day River. Most wells in the area tap this formation though the upper interflow zones of the more porous basalt flows form acquifers that are tapped by several municipal wells. Many springs issue from this zone where faulting or erosion has exposed them. Very little ground water is obtained from acquifers formed by other rock types, principally volcanic, that underlie much of the County. Over 80% of the ground water irrigation rights in the John Day Basin are located in the lower John Day sub~basin that encompasses part of Wheeler and Gilliam Counties. Table H-11 shows a partial accounting of the Basin's ground water rights by sub-region. TABLE H-ll GROUND WATER RIGHTS SUMMARY As of June 30, 1961 SUB-BASIN ~1UNICIPAL IRRIGATION TOTAL cfs cfs Acres 1 North Fork John Day 0.61 0 0 0.61 2 Upper John Day 1.51 0.57 45.60 2.08 3 Lower John Day 2.40 8.53 833.00 10.93 TOTAL 4.52 9.10 878.60 13.62 Source: State Engineer "John Day River Basin," Water Resources Board. March, 1962 IV-49 \ R19E JOHN DAY DRAINAGE BASIN) WHEELER COUNTY GROUND-WATER GEOLOGY R20E R21E R22E R23E R24E R25E DESCHUTES BASIN T6S T7S T8S T9S TllS T12S J --, J -; , ...... J ••• "jJ • • • ... .. . , .. 0Zl GEOLOGIC UNIT Alluvium Columbia R. Basalt Lava, Ash, Tuff. etc. Sands tone. Shale. etc. Intrusive Rock Data not available YIELD CAPACITY Medium Medium to Low Very Low Very Low Negligible 4) Reported Well s 2.9 (gpm/ft. drawdown) T14S SCALE OF MIL'O:S ~ o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 STATE WATER RESOURCES BOARD SALEM. OREGON Nov. 1960 15 Map H-6 T65 175 T85 T95 T1QS T11S T12S JOHN DAY DRAINAGF- BASIN J WHEELER COUNTY WATER RIGHTS R25E Map H-7 STATE WATER RESOURCES BOARD SALEM. OREGON Some ground water rights for irrigation are supplemental to surface water rights. Obtaining water rights for ground water use is not required in all cases under the Ground Water Act of 1955. For instance, permits are not required for watering stock, for single or group domestic purposes not exceeding 15,000 gpd (gallons per day), for irrigating lawns or noncommercial gardens not exceeding one-half acre, or for any single industrial or commercial purpose not exceeding 5,000 gpd. Consequently, the water rights summarized in Table H-11 don't show the full use of ground water as of June 30, 1961, nor do they include any further allocation of ground water since that date though it is doubtful that Wheeler County has appropriated significantly more ground water for irrigation (see Figure H-1). The new Fossil municipal well is not included in these figures. When a ground water study of the Basin is conducted, it will be possible to determine more accurately ground water occurrence and yield. Waterway Permits If a project will require the removal, fill, or alteration of 50 cubic yards or more of material within the banks of a waterway, persons are en- couraged to apply for state fill or removal permits well in advance of construction deadlines to prevent unnecessary project delays. Specific information on the need for permits may be obtained from the Division of State Lands office at 1445 State Street, Salem, Oregon. IV-50 I. NATURAL HAZARDS Natural hazards include such defineable weaknesses as fault lines and flood areas as well as more nebulous hazards such as range and forest fires. The hazards that most frequently occur in Wheeler County are discussed in this chapter. InventJries have been assembled from available data. Policies included in the county and city plans t9gether with zoning and subdivision ordinances and building permit check-offs provide the means for preventing damage to life and property by natural hazards. Fault Lines and Earthquake Areas The greatest danger of earthquakes in any area lies along fault lines in the earth's structure. Several fault lines pass through eastern and southern Wheeler County. The longest line begins near Alder Mountain and runs in a southwesterly direction to Sheep ~;lountai.n .. Two other fault 1ines ~egin near Alder Mountain - one line runs northerly for about 3~ miles and the other line runs easterly for about 1~ miles. Another group of fault lines begin near Fritzel Mountain and Indian Mountain. These lines run southwesterly for about five miles and southeas1erly for about 10 miles. Numerous small fault lines branch from these two longer lines. Another group of fault lines run northeasterly from Keyes Mountain and south- westerly from the Richmond area. The last major line begins at Sheep Mountain and runs easterly for about five miles. Fault lines are not a constraint to growth of the Cities of Fossil, Mitchell, and Spray, nor are any of them active at present. Waterspouts and Flood Prone Areas Waterspouts occur when large amounts of rain accumulate and rush through low lying canyon areas that usually conta in 1ittl e or no water. These IIfl ash floods" carry much mud through the canyons and can do considerable damage to fields, bUildings, equipment and animals. A large portion of central Wheeler County lies within a waterspout prone area. This area follows the John Day River as it flows through the county. In the \'!estern half of the county, the area generally extends fro~ the Wheeler-Gilliam County border north of Kinzua to an area just south of Mitchell. The waterspout area in eastern Wheeler County extends from 4 to 10 miles on either side of the John Day River, goes south along the vJheeler-Grant County 1ine to a point south of Rock Ct'eek, and extends west along Mountain Creek to its intersection with Willow Creek. The Soil Conservation Service has instigated special erosion control methods on many county ranches and encourages further work to help alle'Jiate the problems of excessive water run-off. Occasional flooding in Wheeler County occurs along the county's rivers and creeks due to spring run-off and warm rains. These flood prone areas include the entire John Day River, Bridge Creek, north of Sargent Butte, and south IV-51 \through Mitchell, Mountain Creek along Highway 26 for about 8 miles, Rock Creek (2 miles) near the Grant-Wheeler County Border, and Butte Creek through Fossil. (see ~1ap 1-1) According to present Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Insurance Administration emergency flood insurance program regulations land use and control measures adopted by the community for the flood plain must: '''b' When the Administrator has designated areas of special flood hazards (A zones) by the publication of a community's FHBtvl, but has neither produced water surface elevation data nor identified a floodway or coastal high hazard area, the community shall: (1) Require permits for all proposed construction and other developments including the placement of mobile homes, within Zone A on the com- munity's FHBN: (2) Require the application of the standards in paragraphs (a) (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6) of this section to development within Zone A on the community's FHBM; (a)(2) Review proposed development to assure that all necessary permits have been received from those governmental agencies from which approval is required by Federal or State law, including Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1334; (a)(3) Review all permit applications to determine whether pro- posed bUilding sites will be reasonably safe from flooding. If a proposed building site is in a flood-prone area, all new construction and substantial improvements (including the placement of prefabricated buildings and mobile homes) shall (i) be designed (or modified) and adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structure, (ii) be constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage, and (iii) be constructed by methods and practices that minimize flood damage~ (a)(4) Review subdivision proposals and other proposed new devel~pment to determine whether such proposals will be reasonably safe from flooding. If a subdivision proposal or other proposed new development is in a flood-prone area, any such proposals shall be reviewed to assure that (i) all such proposals are consistent with the need to minimize flood damage within the flood-prone area, (ii) all public utilities and facilities, such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems are located and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage, and (iii) adequate drainage is provided to reduce exposure to flood hazards; (a)(5) Require within flood-prone areas new and replacement water supply systems to be designed to minimize or eliminate in- filtration of flood waters into the systems; and (a)(6) Require within flood-prone areas (i) new and replacement sanitary sewage systems to be designed to minimize or IV-52 .~-_.----~------------------ ••• 0 •••• LEGEND MODERATE WATER SPOUT PRONE AREAS L-l - WATER SPOUT PRONE AREAS FLOOD PRONE AREAS J I ---4--:,,_0.. -~----.l __1__ SOURCE: Lynn D. Steiger & Associates. Inc.. La Grande.OR (H.U.D. Maps. May. 1977j f\JATU RAL rIJ~Z;£\RDS \~~j l~ lH~ rUHfJ ©@mJmuW~ (ill [~ r~ ~@[(] ~--'-"-~-mm!le"_-'&iUiL-.,,_- 1 3 5 7 9 '5 SCALE IN MILES ;/' NORTH \:.;~ r~j "1 ".j' '. .... .~/ Map NO.I-1 eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges from the systems into flood waters and (ii) on- site waste disposal systems to be located to avoid im- pairment to them or contamination from them curing flooding. (3) Require that all subdivision proposals and other proposed new develop- ments great~r than 50 lots or 5 acres, whichever is the lesser, in- cludewithin such proposal base flood elevation data; (4) Obtain, review, and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation data available from a Federal, State, or other source, until such other data has been provided by the Administrator, as criteria for requiring that (i) all new construction and substantial improvements of resi- dential structures have the lowest flood (including basement) elevated to or above the base flood level and (ii) all new construction and substantial improvements of nonresidential structures have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated or floodproofed to or above the base flood level; (5) For the purpose of the determination of applicable flood insurance risk premium rates within Zone A on a community's FHB~I, (i) obtain the elevation (in relation to main sea level) of the lowest habit- able floor (including basement) of all new or substantially improved structures, and whether or not such structures contain a basement, (ii) obtain, if the structure has been floodproofed, the elevation (in relation to mean sea level) to which the structure was flood- proofed, and (iii) maintain a record of all such information with the official designated by the comnlunity under § 1909.22 (a)(9) (iii); (6) Notify, in riverine situations, adjacent communities and the State Coordinating Office prior to any alteration or relocation of a water- course, and submit copies of such notifications to the Administrator; (7) Assure that the flood carrying capacity within the altered or re- located portion of any watercourse is maintained; (8) Require that all mobile homes to be placed within the Zone A on a com- munity's FHBM shall be anchored to resist flotation, collapse, or lateral movement by pr'oviding over-the-top and frame ties to ground anchors. Specific requirements shall be that (i) over the top ties be provided at each of the four corners of the mobile home, with two additional ties per side at intennediate locations and mobile homes less than 50 feet long requiring one additional tie per side; (ii) frame ties be provided at ~ach corner of the home with five additional ties per side at intennediate points and mobile homes less than 50 feet long requiring four additional ties per side; (iii) all components of the anchoring system be capable of carrying a force of 4,800 pounds; and (iv) any additions to the mobile home be similarly anchored; (9) Require that an evacuation plan indicating alternative vehicular access and escape routes be filed with appropriate Disaster Pre- paredness Authorities for mobile home parks and mobile home sub- divisions located within Zone A on the corrununity's FHB~1." IV-53 For specific flood plain information pertaining to the cities of Fossil, Mitchell, and Spray, refer to the Flood Insurance Maps included within this section (Maps 1-2, 1-3, and 1-4). While Flood Insurance Maps for areas of the county outside these cities are not available, those areas which are prone to experience water spout activity have been designated on another map (Map I-I). Wheeler County is presently operating under a resolution adopted by the County Court on September 3, 1975, but as more current flood plain maps and elevations for the county are developed by the Federal Insurance Administration, lenders, insurance salesmen, city and county officials will be notified. At that time, it will be necessary to develop flood plan management ordinances and regulations if Wheeler County and the Cities of Fossil, Mitchell, and Spray wish to continue their participation in the insurance program. If, for some reason, a decision is made not to participate in the program, subsidized flood insurance would no longer be available for residences and businesses within the County. Steep Slopes For areas with steep slopes in Wheeler County, refer to topographic maps within this report (Map C-l and I-I) and maps prepared by the U.S. Geo- logical Survey. Areas with slopes of greater than 12% on which form natural drainage channels either should be avoided or developed with special care to protect onsite structures and adjacent property. Con- struction on steep slopes will require site analysis and if found feasible to build special engineering practices should be employed. Forest and Range Fires Fire hazard increases in any area when population density and use of forest/ range lands increase. This is particularly true in an area like Wheeler County which has a large amount of forest and range land. Range and forest fires, whether started by manls activities or natural phenomenon, are hazards that cannot ~e mapped, eliminated. Consequently, any proposed recreational developments or campgrounds should be carefully evaluated for their susceptibility to forest or range fires. More importantly, poorly located or planned high density developments increase the risk of fire to surrounding range and forest land by increasing the number of people in the area. The County's zoning and subdivision ordinances provide the means for implementing effective measures to lessen the risk of fire to natural resources, life and property. IV-54 ,NOt';: i'hese maps may not inclu'de ali Spe<:ial Flood Hazard Areas in the community. After a more detailed study. the Special Flood Hazard Areas shown on these maps may be; modified, and other areas added. CORPORATE LIMITS - --.-- - ----I i I ~ :·l?.. :......... _ST_._I.·.···.~.··.···.···.··~ '," "; :E····· ~ .: ~ ;·····C···:, IL"'~'i;: r--~: .-~II y, ~~: ;ST.lJ) .... :: :.__.. . ......~ I ~! 5(! D LJ~ [.:::' I :;1 u UM~o"'J,A~ I i~ I:: D L I G;J L~j I.. ~I ,~!;.; ;-':::;:~';') o EJ C :2ND: ~ .. ~: :.::;:: ;?."l:,.; :..... "W 0: W : •.....• t:; :D IE. I 13RD t ~): ~~'\:..~~: ~~ :?!'.. { : ~-:nn~<~<:<;;> .~:i': nnnn ~H : • ..•. J. . .(':.' S'l-: : I '" ..:~~~ D":~'"1J ~'.~ ~~~.:::~: ...: :.:::.:.:.. : I ...... '. :--:: t:.~ 0 ~~-;~.. :, w. ?!.~.~J:__. ~o ~ ..~~ ······Z; :r-ll Ifz Z r>1 ~--::::~:""..o:·}: 0 -, ~I ...:.... lJ)" c( ~ « ., W ".. '<'" n: 0 l:> ~ l:> ". ":'.. H Wy -=:----~. -~--- -CORPORATE LIMITS .~. &M&!jlt;ifi!4w~~~Wt:z!;'j'i'lWj§il!\!WJ.%ilnill,."'M!&~~.& .. Lj ZONE AI 6/28/71+\ r-- I .., '. fi LEGEND -_._..., HAP REVISED 11/14/75 JUNE 28, 1974 INITIAL IDENTIFICATION DATE: CONSUL T NFIA SERVICING COMPANY OR LOCAL INSURANCE AGENT OR BROKER TO DETERMINE IF PROPERTIES IN THIS COMMUNITY ARE ELIGIBLE FOR FLOOD INSURANCE. .- .y - -..:;.II •. •.I.• .••.••.••.••.••. ~&D~~:~ ........................ . :..::..::..:...:".::...::.:..::.'.::.:..:.:..:.:.,::..:.: ....:.::...:..:::.:.::.>::::::::»:-:-:::: . '-'.':-:-:::,.",:: :-:- :<. - OEPARTMOIT OF HOUSiNG AND URBAN DEVElOPMENT Federal lil3urance Administration APf>'RCXIMAT(SCAlE 5O•..2~""'ll:C:Il!MlllII:0===========lO:il~.e01ilI3!3iS!l!lIii_I!:XllllliJlli~~.O:::OO=-;;;:::;:===:;:;:.~==:=3=:;0.0' 0 FEET SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA WITH DATE OF IDENTIFICATiON ie., 12/2/73 F) FIA FLOOD HAZARD BOUNDARY MAP ©UU\'l ®~ ~®~~~~9 ®OO~~5®~ No. H 01 Map NO./-2 1 I \ APPROXIMA TE SCALE 5O~ei-II::'::Jl:Jlll«:ll'«::=::::rm.!r:==============l~Og~~~~~=-=========__=.3::::J~JO 0 FE ET\~\ \ ! ) ·~ / ~ ~ J6 ················"·ko,~:,;",:?lli2~/7:~~ll H I GH 5 T • ";;;;. .... I j~ ~':-<" . ;;;: ..pO ~ \I :Il lEGr.r«> ~~iE~~:'~:;~:N!~r~~~~~!l DEPAHTM£NT OF HOUSING MiD UR8AN OEVUOPMEfH i-.lote: Tn-ese rna-pot rr.ev not Incluoe aii 5;:;:)<:151 i=lood M5zard ArSoftI in the community. Aftor a more dtltailed study. the Special Flood Hazard Ar......hown on th....e maps may be modiliod. and oth~ --0 "t.... . y.v- O o ':'ffi-':::: ,)O\-I~~\}\ - ST ~ f1"'\:::L JUNIC>£R n ::iE~)i&. ·~;nLJ~!, ~I : ;~i ~ ~ 11 ,;,1: · ,.,." ~,un N'" ,,"V'C'NG oeM"NY OReOC", 'N'URANC' AGENT OR BROKER TO DETERMINE IF PROPERTIES IN THIS COMMUNITV ARE ELIGIBLE FOR FLOOD INSURANCE. REVISION OATES: SHOI CURVILINEAR BDUHDA.RY,inoUCE SFHA~,-,/ . / APPROXIMATE SCALE ZON-E A 500 0 1000 2000 FEET 8/30/711 IML::IftI H_ til ...~ ~.., ¥JC&& FIA FLOOD HAZARD BOUNDARY f\i1AP ©~1JW ®~ ~[P[fJl~W9 @[~~®®m .J~ No. H 01 M:lD No. 1-4 J. Fish and Wildlife Resources Fish and wildlife are important economic and aesthetic resources of Wheeler County. Recent estimates prepared by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife indicate that these resources have a gross economic impact of over $3 million though Wheeler County receives only a portion of this amount. Based on statewide statistics, Wheeler County should receive about $840,000 of the total $3 million, but due to the few number of retail outlets in the County, somewhat less than this is probably spent in the County. Consequently, communities in neighboring Counties may receive some of the trade that might otherwise be accomodated by Wheeler County establishments. Fisheries Resources Wheeler County's fisheries resources are inventoried in the Hydrologic Resource section of the technical report and the Department of Fish and Wildlife1s fish habitat management recommendations are included in the appendix of thfs report. These recommendations provide specific management guidelines that will be evaluated along with other economic and resource concerns in development of the comprehensive plan, policies and implementing ordinances. Wheeler County, along with other John Day Basin Counties, provides fish habitat that is of key importance to commercial and sport fisheries in Oregon. Wildlife Resources According to a hunter survey conducted by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wheeler County provided more than 46,000 recreational days of hunting in 1977.' As mentioned earlier, this recreational activity had a gross economic impact on the state of about $3 million with about 25% of that accruing to Wheeler County businesses. In addition to these returns, such nonconsumptive uses of wildlife as photography, viewing and aesthetic pleasure increased the value of wildlife resources for the CoLinty. Basic wildlife needs include adequate food, covpr and shelter that can be obtained during all seasons. Though the optimum distribution of these needs is no longer possible to provide, it is possible to maintain existing wildlife habitat that is necessary to support viable wildlife populations. ~ Game. Wheeler County has habitat suitable for mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, pronghorn antelope, black bear and cougar. Table J-1 lists big game species and estimated populations found in Wheeler County in 1977. Over 8,000 hunters hunted in Wheeler County in 1977. The hunter days provided and associated economic impact are shown in Table J-2. IV-55 Table J-l Big Game Species and Their Estimated Populations in Wheeler County, 1977 Species r~ule Deer Rocky Mountain Elk Pronghorn Antelope Black Bear Cougar Estimated Population . 15,000 300 150 15 10 ..-.;.. Source: "Fi sh and Wildl i fe Protecti on Pl an for Wheeler County," Department of Fish and Wildlife, September, 1978 Table J-2 Estimated Hunter Days and Gross Economic Impact of Big G~me Hunting in Wheeler County, 1977 Species Mule Deer Rocky Mtn. Elk TOTAL Hunter Days Provided 23,800 4,700 28,500 Value of One Hunter Day 95 Gross Economic Impact $2,707,500 Source: "Fish and Wildlife Protection Plan for Wheeler County," Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, September, 1978 IV-56 Big game species habitat is found primarily in land below 3000 feet elevation where food, cover and water are adequate during the winter months (December through March). Generally, these areas are located in two belts; one that extends from the v/estern Wheeler/Jefferson County boundary, east along the John Day River (stretching from Frizzel Mountain in the north to Butter r~ountain in the south) to the Grant County border, while the other stretches from 81 ack Butte, to Mitchell and south to the Ochoco Nati ona1 Forest. It also extends east to the Grant County boundary. The sensitive wildlife habitat maps included in this section hi~hlight these areas. There are several management techniques that when implemented, will enhance wildlife populations. Logging practices and woodland management can provide adequate winter cover for deer and elk while also providing substantial timber harvests. Key wintering areas can be protected from disturbance or harassment by man and food supplies can be improved by browse burning or other special techniques. Wildlife needs tend to conflict with human activites such as road building, recreational subdivisions, and some agricultural practices. If key habitat areas are utilized for other uses, game animals are forced to shift to different grounds. Crop damage to agricultural land, gardens and hay supplies often results. In view of these problems, the Fish and Wildlife department has formulated specific recommendations for big game management in Wheeler County. These recommendations are included in the appendix. Upland §ame Birds. The most common upland game bird found in Wheeler County is the Chukar partridge. The County has nearly ideal natural vegetation and climate to support Chukars. Other common game birds include pheasants, several types of quail and doves. Hungarian partridges, grouse and merriam turkeys are found in fevler numbers. About 7300 hunter days were provided by upland game resources in 1977. Table J-3 shows upland game bird populations and acres of habitat while Table J-4 shows the associated hunter days provided and er0nomic value. Upland game bird habitat is found throughout the county in forests, rimrock and hill areas and in riparian zones. Consequently, vegetation in these areas is of key importance to game birds and significant conversion of these lands to other uses, or changes in land diversity will adversely affect upland game bird populations. Conversion of brush areas with natural vegetation to cropland, woodlot or riparian vegetation destruction, improper logging techniques and overgrazing will all remove habitat needed to maintain existing populations of upland game birds. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has formulated specific management recommendations that address these problems and their effect on game birds. Generally they call for maintenance of rural agricultural land~, strong dog and cat control laws, and timber management practices that provide a variety of timber stands in the County. The specific recommendations are included in the appendix. Waterfowl. Most of the waterfowl found in Wheeler County are migrating birds that are dependent on the John Day River for feedinq and restinq. Resident waterfowl, present in low numbers, are limited by the small amount of nesting areas in the County. Hunters spent about 10,400 days hunting geese and ducks in Wheeler County in 1977. IV-57 Table J-3 Species, Estimated Population of Upland Game Birds and the Available Acres of Habitat in t-lheeler County 1977 Estimated Acres of Species Population Habitat Ring-Necked Pheasant 1,000 2,002 California Valley Quail 3,600 226,500 Mourning Dove 8,100 875,000 Chukar Partridge 58,800 615,000 Hungarian Partridge 300 127,000 Mountain Quail 175 96,500 Blue Grouse 700 190,800 Ruffed Grouse 200 40,500 Merriams Turkey 35 105,000 Sage Grouse 500 50,002 Source: "Fish and Vlildlife Management Plan for Wheeler County," Oregon Department of Fish and Wildl~fe, September, 1978 Table J-4 Estimated Hunter Days and Gross Economic Impact of Upland Game Bird Hunting in Wheeler County, 1977 Species Pheasant &Quail Chukars & Hunts Grouse t10urni ng Dove TOTAL Hunter Days Provided 3,200 3~300 100 700 7,300 Value of One Day $13.00 Gross Economic Impact $94,900.00 Source: "Fish and Wildlife Managment Pl an for \~hee1er County," Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, September, 1978 IV-58 Table J-5 shows the wat2rfowl species found in Wheeler County during migration and the 1977 estiwated population. Table J-5 Species and Estimated Populations of Waterfowl in Wheeler County, 1977 Species Whistling Swans Canada Geese Snow Geese Mallard Gadwall Pintail Cinnamon Teal Blue &Green Winged Teal American Widgeon Shoveler Wood Duck Ruddy Duck Common Merganser Hooded Merganser Estimated Population 50 1,150 Rare 400 10 45 355 50 130 10 10 20 250 15 Source: "Fish and l-Jildlife Protection Plan for Wheeler County," Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, September, 1978. IV-59 Marshy areas, lakes and slow moving streams with brushy banks provide important waterfowl habitat. Migrating waterfowl depend heavily on these areas for resting and feeding during the fall and winter. Nesting areas are critical in the late spring and early summer. Consequently, sensitive waterfowl areas in Wheeler County include the John Day River, Bt'idge Creek, Bear Creek, Butte Creek, Thirtymile Creek, lower Rowe Creek, Alder Creek, Kahler Creek, Parish Creek, Johnson Creek, Rock Creek and Mountain Creek. Any land use activities that would destroy wetlands, marshy areas or riparian vegetation will adversely affect waterfowl habitat. Therefore, the Department of Fish and I~ildlife management recommendations (included in the appendix) call for avoiding destruction of riparian vegetation, maintaining agricultural lands, providing buffer zones between riparian areas and residential, commercial or industrial development, maintaining public access to wildlife recreational areas and for implementing strong dog leash laws. Furbearers. The most common furbearers found in Wheeler County are coyotes and mink. Muskrats, beaver, raCC00ns, bobcats and badgers and a very small population of river otters are also found. Table J-6 shows furbearers by species, their 1977 populations and habitat acreage. Table J-6 Estimated Population of Furbearers and Acres of Useable Habitat in Wheeler County, 1977 Species Estimated Population Acres of Habitat Muscrat 740 3,570 Beaver 520 3,550 River Otter 5 1,690 Mink 1,020 10,600 Coyote 1,775 1,048,500 Bobcat 260 950,000 Badger 110 450,000 Raccoon 350 14,250 Source: ."Fish and Wildlife Protection Plan for Wheeler County," Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, September, 1978 IV-60 Furbearersgenerally have the same requirements associated with big game, upland game birds and waterfowl. Acquatic furbearers such as beaver, muskrat, mink and river otter usually require brushy streambanks while terrestrial animals such as bobcats, skunks, badgers and coyotes are found through out the County. Since furbearers have similar habitat needs as other wildlife, any destruction of habitat critical to these species will also affect furbearers. The Department has recommended similar management techniques for enhancement of furbearer habitat as it did for other wildlife. Specific recommendations are included in the appendix. Nongame Wildlife. Nongame wildlife includes small mammals, hawks, owls, songbirds and shorebirds. Since these populations fluctuate substantially by seasons and migrations, no population estimates are available. The value of nonconsumptive uses of nongame wildlife can only be estimated from the results of a 1974 survey of Oregon, conducted by the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The survey indicated that about 719,000 people in Oregon watched or photographed birds and other wildlife, 688,000 fed birds and 245,000 constructed or installed bird houses or nest boxes. To what extent Wheeler County residents value such resources has not been determined. Nongame wildlife are found throughout the County, often in habitat also utilized by big game, upland birds and waterfowl. Habitat manipulation that would affect these groups would also affect nongame species. Elimination of open space areas in urban areas would also impact dependent nongame wildlife. Management recommendations suggested by the Department of Fish and Wildlife call for protecting existing ponds, wetlands and riparian areas and construc- tion of additional ponds and lakes; providing open space areas in residential developments; and leaving non-hazard snags for nesting along streams and in forest areas. These recommendations are detailed in the appendix. Special Animals The Nature Conservancy, through its Oregon Natural Heritage Program, has prepared a data summary that identifies potentially significant ecological and scientific sites \'Iithin \·Jheeler County. Several areas with especially suitable rare or endangered wildlife habitat or with existing populations are listed. Table J-7 inventories significant wildlife areas and indicates their protection status. These areas contain "the finest remaining examples of native ecosystem types, habitat localities for special animal and plant species and other outstanding natural features ," according to the report. Areas of archaelogical or biological significance not related to rare or endangered wildlife are discussed in the Unique Scientific and Cultural Resource section of thi s report. IV-61 Tab .,:i Wheeler County Identified Rare or Endangered Wildlife Species Natural Areas Wildlife Resource Site Name Location Verificationaof Occurrence Protection Stat usb ...... < I m N Twn .fu1-9.. SectSage Grouse Strutting Grounds Waterman Flat lIS 24E 16 ~ 18, 20 V 3 California Screech Owl NV Pinon Mouse South Slope Iron 7S 19E 12-14, V 3 Sagebrush Vole Mountain 22-24 V - Golden Eagle Clarnon/John Day 8S 19E 2,3,10,11 V 3 River 14,15,23 Waterfowl Wetland Spray Area 9S 25E 6 NV 3 Great Blue Heron Rookery Bridge Creek lOS 20E 3 V 3 Golden Eagle (2 nests) Iron Mountain 7S 19E 10 V 3 Golden Eagle Cove Creek 7S 20E 29 V 3 Golden Eagle John Day Fossil Beus/ 7S 19E 33-35 V 2 Painted Hills Unit National Monument Northern Bald Eagle Rock Creek 13S 24E 22 V 1 KEY: aVerification of Occurrence V = Verified NV = Not Verified bprotection Status 1 = Preserved 2 = Legally Protected 3 = Unprotected Source: Oregon [~atural Areas: Wheeler County, Oregon Natural Heritage Program of The Nature Conservancy, 1978 _ c: _-""--'-_ ="---_-l-L_ LEGEND ~ TROUT AND On':ER FISH I I I I I SOURCE: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, September, 1978. ~g;-~,-3 . 1 3 57 9 15.t-----. _ _. SCALE IN MILES ~">,,,--J SENSITiVE FISH HABITAT }"'01 WOO~~~~~ ©©[lJJ~u~,. _~~~@©~ , ~[:tj Map No. J·2 ------ ------~_._. ------- R 24 E R 25 E ------, . R 22 E R 23 E l--~--- , I ~ , I --,-------t R 21 ER 20 E T 14 5 ANTELOPE I ---J---t----t- I ",i'~?;:?;"':~I -- --J---l i "' -',,)I ~I LEGEND MULE DEER DEER FORAGING AREAS (WINTER) R 19 E ~ o [2]:'_"".'.'-- 0".":,".- :.-. ~ -.- T95 T 10 5 T75 T ~3 5 T 125 TD5 IT 11 5 . STEELHEAD, SALMON, WARM WATER FISH AND WATER FOWL SENSITIVE \fJllDLIFE \YKllliJ ~ ~ ~ ~ lnj ©rID [[I [~)UW? @[~i ~®rID m .~ K. Air, Land, and Water Quality Air Quality Wheeler County has a generally high quality air environment. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has issued permits for two point sources of air contaminants in Wheeler County, one for Heppner Lumber Company and the other for Kinzua Corporation. Heppner LumbEr Company has no significant sources of emissions. The only siqnificant source of air contaminants, the boilers at Kinzua Corporation, was shut down when the mill closed in 1978. Land Quality The 1974 solid waste disposal plan for Wheeler County presents the most recent data available for land quality in the county. Solid Waste Quantities. Fossil - Residential and commercial solid wastes are estimated at 10,000 pounds per week. OMSI Camp Hancock near Clarno uses the Fossil site, supplying about 400 pounds per week during the summer with an annual total of 8,000 pounds. Highway litter barrels plus the state parks have about 2,000 pounds per week during the season with an annual total of 30,000 pounds. The overall annual total is 300 tons. Kinzua - Used to have solidwastes to 7,000 pounds per week or 200 tons per year plus mill wastes averaging 35 cubic yards per week. The mill closed in 1978, causing the population and solid waste to decrease proportionably. Sp~aH - 3500 pounds per week or 100 tons per year are generated. Mitchell. - Residential and commercial solid wastes are 4,500 pounds per week. Highway litter barrels plus the state park wastes come to 1,500 pounds per week during the season for an annual total of 23,000 pounds. Overall annual total is 130 tons. Fo~est Service - Forest camps in Wheeler County have 20,000 visitor daily usages per year and generate 3,000 pounds of solid waste per year. RUI'al - Probably one-half of the rural residents utilize the existing land- fills, adding a total of 100 tons per year. Appli ances - Most fami 1ies have a stove, washer, dryer, refri gerat.or, freezer, and hot water tank. These last about ten years each and though used applicances go to second owners, these people get rid of the ones they have been using. Thus each family throws away one appliance each 1.7 years or 1/600th of an appliance each day. For the county, this amounts to about one appliance each day. Old CaI'S - Annual accumulation of old cars at disposal sites is estimated at 30 from Fossil, 12 from Kinzua, 5 from Mitchell, and 3 from Spray, or a total of 50 per year. Existinq Disposal Sites. Fossil - This site is northeast of town and on a slope so it is visible from most of town. It is next to a cemetery. The wastes are dumped at random and burned at intervals except during the fire season. About ten years ago a trench 500 feet long was dug and the wastes have been added since then without soil cover. The trench is now filled and overflowing. Old cars have been more or less segregated in one area and piled. IV-63 The exposed wastes attract flies and other disease vectors. The smoke from the burning wastes contributes to air pollution. The visual pollution is probably the worst aspect of the site. Papers and blowing litter are deposited on adjacent land downwind and make the site look larger than it really is. The potential for pollution of the groundwater is low because of the clay soil and the low rainfall. Spray - This site is located west of town on the west face of a steep hill. The wastes are simply dumped off a platform at the top of the hill and allowed to roll down the slope. Since the wind tends to blow from west to east, dust and papers are blown back over the hill to litter the area. Papers are supposed to be burned at home and not brought to the site but not everyone follows the rule. Brush is burned on top of the hill and the site can be seen from along the main highway across the John Day River. No soil is available for cover purposes and the slope is so steep that it would be dangerous to maneuver a machine to try and cover the wastes. MitcheZZ - About a mile north of town on the Service Creek highway is the Mitchell site. Wastes have been dumped on either side of a small spur or ridge next to the highway. At infrequent intervals a State Highway Department bulldozer has scraped some of the shaley material from the center of the ridge to cover and push the dumping face further out. Wastes are burned in place. There is no soil on the site. About one acre of land has been used for the many years the site has been in use. The problems are mainly the smoke from burning, the flies, and the messy littered appearance. Only a small portion of the active face is visible from the highway but there is a small dirt strip airport right next to the site and airport users get a full view of the litter. Monument - This site in Grant County receives wastes from the Forest Service campgrounds in Wheeler County. It is located just across the John Day River from Monument and three miles up the Deer Creek road. It is simply a hole in a field alongside the road and it has been used only by the hauler for the Forest Service solid wastes. Each load is dumped and covered immediately. Pollution problems are nonexistent and there seems to be adequate land available for an indefinite life. Water Quality Water quality can be divided into two general categories, nonpoint source problems (such as sedimentation, excessive debris and elevated water Temperatures) and point pollution problems (such as industrial, municipal and domestic discharges). Nonpoint source problems were discussed in Chapter H, Hydrologic Resources, in the Water Quality Section. Point pollution and DEQ1s proposed water quality plan are discussed in this section. The Department of Environmental Quality has prepared a water qualtiy management plan for the entire John Day Basin. 'Jnfortunately specific recommendations were not made on a county level, but were detailed by sub- basin and occasionally by city or site. Wheeler County lies almost entirely in the Lower John Day Sub-Basin. (See Map H-I) The three incorporated cities and therefore most of the population, are located in this Sub-Basin. The southeast portion of the county is located in the Upper John Day Sub-Basin. IV-64 The water quality plan indicates that in addition to generally low summer flows and high teniperatures discussed earlier, there is a "moderately significant indication of contamination" by coliform bacteria in the John Day Basin. Though there are no numerical standards currently established for the Basin, the MPN or most probable number, frequently reaches 7,000 per 100 milliliters. There is no apparent source of human wastes that could cause this level of bacterial count. It is the general consensus of the DEQ staff that cattle and wildlife manure, carried off pastures in irrigation return waters and diffuse runoff, are responsible for the bacterial count. The plan states, however, that the DEQ does not propose any corrective action, as the basin is characteristically wildlife and cattle country and this bacterial level is considered "part of the environment." Point pollution sources are regulated by DEQ' s discharge permit system. In addition to enforcement of Oregon law, standards, rules and permits, the Department is also responsible for operating the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). NPDES permits must be issued in accordance with water quality standards, adopted 208 plans, national effluent and performance standards and minimum treatment requirements. Municipal Wastes The standards established for sewage or domestic waste treatment are summarized as follows: a. 85% removal of 5-day BOD and suspended solids. b. Effective disinfection. c. Additional treatment depending on specific pollutant and receiving stream characteristics. The City of Fossil maintains the only municipal sewer system in Wheeler County. It has adequate capacity to serve 1,000-1,500 people, well above the present population of 655. Mitchell, Spray and other unincorporated areas rely on individual septic tanks and disposal fields. Table K-1 shows Fossil's treatment plant efficiencies while Table K-2 shows 1990 projected raw and treated waste load. IV-65 Table K-1 SUNoarized Municipal Treatment Plant Efficiencies City of Fossil Seasonal Average Raw Waste Loads, lbs/day BOD June - October November - May Suspended Solids June - October November - t·1ay Seasonal Average Treated Effluent Loads, lbs/day BOD June - October November - May Suspended Solids June - October November - May Seasonal Average Waste Load Reduction, % BOD June - October November - May Suspended Solids June - October November - ~1ay 63 33 43 32 9.5 5 6.5 5 85 85 85 84 Source: "Proposed Water Quality ~lanagement Pl an", John Day Ri ver Bas in, II State of Oregon, Department of Environmental Quality, 1976. IV-66 Table K-2 Projected 1990 Raw and Treated Waste Loads Under Various Degrees of Effluent Quality, City of Fossil 615 1,000 0.15 (monthly average) 38 38 700 0.07 140 Estimated 1974 Population Treatment Facility Design Population Flow, MGD Present Waste Discharge Permit Limits BOD, lbs/day Suspended Solids, lbs/day Projected 1990 Population Waste Flow, MGO Raw Waste Loads BOD-55, lbs/day Treated Effluent (BOD-55) Loads, lbs/day Various Levels of Treatment 20-20 15-15 10-10 5-5 12 9 3 3 Receiving Stream (River Mile) Butte Creek (16.5-97) Source:· "Proposed Water Quality Management Plan, John Day River Basin," State of Oregon, Department of Environment, 1976 IV-67 Septic Tank Sludge Septic tanks and drainfield systems are used throughout Wheeler County, with the exception of Fossil. The quantity of septage (sludge) from septic tanks is estimated by the DEQ for planning purposes to be 0.2 gallons per day per person. This sludge has a BOD of approximately 5,000 mg/l and suspended solids of 2,500 mg/l. Table K-3 shows the estimated septic sludge for the Lower John Day Sub-Basin which incl~des most of Wheeler and Gilliam Counties. Table K-3 Estimated Septic Tank Sludge Production Present and Projected, Lower John Day Sub-Basin 1974 1990 Vo 1ume, GPO 592 590 BOD, 1bs/day 25 25 BOD-Suspended Solids 1bs/day 12 12 Source: "Proposed Water Quality Management Plan, John Day River Basin," State of Oregon, Department of Environment Quality, 1976. It is not anticipated that septic tank sludge will measurably increase in the county before 1990. Site specific analysis will determine the sutability of septic tank installation in the future. Septic tank pumpers are licensed by the Department of Environmental Quality to ensure that equipment, transportation and disposal of sludge standards are met. The following DEQ requirements apply to all pumping projects. "1. Oi scharge no part of the contents upon the ground. 2. Dispose of dumpings only in authorized disposal or treatment facil i ti es. 3. Monitor pumping and disposal operations. 4. Transport contents in a manner that will not create a nuisance or health hazard." Recreation Wastes Campsites, parks and waysides in Wheeler County provide waste collection systems, but no inventory of the number or type of waste collection systems has been conducted for either Wheeler County or the Lower John Day Sub-Basin. No problems are recognized at this time. rV..-68 Industrial and Related Waste Sources There was one industry in the LOvler John Day Sub-Basin with a discharge permit in 1976. This industry was a wood products mill, located in Wheeler County, which has since moved its operation from the county. There are no gold mines operating in Wheeler County and consequently, no discharge permits are in effect. Overall the industrial waste sources in Wheeler County and the John Day BJsin as a whole, are currently under satisfactory treatment and/or control. Noise Wheeler County and the Cities of Fossil, Mitchell, and Spray, thanks to their locations, have been spared from the industrial-residential noise conflicts which often result in other areas of the state. As with all areas. some impacts are experienced in areas adjacent to roads and major highw~ys, but such impacts are relatively minor and the county as a whole experiences few problems. IV-59 L. Unique Scientific and Cultural Resources Wheeler County contains a variety of these unique resources. The County's single Research Natural Area preserves several species of birds, trees and vegetation for research projects (see discussion below). Tables L-1 and L-2 summarize historic and scenic sites and buildings found in Wheeler County. Table L-3 lists protected natural areas in the County. Table L-4 shows identified natural areas and features in Wheeler County. Research Natural Areas The Ochoco Divide Research Natural Area (RNA) represents the only existing RNA in Wheeler County. It is located southwest of Mitchell in the Ochoco National Forest. The Final Environmental Statement for the Ochoco-Crooked River Planning United (Forest Service USDA, 1979) defines RNA's as: lIareas where, to the extent possible, natural processes are allowed to continue and where a natural feature or features are preserved for educati on and concentrated research" (pg. 68). The environmental statement lists four purposes of RNA's: 111. To provide baseline areas of undisturbed and untreated vegetation against which the effects of human activities in similar environments can be evaluated. Many research natural areas must, therefore, encompass typical vegetation and environment in order to provide sound comparisons between managed ecosystems and natural esosystems. 2. To provide sites for scientific evaluation and educational study of natural processes in basically undisturbed ecosystems. The importance of these undisturbed study sites will increase greatly in the future as more and ~ore land is intensively managed for timber, livestock, wildlife, water and recreation. 3. To provide gene pool preserves for plant and animal species or for rare and unique ecosystems. Of particular interest are locations of rare and endangered plants, mammals, reptiles, fish, amphibians, and birds. 4. To provide a means for answering specific questions concerning environmental effects of land management on natural ecosystems and problems. It will not be possible to reach scientifically sound decisions or to demonstrate adequacy of land management without these benchmark areas. The guiding principle in research natural area management is "preservation". Logging, grazing, and physical improvements such as roads, trails, fences, and buildings are generally not allowed. Public use of the areas which might contribute to significant modification is discouraged. Management practices are to be applied only where they provide a closer approximation of the natural vegetation oi environmental processes than would otherwise be possible." (pg. 68) IV-70 The Ochoco Divide RNA occupies 1,920 acres. It was established in 1935 lito exemplify the forests of ponderosa pine.and Douglas-~ir~ and of grand fir, western larch, and Douglas-f1r, character1st1cs of mid-elevations in the Blue Mountains of central Oregon. Classification of vegetation and soils has been done as, well as a census of birds within the area. Although th1S area has only been lightly used by researchers in the past; by its protection, valuable information is being accumulated for scientific study." (pg. 68, environmental statement above) About 70% of Oregon has been surveyed by historians to identify sites and buildings of importance in Oregon1s history. Only about 3% of the state has been surveyed for archeological sites of sig~ific~nce: The results ?f the~e surveys indicate that there are about 2500 h1stor1c sltes worthy of ~nclus~on in the Statewide Inventory and possibly as many as 120,~00.archeolo~lcal .sltes. A map showing density of archeological sites in.Orego~ 1S 1ncluded 1n th1S chapter. It shows a high density of archaeolog1cal sltes along t~e western boundary of Wheeler County. Parts of the rest of the county rema1n largely unsurveyed, however. Ope~ Space and Scenic Areas Wheeler County offers some of the most spectacular scenic vistas in the State of Oregon due, in large part, to its past ~olcanic and alluvial activity, as well as its rel atively low popul ati on density. The county IS sparce popul ati on and resource-based economy have aided in protecting scenic attributes and, without major changes in either, adverse impacts can be avoided in the future. One means of protecting fish and wildlife habitat, research natural areas, and scenic vistas is the implementation of open space zoning within the county. Such zoning would allow establishment of new u~es which are compatible with preservation activities and continuation of farm and grazing activities while qualifying the land for special tax treatment underORS 308 (Assessment of Property for Taxation). Another function of open space zoning, primarily used in cities and developing portions of the county, is the protection of land which could be dangerous if developed, such as steep hillsides or flood plains. Such areas exist in Wheeler County and should be considered for open space designation. Table L-2 summarizes those scenic areas, including the John Day River, which could be protected by an open space designation, but there may be other areas that the County Court or City Councils will want to designate in the future. IV-71 laDle L-l Inventory of Historic Sites and Buildings Wheeler County, Oregon Fossil *Asher's Hardware and Variety Store (I.O.O.F. Hall) Located on the southeast corner of West 1st and Washington Streets. The two story building was originally used for commercial purposes and was the lodge hall for the I.O.O.F. (1905). Asher's Old Car Museum Located in an old blacksmith shop. Displays several old cars from the Wheeler County area. *First National Bank of Oregon (Bank of Fossil) Constructed in 1903. Located on southwest corner of West 1st and Main. Originally owned by W. W. Steiwer and George S. Carpenter of the Fossil Mercantile Company. *Fossil Baptist Church Constructed in 1893. Located on hillside overlooking Fossil. Fossil Museum Located on Main and West First Street. Displays various historic items from Wheeler County. *General Mercantile Company (Fossil Mercantile Company Building #1) Constructed in 1896 for use as commercial building. Located on west side of Main Street. *General Mercantile Company (Fossil Mercantile Company Building #2) Adjoins Fossil Mercantile Building #1 on north side. Constructed in 1922-23. Hoover (Tom) House Located on First Street in Fossil. Was one of the first houses built in Fossil. Wheeler County Courthouse Constructed in 1901. Types of Architecture: Renaissance Revival. Located in Fossil. IV-72 Mi tchell *Campbell (A.R.) House Constructed circa 1905. First house in Mitchell. One of the first Wheeler County houses to have electricity (bywaterwhell generation). Located on north side of Highway 26, west end of Mitchell. *Central Hotel Constructed circa 1874-84. Used as hotel until 1918 when it was converted to residential use. *First Missionary Baptist Church (First Baptist Church) Constructed in 1895. Stands on Piety Hill overlooking Keyes Creek. *Misener (R.E. and Magee Saloon) Constructed circa 1895. Probably built to replace another saloon which burned in a fire that year. Building has had various uses: electrical shop, service station, residence. Mitche 11 School Built in 1922. Rough stone construction still in good condition. Located on Piety Hill. *Norton I S Genel~a1 Store n~hee1er County Tradi ng Company Store) Built before 1900. Originally owned by ranchers and Mitchell residents. Used as genel'al merchandise store. *Reed (Diana) House One of oldest standing houses in Mitchell. It's a one and one-half story building with two brick chimneys. *U. S. Post Office (Mitchell State Bank) Built in 1918 and opened as a bank with capital of $25,000. Wheeler (Henry H.) House Built by Henry H. Wheeler who managed the mail over The Dalles-Canyon City stage line. Wheeler (H. H.) Landmark Located on Highway 26,2 miles east of Mitchell. Marks the spot where Henry Wheeler was attacked by Indians while making the mail run by stage coach. IV-73 Spray *Community Church Located near Highway 207 in Spray. Originally opened as Community Church, then it was a Baptist Church and finally a Community Church again. Spray Baptist Church Built circa 1905. Located on Cross and Willow Streets. Architecture: Vernacular. *Spray General Store (Baxter and Osborn General Store) Built circa 1915. Located on the north side of the Spray Post Office. Commercial use. *Spray Post Office Stands near the bank of the John Day River. Used as a post office and commercial building. Now used as a warehouse. *Spray Union High School (Union High School #1) Built in 1920. One of the first three high schools in Wheeler County. Located on a low hill overlooking Spray and facing west. IV-74 Other Sites in Wheeler County Antone Mining District Located in Mitchell area. Includes Spanish Gulch and Mule Gulch. Site on some gold mining activities in the early 1900's. Burnt Ranch Located in the Twickenham vicinity. Built in 1862. Original ranch house was burned in an Indian attack. The Post Office ir, this community vias named for the incident. Caleb Townsite Located near Mitchell. Started in 1890. Center for commerce and industry until Mitchell surpassed it. All that remains now are some of the foundations and cellars of the town buildings. Camp Watson Military Road Built in 1864-1865. Used for Transportation, Communication and Military - Indian Affairs. Located in the Mitchell - Dayville vicinity. Camp Watson Site Existed in the Dayville vicinity from 1864-1886. Established by the military to control Indian attacks on settlers. Now stands on ranch land. Clarno Located near Fossil on the John Day River. a steamboat for use over that river. Also in the .1920's but never produced any oil. discoveries. *Howard (Lossie) House (Chriss McGee House) One of the original settlers built was the scene of an oil well exploration Now is known for its geological Located on Bridge Creek Road near its junction with Highway 26, near Mitchell. Built before 1910. Stands on hill overlooking Bridge Creek. Now is deserted and in poor condition. Kinzua A corporate-owned community (Kinzua Pine Mills) established in 1927 near Fossil. The lumber mill recently closed. *Lower Pine Creek School Located on the north side of Highway 218, east of Clarno. A small wood frame building with a gable roof. IV-75 ,"UU"t..O'" I\OIILII UOIII Located near Mitchell on Mountain Ranch. Used as a stage stop and as a barn. In fair conditions. *Mountain Ranch Bunk House (Wooden Homestead Cabin) Located near Mitchell on Mountain Ranch. Constructed before 1883. Originally used as a family residence, then converted to a bunk house. *Mountai n Ranch House (Campbell (R. W.) House) Located on Mountain Ranch, east of Mitchell. Used as stage stop for freight lines between The Dalles and Canyon City, during the late 1800's. *Mountain Ranch Shop (Mountain Creek School) Built in 1910. Originally located on banks of Mountain Creek and used as a school house. Moved to Mountain Creek Ranch in 1952 where it is used as a shop and garage. Richmond Townsite Established in 1889. Named after Richmond, Virginia. Buildings included a school, a store, a church, an I.O.O.F. Hall and several residences. Town is now deserted. The Dalles - Canyon City Wagon Road Built circa 1864. Major transportation and communication source through Wheeler County. Twickenham Townsite (Contention) Platted in 1896. Had a store, ferry, hotel, blacksmith shop and post office. Challenged Fossil and Spray in the race for county seat in 1900. Waterman Flat Primarily a stage-coach stop .. Also had a hotel, livery stable and post office. An old barn is the last remnant of this community. *Described in detail in the Statewide Inventory of Historic Sites and Buildings, 1976, Oregon Department of Transportation. Sources: Information compiled by Wheeler County Planning~Commission, Wheeler County, Oregon 1979; Statewide Inventory of Historic Sites and Buildings, Wheeler County, 1976, Oregon Department of Transportation. IV-76 I 1l,J.IJ /L.........-::.1. Arricheo~og i~~! ,Malheur Umat1l1a .' Grant ,Harne,' Crook - Site 'Densl~v Klarnat})Jackson rnedi urn dens ity high density largely unsurveyed !!!!!!!!i!!!!!~!!!!!!~))!!):::. ':~. :t~{}{~~~~{~~~~\~ 3:QJ "0 r I ~ Source: "Stntewi de Inventory of Hi stori c Si tes and PoLii 1d'j nels. Wheeler County." Oregon Sto.te Historic Preservation Office Parks and Rccrea1 1 Branch Department of Trans~ortation,'1976. Table L-2 Inventory of Major Scenic and Prehistoric Sites Wheeler County, Oregon Camp Hancock; Center for geologic archaeologic and paleontologic studies near Clarno on Highway 281. Blue Hills located between Service Creek and Mitchell on Highway 207. Good site for geologic and paleontologic study. Hoover Fossil Beds. North of Fossil near the Wheeler/Gilliam County line Archaeologic, Paleontologic site. John Day Fossil Beds National Monument --(Clarno Unit) On Highway 218, West of Fossil --(Painted Hills Unit) Southeast corner of Wheeler County --(Sheep Rock Unit) Southeast corner of Wheeler County Good site for study of Archaeology, Geology and Paleontology. Spanish Peak. Off of Highway 26, near Camp Watson,of geologic and scenic interest. Lower John Day River. Between Kimberly and Service Creek, scenic river Williams Rock Display.. East end on Main Street in Fossil Source: Information compiled by Wheeler County Planning Commission, Wheeler County, Oregon, 1978-1979. IV-77 Table L-3 SUMMARY OF PROTECTED AREAS WHEE LER COUNTY Program INTERAGENCY Name of Site RESEARCH NATURAL AREAS U.S. Forest Service WILDERNESS AREAS NATIONAL NATURAL LANDMARKS WILD/SCENIC RIVERS State Scenic FEDERAL AGENCY (U,S.) SPECIAL INTEREST AREAS Forest Service OUTSTANDING NATURAL AREAS Bureau of Land Management Ochoco Divide RNA: 1920 acres None None The segment of the main stem of the John Day Rive!::. from Service Creek Bridge ~river mile 157) downstream 147 miles to Tumwater Falls (at river mile 10). None None NATIONAL PARKS/MONUMENTS National Park Service NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM Fish and Wildlife Service STAGE AGENCY (Oregon) NATURAL AREA PRESERVES State Land Board PRI~~RY RESOURCE PROJECTION AREAS Parks and Recreation Branch, Department of Transportation SCIENTIFIC AND EDUCATION PRESERVES Board of Higher Education SCENIC AND PROTECTIVE CONSERVANCY AREAS Department of Forestry IV-78 John Day Fossil Beds NM: Painted Hills: Clarno: None None None Untabulated Untabulated 3567 total acres 2833 acres 734 acres Program STATE AGENCY (OregonJ--cont'd. AREAS OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN Land Conservation and Development Commission WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREAS Department of Fish and Wildlife OTHER PRESERVES The Nature Conservancy CONSERVATION/SCENIC EASEMENTS Federal, State and Private Agencies Name of Site None None None Untabulated Source: Oregon Natural Areas - Wheeler County, Oregon Natural Heritage Program of "The Nature Conservancy, 1978. IV-79 Table L- Whee1er County Identified County Sites-Natural Areas Protecti on Status * Verification of Occurrence*LocationSite NameType of Feature M Twn RQ.9. Sect Paleontologic 7S 19E N~,SE~,27 V 3 Paleontologic 7S 20E 17-20 V 3 Speci a1 Speci es Occurrence Knox Ranch NV Historic V Lomatium minus South Slope 7S 19E 12-14, V 3 A11iumTolmiei var. Tolmiei Iron Mountain 22-24 V Casti 11 ej a Xanthotri cha V Paleontologic V Mountain Mahogany Cl arno1 John 8S 19E 2,3,10,11, V 3 Western Juni per- Day Ri ver 14,15,23 V Bluebunch Wheatgrass Zeol ite V Speci a1 Speci es Occurrence V Cold Dpring V Wetland Grassland V Geologic Western Juniper- Pine Creek 7S, 20E, NV 3 Bluebunch Wheatgrass Peacock 8S 21E NV Geologic Canyon NV Research/Educati on Potenti a1 Paleontologic John Day Fossil 7S 19E 33-35 V 2 Beds/Clarno Unit National Monument Casti lleja Xanthotricha Cl amo Area 7S 20E 32 V 3 Penstemon Eri antherus var. V Argi110sus ...... < I co o StatProt Verification of oLocatSite Nf FeatT - - - _0 _ _... - ~ - - - - -- Twn ~ Sect River Island 8S ·24E 34,35 V 3 Waterfowl Wetland 9S 25E 6 NV Speci a1 Speci es Occurrence Hoogie Doogie 9S 23E 2 V 3 Mountain Speci a1 Speci es Occurrence Un-named 8S 22E SE~,25 V 3 Paleontologic Un-named lOS 21E 31 V 3 Western Juniper/Idaho Fescue Sutton lOS 21E 20-22, V 3 Western Juniper/Bluebunch Mountain 26-29, V Wheatgrass Area 31,34- Low Sage/Bluebunch Wheatgrass 36 V Low Sage/Idaho Fescue V Talus Shrubland V Bluebunch Wheatgrass/ V Sandberg's Bluegrass Geologic V Western Juniper/Bluebunch Black Canyon lOS 21E 14,15, V 3 Wheatgrass 22,23 Lowland Stream Segment, V low gradient reach Geologic Un-named lIS 21E 20 V 3 Speci a1 Speci es Occurrence Black Butte 12S 20E 1 V 3 Ponderosa Pine/Pinegrass Ochoco Divide 12S 20E 28-32 V 2 Mixed Conifer-Western Research V Larch Dominated Natural Area Western Juniper/Bunchgrass V Wetland Grassland V Potentilla Glandulosa John Day Fossil lOS 20E 36 V 2 Paleontologic Beds/Pai nted Hi 11 s lOS 21E 31 V Unit National lIS 20E 1,2,11 ,12 Monument lIS 21E 6,7 ..... < t OJ -' Protection Stat Verification of oSite Nf FeatT - - _. - - . -_ ..... , ....... _- ~~ Twn .B!!.9.. ISect Allium Tolmiei var. Tolmiei Bridge Creek lIS 21E 4 V 3 Chaenactis nevii Lomgtium Hendersoni Speci a1 Speci es Occurrence Bluebunch Wheatgrass- Mitchell Area 12S 22E 2 V 3 Sandberg1s Bluegrass Low Sage/Bluebunch Un-named lIS 23E SE~,SE~ V 3 Wheatgrass 26 Wild Buckwheat-Sandberg's V Bluegrass Scabland Speci a1 Speci es Occurrence Un-named 12S 24E 4,5,10 V 3 Speci a1 Speci es Occurrence Un-named 12S 25E 24 V 3 (3 types) Note: See Fish and Wildlife (Section J ) for other wildlife protected areas * Key: Protection Status: 1 - preserved 2- . 1egally protected 3 - unprotected Verification of Occurrence V - verifi ed NV - not verified ~ <: I co N Source: Oregon Natural Areas - Wheeler County, Oregon, Natural Heritage Program of The Nature Conservancy, 1978. M. Energy Resources and Utilities Electricity Wheeler County obtains most of its electric power from the Columbia River Power Pool. The John Day River, which flows through the county, contrib- utes to the power generation on the Columbia River (see also, Hydrologic Resources). Electric power is provided to Wheeler County communities by two electric cooperatives: Fossil Area: Mitchell and Spray Areas: Columbia Basin Electric Cooperative P.O. Box 398 Heppner, OR 97836 Phone: (503) 676-9147 Contact: Fred Toombs, Manager Columbia Power Cooperative Assoc., Inc. P.O. Box 97 Monument, OR 97864 Phone: (503) 934-2311 Contact: Jim Stubblefield, Manager COLUMBIA BASIN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE Schedule: Residential Basic Charge - $6.00 2.1 cents per KW hour COLUMBIA BASIN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE Schedule: Commercial Basic Charge - $6.00 First 1000 KWh/month - 2.3¢ per KW hour Over 1000 KWh/month - 1.5¢ per KW hour Power Factor Adjustment: Maximum 30 minutes reactive demand for the month in KV-Amperes in excess of 60% of the KW demand for the same month will be billed at 50¢/KW of such excessre- active demand. COLUMBIA POWER COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION Schedule: Residential Minimum Charge - $8.00 1 - 400 KW hours - 5.2¢ per KW hour Over 400 KW hours - 2¢ per KW hour IV-83 COLUMBIA POWER COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION Schedule: Small Commercial Minimum Charge - $10.00 First 600 KW hours - 5.2¢ Over 600 KW hours - 2¢ per KW hour per KW hour Special contract rates are negotiated for industrial users of over 50 KVA and loads requiring long line extensions or special installations. Three-phase service rates are cal- culated to return approximately 10% of the actual construc- tion cost annually. Other special installations are based upon an annual recapture of construction costs of 15-18%. COLUMBIA POWER COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION Schedule: Irrigation Rate Minimum Charge - $2.12 per KW hour Annual Minimum Charge: 10% of special investment Fuel Usage The 1970 Census of Housing provided this data on types of fuels used in Wheeler County: Number of Homes Type of Fuel Home Water Heating Heating Cooking Fuel Oil, Kerosene, etc. Wood Electricity Bottled, Tank, or LP Gas Other Fuels 343 215 78 44 19 660 15 595 105 In a 1977 Land Use Planning Survey of Wheeler County Citizens, one of the questions asked concerned the energy source used to heat their residence. Electricity (49%), wood (47%), and oil (37%) were given as the major sources of home heating and many households re- ported using a combination of sources. IV-84 Question 1-36: "What kind of energy sources are you currently using to heat your house?" Yes Answers 49% El ectri city 47% Wood 37% Oi 1 6% Bottled Gas 1% Other 1% No Opinion (Totals more than 100% because of multiple answers) Fossil Spray Kinzua El ectri city 48% Electricity 57% Wood 67% Oil 42% Wood 50% Electricity 42% Wood 37% Oil 21% Oil 38% Bottl ed Gas 4% Bottled Gas 0% Bottl ed Gas 0% Mitchell Wood 68% Electricity 47% Oi 1 44% Bottled Gas 6% Other Wood 75% Oil 56% Electricity 25% Bottled Gas 19% Source: Report on Wheeler County Land-Use Planning Survey, Oregon Research Institute, August, 1977. Heat Load Based upon the temperature statistics presented in the section on climate, annual heating reqlJirements are calculated as follows: Heatin~ Degree-Days (6'5 F Base) Fossil Mitchell Spray 1,020 973 849 809 790 703 828 791 707 597 552 450 397 366 174 225 132 33 January February March April t,1ay June July August September October November December Annual Total 74 216 477 792 1,240 6,675 IV-.85 138 453 789 924 5,908 141 462 675 946 5,140 Fossil Fuels As discussed under Minerals and Mineral Resources, Wheeler County does have some widely scattered bituminous coal deposits. Surface indications of petroleum have been found in certain areas of the county although test wells have not yet yielded any positive results. At this time, Wheeler County's coal and potential petroleum resources cannot be developed in a feasible manner. Geothermal Resources In 1969, the United States Geological Survey identified several potential geothermal sites in Oregon. None of the sites were located in Wheeler County although some thermal springs and wells drilled for geothermal energy do exist in neighboring counties (Wasco, Crook and Grant Counties). Source: Mineral and Water Resources of Oregon, United States Geological Survey, 1969. Solar and Wind Energy Solar and wind resources could provide significant contributions to Wheeler County's energy resources in the future. There are no windmills now operating in the county, though in the past some have been used to pump water. There is no weather station in the county that records number of cloudless days, but the climate is similar to other Central Oregon counties and enjoys many ~unny days. Th~ use of passive solar systems, energy efficient building techniques and site design in new buildings as well as shade trees and weatherization of existinq bUildings could effectively reduce the portion of income that the average Wheeler County resident expends each month for heating and cooling costs. . . IV-86 •••••• MAJOR TRANSMISSION LINES 34.5 KV ·161 KV SCALE IN r·.1JLES WASCO ELECTRIC, The Dalles COLUMBIA BASIN CO-OP. Heppner (ColumbiCl Basin Electric Co·Op,lnc.) COLUMBIA POWER CO·OP, Monument U·-,-~ - - ~.-~ .' . • ELECTRIC UTiliTIES \mrnJ~~~~oo ©®lliJmlJ~7~ rillrn~~®l~ Map No. M·1 f 1 ( ; . \ LEGEND • -Jl-- LFOSSIL '!r. 3 I 1 FOSSIL TELEPHONE CO., Fossil 2 TRANS-CASCADE TELEPHONE CO, Antelope 3 BLUE MOUNTAIN TELEPHONE CO. INC., Spray SOURCE: Oregon Independent Telephone Association, 10·10· 74. ° 2 4 6 8 10L;JP4MO~EW_ ...... I 3 5 7 9 . SCALE IN MILES TELEPHOi~E COMPANY W[}{]~~[L~~ ©@illJ~lfWZJ @~~@@~ I I 15 Map No. M-2 N. Recreational Areas Wheeler County offers a variety of recreational possibilities for its residents and tourists. The county~s natural resources support several parks~ hunting and fishing areas~ camping and picnicking grounds~ vacation cabin sites~ scenic sites and natural areas (fossils and formations). For the hunter~ Wheeler County offers mule deer~ elk~ pheasant~ quail ~ mourning dove~ Hungarian Partridge~ chukkar~ duck and goose. Streams offer rainbow trout~ and steelhead fishing. River rafting trips operate on the John Day River. These river trips are discussed in detail under Hydrologic Resources. Prospectors~ archeologists and rockhounds can explore the wealth of ancient fossil beds and mineral desposits. The Johr. Day Fossil Beds National Monument encompasses three major fossil sites. Oregon Museum of Science and Industry operates its Camp Hancock at the Clarno Unit during the summer for archeological study. Prospectors search streambeds and hillsides for precious metals and minerals. Many visitors enjoy camping, backpacking~ or just plain sightseeing. Photographers and artists enjoy the multitude of abandoned homesteads~ barns~ store buildings~ stagecoach stops~ The Painted Hills~ basalt cliffs~ geological faults and whitewater canyons. Several museums contain momentos of early Wheeler County (see Unique Scientific and Cultural Resources). Table N-1 lists most of the existing recreational developments in Wheeler County. These sites also are shown on Map N-1. Other federal parks include the John Day Fossil Beds National Monument~ 166,469 acres in the Ochoco and Umatilla National Forests~ 5 acres with 28 camp sites in the Ochoco Divide~ 20 acres in Fairvie\~ Camp. Table N-2 shows the acreage of State Parks in the county. Seven recreational associations presently exist in Wheeler County: Bald Mountain Recreation Association~ Wheeler County Archery Club~ Spray Gun Club~ Fossil Rod and Gun Club~ Kinzua Tennis Court~ Wetmore Lake and Kinzua Golf Course. Five restaurants~ located in Mitchell (2)~ Spray (1) and Fossil (2) serve Wheeler County residents. Two taverns~ one in Kinzua and one in Fossil ~ provide another form of entertainment. A summary of State Parks~ their facilities and attendance estimates is provided in Table N-3. Table N-4 shows the number of visitor days all parks in the county provide according to data compiled by the Wheeler County Planning Commission. IV-87 Table N- Inventory of Existing Recreational qevelopments Name Locatlon Rest. Water· Room Picnic Sites Camp Sites Activitles Special Features E Rowe Creek Reservoi r I Rowe Creek ** P SIP SIP Forest Camp No overni ghters Basketball, playground, tennis courts No overnight camping Private - group camp Public welcome -6 holes green fee - public fish- ing on private reservoir Public fishing on private reservoir Overnight Camping in timber grove Picnic - no charge Forest Service Camp Ground Forest Service Camp Ground Organizational Camp (250 people) Forest Servi ce Site Forest Service Forest Service BLM and private F, PK C, PK, H, V PK, V PK, V PK, PG, R, F PK,V,R,H C, R PK, PG 7 3 6 3 10 14 26 7 7 3 6 3 2 5 5 5 10 14 P P P P P P P P S W s P W I F W F S s M I F E. of Clarno Near Clarno Kinzua Fossil Ochoco Mts. Ochoco Mts. Ochoco Mts. near Antone Northeast Corner oJ Co. Hwy 19 South of Fossil Hwy 19 on Servi ce Creek Off Hwy 26 nea r Mi tche 11 Off Hwy 26 flea r Mi tche 11 Ochoco Mts. off Hwy 26 Ochoco Mts. off Hwy 26 A Glover Park* Carroll Forest Camp- Derr Forest Camp- Ij Rock Creek Lake** Fairview Forest- Camp B Cl arno State Park+ C Camp Hancock** o Kinzua Golf Club** F She Hon Waysi de State Park+ J Julie Henderson Pioneer Park** H Pa i nted Hi 11 s Natl. f.1onument+ Wildwood Forest Camp- Ochoco Divide Forest Camp- < Crystal Springs- NOTE: See J on attached page Key for Table N-1 KEY: * City 1 acre + State - Natl Forest Service ** Private M- Municipal W - Well S - Spring F - Flush P - Nonflush PK - Pi cni cki ng H - Hunting PG - Pl ayground C - Camping R - Rockhounding - Foss il F - Fishing V - View Source: Information compiled by Wheeler County Planning Commission, Whee ler County, Oregon, 1978 Table N-2 State Park Acreage, Wheeler County Parks Clarno State Park Painted Hills State Park Shelton State Wayside Thomas Condon-John Day Fossil Beds Acreage 100.00 2,833.20 180.00 240.00 Split Counties Total for Park 4,344.68 County Acreage 3,553.2 Source: Oregon State Highway Division, State Parks and Recreation Section, Oregon State Parks-and Waysides, 1972, as reproduced in the "Wheeler County, Oregon Resource Atlas," prepared by Oregon State University, April, 1973. IV-89 Table N-3 Attendance at State Parks in Wheeler County Park and Use Shelton State Wayside 1/ Over night Camping Clarno State Park Day Attendance 1967-68 2,790 1968-69 3,572 1969-70 3,618 1970-71 3,803 1971-72 3,990 15,280 1/ Shelton State Wayside brought in revenues of $933.00 during the July 1, 1971 - June 30, 1972 season: overnight camp - $902.00, group camp - $17.00, vehicle fee - $14.00 Source: Oregon State Department of Transportation, State Highway Division, "Day Visitor Attendance" and "Overnight Camping by the Public", State Parks and Recreation Section, 1972. State Parks and thei r Facil i ti es, t'lhee1er County Clarno State Park An area of scenic rock formations near the John Day River. Limited picnic facilities. No drinking water available. Painted Hills State Park Contains highly colored domes and ridges. Many fossils of tree leaves and plants that grew millions of years ago are found in the Eocene Clarno formation. Picnic facilities available. No drinking water. Shelton State Wayside An area of yellow pine forest with a picnic area and overnight camp containing 26 unimproved campsites. Thomas Condon-John Day Fossil Beds Important fossil beds, estimated to be 30 million years old, which are the remains of extinct animals from horses of sheep size to mastadons. Sheep Rock, Turtle Cove, and the Cathedral are outstanding scenic features. Limited picnic facilities are provided. IV-gO The "Oregon State Parks System Plan," amendment 1977-1983 proposes additional development at Shelton Wayside. Improvements are planned for restroom facilities, utilities and roads. The State Parks Branch has also proposed two trails that pass through Wheeler County. One is the TransAmerica Bikeway which follows U.S. Highway 26. The second is a horse and hiking trail called the Pacific Crest to Desert (Ochoco) Trail, which is proposed for inclusion in the State Trails System. At this time it exists only on paper and no trail actually exists. ~. Table N-5 lists undeveloped recreational areas in the Ochoco National Forest areas as identified by the Wheeler County Planning Department. These areas could be adapted to a wide variety of recreational uses, however, development depends mainly on availability of funding sources. The Oregon State Parks Branch has analysed park and recreational needs to 1990, throughout Oregon. As a result of this study, the present supply and projected demand for various recreational facilities in Wheeler County have been compiled. Table N-6 presents this data. A list of needs as expressed by residents is included in Table N-7. This information was also taken from the State Parks Recreation Plan. Several other potentials exist to further recreational development in Wheeler County. A centralized office for publicizing and promoting the county's paleontological and geological features would better organize visitor stops at these important county sites. Additional tourist lodging facilities, recreational resort developments, restaurants and service stations would help attract more visitors to the county. Development of municipal recreational facilities such as bowling alleys, swimming pools, skating rinks, movie theaters and tennis courts would provide more entertainment for local residents and for tourists. Improvements of campsites and increased stocking of game fish would promote hunting and fishing in Wheeler County. IV-91 Table N":'4 Wheeler County Parks Visitor Days - Recreational Use (i n 1,000 IS) 1965 1970 1975 1980 (projected) Total Number of Vistior Days Vistior Day Use by Wheeler Co. Residents Vistior Day Use by non-Residents of Wheeler Co. 40 12 28 60 13 47 80 14 66 100 15 85 Source: Compiled by Wheeler County Planning Commission, Wheeler County, Oregon, 1978. Table N-5 Whee 1er County Undeveloped Recreational Areas Location Size Type Township Range. Section Mossy Rock T 12S R 20E 28 o Units Campground Cole Lake T 13S R 20E 5 7 Acres Reservoir Crystal Lake T 13S R 20E 6 34 Acres Reservoir Elkhorn Lake T 13S R 20£ 3 11 Acres Reservoir Badger Lake T 13S R 22£ 17 10 Acres Reservoir Mt. Pi sgah T 13S R 20E 5 320 Acres Senic Black Canyon T 14S R 25£ 27 880 Acres Observation Site Wolf Mountain T 14S R 25E 28 480 Acres Senic Cottonwood Spring T 14S R 24E 4 o Units Campground Jackson Lake T 13S R 23E 35 8 Acres Reservoi r Barnhouse Spring T 13S R 23E 2 o Units Campground )urce: Compiled by Wheeler County Planninfj Commission, Whee 1er County, Oregon, 1978. IV-92 JOHN DAY DRAINAGE BASIN J WHEELER COUNTY RECREATION AREAS R19E T6S T7S T8S T9S illS T12S LEGEND 4- Forest Camp • State Park or Wayside Park .~ ,1 Roadside Rest Area ~ Boa.t Landing Natural Area R25E 0123 4'*; 6 7 8 9 10 STATE WATER RESOURCES BOARD SALEM. OREGON Nov. 1960 15 Table N-7 List of Wheeler County Recreation Expressed Needs August, 1977 Campsites Picnic Tables Swimming Beach Neighborhood Parks Corrmunity Parks District Parks Regional Parks Multipurpose Courts ORV Facilities Source: "Oregon Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, 1978," Fourth Edition, Oregon State Parks and Recreation Branch Department of Transportation. IV-94 ,~~, . SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT Chapter V Socio-Economic Development A. Resource Base and Economic History Before white settlement, the native Umatilla, John Day and Tenino (Wayampam) Indians practiced a subsistance economy based on fishinq, hunting, root and berry-gathering throughout north central Oregon and in what later became Wheeler County. The Indians roamed in families and bands, living at higher elevations during the summer months and along warmer river valleys in the winter. Recent Indian inhabitants (1790-1850) traveled each spring to the hills above Fossil where they gathered camas (camassia) and cous (Lomatium), more commonly known as "Indian root" or "biscuit root." Cous, a carrot-like root tasting somewhat like parsnips, was ground into flour and pressed into biscuit-like cakes. These were eaten with whatever meat was available, often in the form of a stew. Deer, elk and bear hides and Ochoco and Blue Mountain pine and fir bark provided early construction materials. Wool, gathered from fences, and canvas supplemented these building materials after the arrival of whites. It is estimated that eastern Oregon Indians first acquired horses around 1700. These horses, descendants of runaway southwestern domestic stock, greatly increased Indian mobility, extending their hunting range into buffalo county beyond the Rockies. . The ravages of smallpox, measles, intermittent fevers and warfare eventually took a heavy toll on the Oregon Indian population. The pressure of European settlement forced the remaining natives to reservations at Umatilla, Warm Springs and Burns. The first phase of white settlement bypassed Wheeler County, as had the early nineteenth century trapers and traders. It was not until the early 1860's, when gold was discovered in the John Day country that miners and stockmen were attracted to the area. (The following pages rely on Glimpses of Wheeler County's Past, An Early History of North Central Oregon, Edited by F. Smith Fussner, Binford and Mort, Portland, Oregon, 1975.) The discovery of gold at Canyon City in Grant County about 1862 triggered a rush to the John Day area. At first miners used old trails to reach the mines, but roads were soon needed to get adequate provisions to the mining camps. The Da 11 es Mi 1itary Road Company improved exi sti ng roads, through what later became Wheeler County, to connect The Dalles with the gold fields. In return, the company obtained about 63,000 acres and later became known as the Eastern Oregon Land and Livestock Company. Henry Wheeler, for whom the county is named, was the first to introduce commercial transportation. In 1864, he started a stage coach run from The Dalles to Canyon City, which continued until ~868. V-l Gold was discovered at Spanish Gulch, northeast of Antone in the early 1860's and at Mule Gulch a little later. Placer and hydrolic mining continued to be important to the Antone area for the next 75 years. By 1866, settlers, cattle, and sheep men began moving to Rock Creek to homestead. Antone was on the main road between John Day, Dayville and Mitchell during these years, so it had a stage coach stop, post office, dance hall and some stores. Afort was built in 1865 a few miles northwest of Antone at Camp Watson. It was used until about 1869 to provide protection to settlers from hostile Indians. Calvary stationed here also patrolled from The Dalles to Canyon City. Though settlers began to homestead in Mitchell area in the 1860's, it was not until the period from 1875 to 1900 that the population realy grew. Migration from California, the east and some from the Willamette Valley helped to settle the country. In 1873 enough settlers had located on Bridge Creek that Mitchell's first post office was established. t~illiam Johnson, a black- smith, was named the first postman. Mitchell, named for the Oregon Senator John Mitchell, grew into a thriving town through the 1880's and 1890's. The town had a church, store, hotel, livery stable and several saloons. An orchard was also established on the creek bank. The first school in the county was built at Mitchell in 1872. This building was replaced with a three room school, built for $2000, in 1892. It had supplies for 125 pupils and employed three teachers. Cattle, sheep and horse ranching was the mayor livelihood of early settlers in the Mitchell area. Stores and businesses were established to serve the outlying ranchers. Settlers were attracted to the timber and range near Fossil about 1869. In 1881 Thomas Hoover and Thomas Watson decided to build a store and establish . a town at the confluence of Butte and Cottonwood Creeks. Hoover named the city for fossil remains he found near his ranch house on Hoover Creek. Fossil soon had a post office, drug and liquor store and several churches. A log school was built in 1875 a few miles north of Fossil that about 12 students attended. As the population grew, a new school was built at the foot of Black Butte in 1877, and in 1882 a two-story frame school house was built on the site of the present High School. By 1894, this school was the largest in what was then Gilliam County, with enrollment of 110 students. It is estimated that between 20 and 30 schools were built in Wheeler County during these years. Old records indicate most served from eight to thirty students and provided up to an eighth grade education. Such schools were located at Winlock, Bridge Creek, Hoover Creek, Greasewood, Badger, Lost Valley, Lone Rock, Birch Creek, Antone, Coal Mine, Clarno, Trail Fork, Waldron, Wagner, Waterman, Haystack, Fossil, Butte Creek, Pine Creek and Sarvice Creek. Open grazing land and abundant bunch grass as "high as a horseman's stirrups," attracted pioneer stockmen to Wheeler County as well as other eastern Oregon counties. Sheep were first introduced to Oregon about 1840, but it was not until after 1861 that many were found east of the Cascades. By 1865 mutton was being sold to the Idaho gold fields and in 1867, The Dalles began to ship wool. It wasn't easy going for early Wheeler County shepherds as scab, fluctuating prices, the depression of 1893, harsh winters, and the Bannock Indian War all presented obstacles to prosperity. Never-the-less, from 1880 V-2 to about 1900 were the golden years of the sheep industry. Tremendous bands of wethers were treiled east to Kansas, Nebraska and the Dakotas where they were fattened. Between 1888 and 1900, from 300,000 to 400,000 sheep left Oregon annually according to Edward Wentworh. Evleswere later shipped east to build flocks in Montana, Wyoming and Colorado. Other ranchers trailed sheep from Mitchell to Condon or Prineville where they were shipped out by rail after the Columbia Southern Railroad was completed to Condon in 1905 and to Shaniko in 1901. Others would trail tv Heppner where several bands were gathered for shipment. The bunch grass of Wheeler County and steep rocky slopes combined to favor stock operations and defeat wheat farming. The exception was the John Day bottom land which was suitable for cropping. In 1905, Wheeler County supported feed for 200,000 sheep, 15,000 cattle and 8,000 horses. Stock very nearly grazed the entire county. In 1889, several families who were located in the Shoo-fly Creek vicinity decided to form a town. R. N. Donnelly, a state Senator, and William Walters differed as to what the name should be, but Walters finally prevailed and the the town was named Richmond, after the capital of the Confederacy. Senator Donnell~ from what was then Grant County, was instrumental in establishing Wheeler County from parts of Crook, Gilliam and Grant Counties. In 1898 he led the battle in the state legislature and sent his constituents the message "a child is born. Its name is vJheeler. II -'""" With the establishment of Wheeler County, it became necessary to designate a county seat. Fossil was challenged by Spray and Twickenham. Twickenham (known as Contention prior to 1896) had a ferry across the John Day, a store, hotel, blacksmith shop, post office and a strong desire to be the county headquarters. On June 4, 1900, a vote was held and the results were: Fossil - 436 votes; Spray - 82; and Twickenham - 267. Spray was not platted nor the site of a post office until 1900, when the wife of John Fremont Spray, a prominent stockman, filerl the plat on May 19. The post office was established shortly afterwards and Mr. Spray was named the first postman. Sheep, cattle and horses continued to be the chief products of Wheeler County into the early 1900's. However, increasing competition among sheep and cattlemen and between large operators and small holders together with the fencing of range and depletion of grassland created divisions that were finally resolved with creation of the National Forests in 1905. Sheep owners were limited under the permit system to 16,000 sheep per owner and boundaries for each band were . established to equalize the number of grazers with the land's carrying capacity. These restrictions, the spread of sage brush onto grasslands due to over grazing and the end of itinerant graziers under the Taylor Act all led to a decline in wool production before 1930's depression era prices finally finished off all but the largest operators. In 1906, N.S. Nelson, a sawmill operator from Western Oregon, traveled east of the Cascades in search of a new location. He came to Winlock, located on the southern edge of a belt of ponderosa pine, red f;r, tamarack and white fir and bought up some tracks of timber. There was no industry in the area at the time so jobs were few and money was scarce. Most farms were about 160 acres with only 20 to 40 acres under cultivation. Crops included hay, wheat, rye and barley. Most ranches also had an orchard that produced enough apples, pears, prunes, cherries and peaches for home use and for sale to outsiders. The V-3 first timber sawed at the mill was for a dam in the John Day River above Spray. The lumber sold for $9 per thousand feet. Combined harvester threshers appeared in John Day River bottom fields soon after the turn of the century. Horses provided the original power for these machines, to be replaced by the gas engine after the first World War. During the second decade of the twentieth century, Wheeler County and the State of Oregon began constructing graded and graveled roads to accomodate the spredd of automobiles and motor trucks. World War I provided good markets for Central Oregon agricultural products, but the twenties failed to live up to expectations. Production exceeded sales for most agricultural commodities. Farms were consolidated as smaller operations were sold to larger ones. Land prices increased. In general, compared with the big wartime expansion, the twenties were d~ab, but the late twenties also saw activation of the Clarno Basin Oil Company at Clarno and the John Day Valley Coal and Oil Company. The John Day Company drilled an exploratory well in the southeastern part of Fossil. A portion of the funds were advanced by outside investors, but local residents put up the rest. Both oil explorations were financial failures and no oil was found at any of the drill sites. The general willingness to live on credit that began in the twenties complicated the shortage of money during the Great Depression, beginning in 1929. Another problem was the universally bad wheat crops and poor range. In 1934 the wheat crop was both low in quantity and poor in quality, selling for 18~ cents per bushel, compared with the $2.00 a bushel price of twenty years before. Even amid the gloom of the Depression, some economic expansion occurred in Wheeler County. The Kinzua Pine Mill was constructed in the northeast corner of the county. Kinzua, a corporate-owned communi ty grew around the mi 11. The corporation's main logging base, Wetmore (commonly known as Camp 5) was established about eleven miles east·of Kinzua about 1935. Mr. Wetmore of Warren, Pennsylvania and his timber cruiser, Mr. Shelton, bought up about 50,000 acres of timber land from homesteaders in the early 1900's. This land remains under Kinzua ownership today. The deeds were signed by Theodore Roosevelt. New deal agricultural policies and the creation of state soil and water conservation districts helped to alleviate the worsening condition of Wheeler County's land resource as the low rainfall and high winds of mid-thirties persisted. Bonneville Power Administration, through REA affiliated power companies, began selling electricity to rural and city customers. Power reached the Clarno and Pine Creek area in 1947 from the Wasco Electric Co-op of The Da 11 es. Despite wartime rationing and price controls, Wheeler County ranchers and farmers fared pretty well during the forties though land prices soared and some elderly or inefficient operators sold out. The forties saw further decline of sheep production in the county as range continued to deteriorate and Ameri can I s taste for beef gre\'l. Continued government control s on producti on and subsidies during the fifties and sixties assured stable prices above production costs. V-4 Wheeler County log production increased sharply following World War II, reaching peak produciton of 120 million board feet in 1952. Employment opportunities with local mills kept many of the young people in the county during the fifties and the county population reached a high of 3,313 in 1950. Production declined after 1954 though harvest of forest service timber has since bolstered the timber industry at periodic intervals. Between 1950 and 1968, eight sawmills closed and the population dropped correspond~ngly. The 1960 census showed a population of 2,722, a drop of 22% in ten years. The sixties were stagnant in Wheeler County. Important developments such as the John Day Dam and Interstate 80 construction occurred in neighboring counties without affecting Wheeler County. Young people continued to leave the area for jobs in other parts of the state and popul:lti on fe 11 to 1,849 in 1970, a drop of nearly 1,000 people, or 53% in ten years. The seventies held good cattle and crop years for county ranchers in the first part of the decade, ruinous cattle prices later, a drought and finally in 1979 good cattle prices once again. Sheep were no longer the backbone of the economy. Where 200,000 head grazed at the turn of the century, about 4,000 were maintained in the early seventies. Seattle-based Kinzua Corporation expanded and modernized its Heppner operation in 1977 and announced the clos ure of its Hhee 1er County mi 11. Total mi 11 employment \vas about 100 at the time of closure. The company owned townsite of Kinzua, which was never incorporated, has been dismantled by the corporati'on. The Condon-Kinzua-Southern branchline from Arlington to Kinzua was officially abandoned by action of the ICC on November 23, 1976. It had been in operation as an independent carrier since 1927. Just what effect the closure of the county's only industrial employer will have on the economy of the county and three incorporated cities is difficult to determine. Small thinning operations are not profitable at the present time as there is no market for small diameter poles within hauling distance. The restricted outlets for second-growth saw logs discourages intensive forest management, a critical need of much of the forest land under all ownerships. With thinning and proper silvicultural practices, timber resources could increase the prosp~ctof future production in the county. Native clays offer potential for brick and tile production and pumice/pumicite deposits may provide resources for use in paints, rubber and soil conditioners. Perhaps a more feasible source of income is promotion of the county's tourist, historical and scenic resources. The county will want to evaluate the costs and benefits of alternative courses and then endeavor to provide an appropriate level of services. At any rate, livestock production and farming will continue to form the backbone of the county economy in the near future. -V-5 B. Population Characteristics Wheeler County has experienced a slow rate of growth through the early post World War II period, as shown by the county population figures presented in Table B-1. TABLE B-1 Wheeler County Population Trends Year 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1979* Wheeler County Population 2243 2484 2791 2799 2875 3313 2722 1849 1950 Source: Glimpses of Wheeler County's Past. F. Smith Fussner, ed. Binford &Mort, Portland, 1975. The overall. Wheeler County population, while experiencing some gro\'Jth within incorporated areas, has-remained below the peak of 3,313 persons attained in the 1950's (Table B-2) . TABLE B-2 Population Estimates of Incorporated Citi es, Wheeler Co. City and County 1960 1965 1972 1979* Wheeler County 2722 1800 1820 1950 Foss il 672 528 510 645 Mitchell 236 208 195 190 Spray 194 212 185 190 Incorporated Area 1102 948 890 1025 Unincorporated Area 1620 852 930 925 Source: Wheeler CQ..!!.il!.y, Oregon Resource Atlas: Natllral, Hllma n , Economic, Public, p. 22. Oregon State University Cooperative Service, 1973. * Population ~stimates: Oregon Counties and Incorporated Cities July 1, 1979. Center for Population Research and Census, Portland State University. Wheeler County's loss of population since the 1950's is attributable to the lack of employment opportunities. In Wheeler County and other rural areas, emigration of young adults seeking jobs elsewhere is commonplace. The num- ber of jobs in Wheeler County has dwindled. The increasing competitiveness of the forest products industry has encouraged greater mechanization and construction of larger, more efficient "plants. Sawmills formerly operating in Kinzua and Spray have been closed for economic reasons, with a resultant loss of employment. Not only have the sawmill jobs themselves disappeared; related logging and forestry employment has declined. The absence of employ- ment opportunities in a resource-based economy will continue to limit pos- sibilities for population growth. (See Chapter V, . "Population Pro- jections," and Chapter V. D., "Employment and PayrollS.") The U.S. Census publications provide the most detailed Wheeler County demographic information. Table B-3, below shows the population by age . 'and sex ln Wheeler County, 1960 and 1970. TABLE B-3 Population by Age and Sex, Wheeler County, 1960 and 1970 Age Group ~iale Female Total Percent1960 11970 1960 11970 1960 11970 1960 \1970 Total Population 1,393 952 1,329 897 2,722 1,849 100 100 Under 5.... 153 63 160 88 313 151 11.5 8.17 5-9 .•.. 144 82 175 75 319 157 11. 7 8.49 10-14 .... 121 98 140 76 261 174 9.6 9.41 15-19 .... 114 96 113 86 227 182 8.3 9.84 20-24 .... 78 42 95 60 173 102 6.4 5.52 25-34 .... 166 102 161 93 227 195 12.0 10.55 35-44 .... 188 98 165 109 353 207 13.0 11.20 45-54 .... 181 150 136 118 317 268 11.6 14.49 55-M .... 140 119 98 94 238 213 8.7 11.52 65 and oyer .... 108 102 86 98 194 200 7.2 10.82 Median Age ....... 30.9 34.3 24.0 31.6 27.5 33.0 -SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of PopulatIon: 19/0 General PopulatlOG Char3ctcristics, Final Report PC(1)-B39 Oregon, U.S. Goyernment Printin~ Office, \','as:lington D.C"., 1971. During this period of significant population decline (32%), the median age of Wheeler County's population has increased from 27.5 to 33.0. The popu- lation reduction was most evident in the 0-19 age group. which experienced a 40.7% decrease. The substantial population loss in this age group reflects a number of factors, including, perhaps, the generally declining birth rate and the emigration of young"families, for whom the availability of suitable employment opportunities is most critical. In contrast, the percentage of total county population comprised by individuals over 45 years of age has risen. The older age groups may represent a more firmly-established seg- ment of the population. V-7 Racial Group Wheeler County's minority population is very small (.67%), as shown in Table 8-4. TABLE B-4 . Number of Persons by Racial Group) Wheeler County, 1970L Nwnber of Persons --------------:------j Total ~ . Caucasi.ln •.........•...•............. Spanish Langu8.ge .....•............... Black ..·•.•...•....•..• ~ .....•.....•.. American I ndi an .......••............. Oth{;~·••.•••.....•...•..•........ ~ .... 1,849 J.,837 7 3 2 . SOURCE: O.S.U. Cooperative Extension"Sc-i-vlce, Li1C'?3.2? a}l~~~_ov-ei;:-yna-ta._ for Racial Groups: A Compilation for Orego~_Ccnsus County Divisions J Special Report 367. Sept. 1972. According to the 1979 edition of the Indicators of Depressed Socio- Economic Conditions (State of Oregon Community Services Program, p 399), ~Jheeler County had the state's third highest percentage of 9th grade enrollment graduating from high school in 1978. Wheeler County ranked third among Oregon counties for the five-year average (1974-1978) of 9th graders who continued through high school and graduated. Despite the relatively low high school droupout rates of recent years, 47.9% of Hheeler County adults did not complete high school. That is the sixth highest percentage among counties in the state. 25.6% of Wheeler County adults have an 8th grade education or less. On a per- centage basis, Wheeler County ranks ninth in the state. (Indicators of Depressed Socia-Economic Conditions.) Information from the 1970 Census on educational attainment by sex is presented on Table 8-5. V-B TABLE B-5 Years of School Completed By Population 25 Years and Older, Wheeler County Category 25 Years and Over . No School years . Elementary: 1-4 yrs . 5-7 yrs . 8 yrs . High School: 1-3 yrs . 4 .yrs . College: 1-3 yrs . 4 yrs. or more . Median School Years Completed . Percent High School Graduates . Hale 576 23 59 95 103 182 63 51 12.0 51.4 Female 512 5 12 85 139 189 53 29 12.1 52.9 SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Census, Census of Population: 1970 General Population Characteristics, Final Report PC(1)-B39 Oregon U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1971. V-9 C. Income Table C-l shows the distribution of family and unrelated individuals income for the three incorporated cities of Wheeler County, which are Fossil, Mitchell, and Spray, and compares these figures with income data for Wheeler County and the State. When 1970 income data is compared for the three cities, Wheeler County, and Oregon, it becomes im- mediately apparent that the cities and the county have a higher per- centage of the population earning less than $8,000 annually than does the state. (73%, 94%, 87%, and 72% respective1y, compared to 38% for the State). The comparisons show up more dramatically over the $10,000 annual income level because the data for the cities of Mitchell and Spray fails to show any percent of the population above this income level while the City of Fossil shows only 18% over $10,000 annually and 0% over $15,000 annual income. For Wheeler County this information shows only 17% of the population earning more than $10,000 annually compared to 46% for the State. Wheeler County is compared to the 17 other Eastern Oregon Counties and to the State using median family income in Table C-2. This table also compares each county by median effective buying income which is a bulk measurement of market potential of buying power. Using either the median family income or the effective buying income to rank the family income or the effective buying income to rank the counties with each other and with the rest of the courties in the State, Wheeler County ranks at the bottom of the list. Wheeler County's median family income is 28% less than the State's and its effective buying income is 34% less than the State's. Table C-3 further compares Wheeler County to Oregon state on the basis of effective buying income using 1977 data. The table shows a percentage breakdoivn of households within each given income level. Wheeler County has almost 60% of its households under the $10,000 level while the state has just over 60% of the househoulds above $10,000 level. The interpretation of Tables C-4 and C-5 should be done with caution. Neither table should be used as a source of exact number comparisons, but rather, as a source of general trend indicators. The Homeowners and Renters Relief Fund (HARP) is available to households with income less than $15,000 per year and in addition, the existing information is incomplete. Consequently, the data compiled in Table C-4 was used to construct Table C-5 which controlled the number and percentages of Oregon income tax returns and effective buying income (EB1) for incomes under $15,000 per year. The general trend that comes out of Table C-5 is that on the average two-thirds of the households had incomes less than $10,000 per year and the majority of them had incomes less than $8,000 per year. V-10 < I -' -' TABLE C-1 OREGON, WHEELER CO., AND CITIES 1970 HOUSEHOLD INCOME FOSSIL MITCHELL SPRAY WHEELER CO. OREGON INCOME LEVEL NO. % NO. 0/,., NO 0/,., Nn ok. Nn Ok, HOUSEHOLDS HOUSEHOLDS HOUSEHOLDS HOUSEHOLDS HOUSEHOLDS $ 0 - $2,999 64 32 20 30 10 24 147 21 50,100 9 3,000 - 4,999 20 10 15 22 a 0 97 14 53,942 10 5,000 - 7,999 63 31 28 42 26 63 253 37 104,197 19 8,000 - 9,999 17 8 4 6 5 12 76 11 83,987 16 10,000 - 14,999 37 18 a 0 a a 85 12 152,677 28 15,000+ a a a a 0 a 34 5 97,580 18 TOTAL 201 99 67 100 41 99 692 100 542,483 100 . NOTE: Percentage totals may not e~ual 100% due to rounding. SOURCE: City and County information from 1970 ~. Census of Population and Housing, Fifth Count Summary Tape, File C. Oregon. Oregon figures from .General Social and Economic Characteristics, Oregon, U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1970. TABLE C-2 Eastern Oregon Counties by Median Income With Effective Buying Income Comparisons 1977 Data Rank In Eastern EBI Oregon by ~1edian ~~edian Rank in Rank in Family Income County Family Income Oregon (36 counties) r1ed ian EBI Orego~ (36co_Llnties) 1 Kl amath $16,122 9 13,019 20 2 Harney 15,910 12 14,030 6 3 Wasco 15,860 13 13,966 7 4 Union 15,821 14 12,898 21 5 Deschutes 15,779 15 13,583 11 < 6 Lake 15,395 17 12,341 26I ...... N 7 Sherman 15,066 20 10,750 32 8 Crook 15,012 21 12,502 24 9 Morrow 14,910 22 13,946 8 10 Umati 11 a 14,903 23 13,121 19 11 Hood River 14,662 25 13,226 18 12 Jefferson 14,263 27 13,292 17 13 Grant 14,192 28 11,846 29 14 Malheur 13 ,411 30 11 ,100 30 15 Gi 11 iam 13,317 32 13,825 9 16 Wall owa 13,203 33 10.942 31 17 Baker' 12,893 35 10,554 34 18 vJheeler 12,735 36 9,180 36 State of Oregon 17,768 13,923 Source: Oregon Department of Human Resources Social Accounting for Oregon, Socio-Economic Indicators 1q79 TABLE C-3 Effective Buying Income (EBI), Wheeler County and Oregon 1977 Data Median Household EBI Income Level $ o - 7",999 8,000 - 9,999 10,000-14,999 15,000-24,999 25,000 and Over Total $9,180 Wheel er County Percent of Households 39 20 29 10 3 101 13,923 Oregon Percent of Households 30 8 22 29 11 100 NOTE: SOURCE: Percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding. Oregon Department.of Human Resources Social Accounting For Oregon, Socio-Economic Indicators V-13 1979 TABLE C-4 Wheeler County Income Profile 1977 Data Oregon Effective Income Level HARRP Income Tax Returns Buying Income $ No. % No. % No. % C/l ~Q) a 2,999 29 9 106 17 Q) r- 39- ...0 ...0 E: ltl 3,000 - 4,999 41 13 73 12 ~r-z·.... ltl 5,000 - 7,999 80 25 64 10 r- >ltlc:t: ~ 8,000 - 9,999 42 13 49 8 +-' +-' 2000 c:t: z 10 ;000 - 14,999 124 39 125 20 29 15,000 and Over - - 197 32 13 Total 316 99% 614 99% 101% NOTE: SOURCE: Percentage Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding. Oregon Department of Human Resources Social Accounting for Oregon Socio-Economic Indicators 1979 V-14 TABLE C-5 Wheeler County Income Profiles 1977 Data Percentages Controlled For Income Under $15,000 Income Level Oregon Effective $ HARRP Income Tax Returns Buying Income o - 2,999 9 } 25 } 58% }3,000 - 4,999 13 47% 18 45% 5,000 - 7,999 25 15 8,000 - 9,999 13 12 22 10,000 - 14,999 39 30· 33 .TOTAL 99% 100% 100% NOTE: SOURCE: Percentage totals may not equal 100% due to rounding. Oregon Department of Human Resources Social Accounting For Oregon, Socio-Economic Indicators 1979 V-15 D. Employment and Payrolls Table D-l provides for the most recent employment data available for Wheeler County. It clearly reflects the Mid-1978 Kinzua Mill Closure. Kinzua had been the largest employer in the County for many years. Lumber employment fell rapidly with the mill closure and continued to drop in 1979 as smaller logging operations also shut down. The total labor force decreased by 38% in 18 months according to these estimates. State and local government is now the largest employer in the County providing about 160 jobs. There is now an imbalance, with government comprising about 62% of total wage and salary and about 35% of total employment or over one-third of this employed labor force working in a sector which typically provides only services and in and of itself does not create growth. Summarized in Table 0-2 are 1972, 1974, 1976, and 1977 employment data and in Table 0-3 are 1972, 1974, 1976, and 1978 income data for Wheeler County as reported by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data reflects the employment reports of only those county-based employers who are covered by the State Unemployment Insurance Law or by Unemploy- ment Compensation for Federal Employees. Consequently, some employees may not be included in this Data. Table 0-2 shows a declining share of total employment for the private sector (in particular, manufacturing) while the government sector increased its share. Between 1972 and 1977, the Private sector decreased from 45% of total employment to 39%, as the Government sector increased from 23% to 26%. Note that this table does not include the mill closures of 1978 which further aggravates each sector's share of the total, as evidenced in Table D-l. The farming sector experienced growth in its share of employment durin0s this period moving from 7% to 11%. Both the private and the government sector experienced increases in percentage share of personal income between 1972 and 1978, 62% to 70% and 17% to 28%, respectively. However, these figures are somewhat distorted due to the drastic decline in agriculture's share of personal income, 21% to 2%~ during this same period. Actual dollar income figures supply a better picture of the situation, between 1972 and 1978, personal income from the private sector grew from $5,176,000 to $6,783,000 for an increase of 19%. (Note here that due to the yearly fluctuation in personal income caused primarily by the resource-based manufacturing, percentages can vary greatly for any given time period. However, this table can supply an indication of trends, such as an unstable economy due to too great of dependence on a single, and highly volatile, industry). During this same period, the personal income of the government sector constantly grew from $1,137,000 in 1972 to $1,965,000 in 1978, or an increase of about 72%. The result is that as the employment erodes from the private sector, unemployed workers will be forced to seek employment outside the county. As the population decreases due to emigration, less government services will be required forcing a decrease in government employees. V-16 TABLE 0-1 Wheeler County Resident Labor Force, Unemployment and Employment 197919781977- - .. - - . - - - . - Annual Annual Averaae Average Jan Feb ~1a r Apr ~1a y June 840 700 610 640 610 580 580 520 80 80 100 180 150 120 110 60 9.5 11.4 16.4 28.1 24.6 20.7 19.0 11.5 760 620 510 460 460 460 470 460 450 360 300 270 260 260 270 260 200 110 60 30 20 20 20 20 200 110 60 30 20 20 20 20 250 250 240 240 240 240 250 240 10 20 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 40 40 30 30 30 30 30 40 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 160 160 170 170 170 170 180 160 Civilian Labor Force1 Unemployment %of Labor Force Total Employment~ Total Wage &Salary Total Manufacturing Lumber and Wood ~ Total Nonmanufacturing ~ Contract Construction Transpo., Comm., &Utilities Trade Finance, Ins., & Real Estate Service and Miscellaneous Government Note: Estimates are subject to revision and are calculated by place of residence. 1 Includes employed and unemployed individuals 16 years and older. Data are adjusted for multiple job holding and commuting. 2 Includes nonagricultural wage and salary, self-employed, unpaid family workers, domestics, agriculture and labor disputants. Source: State of Oregon, Employment Division, Department of Human Resources, Monthly Labor Force Summaries for Wheeler County, July, 1979. TABL._ D-2 WHEELER COUNTY Employment by Type, Broad Industrial Sources, and by Place of Work (Full and Part-Time) 1917219762197411972 J.- - . +<' , Employment by %lata1 %Total %Tota-l %Total Place of Work # . Emp'loyment # Employment If Employment # Employment 3Total Employment 810 100 872 100 852 100 861 100Number of Proprietors 199 25 202 23 202 24 206 24 Farm Proprietors 137 17 133 15 133 . 16 133 15 Non-farm Proprietors ,:; ..... 8 69 8 69 8 73 8.... t:. Total Wage & Salary Employmer.t 611 75 670 77 650 76 655 76 Farm 62 7 65 8 73 9 92 11 Non-farm 549 68 605 69 577 68 563 65Private 365 45 396 45 352 41 335 39Ag Serv., For. > Fish, O:.",cr (1\\ - (0) - (0.) (L)'.J) - --Constr:..:ctio!": tr.) - (D) - (L) - (L)<: \'--' -I ~"anuf3.ctu'('i ng 265 33 275 32 241 28 229 27....J00 Durable Goods 266 33 275 32 241 28 229 27Transport. , & Pub1ic Fa.c~ 1.. 14 2 16 2 11 1 (L) -Wholesale Trade 0 - 1 - (L) - (L) -Retail Trade. 33 4 52 6 45 5 38 4 . Finance, Ins. , &Rea! Estate 8 1 9 1 (L) - (L) -Services 41 5 38 4 34 4 35 4 GoYernn"~nt & Gov' tEnter'. 184 23 209 24 225 26 228 26Federal, Civilian 17 3 13 2 15 2 14 2 Federa'J, Mi 1itary 11 . 1 12 1 10 1 10 1State and Local 156 19 184 21 200 23 204 24 1 Estimates based on 67 SIC. 2 Esti rna tes based on 72 SIC. 3 Consists of wage and salary employment plus number of proprietors. (D) Not sho\vn to avoid disclosure of confidential information, data are included in totals. (L) Less than $50,000, data are included in totals .. SOURCE: Reginnal Economic Information System, Bureau of Econo~;c Analysis as supplied by the , Ore· Department of Economic Development, April, 19: TABLl;. I Wheeler County Personal Income By Major Source 19721 1974.1 19762 19782 <: I .... \.0 Income by Type (total) 3 vJage and Salary Other Labor 4 Proprietor's Income Farm 4 Non-farm Income by Industry (total) Farm Non-farm Private 5 Ag Svc for Fish,:Other Cons tructi on Manufacturing Durable Goods Trans &Public Facilitie Wholesale Trade Reta·il Trade Fin, Ins, & Rea1 Es ta te Services Govnmt' &Govt Enterprises Federal, Civil ian Federal, Military State & Local -, Income -,-,-% TotalIncome % Total Income % Total Income % Total '$ 1000 Income $ 1000 Income $ 1000 Income $ 1000 Income 0.- 6,546 100 7,296 100 7,928 100 6,920 100 4,547 69 5,598 77 5,912 75 6,286 91 257 4 363 5 451 ' 6 495 7 1,742 27 1,335 18 1,565 20 139 2 1,057 16 737 10 901 11 -533 -8 685 11 598 8 664 8 672 10 6,546 100 7,296 100 7,928 100 6,920 100 1,370 21 1,131 16 1,420 18 137 2 5,176 79 6,165 $4 6,508 82 6,783 98 4,039 62 4~735 65 4,700 59 4,818 70 (D) - 0 - 57 1 63 1- (0 ) - 0 - 137 2 218 3 2,989 46 3,637 50 3,455 44 3,525 51 2,989 46 3,637 50 3,455 44 3,525 51 137 2 136 2 189 2 182 3 (L) - (L) - 52 1 53 1 296 5 382 5 396 5 400 6 320 5 ' 217 3 215 3 157 2 156 2 195 3 199 3 220 3 1,137 17 1,430 19 1,808 23 1,965 28 142 2 178 2 166 2 159 2 16 - 1H - 22 - 23 - 979 15 1,234 17 1,620 20 1,783 ' 26 1. Estimates based on 1967 SIC 2. Estimates based on 1972 SIC 3. Census of wage and salary disbursements, other labor income and proprietor's income. 4. Includes the capital consumption adjustment for non-farm proprietors. 5. Includes wage and salaries of U.S. residents working for international organizations (L) Less than $50,000. Data included in totals. (D) Not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information. Data are included in totals. SOURCE: Regional Economies Information System, Bureau of Economic Analysis as supplied by the Oregon Department of Economic Development, April, 1979. The 1974 Census of Agriculture provides the most recent comprehensive employment data obtainable. For 1974 census purposes, "Farm" was defined as: "All land on which agricultural operations were conducted at any time in the census year under the day-to-day control of an indi- vidual management, and from which $1,000 or more of agricultural products were sold during the census year. Control may have been exercised through ownership or management, or through a lease, rental, or cropping arrangement. Places having less than the min- imum $1,000 sales in the census year were also counted as farms if they could normally be expected to produce agricultural products in sufficient quantity to meet the requirements of the definition." This definition was not the same as the definition used in the 1969 census. Consequently, 1969 and 1974 data are comparable only for farms with $2,500 or more in total value of sales. Evaluation of Table 0-4 reveals a 23% decrease in the number of farms (with sales of $2,500 and over) using hired labor with a corresponding decrease of only 3% in this total number of hired farm workers during the same period. The decrease in total number of hired workers may have been buffered by the increase in the average size of farms. From 7,863 in 1969 to 8,719 in 1974 (Table 0-6). The increase in the average site of farms may also account for the 17% increase in number of farms using hired workers for a period of 150 days or more. Due to the lack of any figures to adjust for inflation, it is impossible to draw any conclusive results from the 3% drop in number of hired workers and the 31% increase in wages paid. However, noticing that the average dollar paid per worker was $1,514.46 in,1974 and $1,114.46 in 1969, a 5~% annual inflation rate would have resulted in a decrease in real income during this period. Again without the benefit of an actual inflation rate for Wheeler County, the change in rea] income is unknown. Of the 80 farms in l~heeler County with Sales of $2,500 and over, 43 (or 54%) hired farm workers. Table 0-5 is a breakdown of farms, workers, and cash wages paid. The Distribution of these farms is fairly even with regards to the number of them hiring workers for either: less than 25 days; 25 to 149 days; or 150 days or more. However, the data shows that 40% of the workers are hired for less than 25 days and that 60% of farms hired less than 5 workers per farm. So, even though it may appear that agriculture is suppling an income for a relatively large section of Wheeler County's population, the employment is short and itis also seasonal and typically offers low wages. V-20 TABLE D-4 Wheeler County Payroll and Employment Data for Farms with Sales of $2500 and Over Farms rlorkers Dollars(S1000)Working Days 1974 1969 1974 1969 1974 1969 Hi red Fa rm \~orkers Working-- 150 days or more 21 18 47 48 215 }25 to 149 days 26 } 50 58 } 153 65 224Less than 25 days 25 89 14 TOTAL 43 194 201 294 224 SOURCE: 1974 Census of Agriculture-County Data U.S. Department of Commerce~ Bureau of Census.. TABLE D-5 Wheeler County . Payroll ahd Employment for Farms with Sales of $2500 and over~ 1974 Farms/ Hired Farm Workers Working Workers TOTAL 150 days 25 to Less than or more 149 days 25 days Farms 43 21 26 25 Cash Hages pa i d $1000 294 215 65 14 Number of Workers 194 47 58 89 Farms \'Ji th-- 1 worker 11 11 9 9 2 workers 7 5 9 5 3 or 4 workers 8 4 6 3 5 to 9 workers 13 - 2 8 10 workers and over 4 1 - - SOURCE: 1974 Census of Agriculture-County Data. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. V-21 . TABLE 0-6 ~JHEELER COUNTY Land In Farms: 1974 and 1969 WHEELER COUNTY Farms With Sales of $2,500 And Over 1974 1969 All Farms (Number) 80 90 Land in Farms (Acres) 697,542 707,652 Average Size of Farms (Acres) 8,719 7,863 Approx Land Area, Wheeler Co. (Acres) 1,092,480 1,092,480 Proportion in Farms (Percent) 63.8 64.8 SOURCE: 1974 Census of Agriculture - County Data. U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census Between the years of 1969 and 1974, there was a movement away from part ownership of farms to full ownership of farms (Table 0-7) full owner- ship increased from 49% of total farms to 56% with an accompaning increase in acreage from 21% to 47% of total acreage (or 147,000 acres to 325,000 acres), conversely, part owners decreased from 44% in 1969 to 38% in 1974 with a decrease in acreage from 75% to 49%. (Or in numbers 532,800 acres to 344,000 acres). Note that these figures are still limited to farms with sales of $2,500 or more. Because agri- cultural employment and accompanying payroll data is from different sources than other sector statistics, no direct comparisons can be made. Consequently, farm worker statistics have been enumerated but are not compared with other sector employment figures here. V-22 Wheeler County ~I, of Total TABLE 0-7 WHEELER COUNTY Farm Operator Tenure Farms With Sales of $2,500 and Over, 1974 Full Uwners Part Owners Tenants Tota1s 1974 1969 1974 1969 1974 1969 1974 1969 # 1000A If 1000A # 1000A # 1000A :ll 1000A # WOO} # 1000t # 1000A " 45 325 44 147 30 344 40 532 5 28 6 28 80 698 90 708 56% 47% 49% 21% 38% 49% 44% 75% 6% 4% 7% 4% 100% 100% ~OO% 100 ~ SOURCE: 1974 Census of Argriculture - County Data U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census Projections in employment in Vlheeler County are compiled in Table 0-8. They cover the period 1975 to 2000 at five year intervals. These projections are supplied by the U.S. Department of Energy (Bonneville Power"Administration, BPA) and it must be remembered that this is only one source and only one source is supplied for this statement. The data supplied reports a decrease from 800 households in 1975 to 350 households in 20uO, or a 56% decrease. Wheeler County TABLE 0-8 Employment Projections, Wheeler County (Household) 1975 - 2000 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 800 675 575 450 400 350 SOURCE: U. S. Department of Energy Population, Employment, ~ Households Projected ~ 2000 September 1979 " . V-23 E. City and County Financial Base A breakdown of local government revenue sources exemplifies government financial structures. Local government obtain their revenues from five sources: Ad Valorem property taxes, user fees, special serial levies, state revenues, and federal grants. Ad Valorem property taxes are calculated annually when the various local government jurisdictions, county school districts, and special taxing districts, submit budgets of funds required to carry out local business. These budgets are accumu- lated, the property in the County is appraised and levies are derived for the various taxing areas. Levies cannot be submitted for more than 6% of last year's 1evy without a vote of the people. Table E-1 summarizes Wheeler County Taxes for 1972 thru 1979. The total assessed value for Wheeler County grew 27% during this period while total takes increased 29%. The growth of both has not been a constant increase. Total taxes decreased once during this period and that was from 1976 to 1977, dropping about 2.9%. Total assessed value decreased once in 1978 when it dro-ped about 2.6% from the year before. The erosion in the tax base was probably due in most part to the closure of the Kinzua Lumber Mill. The effects of the erosion carried over into the following year, 1979, evidenced by the less than 1% increase in total assessed Value. Total taxes, however, were rising and showed an increase in 1979, over 1978, of about 7%. The greatest increase in taxes came from state taxes (i .e. timber and grazing receipts, etc.) showing an increase of 103%. This category was followed by city taxes - a 48% increase, county taxes (to support county government) - a 41% increase, and finally school district taxes - a 27% increase. Assessed taxable values for Wheeler County and its three incorporated cities (Fossil, ~litchell, and Spray) during 1971 - 1979 (except 1975), are compiled in Table E-2. (Note: Spray column incomplete due to in- sufficient data). Wheeler county, as a whole, increased 33% in assessed taxable value between 1971-1979. Again, thele was the 2.6% decrease in value in 1978 the previous year. The three incorporated cities, Fossil, Mitche1l, and Spray, have increased constantly in assessed value (171%, 287%, and 222%, respectively) and in terms of present share of total county assessed va1ue (104%, 192%, and 142% respectively), with t~itchell making the largest gains. Table E-3 compares Wheeler County to the State with regard to assessed taxable value and percent share of state total value. This Table shows that the State as a whole was growing over 5~ times faster than Wheeler County during the years 1975 to 1978. A1so, during this same time, Wheeler County fell 25% in its percentage share of the State's total assessed taxable valuation. Table E-4 summarizes the distribution of county tax dollars from 1971- 1979. During this period, schools received over 75% of each tax dollar, except in the year 1978 when schools received 73.36%. On the average, schools were averaging approximately 80% of each tax dollar in this first half of the decade while dropping to an average approximating 76% in the second half. Picking up this decrease was the State, increasing from an average approximating 8% in the first half to an average approxi- mating 12% in the second half. Comparing beginning and ending years V-24 <:: I N O"l TABLE E-2 WHEELER COUNTY ASSESSED TAXABLE VALUES 1971 - 1979 1971 1972 1973 1974 1976 1977 1978 1979 %71 - 79 Wheeler County 26,818,687 28,134,623 29,929,693 33,427,742 34,058,924 36,568,749 35,635,404 35,684,470 33% Foss il 1,731,660 1,707,829 1,873,271 2,243,651 2,640,936 3,171,776 4,091,944 4,702,423 171% As %of County Total 6.46% 6.07% 6'.26% 6. 71~;' . 7. 75"h 8.67% . 11.48% 13.18% 104% Mitchell 394,969 442,707 445,099 475,566 741,325 890,229 1,068,318 1,530,869 287% As %of County Total 1. 47% 1. 57% 1. 49r. 1.42% 2.18% 2.43% 3.00% 4.29% 192% Spray 527 ,885 - - - - - - 1,702,423 222% As %of County Total 1. 97% - - - - - - 4.77% 142% NOTE: Spray column incomplete due to insufficient data. SOURCE: Compil ed by ECOAC from Annua 1 Abs tract of Taxes for Hheel er County, County Assessor IS Offi ce. <' I N (Jl TABLE E-1 Wheeler County Tax Structure (in $1,000) YEAR TOTAL SCHOOLASSESSED VALUE COUNTY TAXES CITY TAXES 015T. TAXES STATE TAXES TOTAL TAXES 1972 28,135 56.0 6.9 1,789 32.7 1,884 1973 29,930 58.0 7.3 , 1,899 38.0 2,003 1974 33,428 61.8 7.7 1,948 43.1 2,060 1975 33,100 65.5 8.1 2,054 51.6 2,179 1976 34,059 69.6 8.6 2,140 58.9 2,277 1977 36,569 73.8 9.1 2,064 65.0 2,212 1978 35,635 79.1 9.7 2,097 78.1 2,264 1979 35,684 79.1 10.2 2,272 66.3 2,427 %Change 1972- 27% 41% 48% 27% 103% 29% ' 1979 SOURCE: Compiled by ECOAC from Annual Abstract of Taxes for Wheeler County, County Assessor's Office. TABLE E-3 WHEELER COUNTY Assessed Taxable Valuation By County, For Selected Years 1965 - 1978 11 (In Millions of Dollars) State/County 1965 1970 1975 1976 1977 1978 Percentage Change 1975 - 1978 <, N 'oJ - - -. ...- OREGON 3,313.8 18,800.2 31,786.1 35,222.3 40,188.7 45,750.3 43.9% WHEELER 5.6 26.5 33.1 34.1 36.6 35.6 7.6% As %of State Total 0.169% 0.141% 0.104% 0.09n 0.091% 0.078% - 25.0% 11 In 1965, assessed valuation was 25 percent of estimated market value. SOURCE: Oregon Department of Economic Development. for this time period, State experienced the greatest change, increasing 36.5% in its share of the tax dollar. Cities were also receiving more in 1979 than in 1971, 11.3% more. The County and schools both experienced decreases in their share of the tax dollar, 3.1% and 3.4% respectively. TABLE E-4 Distribution of Wheeler County Tax Dollars (In Percentages) 1971 - 1979 UNIT 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 County 11.19 11.28 10.28 10.07 9.63 9.09 10.18 10.96 10.84 Schools 79.35 80.04 80.03 80.40 76.07 79.52 75.41 73.36 76.63 Citi es 1.51 1.50 1.56 1.44 1.94 1.46 1. 78 1. 73 1.68 State 7.95 7.17 8.13 8.09 12.35 9.94 12.63 13.95 10.85 TOTAL 100.00 99.99 100.00 100.00 99.99 100.01 100.00 100.00 100.00 NOTE: SOURCE: Percentage totals may not equal 100% due to rounding. Compiled by ECOAC from Annual Abstract of Taxes for Wheeler County, County Assessor's Office. Table E-5 is a breakdown of property taxes for Fossil, Mitchell, Spray, and the Unincorporated Area. As can be seen from this Table, property taxes are low for Wheeler County and its' cities - the largest share spent for public education, the highest rates levied in Fossil. Note here that Spray has a Mayor-Council government when operates on a volunteer basis without a tax-raised general fund. Real property (land and buildings) is assessed at 100% of estimated market value. V-28 < I N 1..0 TABLE E-5 PROPERTY TAXES, WHEELER COUNTY 1971 - 1979 Levy ($/1,000 Assessed Value) 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 FOSSIL County 1. 76 1. 74 1.58 1.59 1.20 1.56 1.42 1. 71 1.84 City 3.32 3.57 3.45 3.03 3.10 2.90 2.56 2.10 1. 94 Schools 12.36 12.79 12.41 13.15 9.40 13.79 10 .52 11. 51 13.11 Tota 1 17.44 18.10 17.44 17.77 13.70 18.25 14.50 15.32 16.89 MITCHELL County 1. 76 1. 74 1.58 . 1. 59 l-,20' 1. 56 1.42 1.71 1.84 City 1.85 1. 75 1.84 1.83 1.21 1. 31 1.16 1.02 .76 Schools 12.36 12.95 12.41 12.43 9.40 13.79 10.52 11. 51 13.11 Tota 1, 15.97 16.44 15.83 15.85 11.81 16.66 13.10 14.24 . 15.71 SPRAY -County 1. 76 1. 74 1. 58 1. 59 1.20 1. 56 1. 42 1. 71 1.84 City - - - - - - - - - Schools 13.36 12.80 12.65 12.65 9.40 13.79 10.52 11. 51 13 .11 Tota 1 15.12 14.54 14.23 14.24 10.60 15.35 11. 94 13.22 14.95 UNINCORPORATED AREA I County 1. 76 1. 74 1.58 1.59 1.20 1. 56 1.42 1. 71 1.84 I City - - - - - - - - - I Schools -12.36 12.54 12.41 12.43 9.40 13.79 10 .52 11. 51 13.11 Total 14.12 14.28 13.99 14.02 10.60 15.35 11.94 13.22 14.95 NOTE: Spray has a Mayor-Council Government which operates on a volunteer basis without a tax raised general fund. SOURCE: Compiled by ECOAC from Annual Abstract of Taxes for Wheeler County, County Assessor's Office. F. Transportation Introduction In many instances the existing transportation system of an area serves as an important clue as to how that area developed. In the case of \~heeler County, the need for supplies by the mines and early settlements of interior Oregon led to the use of the existing system of Indian trails by settlers. These trails usually followed the lowest elevations and more gentle slopes of the area as well as making use of water level routes. With continued usage these paths were expanded to approximately road width but were still restricted to use by pack animals. In 1861, The Dalles Military Road was initiated as the first improved road allowing the use of wagons in place of pack animals for Wheeler County, then part of Wasco County which included all of present day Oregon east of the Cascades. Henry H. Wheeler, from whom the county is named, introduced the first commercial transportation to the area along the Military Road with a stage line which ran from The Dalles to Canyon City in 1864. Or~anized road building or maintenance was not available to settlers of Wheeler County until the creation of the county in 1899 and organization of a County Road Department. In the late 1800 l s an additional form of transportation began to push into the rural porU ons of Eastern Oregon. In 1889 Heppner served as the fi rst railhead for Wheeler County when a branch line was constructed north to a mainline along the Columbia River. Service was improved further in 1897 with the construction of another branch line with its terminus in Shaniko, which soon developed into a major shipping point. These early railheads were valuable not only for receiving supplies but also gained importance as collection points for agricultural produce bound for distant markets. One problem that early producers experienced was the considerable distance that products had to be driven or packed from \·Jheeler County to the rail- heads. Even with the construction in 1929 of a rail line from Condon to Kinzua by the Kinzua Corperation this problem was never wholly solved. The present situation in Wheeler County, as in the past, is a system of transportation dependent largely on local roads and highways with only minor participation by other modes such as railroad and aircraft transportation. Highway Transportation Major Hi ghways Wheeler County is served by· two major highways, U.S. 26 from John Day through Mitchell to Prineville and Oregon 19 running through Spray and Fossil to Interstate 80-N at Arlington. These highways are paved, two-lane roads se~ving as major through routes for inter-county travel. State Highway 207, WhlCh runs from Mitchell northward through Spray to Heppner, and State Highway 218, which runs from Fossil to Antelope, are also major highways within Wheeler County serving as collectors for local as well as throuah traffic. In light of the importance placed on highway transportation in Wheeler County these routes serve as major links to outside services and markets for the residents making it necessary to maintain and improve them in the future. (see Table F-1). V-30 Table F-1 Highways and Public Roads in Wheeler County Number of Percen t of Miles Conditi on Total State Hi ghways: Primary 97.14 High Type Pavement Secondary 59.61 High Type Pavement Subtotal State Highways 156.75 15.76% County Roads: Within City Limits 0.19 Gravel Outside City Limits 8.63 High Type Pavement 27.20 Low Type Pavement 153.58 Gravel 38.06 Graded Road (Dirt) 40.67 Unimproved Road _Subtota1 County Roads 268.33 26.98% City Streets: 0.40 High Type Pavement 9.88 Low Type Pavement 1.47 Gravel 0.70 Graded Road (Dirt) Subtotal City Streets 12.45 1.25% Public Roads: 2.57 Low Type Pavement 26.95 Gravel 23.18 Graded Road (Dirt) 106.74 Unimproved Road Subtotal Public Roads 159.44 16.03% U.S. Forest Service Roads 5.7 High Type Pavement 182.5 Gravel 63.8 Graded Road (Dirt) 64.2 Unimproved Road Subtotal Forest Service Road 316.2 31. 79% V-3l Number of Miles u.s. Bureau of Land Management 5.0 22.0 52.0 Subtotal Bureau of Land Management Bonneville Power Administration Roads 2.52 Subtotal Bonneville Power Administration Roads TOTAL Wheeler County Roads 79.0 2.52 994.69 Condition Gravel Graded Road (Dirt) Unimproved Primative Road Percent of Total 7.94% 0.25% 100.0% Source: Department of Policy and Program Development, Oregon Department of Transportation, 1977 data. V-32 Table F-2 Wheeler County Highway Financial Information Highway funds are derived from fuel taxes, vehicle reqistrations and . licenses, and ",'eight-mile taxes and truckload fines. The federal fuel tax presently is 4 cents and the state tax is 7 cents per gallon. Distribution of state highway funds include expenditures for maintenance, new construction, right-of-way, and parks; in addition, approximately 35.5 percent was transferred to cities, counties, and other agencies, including traffic enforcement, for the ten year period. 1966-1975. Shown below is the annual average receipts, and expenditures and transfers for the period 1966-1975 for Wheeler County. Receipts Amount % of State Expenditures and Transfer Amount % of State $303,182 0.14% $761,631 0.35% A breakdown of Wheeler County highway construction expenditures since FY 1975 and a comparison with state wide expenditures is shown below. The column titled "Total to· 6/30/77" takes into account the fact that some programs began earlier than others and reflects to total receipts by Wheeler County up to and including FY 1977. Total to %of Program FY 1975 FY 1976 FY 1977 6/30/77 State Total State Highway Construction Funds $ 33,200 $1,326,700 1.24% Federal Aid Secondary ~ County $2,900 $ 483,600 0.59% Federal Aid Secondary - State $389,300 $629,600 $4,700 $1,776,500 1. 73% Federal Aid Primary - State $ 400 2,507,100 0.84% Interstate Funds Source: Economic Services Division, Oregon Department of Transportation, 1979 Data and Highway Fiscal and Statistical Data, Oregon Department of Transportation,1977. . -- V-33 County Roads In contrast to the major highway system, county roads serve as market routes within the county and as local collectors for the state system. With the exception of some recently resurfaced county highways and former state highways, the majority of the county roads are gravel sur- faced. This type of construction is most appropriate in Wheeler County from the standpoint of resources available for construction and mainte- nance as well as the number of persons being served by the county road system. The rapidly accelerating cost of improving and maintaining roads has made it necessary for the Wheeler County Court to establish prior- ities for the County Road Department as a means of avoiding overextension of resources. The Court approved resolutions on JUly 5, 1979, and September 5, 1979, which, in conjunction with a resolution passed May 3, 1972, establish policies regarding the acceptance, maintenance and vacation of County Roads (see Map F-l and Appendix). Forest Service Roads Forest Service roads in Wheeler County comprise an important element of the transportation network. Uses of these roads include timber management and grazing support services, recreation, and public travel. Each of these uses varies in intensity depending on the activity and season of the year. Recreation, travel, and grazing activities, although operating in general for the entire year, result in particularly heavy use during the spring, summer, and fall. Timber related activities, such as harvest and hauling, are most intensive during the summer and fall months and are the most dominant users of the road system. Because the road system is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service, the county role will be one of coordination and assistance to ensure that the transportation needs of Wheel er County res i dents are accommodated. Forest- Servi ce acti ons, such as construction of road to standa~ds above those required for resource removal or not closing roads after completion of a sale, can result in adverse impacts to adjacent private land. (see Table F-l) Future Fundin[ and Level of Service A majority of the traffic moving by the road system within ~~heeler County does so on state highways. This traffic ranges from trucks moving area resources for processing to week-end travelers enjoying the scenery and relative isolation of portions of the county. Because a majority of the service is provided by state highways, maintenance and improvement of these routes are highly dependent on continued state funding. The Oregon Transportation Commission in a Planning Overview, published in January, of 1977, indicated that in order to avoid placing an additional burden on the O~egon motorist in form of higher license fees ~nd taxes, the future direction of the state will be to provide maintenance for existing highways while undertaking very little new construction. The implications of this philosophy could be very serious for Wheeler County in light of itts dependence on the state highway system. While funding for construction of new roads will be severely linl;ted, funding should be available for minor improvements or upgrading of sections of exisiting state highways and county roads within the county. V-34 KEY - MAP F-l County Roads Proposed for Maintenance 1. Winlock Road 2. Parish Creek Road 3. Kahler Basin Road 4. Richmond-Six Shooter Road 5. Alder Creek Road 6. Antone Road 7. Rowe Creek Road 8. Upper Bridge Creek Road 9. Kinzua Road 10. Gable Creek Road 11. Cottonwood Road 12. West Branch Road 13. Pine Creek Road 14. Bridge Creek Road 15. Stone Cabin Road 16. Painted Hills-Bear Creek Road 17. Butte Creek Road 18. Girds Creek Road 19. Black Butte Road 20. Twickenham Bridge Creek Cut-off Road 21. Hoover Creek Road 23. Lost Valley Road 25. Lone Rock Road 27. Huddelston Road 29. Clarno Road County Roads Proposed For Vacahon ROAD "A" commencing at its juncture with Parrish Creek County Road in Section 3, TI0S R24E proceeding westerly to its termination at its juncture with Sixshooter County Road in Section 10, TI0S R23E. ROAD "B" commencing at its juncture with Antone County Road in Section 1 of T13S R24E ahd proceeding through Section 1, 12, 13 and 18 of T13S R24E; through Sections 18, 17,9,4, and 3 of T13S R24E; and terminating at its juncture with Antone County Road in Section 34 of T125 R25E. ROAD "C" commencing at its juncture with Kahler Basin County Road in the northwest quarter of Section 33 of T7S R25E and proceeding through Sections 29, 20, 17, 16, and 15 in T7S R25E; a~d terminating at its juncture with Highway 207 in Section 10 of T7S R25E. ROAD "0" commencing at the northwest corner of Section 7, T6S R22E, pro- ceeding southeasterly and southwesterly to its termination with its juncture with Pethill Road in Section 18, T6S R22E. Source: Wheeler County Planning Commission, Fossil. 1980 V-35 ---------------------------CROOK GRAVEL, all weather road o o c z -; -< Cl ::0 > Z -; COUNTY \ ·8, .......... .o.? '( .. I I~ : .I : 27 '0 21 el 2~../···\ 0 ,/., \. :~ 19 ~:::r--'- l ../ -....."... '. I~ ,. -.. ,,- ? 25 I r-...__\ /' .yS. ~ I COUNTY • .: 7"\.... ~~6 ~---- ".- .,---' ~"" - ~ ." 1 ". -"I. 1 /./\. /.~ .......... _.J- . ~.__1 .,..' ( '. 5 . '"~."'\. 17 \ '", LEGEND GRAVEL, summer use only OILED/PAVED~ - ~...-- .............- •c J \ l J( \ , / ., "\( ./ ~ :a~:s:s ! TIS R21E W.M. U.S. f'tUIol8ERED ROU1E STATE NVIoIE.iRED ROUTE FOSSil ~--_. us OI,. MT.. t .. ' O~ tll""<5I"O.UIIO" '(Of l MoG>#WIr..." ...OU'...P .... IIOI'o WHEELER COUNTY. OREGON Pu8llC BLDG. CITY HAll COURT HO\JS.E ARMORy LIBRARY 1N'l£RSTATE NUMBEREO ROUTE IJAIl • POST OfFICE • • SCHOOL CY o CITY CENH:R CT • R,A OEPOT A __ ClTv LIMITS l v 8 LEGEND --""--~ FEDERAL AID INTEASTATE SYSTEM -- FEoEAAt AID PAIMARy SY',iTEM~ HOE RAt AI:) SECONDARY SySTEM. STATE • .-.-. fEOERAl ,.\,D SE.COND,.\RY 5YSHt.l· COUNTY D'.i:"'1r:-,: OTHER fEOE"Al AID SECONDARY .\,.()C.Al l(~!S TEAUI"' ....TIO~ Of FA S'rSTEM .--, TER""l'iATlON OF ROUTE = DIVIDED t-olC.H'hAY -.._ UI'wDIVIDEO H'Co......... AY • /IfO, Of LANES c==::::J STREET oPt .... fOR TRAVH ==== STREET DEDICATED BuT NOT oPE'" "-'-:t M.rd\ 1978 STREET & HIGHWAY SYSTEM Map No. F·2 T11·12S R21·22E LEGEND W.M. MITCHEll WHEELl':R COUNTY. OREGON ..........lg ...~ OI'l.CiOI'IS'l ... " ..>G,...... l'[)l ...~ ~ INTfRSTAH NUMBERED R?:~;IEo u.s. NUMBERED ROUT'[o STATE P-tUtolB'[REO RouTE ;:~ FeOERA.l AID I~TERSTAH sYSTEM ~ ~EOUtAl AID PRIMARY S~EM ...,:jQM FEDER l AID SECDNOAR'I' SY$T!"M. STATE .~.. FEDER l .... 10 SEcm.DARY SYSTE¥· COUNTY a..:I~I:: OTHER FEDERAl AID SECOP-tOARY. lOCAL ~ TE R""I~A T!O~ O~ FA SYSTEV .....- TER'VIJ~ATlO"OF ROUTE = DIvIDED HIG ... _._ l.1~OIVID[D HIG A... M>. O~ LAP-tES c.--J ST!~EET OPf'~ !"OR TRAVel =.:.:== STRUT DEDICATED BUT NOT QPfP-t • POST OFFICE ill • SCHOOl C'"o CITY ':E·'HE FI CT • R R DEPOT -_ CITYl.I"ITS PUBlIC BlDG. CITY HAll COURT HOUSE ARMOR" liBRA'" 'I' us.. Dt"...'n"'...' 01' 'lI.AIISI'OIl''''TIOft "O("'-'U.H~l'AOoto'l"'ISl'I'I"'TIOft Populaltioft 200 Sc.... ,_ l:"'I-~.=:.,..,-=-- - R....iMd Febnlwy 1874 STREET & HIGHWAY SYSTEM Map No. F·3 ",-0 TBS RUE f.. j/;Q \.G~~;J(((i' -.\ W.M. f / SPRAY V I~TEASlATE NUMBERED Aq~:'Eo U.S NUU6EPED ROUTEo $TATE "'UM8E~ED ROUTE LEGEND :;: fEDERAL AID INTERSTATE SYSTEM ~ fEDERAL AID PRI"'ARY S .... STEU FEDERAL Al~ SECONDARY SYSTEM. STATE ........ HOER"'.1. AID SECC:'IIDARY 5YSTE'" CQliNTY ai.\:E OT~EA FEOEliiAl AID SECQ:'IIOARy· lCloCAl "'~ TERo,tll'tATlON OF FA SySTE'" .- TEI:lMINATlON OF FlOUTE = DIVIOE=, I-t'G'1WAY _._ UP,;~'''''IOEDHIGHWAY. NO. 0;: LANES c:::::==J STREET OPEN FOR TRA .... El ==== STREET DEDICATED BUT hOT Qf>tM • POSt OFFICE • • SCHOOl CY o CITY CPITER CT R.A DEPOT A CITY llUITS L PUBLIC SLOG CITY HALL COURT ""OLlSE AFlUORY U<>RAFl'l' WHEELER COUNTY. OREGON us. DC.lun,,(IIT Of' 11\' ..'-""OR' ..TI\)I'I ~IDt"""'" .uG_ ...... AOOo'NlSH'AH()IIi 5l;..... fM STREET & HIGHWAY SYSTEM Map No. F-4 (Various sources of federal funding for improvement to Wheeler County roads are available through programs administered by the Oregon De- partment of Transportation. The Federal Aid to Secondary-County (FAS-C) and Safer Off-System Roads (SOS) programs are two such sources which have provided valuable funding in the past~ Of the approximately $6.3 million allocated to Oregon under the Federal Aid to Secondary-County, $3.14 million is divided among the 36 counties on the basis of rural population and road mileage. Both the FAS-C and SOS programs require a local match of 7% and 14% respectively which may limit the participation of Wheeler County depending on the availability of local monies. The major state program providing funding to local jurisdictions is the Special City Allotment Fund (SCA). This fund was initiated by the 1947 legislature and provides $250,000 annually to assist cities of less than 5,000 population. The maximum dollar amount available to any one city is $25,000 which allows ten cities per year to participate in the program. There are other programs available for safety related re- pairs and bridge replacement but requirements and fundings are more re- stricted than the above programs. (see Table F-2) In light of the limited resources,both at the local and state levels, it will be necessary to develop a strategy to maintain the existing road system and utilize it to its greatest potential. In the past the routes utilized most often by county residents; mail routes, school bus routes, and residential access streets, have received the most immediate attention. To preserve this strategy and to minimize the public investment in roads, large scale housing developments should be encouraged to locate along major or secondary roads. This will allow the expanded use of existing roads rather than creating a demand for new or improved facilities. An admtional concern for Wheeler County, as in all other rural counties, is the preservation of agricultural land for future use. In order to pre- serve the amount of land suitable for continued agricultural use and in configurations which can be farmed economically it will be necessa~ to carefully evaluate future expansions or realignments of state or local roads. Aviation Wheeler County is not served by a scheduled air carrier so all aviation activity in the county is classed as General Aviation. This category con- sists of the bulk of civil aviation activity and emcompasses everything from crop dusting in small aircraft to recreational and passenger flights. In light of the restricted access to other transportation modes it would be reasonable to expect that air transportation would be a major factor in serving Wheeler County. However, although several airstrips are scattered through out the county only one, the Mitchell Airstrip, is utilized by the public to any degree and no airstrips are presently in- cluded on the Oregon Aviation System Plan. V-36 The Mitchell Airstrip is located adjacent to State Highway 207, just northwest of town, and presently has a short, unimproved runway adjacent to a ridge. Location of this natural obstruction so close to the rum",ay surface could limit the potential of the airstrip for expanded use and federal or state funding. The Collins Airstrip, about ten miles east of Mitchell, Fossil Airstrip and an ai.rstrip near Spray are other private- ly owned airstrips which are used by the public to a lesser degree. All of the airstrips within Wheeler County are relatively unimproved and can only be used under favorable weather conditions. This factor, coupled with the relative isolation of the county in relation to emergency medical services, would indicate a need for improved air service to the area. While regular scheduled air carrier service would not be a reason- able expectation, due to the number of persons served, some activity in recreational-charter, search and rescue and emergency medical evacuation can easily be justified. In order to gain entry to the Oregon Aviation System Plan and National Airport System Plan, a preliminary step to receive state and federal funding for airport improvement, it will be necessary to designate one or more airstrips suitable for expanded service to Wheeler County. Once the site or sites have been selected and improved to minimum standards an application could be made to ~he Oregon Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Division for inclusion in the Oregon Aviation System Plan as a remote location requiring air service. The criteria used by the Aero- nautics Division takes into account the fact that in same locations the availability of many specialty items and services are limited and reliance on major and regional service centers is heavy. Wheeler county could easily qual ify for. a high priority under this criteria simply because a majority of the county is more than thirty minutes ground time from the nearest improved airport and more than two hours travel time fron a major or regional commercial center. Inclusion in the Oregon Aviation System Plan and later in the National Airport System Plan :v~uld ensure futur~ifunding for improvements to facilities which will better serve Wheeler County with necessary commercial and health services. Recreational Transportation Transportation related recreational opportunities that presently exist in Wheeler County include: the highway system, which provides oppor- tunities for sight-seeing and off-road vehtcle use as well as winter use by sno~nobiles and cross-country skiers; the aviation system, which also provides a means of sight-seeing and access to more remote sections of the area, and the Trans-America Bikeway on Highway 26 in southern Wheeler County. An Off-Road Vehicle (ORV) is defined as any motorized vehicle which is used off established roadways is designed for travel on or over natural terrain. It is often difficult to limit the use of these vehicles to designated areas due to their ability to travel in all conditions and terrain. As a recongized form of outdoor recreation ORV use has many positive benefits for Wheeler County, but the possibility also exists for damage to the environment, historical or geologica1 areas, and private property if proper controls are not exercised. V-37 \The Trans-America Bikeway was the result of nearly three years of study by the Bike Centennial, which is non-profit publicly and private- ly supported organization. The 4,800 mile route meanders over secondary roads from the Oregon Coast to the Virginia Coast. In the Bicentennial Year 1976, approximately 4,000 cyclist rode all or significant portions of the route and long distance touri~g is continuing on this trail today under the sponsorship of Bike Centennial. In Oregon both the state and local governments are committed to the development of a bikeway system for travel and recreation as demonstrated by the one percent of state gasol ine tax revenues that are di rected to\'Jard planning and construction of bikevlays and footpaths. With a national bi ke\'Jay formi ng a major eas t-wes t route across Wheeler County cons i der- ation should be given during construction or realignment of state or county roads to adding short, connecting county bikeways as a means of developing a county bikeway system. Access to Other Modes While in many cases Wheeler County is not directly served by a given transportation mode there are points of connection which are, in some instances, located within a reasonable distance. Aviation .As previously mentioned, Wheeler County does not have an airport recog- . nized by the National Airport System Plan nor is it served by a scheduled air carrier. Freight and passenger service is available through several adjacent communities by a ~'lide range of can~iers. United Airlines, a major national carrier, operates light freight and passenger facilities at the Pendleton Municipal Airport 122 miles to the north and Hughes Airwest, a major regional carrier, operates· passenger facil Hies out of the Redmond Airport 50 miles southwest and Pasco Airport 99 miles to the north. Air Oregon, a co~nunter airline carrying passengers and bank records, is based in Pendleton (122 miles north) and Hermiston (95 miles north) and lands in Redmond (50 miles southwest), Prineville (30 miles southwest) and The Dalles (80 miles northwest). The nearest general aviation airports with paved runways which are main- tained for year-round use are: V-38 Table F-3 Adjacent Airport Facilities Location Owner Elevation Max Runway Length Unicom Condon State 2,910 2,000 122.8 Madras City-County 2,434 8,825 122.8 Pri nevi 11 e Private 3,246 4,000 122.8 John Day State 3,700 4,500 122.8 Source: Wheeler Cou~, Oregon, Industrial Development Factbook, Business Economic, Inc., 1978 Of particular importance to Wheeler County is the John Day State Airport for which an airport master plan is currently being developed. The John Day Airport has potential for supporting future commuter service, search and rescue operations or emergency medical evacuation service v/hich would benefit residents of Wheeler County in addition to the residents of Grant County. By improvement of airstrips within Wheeler County to minimum standards some of these services, while being based in John Day,will be able to land in the county in an emergency situation. For this reason the John Day State Airport Master Plan, when completed, should be included, by reference, in the Wheeler County land use plan. Bus Transportation Prior to May 10, 1979 Wheeler County was served by a regularly scheduled carrier, Pacific Trailways, which had no facilities within the County but did run along Highway 26 and stop in Mitchell. On that date, the Oregon Public Utility Commission, which is responsibie for regulating inter- state bus routes, approved a request by Trailways to eliminate service between Prineville and Vale along Highway 26 and authorized once-daily round trip service from John Day to Vale via Highway 395 and Burns. Though the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) has not yet approved the request, it appears that they probably will. Loss of the daily run not on ly termi nated schedul ed passenger servi ce to Wheeler County, but also severed express package service which served as an important connection to surrounding communities. Bus express package service gives smaller towns and rural areas access to specialized ser- vices and merchandise that wou1d otherwise be available only by traveling to a metropolitan area. This service is particularly critical with items such as farm, liledical, and veterinary services and supplies which must be transported quickly. Local businessmen are able to capture trade which might otherwise be lost to businesses outside the county and resi- dents receive improved service by utilizing the express package service. V-39 There are several solutions exist for the existing lack of bus passenger and express package service to Wheeler County. A recently announced White House Rural Initiative Program has proposed legislation seeking to de- velop a means for overcoming the isolation that some rural residents now experience. The possibility exists that funding will become available in the near future for initiation of a small bus or truck shuttle system connecting with regularly scheduled Pacific Trailways service in John Day~ which is about 70 miles east of Mitchell. SJch service would help meet the passenger and express package needs of Wheeler County residents. Water Transportation Wheeler County is landlocked and, aside from limited passenger service along the John Day River in the late 1800's~ has never had direct access to barge or deepwater transportation. Access to Columbia River barge service is ob- tained through the Ports of Arlington~ The Dalles~ and Umatilla to the north~ while connections with deepvJater service must be made at the Port of Portland. Rail road With the closing of the Kinzua Corporation lumber mill in June of 1978 and abandonment of the Condon~ Kinzua and Southern Line between Condon and Kinzua~ Wheeler County was left without direct access to rail freight and passenger service. This line~ constructed in 1929~ was designated as a common carrier and transported mail and passengers to Kinzua until 1952. Connections can be made with two major rail freight carriers at railheads located within 30 miles of t·Jheeler County. Burlington Northern operates a north-south mainline which passes through Redmond where connection with the City of Prineville Railroad brings ser'/ice to within 30 miles of the west boundary of the county. Access to the Union Pacific mainline along the Columbia River can be obtained along a spurline extending from Condon~ approximately twenty miles north of Fossil ~ to Arlington. The Condon Branch was designated as being under study and potentially subject to abandonment by the Interstate Commerce Commission on April 15~ 1977. The main reason for this designation was the loss of traffic that resulted when the Condon to Kinzua portion of the line was embargoed on November 23~ 1976 due to deferred maintenance which left the line unsafe for operations. While the Condon to Arlington portion of the line will not be abandoned in the near future~ due to continued use by agricultural shippers~ such an action would jeopardize one of the few railroad access points for Wheeler County. Preservation of these adjacent railheads will be important in the future as sites where containerized freight can be transferred from train to truck for delivery to Wheeler County. At the present time this intermodal service~ kno\'Jnas trailer-on-flatcar or piggybackservice~ is available only through the Hood River and Hinkle Rail Yards. Railroad passenger service is provided by the National Railroad Passenger Corperation (Amtrak) which was created by the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970. Since 1977 a daily scheduled run has operated between Portland and Salt Lake~ with stops at The Dalles~ Hinkle and Pendleton providing access for Wheeler County residents. V-40 Truck Transportation Regularly scheduled truck service, providing shipment for goods for local producers and businesses, is an important asset for Wheeler County. As with the package express service provided by buses, previously mentioned, the truck freight system offers access to amenities that rural areas would otherwise not enjoy. The John Day Auto-Freight Company operates between John Day and Portland via U.S. Highway 26 and serves the southern portion of Wheeler County. Mid-Oregon X-Press, Inc. provides motor freight service to the entire Central Oregon Region, including Wheeler County. As mentioned in the rail- road section, truck service will provide an important connection for delivery of supplies and outbound shipment of goods as intermodal of piggyback service. Transportation Disadvantaged One group of citizens, the "transportation disadvantaged", is particularly sensitive to the level of transportation service which is available in Wheeler County. Within this broad classification is included the poor, the young, the aged and the disabled of the population who are unable or have great difficulty in utilizing the existing transportation system either through physical, financial or legal restrictions. As outlined in a publication titled: The Transportation Disadvantaged, by the Oregon Department of Transportation, the needs of these four groups vary widely. The limited financial resources of the poor not only de- crease the likelyhood that they will own a vehicle, but also reduce their access to other modes of transportation. The young have limited resources, which may force them to purchase an inadequate automobile as a means of mobility, or face legal restrictions which limit their options. The aged experience reduced sensory and physical abilities which make forms of transport, other than the automobile more. desirable for access to specialized medical services and visits to children and friends. The disabled may require modification in the design or delivery of existing transportat ion servi ces before th~y can enjoyi ncreased mobil ity. A 1972 estimate by the Oregon Department of Transportation indicated that approximately 726 persons or 39.9% of the population in Wheeler County are classed as transportation disadvantaged. It should be stressed that these are 1972 figures which do not take into account recent developments, such as the closing of Kinzua operations, in Wheeler County. It is reasonable to assume that this percentage of the population will increase in the fu- ture due to recent economic factors and the rising cost of transportation. The scattered nature of population in rural counties, such as Wheeler County, presents a special set of problems in providing an adequate level of service for the disadvantaged segment of the population. Taxi service does not exist for any Wheeler County city and bus service is limited to those residents living in the southern portion of the county, adjacent to Highway 26. An informal system of ridesharing presently exists in the County as disadvantaged or elderly residents are able to arrange rides with neighbors or relatives for doctor appointments and shopping trips. As funding becomes available, subsidizing this informal system might serve as a solution to some of the transportation problems experienced by Wheeler County residents. V-41 A 1976 survey conducted by the District 12 Area Agency on Aging (AAA) con- cluded that a need exists in the five county area, including Wheeler County, for: the provision of improved health services; escort services to grocery stores, doctors, and other necessary services; and county-wide transportation services. The agency has developed a two-fold program which addresses the provision of transportation services for a target group of low-income, elderly persons. Escort services for residents to hot meal sites in the Cities of Fossil, Mitchell, and Spray are supported by funding from AAA. Although the amount available to the program is limited and must be distributed through- out the five county area, the program does provide some measure of mobility for low-income, elderly persons in Wheeler County. The Area Agency is also involved in the Quintra Program, a system of five buses each carrying 9-13 passengers, which are proposed to serve the transportation needs of senior citizens in the five county area. One bus will be located in Wheeler County with a routing system to be organized in a manner which best addresses . the travel desires of elderly residents. Continued involvement in these programs is an important step in addressing the needs of the transporta- tion disadvantaged in Wheeler County, and the needs of segments of the population not presently served; the disabled, poor, and young, will be a consideration in the future. V-42 G. Housing The Oregon Department of Commerce, Housing Division, estimated new, non- subsidized housing demands in Wheeler County for April, 1978 through June 1980. The results are tabulated in Table G-l, giving some indication of housing price needs. It is important to emphasize that these predictions do not cover all housing needs for the county during the period - - just new, non-subsidized housing needs. Annual projected totals equal construction of two new houses and five new apartment units in the County. According to the Oregon Department of Human Resources, there were twelve building permits for all b~ilding units in 1978. Of these twelve, three were for single family units and the other nine were for mobile homes, with zero building permits for multiple family dwellings. This indication from this data is that the outlook for the Residential Construction Industry in the near future is dismal. Table G-2 is a housing survey of existing houses by cities and county-wide. Note that this survey does not include double-wide mobile homes, according to this data, close to three-quarters of the houses were valued at less than $15,000. The Oregon Department of Human Resources also notes that 450 of Wheeler County's dwellings were built before 1939. (Oregon Depart- ment of Human Resources, Social Accounting For Oregon Socio-Economic Indicators 1979 page 398). This figure is just over half of all 1978 occupied dwellings, \'/hich ranks l~heeler County third in the State. The year 1939 is used as a measure for comparing the conditions of dwellings between counties. It is assumed that dwellings built prior to 1939 have a greater chance of having structural or system deficiencies causing it to be inadequate for housing purposes. The percentage of pre-1939 dwelling units of all occupied dwellings is a general indicator of in- adequate housing. Compiled in Table G-3 are data from April 1, 1960, April 1, 1970, and April 1, 1978 of the housing inventory in Wheeler County providing tenure and vacanc~' tr'ends. Total housing inventory. even though up 6% from 1970, has fallen 17% since 1960. Almost as distressing is the continually decreasing amount of available vacant housing, either for sale or for rent. An inadequate supply of available vacant housing can be a negative factor in the location of young people from the county. either single or getting married, moving out on their own. Adequate housing is also a factor considered by prospective new industries in their decision- making process for new locations, if employment will require more labor than the existing labor-pool can provide. However. they still have to be able to house the top level management .. V-43 TABLE G-l Estimated Annual Demand For New Nonsubsidized Housing WHEELER COUNTY April - 1978 Through June - 1980 Single - Family Houses Price Class Number of Houses Percent of Total Under $40,500 1 50.0 40,000 - 44,999 1 50.0 45,000 - 49,999 a 0.0 50,000 - 54,000 a 0.0 55,000 - 59,999 a 0.0 60,000 - 64,999 a 0.0 65,000 - 69,999 a 0.0 70,000 and Over a 0.0 TOTAL 2 100.0 Multi-Family Units Gross One T~'Jo Three or More ~lonthly Rent Effi ci enci es Bedroom Bedrooms Bedrooms ---- Under $175 0 a 0 0 175 - 184 a a 0 a 185 - 194 0 a 0 a 195 - 204 0 0 0 0 205 - 214 0 a 0 0 215 - 224 0 a 0 a 225 - 234 0 0 0 a 235 - 244 0 a 0 a 245 - 254 0 a 0 0 255 - 264 0 a 0 a 265 - 274 0 0 a a 275 - 284 0 a 0 5 285 - 294 a a 0 0 295 - 304 a a 0 0 305 - 314 0 a 0 a 315 - 324 a a 0 a 325 - 334 0 a 0 a 335 - 344 0 a 0 a 345 - 354 a 0 0 0 355 and Over 0 a 0 a Total a a 0 5 SOURCE: Projected Housing Demands in Hheeler County, Oregon V-44Oregon Department of Commerce, Housing Division April 1978 NOTE: SOURCE: TABLE G-2 Housing Survey of Wheeler County by Cities, County-Wide $15,000 $15,000- $25,000- $40,000- or Less $24,999 $39,999 and UP Fossil 126 34 31 0 Hitchell 62 10 2 2 Spray 46 8 5 0 County-Wide 156 33 16 8 This does not include double-wide mobile homes County Appraisal Records 1979 V-45 TABLE G-3 Tenure And Vacancy Trends, Wheeler County Apr; 1 1, 1960 to Apr; 1 1, 1978 April 1 Apri 1 1 Apr; 1 1 1960 1970 1978 Total Housing Inventory 987 776 820 Total Occupied Units 822 650 749 Owner Occupied Units 384 335 403 Percent of Total 46.7 51.5 53.8 Renter Occupied Units 438 315 346 Percent of Total 53.3 48.5 46.2 Total Vacant 165 126 70 Available Vacant 67 59 25 For Sale 12 10 7 Sales Vacancy Rate 3.0 2.9 1.8 For Rent 55 49 18 ~.'''''''h Rental Vacancy Rate 11.2 13.5 5.0 Other Vacant Units 98 67 45 SOURCE: Projected Housing Demands in Wheeler County, Oregon Oregon Department of Commerce, Housing Division, April 1978 V-46 TlS IT 95 IT 10 S 1 12 S j" 135 f< 20 E SPRAY 1 MAYVILLE 18·J LONEROCK 19·J LOSTVALLEY 20·J FOSSIL 21 DAYVILLE 54·J MITCHELL 55 T 14S I· Map No. H·1 H. County and City Services Medical Services Wheeler County is served by one medical clinic located in Fossil. Pre- sently, a physician from Madras provides medical services each Thursday at the clinic. The clinic expects that, after July 1, 1979, a physician will reside in Fossil, providing greatly expanded medical services to the communi ty. Fossil, Mitchell, and Spray have municipally-owned ambulances. Ambulance operators have received EMT-1 certification. Individuals requiring emer- gency medical attention are usually transported to hospitals in The Dalles (Fossil area patients), John Day (Spray area patients), and Pineville (t1itchell area patients). Radio communication from all ambulances to the Sheriff's office and Fossil clinic is possible. The State of Oregon Emergency Medical Services (EMS) agency provides training and materials assistance to Wheeler County from its Pendleton office. Projects which EMS expects to help coordinate in Wheelel~ County include use of a 911 emergency phone number and use of special trousers for shock victims. Source: Fossil Clinic and State of Oregon Emergency Medical Services, Pendl eton. 1979 Mental Health Se.rvices Wheeler County residents can receive mental health services from the Mental Health Clinic that has been established in Fossil. Staffing for the clinic includes one therapist and one secretary. Operating with a $42,286 annual budget comprised of Federal, State, and County t'esources, the clinic operates three days each week. The clinic also provides funds to the schools for special instruction for the trainable mentally retarded. Source: Wheeler County Mental Health Clinic. 1979 Law Enforcement Services The Wheeler County Sheriff's Department, Fossil, employs one full-time person in law enforcement. In addition, two part-time persons are employed - - one at Mitchell and one at Spray. The City of Fossil employs a part-time marshall to provide law enforce- ment services. The Sheriff's Department provides back-up assistance for the marshall, including investigative work. Source: Wheeler County Sheriff's Department. 1979 Public Schools Each of Wheeler County's three communities provides a public school education through grade 12. Schools in the county are listed below. V-47 School Average Daily Communi ty Di s t. No. Enrollment Fossil E1 ementary 21 128.1 High School 21 67.3 Spray Elementary 1 50.3 High School 1 31.9 Mitchell E1 ementary 1 50.3 High School 1 31.9 No. Facu1 ty Members Combined 32 Combined 16 Combined 19 Source: Wheeler County School Superintendent Office. 1979 Public Library The County's only public library is located at Main and Broadway Streets in the City Hall Building, Fossil. The governing body for the library is the Fossil Library Board, and the library receives its financial support from the City of Fossil. The Library Board is presently evaluating changes .,"~"' that will improve the delivery of library services. The purpose of the library is to provide reading materials to the general public for reference and pleasure. People from other communities may, and sometimes do, borrow books. At present, the book collections are not sent to other communities but they have been at times in the past. Approximately 10 persons per week use the library. Its collection consists of 1,500 hard- cover books, 200 paperback books, a reference collection of 275 and 5 maga- zines (other magazlnes are donated). Special Collections include 9 books on Oregon, general history, health, gardening, humor and games, crafts, biographies, art and cooking. Also, there are two special historical collections. Other resources contained in the library include Oregon and local history materials, children's materials, young adult materials, senior citizen's materials and medical information for lay people. The library borroltJs materials from the Oregon State Library only. The average monthly circulation of the library is 60 and the total annual circulation is 720. Approximately 10% of the collection is weeded out annually. The annual loss of books is two or three dozen including paperbacks. In most cases, members of the general public are permitted to utilize the school libraries for materials that are not otherwise readily available. Source: The Brewster Company, ECOAC library Improvement project. 1979 Fire Protection The City of Fossil maintains a fire truck to provide fire fighting services to the community of Fossil. In addition, a specially-equipped pickup truck is available for fire protection in rural areas near Fossil. V-48 Adequate fire protection for Fossil is hampered by water system deficiencies. Undersized pipes and low level reservoirs contribute to inadequate water pressure and small flow volumes. There is an insufficient number of hydrants to provide satisfactory fire protection. The community has a poor fire rating, and fire insurance is quite expensive. In Spray, the city-o\'med fire truck is operated by volunteers to provide fire protection to city residents. Service is also provided to areas out- side of the community, but only if a home is on fire or threatened by fire. A nominal fee is charged individuals who utilize the service. Water system deficiencies that limit the effectiveness of fire protection efforts include an inadequate source and old distribution system. There are no fire hydrants in the community, although there are two locations within the distribution system where hoses can be attached to fill the storage tanks on the fire truck. Fire insurance rates are high in Spray. Mitchell's two fire trucks and volunteer fire department respond to calls for assistance in the community and surrounding rural area. There is no charge for the service. Many of the water system problems that apply to Fossil and Spray are prevalent in r~itchell. The community has applied for Federal assistance to replace some distribution lines and install additional hydrants, but has not been successful. , Source: City of Foss il, City of r'1i tchell, City of Spray, Krumbei n Engineering. 1979 County and Ci ty Pa rks Fossil and Hitchell each have city parks. Both communities have made efforts to improve the parks and park facilities over a period of time. Fossil's park is located on 1st street between the motel and county sllops. The park's tennis court is its most prominent feature. Mitchell's city park, which has a sprinkler system, lawn, and swing set, lies adjacent to Bridge Creek and across from the hotel. Additional improvements are anticipated. Spray lacks a park, but there is ample interest in developing one of two parcels of city-owned property. One of the two potential locations is located alongside State Highway 19, but the available property is probably too small to accomodate the community's needs. The other possible area is located one-eighth mile from the highway. In 1976, the U.S. Economic Development Administration provided financial assistance to Wheeler County for Construction of a 19-acre park. The park is known as Bear Hollow Park, and is located seven miles south of Fossil, adjacent to Highway 19. The park lies back from the highway about 300 feet with trees and shrubbery providing a natural barrier between the park and highway. The improved portion Of the park will accommodate overnight activities as well as day use activities. Facilities include water, outdoor restrooms, picnic areas, a play field, and a nature trail. Source: Wheeler County Planning Commission, City of Spray, City of Mitchell. 1979 V-49 Corrrnunica tions News pa pers : No newspapers are published in Wheeler County. The Condon Times-Journal is a weekly newspaper published in Condon (Gilliam County), Oregon. It is the newspaper of record for Wheeler County and is distributed county-wide. The Portland Oregonian and Oregon Journal dailies are available county- wide, and have sizable readerships. In northern Wheeler County (Fossil area), the East Oregonian daily newspaper, published in Pendleton, is available. Spray-area residents frequently subscribe to weekly newspapers from John Day, the Blue Mountain Eagle, and Heppner, the Heppner Gazette Times. Many Mitchell residents subscribe to the weekly Central Oregonian, published in Pri nev i 11 e. Radio: ,';:'k. No radio stations are located in Wheeler County. AM radio stations most frequently listened to are located in Prineville (KRCO) or The Dalies (KACI or KODL). In some areas of the county, radio reception is poor. FM radio reception can be purchased through the cable television system in Foss il . Television: In Fossil, television service is provided through Fossil Community TV, Inc. Five Portland and three Tri-Cities (Washington) channels are available through the system, which is community-owned. The seven-member Board of Directors is elected by the public. The system is financially self-supporting. No cable television service is available to Spray residents. Residents having television antennae are able to receive one Portland station and two UHF stations from Pasco, Washington. The remoteness of the community prevents high quality reception. High quality television service is available in Mitchell, where residents pay a fee to the City for benefits received from a nearby TV signal trans- lator. Those purchasing the service have antennae installed on their homes to receive the signal. Source: Wheeler County Planning Commission, Fo~sil Community TV, local elected officials. 1979 V-50 1. Cornmu nity Faci 1i ties Water - Fossil Three supply sources are presently util ized by the City of Fossil's muni- cipal water system. A fresh water spring is located four miles southeast of the city limits with a capacity of 25-35 gallons per minutes (GPM). A deep well is located in the southeast correr of the city with a capacity of 45 gallons per minute and a well drilled in July, 1978 has an estimated capacity of 250-300 gallons per minute. The most recent well was produced under an Economic Development Administration (EOA) grant, matched by the City of Fossil funds, and features automatic controls. The new equipment is the solution to a year around water supply problem experienced by the residents of the community in the past. Storage is provided by two, 150,000 gallon ground level concrete reser- voirs which feed the distribution system through steel mainlines. A storage capacity of 3~ times the average daily demand is considered ade- quate for a city in the event of a system failure. With a demand of 150 gallons per person per day, yielding a total demand of 274,000 gallons, the existing storage capacity for Fossil will be adequate for future needs (See Table I-I). The reservoirs are located to provide pressure to a majority of the resi- dences of about 50 pounds per square inch (PSI). The existing distri- bution system, with its 5" mainlines, is geared more for domestic water supply than for developing a flow rate capable of providing adequate fire protection. Elimination of dead-ends and looping the distribution system will ensure that all dwellings are within 1,000 feet of a hydrant capable of supplying 250 GPM at 30 PSI residual pressure. Fossil Water Rates: First 2,000 gallons - $6.75 (~inimum) Over 2,000 gallons - .10¢j200 gallons Water - Mitchell A diversion dam on Mill Creek, located 2~ miles southeast of the city, sup- plies water for residents of 11itchell. A four-inch steel main transports water from the source, through a sedimentation basin and chlorinator, to a concrete, 100,000 gallon reservoir located within the city limits. A water right of 2 cubic feet per second entitles the city to remove 900GPM from Mill Creek. A portion of the watershed for Mitchell is located within the Bridge Creek section of the Ochoco National Forest. The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Ochoco-Crooked River Planning Unit does not designate the area for wilderness use, but does not recognize that limitations on road building in those areas of the unit where logging is appropriate to produce desired wildl ife habitat may be necessary to protect water re- source quality. Since a primary concern of the city will be preservation of a pollution-free water supply, even though Mill Creek may be relegated to a secondary role in the future, if an altern)tive groundwater source is developed, it should be recognized that actions taken on National Forest lands will have impacts on both the quality and quantity of water available. V-51 8 8 2~ WES 1- 8(/)d' >-=U)~ 8a:~ UJ~ ~8 :>~ UJG===J U)@ SUBSTATION ~c, 'I',0: :,0 , : 'I' : : : : : : . ' : : .. , . : :'* ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ..1'~"'?tM¥$£rZli~~'"'''W4'jz;~"1ig·'\n!WJ~''U*i%C=+S''''' }1!-P' ;,lWffM9UR :r ( I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •I I I I I, rl : ".__ . i ;~Slil!'l~IQf.: ST. ----- ._-_._- -.....----····--·----9- -_._- ",'010, () I r~ I~ IMAIN "', :f I QUIMBY ST. "'ADI SON ST. ..- ..~'.../ ~~/ ,~ / (/) )( -l :I: . / :II ./ /\, 0· --.....:."r":::::------"7'>--- (/) tTl < tTl Z -l :I: nn '.., - ... -l :r '":-i ...g :II -l :J: ~ - . -l ~ ... ~ "'. 0:J: - 0. - 0 ;n 0 ... '"~ ... ~ ...II> :II -l 0 -l -l -l--l 0 0 ~ )J :D :D~ rtI rtI '" II> .. W » 1'\ 1'\ tTlg ~ ~ :-l -< --f .... --f --',/ /" /' ADAMS ST. 1 ....,- --; ~._- --,. _,- __ , JAY ST. IT] MADISON ST. "- .'"JEFFERSON ST. / / / fTl / z/ I I-- I I I I I I I E.XISTING WATER SYSTEM ~OU't( @~ l?@®~O~~(l @[g1~@@~ NOVEMBER 5 1979 I I i I, , I I I I I I I I, I . I I I I I I 1, I I I I . I I I I I I ST. \ ---~ '-n <:;; '-i ,:r Ie.. ';-i ."g :Jl -i X ;-i -i '" ... !II III o_X ...() ::D 0 ... ... "" '" ~ » '" "" '";-i ;-i -< .... .... .... '"-i X -l % I/) '" ,., < '"G> '"X Z )( -i -l -l % X ::t: ... '";-i ;-c r J JAY ST. ' _.. j II "" "" ,/:v ::0, (Tl ./ ~ ~ / ~ *ell~ 0 / ." rrllTl xx U>(J) ::'-1Zz GlCJ • I : I ~ 1 ~ ~, , I : I : ! -0 '" "0- "c/ ." /~ PROPOSED WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS N=,;;g,,1k.sL279 Map No. \·le ~I I .. • I I 1 t . ., , , _ .._.~~)I uwr:TUIY , . : 0 if'; L_JJ , I i I "t,.n ~ J! \ ~;'~ ,', "I \~ ~'. " • :' J w ~-.PUill:t- Ul WA 1tH ~)lJP~JLy .J I~ - - , . t.;~JlVI H';I(H~ D;V~'l ur" Mit 1 L!!J t .... ' -"'----," ,;. / WATER LINES SERViCE AREA LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRiCT BOUN DARY LEGEND ~~, _......7.:~.-.:·'":;·'"· ::'~." . r! .~_'... _ ...• ,,_,..-aI.'lI!-I'" """", ,.' ,.. •._, ~ C.eooe. ~~~ ... " -"';--,---1_______ i ' <', ", '--, I ',1'--... '--.. I < """4-"••.:.,':." 'I ; --- '" , '\"''-" "---_.~,."- ~ - "'~''''~ O~H"",~~ , v~~\;:>.. ' < I\:.::--" \~:'~t~f~--"l'~ ',----_ I _, --- "J " S'::1"Xlt "~: •. 'I\l'" : ,~'.~ . 111'.0 .,of'r"9 <""¢'?~rr:"'9' ' '· ... ·r"" _.~.., SOURCE: Comprehensive County-Wido Sewer and Water Planning and Engineering Study, Wheeler County, Oregon, 1971. NOTE:Please reler to the most recent U.S. Department of Housing Ilnd Urban Developll1l'nt F.I.A. Flood Hazard Mi1p (or flood prone N8~Swithin the cily limits . S'ill '1!. fj ti""'~ ""•." U.... r~ r'. \,~"I ~"l e ~~ ~- 1~ 'n~~r:1 ~ ~~;;~ Q lllo"'ml ~ ~'oJ~ ~ t r.~ ~-~~:,..~-.':.- .. .' ,.- _..... ,~:,".':---"1 .- , , _'.~.'.L'".~>.'~' ., ......' •..,', .. , "!".. 'j. . ",,!". ~."'.r:f'~-;',"'-;'."'!..""_Y.~'.:..~: ... ,:, '.I~..~,':"', !~;:;... '/ ~) .!'1 " "r f " l I i 1/ -:' ~ >'1 ~F 1'1 "~':- ....fJ ';'.~ '-"f~ ';:, '(-Ij' '"'l> H \ \\ n \" ~~~ '. <"". \,:~.';;;C\ t1 ." ,\\ i~u . C, I,~ .I.. ' '" \U~~"~, , n >,,! ; r,J _ r~Ii 0 ::~~ ;'., 'i'J ~ij·,L_",_,.__ ;; , .' . ";1/' ;,.' \. ""C'~' "....~ if './~,'~.... -.---------! 1- /. / /..- ~ ..,.,.<-'/".... I' J ~v/ .. ..;j~-.p ~:..:Z't.Il,~~~ , /.,'?, .,..: ~\. f /:-, '- ~ "";\" (.7/ .._. ~~~','_'",_ ~';~ ... __. :~ ,_.f;". " ) • ~ ~h~ U .~.y '\1 \A I //t\ \~ ..._ ! '/ 1\ .;\\ d'-v' ....'"!--,. .' II~ \ t,\ /::: <",' <-" {' •~ __ ~? _'''"~f·l \.~... Ifl __ _ _ \)~.:,; \\ '\ ~,'~ - - - - ""'........ ..,... ..:..:\ I ~.'''' .'~'~i -----:::..-.-"'"' '::::":::..>:..:.,-~;:'/// \\. \\\-- -------.---.>"C;·:.()5-~!!!..;'~'-;- ~ '.. \ II ',"",I~ "I, \\ .<:;',;<'" ',>• I ,"~';_ \,;_" ~t:AA~U~"'.:"__"..,:l~':o"....u:.li..,lj".~~.t.:l.:::"7.:",~,:,:,.~.t .....~.._~,..!:'~~.•~ ;'.':' - , ...................... <, ............4f,,.,,,,~"-... ii~] (' - :~Jr.RVIC[(1 -, . ::=:"" I "- ;0'~r I I ,I I~ f.':;'%"Y"JlJJJifJ2:<;" :~:;.m~lli12';:~;~·c:'(,:::::: .. .:z" :,:::;:~ .:~~ .:'':'';;::~,. Ei, ,,~ I A'l'"ER·, ~ ! j P n L'(' :?~ D,. ~ ~l "'ir [~1 ~ ~:':t, ~ 5"~f' ~ {t~~.. ~\}zI~! \1 V ~ ~ to '" F, ~.,..,,4,. ,'" B....... ~ Er'r;;,,, , .C· x',,' '" II ~ 1i ..ll o ' ire:::, Ci:J\\!i: 'IC-::1 '::""1[' ;:C' ,'I ," /('.,r';')I'-"I'< ;"\'1~ ~. {·Alli \,( '¢.DrP ~1;il[!l.r«,)lld[;~!)iL ,!: ,~)\)JLI\;k}' .,'U:,', N ~." WATER SUPPLY & DISTRIBUTIONSYSTEfvl ~OlFV @[P ~~~&~ (Q)~~@@[fD ~ ~,: - o tOO zoo 400 &00~~~ii;i'~aE:QSe:t:m-~A 0:448 K ....... OlE r[IU NOTE: Pt.. "se reler to to tho mo.t recent U.S. Oept. 01 Housing and Urban o.velopment F.I.A. Flood Hazard Map lor Ilood prone IIr.a. within city limits. SPR4Y ... LEGEND COUkh ••••• WATER LINES SERVICE AREA SOURCE: Comprehensive ~: ICounty-Wide Sewer and Waler _~?Ianning"nd Enqineering Study, "( Wheeler County: Oregon. 1971. ~ On February 8, 1978 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) informed the City of Mitchell that the water supplied to residents was in violation of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations due to a high level of turbidity. An application for financial assistance has been made to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in order to de- velop an alternative water supply. An existing spring, located three miles upstream from the present water intake, is proposed as a means of eliminat- ing the contamination problem in the application. The spring selected has an estimated flow of 220 GPM which will adequately supply the present needs of Mitchell estimated at 21 GPM average and 63 GPM peak, as well as the needs for many years to come (See Table I-I). Due to Mitchell's rather extensive geographical boundaries, the extension of water services to certain portions of the city could be a very expensive undertaking. As a means of ensuring that the costs of improvements will not bear an unreasonable relationship to the benefits obtained,. and so that property owners can be assessed for improvements, the City Council has adopted a Local Improvement District. Residents residing outside this Dis- trict (shown on Map 1-2) will be assessed costs for any service extensions. A copy of the resolution is contained in the Appendix of this report. Mitchell Water Rates: Water - Spray Residential $3.50/month Irrigation - Normal lots $3.50/6 months/lot Large lots $4.20/month/lot The water supply for Spray is obtained from three shallow wells drilled in the sand and alluvial soils near the John Day River. The total capacity of the three wells is estimated to be 175-240 GPM, and the quality is ac- knowledged as being good. Storage for the municipal system is provided by a concrete 38,000 gallon reservoir located adjacent to the north city limits. With an average daily demand of 27,800 gallons, yielding a total demand of 83,000 gallons, the capacity of the existing reservoir does not appear to be adequate in the event of a system failure. An expansion of storage capacity to 100,000 gallons is planned and will greatly enhance Spray's municipal system (See Table I-I). Spray Water Rates: September - May $6.50/month June - August $9.00/month Industrial rates are negotiated. TABLE I-I Municipal Water Supply Capacities and Demands Estld. Demand (Gallons/nin. ) Average Peak Fossil Mitchell Spray 38.7 20.8 19.3 116.0 62.5 57.8 Flow Demand Storage Capacity (Gallons/Day) Capacity (GPM) Average Peak (Gallons) 420-470 55,700 167,000 300,000 900 30,000 90,000 100,000 175-240 27,800 83,300 38,000 Source: Wheeler County, Oregon Industrial Development Factbook, Business Economics, Inc., 1978 V-52 Sewage Disposal - Fossil Fossil operates the only municipal sewage treatment facility in Wheeler County. The system, which was constructed in 1948, consists of concrete sewer pipe gravity collection system, lift pump station, and a treatment plant consisting of an Imhoff tank, trickling filter, and secondary clari- fier. The collection system offers coverage to all portions of the city and the lines are adequately sized to serve additional development. A review of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) records indicates that although the existing facility has the capacity to provide sewage treatment for a domestic load of 1,500 people, roughly twice the present population, it has not always provided treatment within the guidelines es- tablished in the city's waste discharge permit. Numerous violations of biochemical oxygen demand and suspended solids standards have been noted and the flow meter, a necessary instrument for measuring waste discharge amounts, has been broken for some time. Fossil has undertaken measures recently to ensure that the facility will operate more efficiently in the future. A new chlorine contact tank has been added which should address some of the DEQ concerns and violations of the biochemical oxygen demand. standards. Plants sirrdlar to Fossil's have, in the past experience of DEQ, efficiently met the sewage treatment needs of other communities for many years. It is unclear whether the problem involves the age of the facility, the manner in which it is operated and maintained, or some combination of both. A Step I Planning Grant administered by DEQ may offer a means of studying the existing system, possibly offering guidelines for improvements in op- eration and maintenance procedures, or propose an alternative system, such as lagoon treatment of wastes, if the age of the facility is a factor. Fossil Sewer Rate: $3.25/month Sewa~ Disposal - Mitchell and Spray The Cities of Mitchell and Spray do not provide municipal sewage disposal services and are dependent on individual septic tanks and disposal fields. Local soil conditions appear to be suitable for the present number of in- dividual systems, according to available engineering data, and such sys- tems adequately provide for the present needs of these communities. Storm Drainage - Fossil, Mitchell, and Spray The Cities of Wheeler County do not presently provide storm drainage systems although occasional rapid water run-off situations are experienced in the area. The development of storm drainage systems in smaller communities are often neglected due to funding limitations and the more pressing problem of providing basic \'Iater and se\'Jer services to residents. Since the retroactive installation of storm drainage in areas of the city already developed would be very expensive, the consideration of flood control measures during ex- tensive improvements to streets or prior to approval of new developments will be a positive step toward providing some storm drainage. V-53 Other Services - Fossil, Mitchell, and Spray Telephone: Fossil - Fossil Telephone Company, office located in Fossil. Mitchell - Blue Mountain Telephone Company, office located in Spray. Spray - Blue Mountain Telephone Company, office located in Spray. Electricity: Fossil - Columbia Basin Electric Cooperative, office located in Heppner. Mitchell - Columbia Power Cooperative Association, Inc., office located in Monument. Spray - Columbia Power Cooperative Association, Inc., office located in Monument. Rate schedule information is included in Chapter IV Natural Environ- ment. SectionM, Energy Resources and Utilities. Television: Fossil -)Mitchell _) Cable service providing programming originating in Spokane . Spray _) and Portland. See Chapter V, Section H. County and City Services for detailed infor- mation on television service. Solid Waste Disposal: Fossil -) Mitchell -) Service provided at municipal landfills located in each city. Spray -) See Chapter IV. Section K, Air. Water. and Land Resource Quality for detailed information on landfill sites. V-54 J. Economic Development The lack of diversification of Wheeler County's economic base may be considered a root cause of the county's population decline and high unemployment rates. As noted in Chapter V. Section A. (Resource Base and Economic History). the sawmill closures and fluctuating cattle prices of recent decades have weakened the county's economic strength. Economic Development in Wheeler County is constrained by poor transporta- tion facilities and long distances from sizable markets and sources of supply for raw materials and product components. In addition. the small size of Wheeler County's communities makes it difficult to provide the level of services that many prospective investors regard as essential. Chapter V. Section H. (Community Facilities) describes in detail the community facility deficiencies that can deter desirable economic development. Despite the difficulties inherent in attracting the kinds of investment that would create significant employment opportunities and contribute to economic diversity, there is interest in achieving economic growth. A 1978 survey of Wheeler County households (conducted by Business Econo- mics, Inc., Portland) revealed that only 17% of the respondents (approxi- mately 19.9% of all households responded) were opposed to economic growth for environmental or other reasons. Two-thirds of the negative responses were from retired people or individuals employed in farming. In the Fossil and Spray areas, in particular, there was a low incidence of negative responses. When examined in relation to the high interest expressed in more and better jobs, it appears that there is substantial support for economic development. Among alternative economic development activities, establishing manu- facturing operations holds greatest promise for alleviating high unemployment and stemming outmigration. A strong manufacturing sector can reinforce potential for growth in other sectors, including commercial/ retail, transportation, utilities, construction, and resource extraction. Wheeler County would capture a major portion of the benefits associated with location of new manufacturing. Wheeler County's small population and distance from major manufacturing and merchandising centers almost precludes its selection as a site for a large-scale manufacturing plan investment. Such a plant might seem initially appealing because of its potential dramatic imp~ct on employ- ment. Part of Wheeler County's present economic plight, however, may be attributed to over-reliance on a single"manufacturer to sustain the local economy. It is more appropriate to encourage the location of a number of small scale manufacturing operations. The impact of a single firm1s closure on the county's economy would be mitigated if other firms were stable. V-55 K. Population Projections It is important to remember that the prediction of population growth is dependent upon all economic and demographic information and that the precise determination of that growth is difficult to determine. Keeping this in mind, various projections ofvJheeler County's population for the next twenty years are presented in Table K-1. Two different, and contrasting sources of data are supplied. They are the Oregon Depart- ment of Economic Development (ODED) and the Bonneville Power Administra- tion (BPA). The ODED presents an optimistic picture of a positive growth rate while the BPA predicts a pessimistic, though perhaps more realistic, future with continually decreasing total growth. Support for BPA's prediction are the MID-1978 closure of the Kinzua Lumber Mill and the subsequent closure of smaller lumber operations, causing a further slowdown in the Economy with an uncertain outlook for replacement industry. Table K-2 and Table K-3 are projections supplied by the BPA. Table K-2 shows the projected continually decreasing percentage change in population for Wheeler County, while Table K-3 shows the component of each change. The significance of the related migration is demonstrated by Table K-3 and also by Table K-4. Table K-4, pointing out the components of population change in the State, District 12, and Wheeler County from 1970-1977, shows that Wheeler County experienced a negative net migration resulting in a decrease in total population growth of almost 17 percent. In interpreting this table, it is important to remember that the immigration figures are minimums which assume that no county residents emigrate. The actual emigration versus immigration ratio is not possible to determine but with total population growth of 71, the actual number of new County residents is somewhere bet\'/een this total figure and -12. Tabl e K-3 represents the future if the local economy can not provide jobs for the local inhabitants, thus curbing the out-flow of people from l'/heeler County. The most recent population estimates received (PSU Center for Population Research and Census, 1979) indicate that the population of Wheeler County has stabilized at 1,950. Dispite the relatively bleak economic outlook at the present time, Wheeler County's natural resource base and scenic attrac- tion can be utilized in the future to fuel very moderate expansion of the economy and population growth. As suc,h, the "low" projection by the Oregon Department of Economic Development, which best reflects the current population, has been utilized,and the following projections made for Wheeler County and its cities based on existing percentages of the total county population: est. 19781 est. 19791 19802 19852 19902 19952 20002 leel er County 1950 1950 2000 2200 ·2200 2300 2400 Fossil (33%) 635 .645 660 726 726 759 792 Mitchell (10%) 190 190 200 220 220 230 240 Spray (10%) 190 190 200 220 220 230 240 Unincorporated (47%) 935 925 940 1034 1034 1219 1272 S' :e: Population Estimates: Oregon Counties and Incorpo ra ted Ci ti es, July 1, 1979, PSU Center for Population Research and Census. Source: ECQnomic Information: Wheeler County, June 1979, Oregon Department of Economic Development. V-56 TABLE K-1 Projected Population of \·Jhee1er County 1970 - 2000 Actual* 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Wheeler County 11 1,849 2,050 1,700 1,450 1,150 1,025 900 Wheeler County £/ 1,849 High 2,100 2,300 2,500 2,700 3,000 ~1edi urn 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,500 2,600 Low 2,000 2,200 2,200 2,300 2,400 * U. S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population: 1970 General Population Cha racteri s ti cs Source 1/: U. S. Department of Energy Population, Employment and Households Pl~ojected to 2000, September 1979 Bonneville Power Administration Sourc~: Oregon Department of Economic Development Economic Information: vJheelel~ County, June 1979 V-57 TABLE K-2 Percentage Change in Population of Wheeler County 1960 - 2000 Actual * 1960-1970 -32.1 Projected 1970-1980 -8.1 Projected 1980-1990 -32.4 Projected 1990-2000 -21. 7 * Census of Population SOURCE: U. S. Department of Energy Population, Employment! Households Projected to 2000 September 1979 TABLE K-3 Population by Component of Change, Wheeler County 1970 - 2000 Na tura 1 Increase Net Mi gra tion Net Change No. % No. % No. % 1970 - 1980 75 4.1 -225 -12.2 -150 -8.1 1980 - 1990 0 0.0 -550 -32.4 -550 -32.4 1990 - 2000 -50 -4.3 -200 -17.4 -250 -21.7 SOURCE: U. S. Department of Energy Population, Employment! Households Projected to 2000 September 1979 . V-58 TABLE K-4 Components of District 12 Popul at ion Change, By Counties 1970 - 1977 Total % Pop. Growth Na tura1 Pop. Net Due to Births Dea ths Increase Change Migration Migration Gi 11 iam Co. 202 166 36 -242 -278 NA Grant Co. 839 502 337 504 167 33.1% ~10rrow Co. 566 342 224 1,085 861 79.4% Uma till a Co. 5,296 3,324 1,972 7,177 5,205 72.5% \~hee1er Co. 193 110 83 71 -12 -16.9% 240,980 146,281 94,649 304,715 District 12 Oregon 7,096 4,444 2,652 8,596 5,943 210,066 69.1% 68.9% SOURCE: Overall Economic Development Program Revision, ECOAC, Pendleton, Oregon, July 1979. V-59 LAND USE PLANNING CHAPTER VI Land Use Planning The primary purpose of land use planning in Oregon has been the pro- tection of agricultural and forest resources by directing residential, commercial and industrial uses toward existing urban centers where services either already exist or can be economically provided. Wheeler County It has been difficult in some Oregon Counties to protect agricultural and forest resources due to the numerous non-farm and non-forest uses which are already in existence outside urban areas. In this sense Wheeler County is fortunate in that very few non-resource oriented uses are located outside the Cities of Fossil, Mitchell and Spray. Given this situation it will be possible for Wheeler County to protect agricultural and forest resources simply by preserving its present rural character. As shown on the existing land uses maps, in this chapter, almost all land in Wheeler county is presently used for farming, livestock grazing, forest management or is in open space. A majority of the agricultural land is utilized for irrigated pasture or the production of cattle feed. In 1974 the average farmsize for \,jheeler County \'1a5 estimated at 8,719 acres. Of the total land area within the County 64% was managed by eighty major farms or ranches for agricultural production. As of 1977, public land ownership comprised a total of 26% of Wheeler County land. This figure includes State and National Forest land and when considered in conjunction \'/ith the percentage of land under agri- cultural production, illustrates the resource oriented economy of Whee1er County. At the present time, neither detailed soils surveys or forest productivity information are available. Such specific data would be useful not only for the classification of land for planning purposes but also to private landowners and government agencies to aid in efforts to increase pro- ductivity and protect the environment. As previously mentioned, the economy of Wheeler County is resource orient- ed and employment is tied to agricultural and forest production. Service- type employment is primarily dependent on governmental expenditures at the County, State and Federal levels. In 1978. the unincorporated areas of \~heeler County lost population while the incorporated areas had shown a slight increase over 1972 figures. Available population projections indicate that either a gradual increase or decline in population will be possible over the next twenty year period. VI-1 As shown on the existing County Zoning Map, there are presently two zones in use: the F-2 Rural General Zone and the F-3 Rural Center Zone. The F-2 Zone is intended to reserve lands for agricultural and forest use and to maintain the open and rural nature of the County. In many respects it is very similar to the Exclusive Farm Use Zone as defined in ORS 215 in its intent and the type of uses encouraged and prohibited. The F-3 Rural Center Zone is intended to provide continuation of the small rural trading center and uses appropriate for existing rural centers. Only the Kinzua, Wetmore and Service Creek areas were designat- ed for the F-3 Zone. Both Kinzua and Wetmore have been dismantled following the closure of the Kinzua Mill in 1979 and at the present time only Service Creek, with a gas station and store, is still in operation. The State of Oregon has designated the John Day River from Service Creek, downstream to its mouth at the Columbia River, as a IIS cen ic vJaterwayll. In June 1979, the U.S. Department of the Interior recommended that this segment of the river also be included in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The final study extended an offer to the State of Oregon for inclusion at any time should the governor request it. Wheeler County, in addition to many other judsdictions across the nation, have limited funding available with which to maintain county facilities and provide needed services. Development of complex land use regulations would be difficult, if not impossible, for the part-time staff currently employed by the County to administer. Allowing un-· controlled non-farm and non-forest development to occur outside exist- ing urban centers would substantially increase the need for provision of roads, school, transportation and utilities services and thus re- sult in increased taxes for county residents. Such development could also result in conflicts with existing farm and livestock raising op- erations as well as forest management practices and wildlife protection. County land use planning and development regulations are based on three Chapters of the Or2gon Revi sed Statutes (ORS): ORS 92 ORS 197 ORS 215 Subdivisions and Partitions Comprehensive Planning Coordination; Planning Districts County Planning; Zoning; Housing Codes In addition to the ORS Chapters, fourteen of the nineteen Statwide Planning Goals (SWPG) established by the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) pursuant to ORS 197 apply to vJheeler County. Of the fourteen goals, there are three of particular importance: Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Land Use Planning Agricultural Lands Forest Lands Portions of the ORS and Statewide Planning Goals which are of particular concern to Wheeler County are: VI-2 (DRS) 11215.243 Agricultural land use policy. The Legislative Assembly declares that: 1. Open land use for agricultural use is an efficient means of con- serving natural resources that constitute an important physical, social, aesthetic and economic asset to all of the people of this state, whether living in rural. urban or metropolitan areas of the state. 2. The preservation of a maximum amount of the limited supply of agri- cultural land is necessary to the conservation of the state's economic resources and the preservation of such land in large blocks is necessary in maintaining the agricultural economy of the state and for the assurance of adequate, healthful and nutritious food for the people of this state and nation. 3. Expansion of urban development into rural areas is a matter of public concern because of the unnecessary increases in costs of communi ty servi ces. confl i cts between farm and urban acti viti es and the loss of open space and natural beauty around urban centers occurr- ing as the result of such expansion. 4. Exclusive farm use zoning as provided by law, substantially 1il1lits alternatives to the use of rural land and, with the importance of rural lands to the public. justifies incentives and privileges offered to encourage owners of rural lands to hold such lands in exclusive farm use zones." Statewide Planning Goal #3. Agricultural Lands IIGoal: To preserve and maintain agricultural lands. Agricultural lands shall be preserved and maintained for farm use, con- sistent with existing and future needs for agricultural products, forest and open ~~ace. These lands shall be inventoried and preserved by adopting exclusive farm use zones pursuant to ORS Chapter 215. Such minimum lot sizes as are utilized for any farm use zones shall be ap- propriate for the continuation of the existing commercial agricultural enterprise within the area. Conversion of rural agricultural land to urbanizable land shall be based upon consideration of the following factors: (1) environmental. energy. social and economic consequences; (2) demonstrated need c8nsistent \'Jith LCDC goals; (3) unavailability of an alternative suitable location for the requested use; (4) compat- i bil ity of the proposed use \'/ith related agri cultura1 1and; and (5) the retention of Class I. II. III, and IV soils (also V and VI in eastern Oregon) in farm USE:. A governing body proposing to convert rural agd- cultural land to urbanizable land shall follow the procedures and requirements set forth in the Land Use Planning Goal (Goal 2) for goal exceptions. II Statewide Planning Goal #4. Forest Lands VI-3 "GOAL: To conserve forest lands for forest uses. Forest land shall be retained for the production of wood fiber and other forest uses. Lands suitable for forest uses shall be inventoried and designated as forest lands. Existing forest land uses shall be pro- tected unless proposed changes are in conformance with the comprehensive plan. In the proces of designating forest lands, comprehensive plans shall in- clude the determination and mapping of forest site classes according to the United States Forest Service manual "Field Instruction for Integrated Forest Survey and Timber Managment Inventories - Oregon, Washington, and California, 1974." Statewide Planning Goal #2 ... IIPART II - EXCEPTIONS: When, during the application of the statewide goals to plans~ it appears that it is not possible to apply the appropriate goal to specific properties or situations, then each proposed exception to a goal shall be set forth during the plan preparation phases and also specifically noted inthe notices of public hearing. The notices of hearing shall summarize the issues in an understandable and meaningful manner. a. Why these other uses should be provided for; b. What alternative locations within the area could be used for the purposed uses; c. What are the long term environmental, economic, social and energy consequences to the locality, the region or the state from not applying the goal or permitting the alternative use; d. A finding that the proposed uses will be compatible with other adjacent uses." Exclusive Farm Use Zoning ORS 215.203 Farm uses include: Crops, livestock, poultry, fur bearing animals, honey bees, and dairying; Preparation, storage and marketing of products raised on farm land; Soilbank or land lying fallow for one year; Orchards or other perennials prior to maturity; Woodlot less than 20 acres contiguous to land in farm use; and Cultured Christmas trees. ORS 215.213(1) Non-farm uses permitted outright include: a. Public or private schools. VI-4 b. Churches. c. The propagation or harvesting of a forest product. d. Utility facilities necessary for public service, except commercial facilities for the purpose of generating power for public use by sale. e. The dwelling and other buildings customarily provided in con- junction with farm use. f. Operations for the exploration of geothermal resources as defined by ORS 522.005. g. A site for the disposal of solid waste that has been ordered to be established by the Environmental Quality Commission together with equipment, facilities, or buildings necessary for its operation. ORS 215.213(2) Non-farm uses allowed as conditional uses include: a. Commercial activities that are in conjunction with farm use. b. Operations conducted for the mining and processing of geothermal resources as defined by ORS 522.005 or exploration, mining and processing of aggregate and other mineral resources or other subsurface resources. . c. Private parks, playgrounds, hunting, and fishing preserves and campgrounds. d. Parks, playgrounds or community centers owned and operated by a governmental agency or a non-profit community organization. e. Golf courses. f. Commercial utility facilit.ies for the purpose of generating povJer for public use by sale. g. Personal use airports for airplanes and helicopter pads, including associ ated hangar, rnai ntenance, and 'servi ce facil ities. h. Home occupations carried on by the resident as an accessory use within their dwelling or other buildings customarily provided . in conjunction with farm use. i. A temporary (one-year, renewable) facility for the primary process- ing of forest products. j. The boarding of horses for profit. k. A site for thE disposal of solid waste approved by the governing body of a city or county or both and for which a permit has been granted under ORS 459.245 by the Department of Environmental Quality together with equipment, facilities or buildings necessary for its operation. ORS 215.213(3) Non-fann dwellings: VI-5 "Single-family residential dwellings, not provided in conjunction with farm use, may be established, subject to approval of the governing body or its designate in any area zoned for exclusive farm use upon a finding that each such proposed dwelling. a. Is compatible with farm uses described in subsection (2) of ORS 215.203 and is consistent with the intent and purposes set forth in ORS 215.243; and b. Does not interefere seriously with accepted farming practices, as defined in paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of ORS 215.203, on adjacent lands devoted to farm use; and c. Does not materially alter the stability of the overall land use pattern of the area; and d. Is situated upon generally unsuftable land for the production of farm crops and livestock, considering the terrain, adverse soil or land conditions, drainage, and flooding, vegetation, location, and size of the tract; and e. Complies with such other conditions as the governing body or its des i gnate cons i ders necessa I~Y. II Partitions and Subdivisions ORS 92.012. "No land may be subdivided or partitioned except in accordance \'Jith ORS 92.010 to 92.160. II ORS 92.010 "2. "fvlajor partition" means a partition \'/hich includes the creation of a road or street ... 4. "Hinor partition" means a partition that is subject to approval by a city or county under a regulat·ion or ordir.:::nce adopted pursuant to ORS 92.046 and that does not include the creation of a road or street ... 8. "Partitioned land" means to divide an area or tract of land into two or three parcels within a calendar year when such area or tract of land exists as a unit or contig~us units of land under a single owner- ship at the beginning of such year ... 12. "Subdivide land" means to divide an area or tract of land into four or more lots within a calendar year when such area or tract of land exists as a unit or contiguous units of land under a single owner- ship at the beginning of such year. 13. "Subdivision" means either an act of sUbdividing land or an area or a tract of land subdivided as defined in this section." ORS 92.044 "1. The governing body of a county or a city shall, by regulation or ordinance, adopt standards and procedures, in addition to those other- wise pY'ovided by law, governing, in the area over \.,rhich the county or the city has jurisdiction under ORS 92.042, the submission and approval VI..6 of tentative plans and plats of subdivisions and governing the submission and approval of tentative plans and maps of major partitions." DRS 92.046 "I. The governing body of a county or a city may, as provided in ORS 92.048, when reasonably necessary to accomplish the orderly de- velopment of the land v/ithin the jurisdiction of such county or city under ORS 92.042 and to promote the public health, safety, and general "'/elfare of the county or city, adopt regulations or ordinances requiring approval, by the county or city of proposed partitions not otherwise subject to approval under a regulation or ordinance adopted pursuant to DRS 92.044 ... 11 DRS 215.263 111. Any proposed division of land included within an exclusive farm use zone resulting in the creation of one or more parcels of land of ten or more acres in size may be reviewed and approved or disap- proved by the governing body of the county in which such land is situated. The governing body of a county by ordinance or regula- tion ~ay require such prior review and approval for such divisions of land within exclusive farm use zones established within the County. 2. Any proposed division of land included within an exclusive farm use zone resulting in the creation of one or more parcels of land of less than ten acres in size shall be reviewed and approved or dis- approved by the governing body of the county within which such land is situated. 3. If the governing body of a county initiates a review as provided in subsection 1 or 2 of this section, it shall not approve any pro- posed division of land unless it finds that the proposed division of land is in conformity with the legislative intent set forth in DRS 215.243 ... 11 The following recommendations are based on the proceeding discussion of Wheeler County and statutory requirements of the ORS and Statewide Planning Goals. The conclusions will form the framework for land use planning and development regulations for ~Jheeler County. The importance of preserving agricultural land and the development of exclusive farm use (EFU) zones to accomplish this task are outlined under ORS 215.243 (Agricultural Land Use Policy) and ORS 215.203(1) (Adoption of Zoning Ordinances Establishing Farm Use Zones). Wheeler County is required to designate agricultural and forest land to ensure their future protection under Statewide Planning Goal.s 2 (Land Use), 3 (Agri- cultural Lands) and 4 (Forest Lands). Exceptions to Goals 3 and 4 are allowed by Goal 2 (Part II) if they can be supported by IIcompelling reasons and facts. 1I No exceptions to the agricultural or forest goals can be justified at this time. VI-7 Therefore, all land in Wheeler County outside city limits of Fossil, Mitchell, and Spray should be designated as farm, grazing, forest, and open space on the comprehensive plan map and as exclusive farm use on the zoning map to protect the County's resource-based economy pending more detailed information. Only at such time as site specific detailed information is available and a clear need for allowing other land uses can be demonstrated, based on the data, should amendment of the plan be considered. An example of clear need would be the designation of heavy industrial use on appropriate land outside a city when such use could not be located within the city due to potential conflicts with adjacent urban uses from noise, dust, danger of explosion, and similar hazards. Additional information concerning forest land productivity is being developed by the Oregon Department of Foresty. Pending inclusion of this information in the Comprehensive Plan, the boundary of the East Central Oregon Fire District will be used to delineate forest areas within the county. Within the Fire District, a 40 acre minimum lot size should be observed to preserve land valued for the production of timber and provision of wildlife habitat. When detailed information concerning soils and forest site classes does become available, Wheeler County should consider updating the compre- hensive and development ordinances as needed to tailor land use regu- lations to the different emphasis required for farm, grazing, forest, or open space land uses. Land located along the John Day River downstream from Service Creek for 1/4 mile on each side should be considered for designation as Permanent Open Space (POS). Standards necessary for locating the Pel'manent Open Space boundary in the varying land forms found along the John Day River will be necessary prior to any expansion of the zone. Such zoning would not allow construction of building but would allow continued use of the land for farming and grazing. Permanent Open Space land is eligible for special tax treatment under ORS 308 (Assess- ment of Property for Taxation) if an application has been filed by the owner with the County Assessor. The Permanent Open Space designation would serve to protect the fish and wildlife, maintain the scenic quality of the area and reinforce state efforts to preserve the John Day River. The zone would also accomplish those protection goals recommended by the U. S. Department of Interior but would allow administration at the local level, reducing federal involvement. At present, this area is protected by the Oregon Scenic Rivers Act, but in the future, additonal protection, originating at the local government level, may be desired. All those land uses listed under ORS 215.Z03 (Adoption of Zoning Ordi- nances Establishing Farm Use Zones) and 215.213(1) (Non-farm Uses Per- mitted Within Farm Use Zones) should be allowed as outright permitted uses anywhere within the county. Schools and churches, \~hile permitted, VI-8 should be encouraged to locate within urban centers to take advantage of existing or readily available community set'vices. A farm dwelling should be defined as either a conventional home, mobile home, or modular home as well as group quarters for agriculturally re- lated employees, such as a bunkhouse". Construction of a new farm dV/ell- ing should be allowed when the occupants of the dwelling earn a portion of their household income from farming, ranching, or forestry on the same land or on contiguous land under the same ownership. The occupant should be defined as the owner or an employee and the families thereof. Non-farm dwellings should be allol-/ed within the county provided that findings of fact and conclusions of law can be developed which demon- strate conformance with the requirements of ORS 215.213(3) (Non-Farm Uses Permitted Within Farm Use Zones) and that a conditional use permit is obtained. The public review requirement is intended to ensure that necessary services can be provided at reasonable cost, the public health safety and welfare are protected, the rural character of Wheeler County is maintained, and conflicts with adjacent land uses and wildlife are minimized. All conditional uses listed in ORS 215.213(2) (Non-Farm Uses Permitted Within Farm Use Zones) should be allowed within the county provided that findings of fact and conclusions of law can be developed which demonstrate that the following standards are or will be met by the proposed use. In some instances it may be necessary to impose con- ditions or approval to ensure compliance. 1. The proposed use will not seriously ir.terfere with adjacent farm, ranch, or forest practices; and, 2. There will be no significant adverse impact from the use on fish and l'Jildlife nor will the public health, safety, or welfare be threatened; and 3. If the proposed use requires water, sewage disposal> all weather road access, electric, phone, or other utility service that such facilities or services are already available or can reasonably be provided to the site. Prior to the issuance of a building permit by the Oregon Department of Commerce, a review by Wheeler County should be required. Such revie\'/s are conducted to determine if the proposed use is allm'/ed outright of if not allowed outright that a conditional use has been approved by the county. In addition, all applicable development re- quirements and conditions that have been or should be met prior to issuance of a building permit should be noted. VI-9 Property owners within the County located in the exclusive farm use zone should not be allowed to subdivide land, as defined by ORS 92.010(2) (Definitions), unless each lot created will be equal to or greater than 160 acres in size. The partitioning of land, as defined by ORS 92.010(8) (Definitions) should be allowed on land zoned exclusive farm use within the County if: 1. Each lot created will be equal to or greater than 40 acres in size within the East Central Oregon Fire District; 10 acres or greater elsewere in the county, or 2. Each lot if less than 40 acres in size within the East Central Oregon Fire District; 10 acres in size elsewhere in the county, can and is intended to be used for a use permitted outright in the EFU Zone, or (Note: This does not include a non-farm dwelling, refer to #3 below in such instances) 3. A conditional use has been approved by the County Court, as per the requirements of ORS 215.213(2,3), prior to the consideration of the partitioning request .. ' In instances where a major partition, as defined by DRS 92.010(2) (Definitions), is proposed Wheeler County should require direct access to a private road rather than a public road unless circumstances neces- sitate public access. Such a requirement will shift the burden of main- taining nevI roads to the property owner(s) involved and allm'1s the use of severely 1imited County funds for the maintenance and improvement of existing public roads. As a means of preserving the rural character of the County the vacation of existing smaller lots to create larger parcels of land should be encouraged. These subdivision and partition standards are intended to protect exist- ing farm, ranch and forest uses while allowing property owners flex- i bil ity in the use of thei r 1and '.'/i thi n the excl us i ve farm use zone. An attempt has been made to balance what is allowed under DRS 215.263 (Review of Land Divisions in Exclusive Farm Use Zones) with the intent of State- wide Planning Goals 3 (Agricultural lands) and 4 (Forest Lands). Cities of Fossil, Mitchell, and Spray As mentioned earlier in this Chapter, available population projections indicate that either a gradual increase or decrease in the population for Wheeler CountY,as a whole,is likely during the next twenty years. VI-lO Since 1972 the Cities of Fossil, Mitchell and Spray have experienced a slight increase in population while the unincorporated portions of the County experienced a slight decline. As a means of preserving the resource oriented economy of the County and to protect its present rural nature, all residential, commercial and industrial development proposed should be located within the Cities of Fossil, Mitchell, and Spray whenever feasible. Land use planning and development regulations for cities in Wheeler County are based primarily on three chapters of the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS): ORS 92 ORS 197 ORS 227 Subdivisions and Partitions Comprehensive Planning Coordination; Planning Districts City Planning and Zoning In addition to the ORS Chapters, twelve of the nineteen Statewide Plan- ning Goals (SWPG) apply to the Cities of Fossil, Mitchell, and Spray: Goal 1 Citizen Involvment Goal 2 Land Use Planning Goal 5 Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources Goal 6 Air, Water, and Land Resource Quality Goal 7 Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards Goal 8 Recreational Needs Goal 9 Economy of the State Goal 10 Housing Goal 11 Public Facilities and Services Goal 12 Transportation Goal 13 Energy Conservation Goal 14 Urbanization Comprehensive plans and development ordinances have been prepared for each of the Cities in Wheeler County. These documents are designed to meet state requirements~ as embodied in the ORS and Statewide Planning Goals, and to accommodate the development needs and capabilities of each city. An urban growth area joint management agreemeht has been dGveloped for use by the City of Spray and Wheeler County as a means of coordinating land use regulations for those areas outside the city limits but within the urban growth boundary. City of Fossil As shown on the existing land use map, in this chapter, the ~ajor land uses within Fossil are: residential, commercial, industrial, farm and public or semi-public. Since much of the land \lJithin the City is vacant and suitable for development the urban grow~h bo~ndary should follow the VI-ll existing city limits. Most of the land presently used as pasture should be designated for farm use until such time as it is needed for urban development. Only existing public or semi-public land uses should be recognized on the plan map except in such instances where potential water tank sites have been identified. Two areas should be designated on the plan map for commercial de- velopment. The first area encompasses the existing downtown area bounded by a triangle formed by the County Courthouse, High School and County Fairgrounds. The second area includes that land located at the junction of Broadway and First Street near the John Day Highway, in- cluding the site of the Fossil Motel. As a means of avoiding the traffic problems and unsightliness of strip -coJT1111ercial development while reinforcing the viability of the two existing commercial areas, land along the John Day Highway should not be designated for commercial use. Three potential areas exist for designation on the plan map for industrial land use: an area southeast of the sewage treatment facility and areas to the north and south of the John Day Highway at the east end of town. The land located on the north side of the John Day H"ighway at the east end of town is the most suitable due to the fact that it is the least visible of the three sites from the rest of the community, is not sub- ject to flooding, sewer and water service can be provided, is relatively level and offers good access to the highway. For those reasons the site north of the John Day Highway should be designated for industrial use. In addition to land already in residential use, four areas which all offer sewer and water service, as well as, adequate access, should be designated for future residential development: 1. North of Broadway and west of the High School up to the top of the ri dge; 2. North of "0" Street and east of the High School to the city limits; 3. South of First Street, east of the County Fairgrounds and north of the proposed industrial site; and 4. North of the highvJay, south of the County Fairgrounds end west of proposed industrial site. All types of housing should be allowed in designated residential areas as outright permitted uses while mobile home parks should be treated as a conditional use. VI-12 City of Mitchell As shown on the existing land use map, in this chapter, the major land uses within Mitchell are: residential, commercial, farm, public and semi-public. The topography of the surrounding area is rugged with the northern half of the City encompassing a mountain which is unsuitable for any type of development. This area should be designated a permanent open space and left outside the urban growth boundary. The remainder of the existing city limits line should be included within the urban growth boundary. The area east of downtown Mitchell and south of Ochoco Highway at the bottom of the canyon should also be designated as a permanent open space. This area is s'Jbject tDflooding, contains tvlO ponds and is generally un- suitable for development. Unfortunately there is no land within Mitchell which is suitable for in- dustrial development. The primary impediment to development is the lack of truck access from the Ochoco Highway to those vacant lands located on the south side above the bluff. Those lands adjacent to the Ochoco Highway and Main Street, as indicated in the plan map, should be designated for commerci.al use based on existing land use. Those areas presently in residential land use within Mitchell should be designated as such on the plan map. All other land should be designated as farm until such time as it is required for residential development. The a rea south of the Ochoco Highvlay along the South bank of Bridge Creek should be designated as Open Space to allow free movement of flood \vaters and to protect pt'operty and buildings in other portions of the City from backed up flood waters. The area south of the city reservoir is a hillside which slopes tmvard the reservoir. Const~uction of housing or other structures in this area could result in contamination by runnoff and infiltration from septic tanks. To protect the reservoir for future use this area should be designated as Open Space. City of Spray As shown on the existing land use map, in this chapter, the major land uses within Spray are: residential, cownercial, industrial and farm. Three small areas outside the existing city limits line should be included within the urban growth boundary. Inclusion of these sites would allow the property owners to annex their land to the City and obtain city services without necessitating a comprehensive plan amendment. In- clusion within the urban growth boundary would also resolve the problem which would be experienced by six lots northwest of the City which are presently split by the city limits and would be subject to two sets of development regulations (City and County) othenlise. The large parcel of land located at the south end of town, adjacent to the John Day River should be designated industrial. This area is the former site of a mill and has been filled in, over a period of many years. Due to the land fill, cons~deration should be given to the hazards posed by shifting soil or flooding prior to any development on the site. VI-13 That land adjacent to Willow Street and Main Street should be designated for commercial and residential development as shown on the plan map. All other land v/ithin the urban growth boundary should be reserved for future residential development. VI-14 Affected Governmental Units Statewide Planning Goal No.2, Land Use Planning, states that: "City, county, state and federal agency and special district plans and actions related,to land use shall be consistent with the comprehensive plans of cities and counties ... Each plan and related implementation measure shall be coordinated with the plans of affected governmental units ... Opportunities shall be provided for review and comment by citizens and affected governmental units during preparation, review, and revision of plans and implementation ordinances .,. Affected Governmental Units - are those local governments, state, and federal agencies and special districts which have programs, land ownership, or responsibilities within the area included in the plan II The following are definitely affected governmental units and have been forwarded a copy of the appropriate document for their review and corrment: United States Forest Service - Ochoco and Umatilla National Forests United Sta tes Department of the Interior - Bureau of Land Management United States Department of the Interior - National Park Service United States Soil Conservation Service Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Oregon Department of Forestry Oregon Department of Transportation (Highway and Parks Divisions) Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development Wheeler County School Superintendent's office Hheeler County Soil and \~ater Conservation District The following may be affected governmental units and have been notified by letter of the opportunity to participate in the review process: United States Department of Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service United States Department of Energy - Bonneville Power Administration Federal Emergency Management Agency, Insurance and Mitigation Division (Flood Insurance Program) . United States Farmer's Home AdministratioD Oregon Department of Commerce, State Housing Division VI-IS Oregon Department of Economic Development Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Resources Oregon Division of State Lands Oregon Department of Revenue Oregon Department of Water Resources An effort has been made to contact other state and federal agencies which potentially are affected governmental units because they have programs which include Wheeler County and the Cities of Fossil, Mitchell, and Spray. The comnents received from County citizens, state and federal agencies, and LCDC staff are included in the appendix of this report. VI-16 ·01:1) I~ lliI COUMTY ----- --,..- I 1"0 -:12,I 004 ' I r : t I . ,(') O{i! G . I~ .:: I "' ....I· e fi· t;:· ~; KINZUA F·3 RURAL CENTER F·2 FARM LEGEND E){ISTING COUNTY ZONIi\JG WOO~~~~~ ©@~~~~ @~~@@~ I I I I I I___ ~1IftIlIIl ...._~__-.»_.... ...... 8"!'::)~__ • CROOK COU't1 TV I E I Il.. , I MILlS I Ll.__l.-L~_ ....a IESi!~e¥,. -I 01234~ >0. .1$ I KILOIHTI.U I I ; p.~ l...-..-....-_-_-__-.-m-Ifirii-.-iS-~-~~~~'leJa1»,-='~ 'I /~~~;/I/ \:~\.~~..;. /NO~TH"~~t~! l-.,,-:;;./,! ~1 I::, /~""'" (. -J;,,,/ '~.. ' /=1 . '\ r;- .., - .. ~/. fTC: ~ ". -~":.. _.,. /Y t . ! .. , :-, \ - ,,, - -,c. '1 j t j,l-,.,. /,C.'" '''.''<",p' (/'" I ' ... - ' - j i f,_L ~ .. ;-f ,,, t '" 4I t ~~)' /"/,/;' /J'-I;:;..-....,/~rf-''4.-f,.,l ( --- ; {t t t' '( t '-,'1 't:/Y. J';;;~~'L .<'. ~ . 1"";... -~, . v'. 'if <. r " ,", /. 'f' ,. ,.. 'f' " """ \ ...,~~. . . 'i ...... " , "I " ,,-, - .. ' ,t T'I T '\"' ' , '~~/'''' .'if" * .. r" t) i,'< y' " '{' oJ, ~,'~ -L 1'_" •if. 1 t .. t •. , _~., l' f .. ~- ,_ J1--';-,~L.-*-¥.....?{4.,j! ~ L"./'f:-.-->f--1.'P,-'i'-4 -t~.1\\1 -- --- I 4, t f v t tV t~ \i If t t t t ' ~ I~y t t ·tl t t i'l ) 1. t1' t t"- ;"""" .I....\ t t ~ tr "'\1 t i1 Y "if t 1 (,\ II \'/./[1:01" ~' /11./ to( -/ / -. "-L\'~ IIU~\ v i' ~< ~ t y t n- ! 4 ' !'- -~ Y ~.._~.'t_ :f t ' \~}.,"' :0~ tt:F~;::,. '1,'. . .~~. ~~.I I ~;-\. '/7-. '{ '; tl y v~ ~~~:,~: _ I !~, r~dt:-,/, . 'i' t, t} 1jt.-J/ f. r)i'.: G't, . i ,,'\ "'..,'~,~.{~\!. " r "( '[ 'I t "'c:....-..../ ~ -'....:. .... , F~~.." _.x, . "-I. 't ~ l....~ 1', ,. 0ZkdSP% <"tl\~«\'r ~t;i\<\ '\ "i:~6L/i1, tjt vt, 't'~:~: :~,~~:... >J;::8i;~J2~~i {( t 1 . t ' f-T;t t ~ ; .1'¥ t I ~ rt-r-;l;tt7~Tt~;y\~y~w---i-------------t--~~, I t. r y t t. Ii' . f f, Til. '. '. tr , r IT .., f, I. I ~J,rT 1 1 T t t t ,~ f 1 1 1 r f f t 1 ~ r f r f ~. f t • , t t r t,t ttl" ,1 t,V,Tt. t l , '. rl\'It/t'v\\'f~ft'/tttrf1//,.rt\'v///.. t ~ , [i ILt t T 'WI... L_L·, .. -L-L-l-L"l--~j-.~.. T---+__A -----\ ---- . f f. t ,f ., r t t t 1 11 f t t'----lLSSO,:j;:~N . t t r f T f t. r t t~, f t t f ~ ~'A.::: :; ~- 1 I L~ 0,0_ __ _ _ II' .::.1 ," o m "..... ~ .... N ... .. :II .. . o , . I , I I I 'I I I '. ----------------------+-, 'I lr=:J.....-.....l....:--ltq;;:.:@·;~igK~1.i;wB·r;:' "•• Q FAIR GROUNDS -'0· :. '~.,: : .". , .....rw.......... ...,,..~~-~-~--+-''r-.:-i-'-_"',;~~~__.,____._-__._-_.__-.,.-,.__,rl church city hall post office potential water tank site ~ INDUSTRIAL ______________1 - *-"" LEGEND CITY LIMITS & URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY ~ RESIDENTIAL ~ COMMERCIAL ~ FARM ," .IL .II .. .It. Jo. lr. l.Ii~------------------------------------------~--~- __------~I- PUBLIC & SEMI-PUBLIC ~.::. "04':~d. .' 1 , J / / / ",",-,,"~_,':;'.~,':"_h: ' h .~:_h;:- .::. h ~ h h , ' , h h h h h , ' h ' , ' , ' h ' , ' , ' .. h ~ ' , h h ' , ' h ' h h : ' : h t h : " : ' : " : ' : ' t ' t i. ll. Il. 11 ... Ii .II. .II. J& .... .... i.l ... .IL iI. • • h ,h , ~ * , h t t ' t,'.' " w ~ LEGEND RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL PUBLIC & SEMI-PUBLIC t~·, 'J church °r£O. post office CITY LIMITS URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY SOURCE: E, C,O,A,C" survey, spring, 1979 t ' I I .1 o FARM ~ 'f 'r 3'1'CtWET'ERY ',<-,--'"=----'-=,-II 6 ' d' • '1:-G ..LI&J.i i.l\; 11 "Il.(", 10. o 1M.. .. .11["1 ,It T o eo 100 400 ~ • _ i:iiiiiiiiil .It. {Il. ,( '( , .~~ • II. /' ,/ .....-- __J_____ .lt.- ..•. ;. ik :. . , ····r ~ I' ~:,:-,'"I:r.':"~""fI1 . , . . . , , , "NOTE: Please refer 10 the most recent • U.S. Departmont ~f Housing and Urban Development F.LA Flood Hazard Map lor flood prone MOilS Wllflln t,he Sily !imi!s: ~ It lJ" J.L .. J.r. J.r. 11 '" 'T T -;--~~-c---c--_. ... _ ... J " *"1' , •'hi· * h h hi , f • /h I h I • , , i.lo. i.l 1.1; 1, i••••• ~ • :..fl.....!-.!.....!..... re • • • • •GUNTE"R ......... I: JI. i' IJ\L Il. t..COVI~GTOND: ST. j " -' --~:-:::::::: I&~~':" 11 b-~ 10 ........ 10 .to. 1& '" 1& 1& i.l .lI. .. 1& .. l&"~':.t ll. 10 J.r. ... Il. l.l .lI. i.l _4 1_ill~......I!....-.L JL.~_ .• ..Ii..- ..... ..II.. .....JI. J.. ... .Io.....--..Jo...._~_....Ji..... It "If ~ '1,~t.....:.r. " : '\1\JJ i.l i.l i.l 10 i.l u w 1& \\ ll. Il. i.l t I, • , , , , , , , , '1\' 1 1 \ ",., ,., '\, " 1\" 10 ll. j, 1& 1& 10 lo i.l '\ II. II. ~ \' Il.. 10 II. ll. ll. .. .. lo' If i.l /~...... ~ " ;:......... 10 10 ll. 10 10 i.l i.l.. \, lo. j J ll. ...... , 5 10 ...... ..:::: -:::::1> _ .. _ i.l ll. II. i.l .. II i.l .lI.\~_11../ I i.l ll.'\\ J ll. ll. - __ ~- _'",- II. .. II. .lI. lo '" II. L: 7/J.l. .II. JL ~Il. ----;;:--=:...'"":::..-=:._:.... .. 11. ... .10.,/.1. lI. II 1I.\\1l. '-;-_~_~_i.l _"'//'.( i.l .lI. i.l .,\ h ,,,----_ .... , '" ,\ ,I , ," ',~, '\ \ ~\" \ I ','_1/ _/' EXISTING LAND USE ©ou~ @[? [lA]Du©[X]~[l[lo @~~@@~ ~ i r--~ i 10, ~ .' :-1 ;' ~1 ,j t SfR ~ )j_,_ __ VICf J _..~_ -:---=--BJ CIT", .....,~~ "'" _: ~" "1- . ~'" '\. .It. ••• ')1''',. Il. •• 0. oJ I>. ~ . -~ • \\ t 00 ~~:~.~i\~~t~t'~ ~ ~" .;-i~;' ,";;""" • - \'~:(J. , .' ,, , J 1 ,I I ' , .. !.... } I" , i , I: "I, ~ l • 1 , , " " , ,i' ~ l. 11 '" .. ." .. • • • • • 0 ,r-- •............r,"r.· /:<' ST. 11/·'..tn . . to ••'" ft, __" 'Cvc~:: -- , _Jl_ DAY E ©[~ \ ' , " ROAD \1 t ItIii ffi t~t W~ i ... { . i" " '·0', k% / " . COUNTy \~ \ " ~ ", '-01' ,,;:-----:---, , It. .L. I< .. .. I lo I> J. k ~ 11 .. 1& LL) ~, , , 1 , ~ ' 1" ,- v '\;~-.;:~~-I.-:-l;--~~_tr__l. k ~,'~':~A\\: ". 1J '- 11 . :..:2-\---la..-_~. . (f\ \ JJ, .lL -1' \. " I " '/' • lo '" 111 - "'--.,/ "\ HIGH....4 r,/~-e--II. 11..' 10 11 'J .11__ ... - r~ J I I, , I ' >I I J I I, , I' 4 , I { ~ \ '1,£ f .-; •• ,\, ~:~!e :-;-:: '\ 10. k k I>. l.l k .II : LL ;,. . .•. f \I.J '" !l. 11 J. .. i.l 1<1 J< •• l.: •••• \\ l.l 10 .IL 10. l.l .lI.. 11 I .II. • • • • ~f. • e 0 " , , , , , "'_ ,:.[,._!'~~-;~,~,~~7 ..7.~~~,a~~~~'~.:T:.~. ~,./ .:= : :: pW''\'l '" l.l .II. ... I.< .. 11 l.l "" II. .II •• l>. 10 l.l 10 .. 10 II .. e • __ '" --"-----..----..----..-----~ 11 II klIr~ \ I \ " \ \. CO....ERCIAL RESIDENTIAL PO~T OFFICE FIR. HALL CH\'RCH FARM OPEN SPACE \. \" ~\ "\ \ JOHN D4r INOUSTRIAL PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY w ~ ~ .',> "\ - CITY LIMITS " " " " " : .. ...IL..._---JL...-..-. I1 ..---:-- [J,,:.'p'Q:. FH' o "" .JJ. EXISTING LAND U OuW~ ~rn&\1©[R1~1 j;.:e.ll. SPRAYIlII! BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY IIAn Appraisal of Potential for Outdoor Recreation Development ll Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1973 IIAnnual Abstract of Taxes for Wheeler Countyll County Assessor's Office, Fossil, Oregon, 1972-1979 "Approximate Acres Logged in Oregon by County Region and Ovmership" Oregon Economic Statistics, 1972 "Assessed Taxable Valuation by County 1965-1968" Oregon Department of Economic Development Atlas of Oregon University of Oregon, 1976 "Census of Agriculture 1974, Oregon State and County Data" Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of Commerce "Columbia-Blue ~10untain Resource Conservation and Development Project" Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Portland, Oregon June, 1974 IICommuni ty Flood Hazard Base Maps, t~hee1er County, Oregon ll Federal Insurance Administration, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington D.C., 1974 IIComprehensive County-wide Sewer and t~ater Planning and Engineering Study, vJhee1er County, Oregon" Boatwright Engineering, Salem, 1971 "Cost Effective Site Planning, Single Family Development ll National Association of Home Builders, Washington, D.C. 1976 IIDay Visitor Attendance and Overnight Camping by the Public ll State Parks and Recreation Section, Oregon State Highway Division, 1972 IIEast Central .Oregon Association of Counties Library Improvement Project ll The Brewster Company, 1979 IIEureka! Fossil Has Water ll The Times-Herald Newspaper, February, 1979 Final Wild and Scenic River Study, John Day River, Oregon National Park Service, U. S. Department of the Interior, September 1979 "Fish and Wildl ife Protection Plan for Wheeler County" Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, September, 1978 General Management Plan, John Day Fossil Beds National Monument, Oregon National Park Service, U. S. Department of the Interior, October 1979 . .'.- IIGeneral Population Characteristics, 1970, Final Report PC-(l)-B39, Oregon Bureau of the Census, U. S. Department of Commerce . IIGeneral Social and Economic Characteristics, 1970 Oregon ll Bureau of the Census, U. S. Department of Commerce L GlimaSes of Wheeler County1s Past Edite by F. Smith Fussner, 1975 "Heppner Planning Unit, Land Management Plan" U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1979 "Highway Fiscal and Statistical Data" Oregon Department of Transportation, 1977 "Housing Survey of Wheeler County" Wheeler County Appraisal Records, 1979 "Income and Poverty Data for Racial Groups: A Compilation for Oregon Census County Divisions" Special Report 367, September 1972 "Intercity Bus Transportation in Oregon" Oregon Department of Transportation, 1976 IIJohn Day Airport Master Plan" CH2M Hill Company, 1979 "John Day Basin Studyll U.S. Department of Agriculture, August, 1971 "Labor Force Summaries for \~heeler County, Monthly" Department of Human Resources, State of Oregon Employment Division, July, 1979 "Log Production in Oregon by County, Region and Ownership" Oregon Economic Statistics, 1972 1I1~ineral and t~ater Resources of Oregon" U.S. Geological Survey, State of Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Bulletin 64, 1969 IIMitchell Water System Improvement Application ll Krumbein Engineering and ECOAC, 1979 "Natural Vegetative Cover Maps" Soil Conservation Service, u.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1976 "0choco-Crooked Ri ver Pl anni ng Uni t, ~lanagement Pl an ll U.S. Forest SErvice, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1979 1I0regon Aviation System Plan ll Oregon Depatment of Transportation, 1974 1I0regon Bikeways Progress Report ll Oregon Department of Transportation, 1973 and 1975 I!Oregon Comprehensive Outdoor Recreati on Pl an" State Park and Recreation Branch, Oregon Department of Transportation, 1978 1I0regon Natural Areas - t~heel er County, Oregon" Oregon Natural Heritage Program of the Nature Conservancy, 1978 2 "Oregon Ra il Pl an" Oregon Department of Transportation, 1978 "Overall Economic Development Program, Phase I" East Central Oregon Association of Counties, 1974 "Overa11 Economi c Development Program Revi s ion" East Central Oregcn Association of Counties, 1977 "Overall Economic Development Program Revision" East Central Oregon Association of Counties, 1978 "Permit Coordination Project" East Central Oregon Association of Counties, 1977 Planning ~ Rural Environments W.R. Lassey, McGraw Book Company, San Francisco, California, 1977 "Planning Overview ll Oregon Department of Transportation, 1977 IIPopulation, Employment and Household Projected to 2000" Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, 1979 "Population Estimates: Oregon Counties and Incorporated Cities, July 1, 1978" Center for Population Research and Census, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, 1978 "Preliminary Comprehensive Plan for t·lheeler County, Oregon ll i~heeler County Planning Commission, 1969. "Projected Housing Demands in Wheeler County, Oregon" Housing Division, Oregon Department of Commerce, 1978 "Proposed \~ater Quality Management Plan, John Day River Basin" Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon State, 1976 "Reconnaissance Geologic r~ap of the John Day Formation in the Southeastern Part of the Blue r~ountains and Adjacent Areas, North Central Oregon" U.S. Geological Survey, 1975 "Report on ~Jheeler County Land Use Planning Survey" Oregon Research Institute, August, 1977 Rural Environmental Planning F.O. Sargent, University of Vermont, 1976 "Social Accounting for Oregon 1979, Indicators of Depressed Socio-Economic Conditions" State Community Services Program, Oregon Department of Human Resources, Salem, Oregon, November, 1979 3 "Soil Survey Maps and Interpretations for Fossil, Nitchell and Spray in Wheeler County" Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fossil, Oregon 1979 "Statewide Inventory of Historic Sites and Buildings" Oregon State Historic Preservation Office, Parks and Recreation Branch, Depart- ment of Transportation, Salem, Oregon, 1976: Wheeler County "Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines" Land Conservation and Development Commission, Salem, 1977 liThe Forest Resources of Wheeler County, Oregon ll Pierre Authier, Oregon State Forestry Department, April, 1971 liThe Transportation Disadvantaged in Oregon" Oregon Department of Transportation, 1977 "Timber Resources Statistics for Central Oregon" John M. Berger, U.S. Forest Service Bulletin PWN-24, 1968 Urban Planning and Design Criteria Second Edition, J. DeChiara and L. Koppelman, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, 1975 "Use of Off-Road Vehicles on the Publ ic Lands, Draft Environmental Impact Statement" Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1976 II~Jheeler County, Oregon Industrial Development Fact Book ll Business Economics, Incorporated, August, 1978 \~heelerCounty, Oregon Resource Atlas: Natural, Human, Economic and Public ll Oregon State University Cooperative Service, 1973 "~Jheeler County Planning Commission Report ll 1968 \ \ "Wheeler County Solid Waste Study, Second Draft of Final Report" July, 1974 4 APPENDICES Appendix Oregon State Department of Fish and Wildlife Fish Habitat Management Recommendations 1. Wheeler County land use classifications most compatible with a fish habitat protection plan are Agriculture, Forestry and Preservation. 2. Residential, commercial or industrial development on any body of water should be identified as a conditional use. a. Encroachment on or destruction of riparian vegetation should be prevented. b. Set-back or buffer zones should be incorporated into any shoreline deve 1opments. 3. Riparian vegetation, channel integrity and stable, non-eroding banks should be maintained along all water areas. 4. Land use practices that maintain or improve water quality should be practiced. a.. New road construction should be engineered and located to avoid unstable soil and all riparian zones. b. Forest practices act rules and 208 water quality standards should be utilized by the county planners as guidelines. 5. Developments that require surface water appropriation or diversion should be located where stream flows are not reduced below the recommended minimums. a. Efforts should be made through the State Water Resource Board to protect the remaining unappropriated water. b. Efforts should be made through the State Water Resource Board to require more efficient use of water under existing water rights. 6. Public access for water-based recreation should be maintained or increased in all applicable areas. a. Purchase of any streambank areas by local, county, state or federal agencies for public access should be encoul'aged by county planners. b. Designation of an open space zone on the John Day River from Service Creek to a point ten miles upstream should be incorporated into the county plan. 7. Future multi-purpose reservoir sites should be identifiedandappropriate land use restrictions should be applied to protect these sites. A-I Big Game Management Recommendations 1. Wheeler County land use classifications most compatible with big game are Agriculture, Forestry and Preservation. 2. Residential development should be of low density, allowing for normal agri cultul'a land forest uses. a. Residential densitiES should not exceed one house per 40 acres on big game summel~ ranges. b. Residentia"' densities should not exceed one house per 80 acres on big game winter ranges. 3. High density develop~ents on or adjacent to big game wintering areas should require design review or conditional permits to provide a mechanism to deal with specific problems. a. Big game damage to gardens, shrubs, orchards and other domestic plants can be avoided or lessened by having the developer provide deer-proof fencing or other means to forestall conflict. b. Strong leash laws can reduce harassment of big game species by free roaming dogs. 4. New roads should be located to avoid sensitive habitat areas. a. Seasonal roads should be closed to reduce harassment to big game species during the winter months, December through March. b. Roads that are no longer necessary for other resource management should be closed permanently. 5. Off-road vehicle use should be controlled during the winter months and early spring to prevent harassment of big game species. A-2 Upland Game Birds Management Recommendations 1. Wheeler County land use classifications most compatible with upland game bird habitat are Agriculture, Forestry, and Preservation. 2. Maintain rural agricultural lands. a. Removal of riparian vegetation and brushy areas should be discouraged. b. Riparian vegetation should be replaced wherever possible. c. Residential densities should be no greater than one unit per 20 acres. 3. Strong leash laws can reduce harassment and loss of upland game birds by free roaming dogs and cats. 4. Timber management practices should allow for varied timber stands in the forest areas. Waterfowl Management Recommendations 1. Wheeler County land use classifications most compatible with waterfowl habitat are Agriculture and Preservation. 2. Development or land uses that require drainage, channelization, filling or removal of riparian vegetation along any water source should be avoided. 3. Maintain rural agricultural lands; any residential development should maintain a density of no greater than one unit per 20 acres. 4. Residential, commercial or industrial development on or adjacent to waterfowl habitat wetland areas should be identified as conditional use and should include setbacks or buffer zones in the development plans. 5. Public access should be maintained or secured to appropriate Haterfowl recreation areas such as the John Day River. 6. Strong dog leash laws can reduce harassment and loss of nesting waterfowl. Furbearer Management Recommendations 1. Wheeler County land use classifications most compatible with furbearer habitat are Agriculture, Forestry and Preservation. 2. The Department recommendations listed for big game, upland game birds and waterfowl will also benefit both aquatic and terrestrial furbearers. Nongame Wildlife Recommendations 1. Wheeler County land use classifications most compatible with nongame habitats are Agriculture, Forestry and Preservation. 2. Protect existing ponds, wetlands and riparian areas and encourage development of additional ponds and lakes. 3. Any residential development areas should allm'i for open space areas within the development. a. Supplemental plantings of seed and fruit producing ornamental shrubs should be encouraged in any development.area. b. Native plant and tree species should be left in any development area. 4. Leave non-hazard snag trees along streams and in forest areas. Source: All fish and wildlife management recommendations included in this appendi x are taken from the II Fi sh and l~il dl He Management Pl an for Hhee 1er County, II prepared by the Oregon Department of Fi sh and Wildlife, Heppner District, September, 1978. A-4 OREGON STATE HIGHWAY DIVISION Reg i on 5 Offi ce W. E. Schwartz> Region Engineer F. e. KlABOE ;"d~jni:stra.~or of HichwaYJ P. O. Box 850 La Grande> Oregon 97850 Phone 963-3177 July 19~ 1977 Gus Strecker~ Wheeler County Planner P. O. Box 69 Spray> Oregon 97874 ·Dear Gus: Enclosed find the mineral aggregate source platts or descriptions for \·!heeler County which the Division has used or plan to use in the future. For future reference> I have included a listing of the source identifica- tion numbers. Please consider this letter a formal request for the County to enact ordinonces v/hich would protect these and future mineral aggregate sources from adjacent development which would prevent their operation. This pro- tection could be in the form of a setback with the zoning of adjacent lands compatible to this type of operation. Also> the Division would like the County to consider an ordinance which would require setbacks along State highways. From a safety standpoint~ the setbacks should be great enough that parking would be discouraged on the right of way and that vehicles approaching the highway do so in a front-end- first manner. If you have any questions regarding the above requests or have any questions regarding transportation or related issues> please contact me. Sincerely> A~--,/;/"clc~({{ '7C-- George Strawn Region;Planning Coordinator GS/dm Enclosures cc: Judge Andrew Leckie Dave Fenton Ha rry OSVJa1d Bob Blensly A-5 Form BI-73~-3122 • I The following mineral aggregate sources should be included in your benchmark data for t·Jhee1er County. Section, Township &Range Sec. 8, 1. 12S, R. 20E \oJ. r~ . Sec. 3, T. 12S, R. 20E \~. r~. Sec. 25, 1. lIS, R. 20E H.M. Sec. 21, 22 & 28, T. lIS, R. 21E W.M. Sec. 33, T. lIS, R. 22E H.r~. Sec. 2, T. 12S, R. 22E w.r~. Sec. 18, T. 12S, R. 24E \·J.M. Sec. 4, 1. 12S, R. 24E tLM. Sec. 15 & 16, 1. 12S, R. 25E vLM. Sec. 1, 1. lOS, R. 22E and Sec. 6, T. lOS, R. 23E W.M. Sec. 32, T. lOS, R. 22E W.M. . Sec. 7, 8 & 17, T. lIS, R. 22E W.M. Sec. 23, T. lIS, R. 21E W.M. Sec. 16, T. 6S, R. 21E W.M. Sec. 20, T. 7S, R. 21E W.M. Sec. 19, T. 7S, R. 21E W.M. Sec. 31, T. 7S, R. 20E W.M. Sec. 2, T. 7S, R. 21E W.M. Sec. 35, T. 6S, R. 21E W.M. Sec. 2, T. 7S, R. 21E W.M. Sec. 29, T. 7S, R. 22E W.M. Sec. 4 &5, T. 8S, R. 22E W.M. ·Sec. 10 &11, T. 8S, R. 22E W.M. Sec. 36, T. 8S, R. 22E W.M. Sec. 9, T. 9S, R. 23E W.M. Sec. 18, T. 9S, R. 23E W.M. Sec. 1 & 12, T. 9S, R. 23E vJ.M. Sec. 35, T. 8S, R. 24E W.M. Sec. 1, 1. 9S, R. 24E W.M. Sec. 8, T. 9S, R. 25E W.M. Sec. 4 &9, T. 9S, R. 25E W.M. Sec. 10, T. 9S, R. 25E vi .r,1. Sec. 23, T. 9S, R. 25E W.M. Sec. 10, T. 7S, R. 25E \L~1. A-6 Material Quarry Quarry Quarry Quarry Quarry Quarry Quarry Quarry Quarry Quarry Quarry Gravel Quarry Quarry Quarry Quarry Quarry Quarry Quarry Quarry Talus Quarry Quarry QuaiTy Gravel Gravel Quarry Gravel Gravel Gravel Talus Quarry Quarry Quarry Source Identification 35-12-4 35-13-4 35-14-4 Not Assigned 35-16-4 35-17-4 35-21-4 35-22-4 Not Assigned 35-29-4 35-30-4 Not Assigned 35-31-4 35-1-4 35-27-4 35-26-4 35-24-4 35-36-5 35-3-5 35-4-5 35-37-5 35-5-5 35-6-5 35-39-5 35-38-5 35-7-5 35-8-5 35-9-5 35-35-5 35-41-5 35-40-5 35-34-5 35-10-5 35-28:-5 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 0 :> 0 20 aJ ~ : >C z < -" ~ :> 00 c~ ~ v 21> - > . ~ . 0. , ~ :> Z ~ 0 22I"'V0;;; ~ -'6~ . 23~ 24 25 26 Page RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Wheeler County Road Department is responsible for maintaining all County roads in Wheeler County. WHEREAS, the said County Road Department is limited in the work it can do by equipment, manpower and budgetary limitations. WHEREAS, it is necessary to likewise limit those roads designated as Wheeler County roads to prevent the said County Road Department from becoming inefficiently overextended; now therefore BE IT RESOLVED, that the following described roads are hereby designated as Wheeler County Roads; and are the only roads which the Wheeler County Road Department will maintain: Roads North of the John Day River 1. Winlock Road - commencing at its juncture with Highway 19 in Section 14, T8S R22E, and termi- nating at its juncture with Kahler Basin Road in Section 18, T8S R25E, 3. Kahler Basin Road - commencing at its juncture with Highway 19 in Section 36, T8S R24E, and terminating at its juncture with Highway 207 in Section 18, T7S R25E. 5. Alder Creek Road - commencing at its juncture with Highway 19 in Section 9, T9S R23E, and terminating at its juncture with Winlock Road in Section 31, T7S R24E . 7. Rowe Creek Road - commencing at its juncture with Highway 19 in Section 4, T8S R22E, and terminating at Twickenham Bridge in Section 2, T10S R21E. 9. Kinzua Road - co~mencing at its juncture with Highway 19 in Section 1, T7S R21E, and termi- nating at the former townsite of Kinzua in Section 2, T7S R22E. A-7 13. Pine Creek Road - commencing at its juncture with Highway 218 in Section 1, '1'8S R20E, and terminating at its juncture with Cotton Creek Road in Section 4, '1'8S R21E. 1 2 3 4 5 11. Cottom'lood Road - commencing at its juncture with Highway 218 in Section 21, '1'7S R21E, and terminating at its juncture with Pine Creek Road in Section 4, T8S R21E. 6 7 8 9 10 15. Stone Cabin Road - commencing at its juncture \,Jl thH ig}l~lay 218 in Section 5, T7 S R21 E, and terminating at its intersection with Section 11, '1'7S R20E. 17. Butte Creek Road - commencing at its juncture with Highway 19 in Section 32, '1'6S R21E, and terminating at its intersection with Section 8, T6S R20E. 11 12 1 9 . Black Butte Road - commencing at the City Limits of the Town of fossil and terminating at its juncture with Hoover Creek Road in Section 25, T6S R21E. 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Page 21. Hoover Creek Road - commencing at its juncture wi th aid St2. te H igh",ay 19 in Sect ion 21: TGS R21E, and terminating at its juncture with Kinzua Road in Section 34, T6S R22E. 23. Lost Valley Road - commencing at its juncture wi~h Kinzua Road in Section 27, T6S R22E, and terminating at the Gilliam-Wheeler County line in Section 9, T6S R23E. 25. Lone Rock Road - commencing at the former tovm site of Kinzua in Section 2, T7S R22E, and ter- minating at the Gilliam County line in Section 8, T6S R24E. 27. Huddelston Road - commencing at the Gi.lliam County line in Section 9, T6S R24E, and terminating at its intersection with Section 14, '1'6S R24E. 29. Clarno Road - commencing at its juncture \-lith Highway 218 in Section 34, '1'7S R19E, and terminating at its intersection with Section 24, '1'8S R19E. Roads South of the John Day River 2. Parrish Creek Road - commencing at its juncture with Hlghvlay--2~in Section 7, '1'12S R23E, and ter- minating at its juncture with Highway 207 in Section 36, 'r8S R24E. A-8 4. Richmond-Six Shooter Road - commencing at its juncture with Highway 207 in Section 5, T9S R23E, and terminating at its juncture with Parrish Creek Road in Section 18, TllS R24E. 6. Antone Road - co~nencing at its juncture with ~ighway 26 in Section 18, T12S R24E, and ter- minating in Section 36, T12S R25E or the Grant County line. 8. Upper Br idge Creek Road - commenc ing a t the tOldn of I'-1itchelr~--;ind terminating at the bounc1ry line of the Ochoco National Forest in Section 29, T12S R22E. 10. Gable Creek Road - con®encing at its juncture with Highway 26 in Section 27, TllS R21E, and termina- ting at its intersection with Section 20, T12S R21E. 12. Wes t Branch Road - commenc ing at its juncture vIi th Highway 26 in Section 3,T12S R20E, and termina- ting at its intersection with the Ochoco National Forest boundry line in Section 21, T12S R20E. 14. Br idge Creek Road - COlTlInenC ing at its juncture with Highway 26 in Section 21, Tl1S R21E, and terminating at its intersection with the Jefferson County line in Section 30, T9S R20E. 16. Painted Hills-Bear Creek Road - conunencing at its juncture with Bridge Creek Road in Section 31, Tl0S R21E, and terminating at its intersection with Section 16, TllS R20E. 18. Girds Creek Road - commencing at its juncture with Highway 207 in Section 29, T10S R22E, and terminati~g at Twickenham Bridge in Section 2, T10S R21E. A-9 1 RESOLUTION 2 \~HEREAS, the Wheeler County Road Department is responsible for 3 maintaining alJ County roods in Wheeler County. 4 WHEREAS, the said County Rood Deportment is limited in the work 5 it can do by equipment, manpower and budgetary limitations. 6 WHEREAS, it is necessary to likewise limit those roods designated 7 as Wheeler County roods to prevent the said County Rood Deportment from 8 becoming inefficiently overextended. 9 K\','HEREAS, the below described roods ere dangerous and burdensome to 10 maintain, are infrequently used, and are useless as a port of the 11 Wheeler County Rood System. 12 (\. V:HEREAS, the public will be benefi ted if the below described roods 13 are vacated and left as public easements;-now therefore, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Page BE IT RESOLVED, that the Wheeler County Court declares that pro- ceedings should be ca~~nced to vocate the following roods: I. RO/ID "A" commencing at its juncture with Parrish Creek County Rood in Section 3, T10S R24E proceeding westerly to its termi- nation at its juncture withSixshooter County Rood in Section 10, TlOS R23E. The following landowners own land abutting ROAD "All: (a) Don R. John50n in Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of TlOS R24E; (b) Central Oregon Fabricators in Sections 1, 2 and 11 of TlOS R23E. II. RO/ID "B" commencing at its j~n.cture wi~h Antone County Road in Section 1 of T13S R24E and proceeding through Sections 1, 12, .A-IO T12S R25E. 13 and 18 of T13S R24E; through Sections 18, 17, 9, 4 and 3 of T13S R24E; and terminating at its juncture with Antone County Road in Section 34 of The following landowners own land abutting ROAD "B": (a) Clinton and Flora Harris in Sections 1 and 12 of T13S R24E and Sections 4 and 17 of T13S R25E; (b) Fred and Margaret Hudopeth in Section 12 of T13S R24E; (c) United States of America in Sections 12 and 13 of T13S R24E; in Sections 17 and 18 of T13S R25E; and in Section 34 of T12 R25E; (d) Robert J Vanier, Jr. in Sections 9, 16 and 18 of T13S R25E; (e) Raymond and Donna Meyers ln Sections 3 and 9 of Tl3S R25E; (f) Teresa Jibilian ln Section 34 of T12S R25E. III. ROAD "C" commencing at its juncture with Kahler Basin 18 County Road in the northwest q0arter of Section 33 of T7S R25E and proceeding 19 through Sections 29, 20, 17, 16 and 15 in T7S R25E; and terminating at its 20 juncture with Highway 207 in Section 10 of T7S R25E. 21 The following landowners own land abutting ROAD "C": 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ..r ....~ 12 13 14 15 16 17 22 23 24 25 26 Pane (0) Juanita Fisher in Section 33 of T7S R25E; (b) Robert and Gretta Wright in Section 33 of T7S R25E; (c) Robert and Patricia Straub in Section 28 of T7S R25Ei (d) D.W. and Joan Wells in Section 29 of T7S R25E; (e) United States of America in Sections 20, 17, 16, 15 and 10 of T7S R25E. A-ll 7COWlty C~.issioner .--::. .... ·· .. ·L·;/ .,.. .. - , - . - , c~--c·.--c-~ ,--_." c.. L_--- c_ ... '4..' - County Judge County CbrrrrUssioner // (b) ~m~raret R. Huddle J.n 5:ection 12 of T6S 21£. (a) (':J80rge \·;rebb ill Section 7 and 17 of T6S R22F.; IV. ROl'D "D" COP.rleJlcinq at the northvJest corner of Section 7, The follCMdng lando\-.'ners Ovffi larrl abutting ROJID "D": r- ........ D:me and dated this ~ . '. day of Septenber, 1979. -'--- with its juncture with Pethill Road in Section 18, ~6S R22E. T6S R22F., proceedjng southeasterly and soutmvesterly to its termination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 uJ 20 '" 0 ~ 21 a: z 22I 0 ..... 23 24 25 26 Page A-12 :-':~r; ::a~t(:!- 0: ~ct::!r.L S~f.r:~RrJ~ for acce:--':E.nce :>,r Co\)n~i rc~ds ~':lvir.C C(Wie on for c~)n~:!d,""~ntjnr, at t~,~r !.".-\J~.~::' r..':.··!t.~n,-: c~ ~!.~ ·:,~ncl:;~; Count.j! Court en \7cc:1p::;d:lY. t.h~ 3.ri.! ;i;,\)! of !~,'1y, J()7?~ C1nd .... ~ 1'1r"):lnt""~nl: t.:'\ ~.~t: l.~ :H'~ ~C:'" "':?le RCCp.n~~a=lCE:' of cOllrlty rO:-lds. ~. ':":-:at 3Fl.:d ~~_?.nc:\r\~3 sho\1~d not be exclusive but ~hOlllrl instc?d be ta!)5c r.iil);rnU~~ stc"lnd::n-,Js \"lhicrt ~ ..... y \..0 n·.JC~.:r-n-:'~d ty :l.~~dition?~ ';.?~~'Jn;!b~e 3"t.ilrldrlrJ3 to lJ~ i~ro~ec in any ri'\1'~.iClJ1n!· ~:1::~.:~nce• .':_~!n r:",:;~ CC',l_~ ~::I~!G F')l...LY ;..~)\rr2~:D in ~h·· r1'er::li~h?S it i=t therefore, !1E-SGL\,'E:) t}lc t 1.-:·fore ~ny 11(:':: rc"d :!j ::~~.::,"",t.eJ ';'2 .; C:0un+..y rOn'~ ~y ~.:Le ·:.-....,t.'~ler County Co~t it shn)) l:1c"et ~r..c fo1!..o\'ljni~ cri~cri2.: '") ':"!IP. ro;~r! .::~~a'!~ ir.~.e::~cc~ wit":1 or- ~e an extension of R.n cyisting public ronrl. "% '!'r.~ rCin.C sr..,'l1 ~ h<"lve a ,r.: ;1~.~'.Jm of cO feet of r·2 r!"'lt-of-V}:'!.y ar:d hil.ve a ~:i IJ~ ~1.l!7! of '? ~ nc..::'es o~ b.?3e !'"i'.::-'.. :,_n.:2 r:rcvc~ej \~:i l:1 not ~ ess t~l::n 11 inche9 of crushed rock !'or a lr.inir'llJnI of ;JIJI !'o~c"':(\y. ll. 'J'hp. ro;:d must ;,rovide ~cc,,~s Jor not 1('.05 "thiln 2 d\1ellinrs per rr.~H'. 5. A11 fences, GUn di nes :mel other structures r.lU~t he removed fror.! the d.r:ht-o;-'''''-Y 2.t t~c CXf'c;,:"c 0; t'r rro~rty O\',Tlers along ~,hc road. t,. 7ne road. shall hllve ad"quate culverts or bricces for dr-ainp.(;c as optermined ny the ':.~'1p.c!er Cot.:nt:: ~O&~';lnS~er. 7. Stocr.[':U:lrCs shall be install ell by the l'roperty 07.11erS exime5e v:hp.re it:::! oc-':ocd r,o,~~s.oar~' .1110 :,~.T!11 b~ o~ a :\·idt.h neCPSSf1,r:.l f0r public r.:;;.f~ty anG instalJp.d in accordance with COUIl:Y s~r=cifj'.:'iatj(ln~.• ·9. .s~;ch add~tion;'l] :-~nsonaole rc-quj"rcment:3 il.~ m.:1Y be estrtblished by "the Cour~ in a~y par:icular ins-:ant:'r .. D:"!t.ecJ "'\,o~lis ?Jrc! c?y 0: ;'~RY, 1072. :.ttc:'t: t rs/ ;,rl"nc Stf:pleriC".n t)' C~ e1'1': _'7., (~cal) /s/ Cl'lrence ',s:,er County Jucgc /5/ Ra,,"0nd Ga~e:! County Co,,~issicner /5/ John ColJir.~ . Coun~jt CO:7.~nissiC'ncr A-13 ....... -- I2 IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR WHEELER COUNTY 3 4 5 In the Matter of ) Participation in the ) National Flood Insurance ) Program ) RESOLUTION 6 WHEREAS, certain areas of Wheeler County are subject to periodic flooding, 7 mudSlides, and cloud bursts from streams and rivers causing serious damages 8 to proporties within those areas; and 9 M1EREAS, it is the intent of this County Court to require the recognition 10 and evaluation of flood and mudslide hazards in all official actions relating 11 to land use in the fJood plain and mudslide areas having special flood and 12 mudslide hazards; and 13 WHEREAS, this body has the legal aut.hority to adopt land use and control 14 measures to reduce future flood losses pursuant to ORS 197.175 and 215.515; 15 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that t.his County Court hereby: 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27' Page 1. Assures the Federal Insurance Administ.ration that it will enact as necessary, and maintain in force for those areas having flood or mudslide hazards, adequate land use and control measures with effective enforcement provisions consistent with the Criteria set forth in Section 1910 of the National Flood Insurance Program RegUlations; and 2. Vests Wheeler County Soil and Water Conservation District with the responsibility, authority, and means to: (a) Delineate or assist the Administrator, at this request, in delineating the limits of the areas having special flood and mudslide hazards on available local maps of sufficient scale to identify the location of building sites. (b) Provide such information as the Administrator, may request concernin I-RESOLUTION, A-14 present uses and occupancy of the flood plain and mudslide area. (c) Cooperate with Federal, State, and local agencies and private firms which undertake to study, survey, map, and identify flood plain or mudslide areas, and colperate with neighboring communities with respect to management of adjoining flood plain and mudslide areas in order to prevent aggravation of existing hazards. (d) Submit on the anniversary date of the community's initial eligibility an annual report to the Administrator on the progress made during the past year within the community in the development and implementation of flood plain and mudslide area management measures. 3. Appoints Wheeler County Soil and Water Conservation District to maintain for publ ic inspection and to furnish upon request a record of el evations (in relation to mean seal level) of the lowest floor (including basement) of all new or substantially improved structures located in the special flood hazard areas. If the lowest floor is below grade on one or more sides, the elevation of the floor immediately above must also be recorded. 4. Agrees to take such other official action as may be reasonably necessary to carry out the objectives of the program. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~-:-~~~~. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Page DATE P.'\SSED 2- RESOLUTION Sept. 3, 1975 A-IS /s/ Andrew F. Leckie County Judge /s/ D. Sitton County Commissioner / s/ Jack ColI ins County Commissioner (exact copy of the origin:'!1 document) IN THE CO~'iI'"lor~ COUNCIL or THE TO"HJ Ot F:ITCHELL. OREGON In the Matler of tho Creation of a local Imprcve~~nt District, the De- scription of Boundaries thereof and the nusigJ\ation of Procedures there- for. ) ) ) ) ) RE50Lunorl WHEnEAS, the Town of Mitchell, Oregon, h~s an extensive geographical boundary de- scribed P.S folIous, to-wit: BAP at the SE corner of the NE1/4,NE1/4 of Sec. 1, T125, R21[~~. thence N 1 1/4 miles; lhance W 1 mile; thence 5 1 ;/4 miles; thence E 1 mile to POB. Uf!EREAS, the To",n of r~itchell, Oregon, has a small population which is con:::er.trated in an area described as follows, to-wit: BAP w~cre the 8 bound~ry line of said Town interesect the H boundary Df State Hwy. 207; thence 5 to the S boundary line of tha NW1/4,SS1/4 Df Sec. 36, T11S, R21E~i; thence [ to the W boundary line of Wheeler County Assessor ~ap 11-21- 36CC; thence 5 1100 f~et, more or less; t~ence E to a point which intersects the 5 boundary 1ir18 of Covington street in Huddleston's Firs~ Addition to the Toun of rlitchell; thence SOy clang the 5 boundary lina cf sa~_d covington Street to a pcint uhictl inle:'3cct!.; t.he U bounG~::ry line of z.n extension cf {;2)SOil Street, uhich !;cid e:-:.tension parel.lels r!elson Creek 5; th~n::8 L to 2 point l/E 17I11e W of the [ boundary 1ine 0 f Sec. 1, Tl25, ii21 C::'Ji-, j thence r, to a pc int w;,ere t.tle N boundary line of St2t2 Hwy. 25 intersect~ Lhe E boundary line Gf A=co~~t r~~. 2C~ of ~,eelcr C8~nty hS3~SSO= ~a~ 11-21~:68:; ~h3nc2 ~ 210 fes~; thence W 557 feet; thence S 300 reet, more Dr less, to the N boundary line of stat.e Hwy. 25; thence W along-the N boundary line of Stat~ H~y. 26 to a p~int which intersects the E boundary lin~ of Account No. 100 of Wheel"r Cour.ty J;ss2ssor r-,ap 11-21; thero:::e U along the ~ boun3cry line of 52id Account f~c. 100 to 2 p:Jin~ thct intersa::ts the (~ boundary line. of S-:zte ~:.:Jy. 26; t.hense 'J alcng t.lIa r·! L:.unccry line of State H~y. 26 tc a point uhi=h int2~sects the SE corne~ of ~CCDunt Nc. 1100 of t::heeler County P.ssessor Fi2P 11-21-35Ca; thence rJ 275 f2et.; thence t:1S0 75 feet; thane£? SS~ ISO feet to s point which intersects lJ boun~a=y line of sta~e H~y. 26; thence UJ.'y 210ng the N bound~ry line a f S~2 te Hl:.'y. 25 to a ;lui nt L:hi:::h intcr~ect~ ~h2 [J bcundary line af St2tC H~y. 2[7; th~nce ~~ly 21~n9 the ~ boundary lin~ of state H~y. 207 to PQa~ \;]~l[R[~.S, th2 :residence of the concent,roted 2ree set out above cur:-2ntl}' 2:;:e providEd uith l~oczl improve~2nts," 2S defined by ORS 223.357(1). ~H[R[AS, the ccsts of providing said "lesal iiil~rOV2:l:l2ntsJn to the residents in the rem~inder of said ~oun of Mitchell uould bear an unreason?~le reletionship to the ben~fits obtained t.hereby. ~H[R~AS, DRS 223.357 through 223.999 permits this Council to creete a Local !r.tpr-Ol'cnent District uhereby the costs of ffi2.king suid "1 0C21 ir.'lprL~vei;icnts, IT r.'lcy be assessed tu the D~ners of the parcels of lend so benefited by all or part of s3id ~H~RLAS, ORS 223.3S9 through 223.650 set forth the proceGure for assessing the costs of said improveroents, reassessing t.he costs thereof, and enforcing liens nnd collecting ascessments based theredn. Page 1 - RESOLUTION A-16 BE IT RESOLVED, by the COffin~n Council of the Town of Mitcholl, GrR;un, that a local Ir.>prov8r.,cnt Di~trict. be and ~h~ same i!O created to ?ssess to the own!?I'3 of p2r- eels of land benefitod by 611 or part of ~locel improve~8nts," o3de h~re&fter and de- ~ fined b)' 011S 223.387(1), thE; costs of said "local ir.>proveoents." BE IT rU~TI~R RESOLVED, by ~he Coomon Council of the Town of Mitchpll, Oregon, that the bounda~ies cf said Local ImprovEnant District shsll be all ~hat property within the ge~graphic boundary of the Town of ~itchell, Cragon, except for a parcel described ~s follo~s, tc-wit: SAP ~hcre the ~ b~und2ry line of said Taun int~res~ct tha N bou~c?ry of S~ete Hwy. 207; thence 5 to the 5 ~oundary line of tha ~~1/6,5W1/6 of Sec. 36, T11S, R21[~~; ttlance E to the W bcund~ry 1in2 of.Wheel~r Courlty Assessor ~ap 11-21- 36CC; thonce 5 111)0 fr:::,e:t, r,.:)r-e or- less; thence [ to a point '.:.'hicfl il,tsrsects the 5 bcunda~y line of C)ving~on street in Huddlns~onlg First Adjiticn to the TOUl of ~itstlell; th2n=2 SEly along the 5 boundary line of said Covingtcn st~eet to a point which iptaI'~ec:.~ ~hE W bounjary line of en extension of rjelson Str-S2i:., which said E::-:~c:-l~.i~,n ,;c!'allels r;alson Creek S; thence [ to a pcint l/e mile Wof the E bO~:1daLY lin3 of Sec. 1, T125, R21EUr·i; thence t: to a p~in~ \.!..Iher-e the N boundzry linn of state Huy. 26 intersects the [ bCu;lta~y line ~f ~~cou~t fJ~. 2[!J of ~,eele~ Cou~t)' ~~~C550r ~~p ll-2l-3~D:; t~en~~ ;~ 210 fEet; t~~~nce d 557 feet; thence S 308 f~ct, ;:lore or les 5, to the N boUn~2!""1 line cf S;.:~ t2 H;,;'y. 25; the~c:e Walong tha N bDund~ry line of state Hdy. 26 to a p~int'which inte~sBcts the E . . 1 . r' '" 1"0 - '." ' r > -. 0- I" 21 L'Dou:lo8ry _1.r~ c, r.~COUi\~. I.D. II ~I l.!.:,ic-2.!.er ..... Dun ... y i-,SS8SS0:- .I'i2:p .!.~:-; L.i)8ii::'~ U along the ~ bo~n~2ry l1r18 of £81d Acccunt (~o. 100 to a po~nt tha~ 1nterseCLs the t: houn::cry lina of St2t~~ H8y. 2:"; ~he:l::e 'J 2loio9 t~8 r~ bC:.JnjC:lry line of Stcte H'.::yA 26 to c aoint ~~i::h Int=i'$ec~s the SE CG:-;"j2~ cf hcc:c:un:' (;c.. 1)[;1] of ;Jhe~lE:= C::unty ;:.SS~::;'SCL i'~;:::? 1l-2:-~,5C2; tne:;ce tJ 27:; f2e~; tr-::3:ilce :JS'j 75 fE:et; thonce S3~ lS~ feet to a pcin~ ~hich in~crsects r; bo~nd2ry lin~ of st~~e H8y. 26; thence Uly a!ong the fJ boundar}' line cf state H0Y. 26 tc a point uhich int.e:L58cts ~he r,J b:::=undc.!"y line of state HL:y. 2[17; thence I~!.!lly along the N bounda~y lin~ of state ~Iuy~ 207 to PC9. in ~2J:ing the lecel 2ssesS~9nts f== the benefits from said "local i~~r-cvE~entsJI! said Local Improvemant District shall fD!lc~ the procedures sat forth in O~S 223.389 ~hrough 223.650. ADOPTED by the Cor.,;;>on Council of thi3 To",n of Fli tch8l1 J Gregon on this .A cay April, 1980. ;.PPil~_m:f) ty [sl Roy Critch lo\', IITTEST: Page 2 - RESCLUTI0~ , r'~ayor, (1n ~his l-~_ G2y of Apr; 1 ~ 1980. _~L-George M. Schnee RecordEr A-17 + 8I-V ............. p,SUv 09St 1 l j.,\lW 031\13:J3tJ t?-?cf / jpoh~- ~l~ '7)?!lt'-" I 7?fl (;''2-;-~7-;)?/f~?J/;(r}'//Y?({l{' iV ~~?72/ (if'f-. ' {I ,I /; tI -. ------TTl ,1 -r--7';"'· /~1,77;"X;~(:2' ?7Jl?~1~//'/-1 I --j/ ( 1/ /'- . ( , 1-,/ ;;;-;;'~'77'~'/:-: n://YY.Z -< ~) ./1',',''21'''''2---"'17'' -Y~' (./'2''],'/.j?7-'V'///,'~1//~!'?;>1?_ rf' ...::,- ," / ,or /" .., / /" /' ~ /~ /1/.., ....-{//J ,,/ • V ~~~~/ I • i"'" . L . / f''- .,./ I. . 1/'+.i~"l??!nl;,:i : Z; -:n/:~7r~/J/'/;/rzr-'>1/~'-"),"v--;-/)~j..!?;~{j( 1"/J},~J . / i -' I /' ! }??;r·,') :.; ;V'2,·j/:;/7--'/<7)--,- -; 7:7././-;;.r'7'~ /,-):«;;: -::ry7h- J;;r?;//; ~e-----.- ~ " ,.' ,// -// II --" " .,. !/ " /. . \ [,- I r; ,77 '/?-C/7';>7:Y/ ??ii"!,-/ rc:v:#;~1;r;J- y.) )rY '7'J.'/'(1 /1 :- // JJ V - <, '7 "'-7"Y/1 Ih / A ';I . "~c'/ .' / /};'j/2rr/} , C l---!i/Y! ----;?;7'! '.- --;.L-- / . V,, ; -~ / /V?:/1!;/fi'''J'?7'J?:.;7 l'n;~!//J?~,,,;~-r7/r--/)/ 1-7.:77Z :7/7 '11',;?-J// /' . 7JI--_1/ . --,:;.;--./~. ,I .' ,.,,:J./ ./ ' .' ,.'.-/, ' _ ,..- /. ,', "/'?,:;;.,.-" 0'777'//-:::-7,/71'/7,77/--- -:.,>-:;'J --Yo') /.'.-' _()/J--::/'-;'C// 01/ 7 ,- J;1) , --;fC-;/' -' /,;.- ,/ ;-i' '-I~/' / :j' , ;,( , /" ',' / v, I / ,/ _,,_.,?'.~.;-:./(, /~- ,,/ -, (/ .-,/ /7 ':.: ~" ,~ ~ ,~: //,.. /> '7 ,?}.-- .- " 0.// J/1//£./:7" .:J P / -;; 7; / "f,/-',f.,-" / ,Z.:7/- ~;;"-;-1J '/]/'"-;'/J/f') -;-y'" ",;//1'1 ...---., /:l'J--?/J' /7'. ,(.'r~ ."'/ / /'J '7 I v r-e;,/ "/..;..-' or ~v ,"' V,, .-,/ /, ./ //', r' L.--~ .... -, / /. ..."." .". ./r/'''-Y '~~IV/-; ".'" /. Ii - .. / __/' '_..7", I I' . r. ,/ ,~, .- ... i'rtr.~/j -?'r"/lj~"7/?':/~.,'~91:"/r/~-/' !.-':~, -'j}-J/~.,y--;./-;r';~:..,~"'-;-7..7'7' :n70/~.'-;> (7~';?-'1/!;;' /-' __~7 :'0?///;1'«)/\' "/~ .. x· p. V j V"V I ~/ j / rv{,/ ! ./ ,c...---, L , /), ' ;'r-v,~?./Y,',/-P;) ,;:1/;/;/;,"XV '-::?~/91/i1/ 'J /jl .7 (/ &1-',_-,1ft) t / _ !'/? "-'V'F7.7 /7--0 7?-7?-::';:/.''-?·.--,/;~v',;1' . (~ r/" /'~..... ';[/ .I" 7///"/' -:r .! /--: / ' /l. /" f // /./v.-;,v ,I / ,I ~&;?-;zJ'-Y7Y~i!;J;:/:/f7pr/?I?.:fjf71'. '" All , /// 1/7 : ://f // • / i /#' V / 1/ " _ ,.,. /1 r:- 0/ ,/ ' .,/y'':t 'Y/-'~~';1/-r:7""":':1.?/\~ ~ --JL_ [/ ,- / ,'j/ /Ij /" " " / ' -. .:;: f\. / --::?r;-p:?? -:'"'?/j7?'07,7-/l;';;' J /JZ~t:J"1-;i?~: I i 'f ,/. ''/'j;' -//J/ ;' / T"/ /,";7- /' ',I--' ,t' I ." i,""'1. I'/) ...., ""/a::/-:7//7 -::;? /J//,::/'1./-p7/7 '.,,/?'t//'J; '/'; ,711-:' '';f)71,'/':)....j!'.~ - /7 -i-/'///V/f/-'~ '/~,.-y ',/:" , ., f' // "/ I •!/ ~ & ~, 7/r l£ hf/7l?'[! -, _.\0' r/#LI:1-Yl-:~J'l~?f!'??(!J /J!LJj; '7~d:r ,." _-"1 _ .'/ ,fn~~ ,':l-,~,,7h7 i~/'_1/1Vp,rtt::T(J-j f/J; ~ -r1//'>1~?,'dl''<:hY; , y / (,/ • [.-t./ / / /" '/ / '/ , "j _~ 1/ • ~ ( .,../ ./'.. . ~. " .' j ) r{l/-J7J/-;;J),-JlY'/J'?JY/('- )',Yi),zl ;'~1,J/ ?~:/ 7?J;U1 !Jr' ~ --:J-:- ' , 'T' ~ /: I 'I ./ '!" / /7; .. I. lI I / .-Y-.hT}-Y~-rr ,/)7;?-7/?'l/:Pjl;;:?lVr'l£~/ -, 1} ~7/7 ,7}/ -7'7/lrY~' ~/-?J',?'/(7)// 'Y/l'n-pjJ _ ' ;" 7-., /~' .~' -- ? ' .r 'i' /.' ~ "n.., .... ,--.., , ''''?---'-'~',/,,/-;;:i.l '" ..,? -'--1 '-'" '7 ,/,{O,] " __p-,)r'7/':::J ,/ " I ( /'/"7 ,7e-;:/" J/ // /;/ //"" v', '/.', "71/,". ///;,'/ ;?,-' j, ,1 • I," - //'" 11 I --,,"/;:'/ "e":/' "t", /' ~,/ ~ , / Y l !/ . (.... (/ - ~ ....",.-- .../, '/ .........7) ....r.t:~?') .-."7 -; j .-:, " /'l /) '-." } -?-:?, ", ;.r?,??;.:/.r7t::-;Pi) ( 1/ i>/ r '/1//) "/:'/:'1/ /'7<;J'7/:-7'-;'1 1')/' It,it/. -:..;L." .}/ {. 'i" '1 ' ,!.-H I /1-'-' . ,/ r' ! ;6,:,/ (/' ! !,(;r~',;.r 'J2/)-/~'{/~P)~:"/';7":~?pI/- /,777/)/1-"; 'l:; // '7:J~f'7yj?;~5,YI ;~ '. , // •• /< 72 (j/ . . '-Yl, I/.U'I ., - v,/;)~7~?7,/)fal.3~Y('J17d~L :?l/:?:?///;-l1'}-;y;f' y /. / /v--j / i ,// ',/ ! Il/ : L--(, /--1/) I U "~~-~/1}l~!/'??7~~ I ' l-, /.J-;f~ .r; ./<%;?? ~7'i? .. '/;;;???:?/1'tiJ21~J/:r~;;r;-7Y;JIt-r 7y'1,~1/11~...,,: V t/ , -? ?? v// // ,/ .. " I f / '?It£;\,~/,'"l7~,''~/Y771/:J!0JJ'?!?''~T ~'L,tt:,':Jll~'t7CZ-;P:~:;;7, }/~~J2/I;)/;'t /'0/1/ ~Ir/.y::)?1~/Jl;< ,''7(;,,:'>-p [';(. - ~~;{J; ',/ / r /~/> j" -l' if; / f t} lh?/' -tr;~:r ~ "7'-7 /£,#,:"/!?-IfrJ/ ??1J???rn~/?1YP~lJP' ' "/(1 -£- "_.~.. ,~. AGENCY RESPONSE FORM RECEIVED APR 28 1980 Wheeler County and the Cities of Fossil, ~litchell, and Spray Techrfrr~~.••••.•••••• Report, Comprehensive Plans and Implementation Measures. Instructions: Please check all spaces which apply to your response and fill in information as appropriate. DATE NAt~E AGENCY PHONE April 25, 1980 Stephen B8rton u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service, Animal Damage Control Pendleton, Oregon 276-3811 ext. 216 We would like to receive the following documents for review: _____ Technical Report ____ Wheeler County Plan and Implementation Measures ___ Fossil Plan and Implementation Measures _____ Mitchell Plan and Implementation Measures Spray Plan and Implementation Measures We will not be able to review these documents or attend the public hearings. xxx vie feel that the act-ivities of our agency do not affect land use in \~heeler County and, as such", will not make corrunenton thedocurr:ents. Please return to: Bea Donnelly Wheeler County Planning Coordinator County Courthouse Fossil, OR 97830 4/80 AGENCY RESPONSE FORM RECEIVED APR 2 8 m~g Wheeler County and the Cities of Fossil, rviitchell, and Spray TechniJt.fd.....•....•• Report, Comprehensive Plans and Implementation Measures. DATE to your response andInstructions: Please check all spaces which apply fill in information as appropriate. 1/xlgO NAME ~.~~~R AGENCY ~;L:; ;::Q 1& ~~ Na QQ&o j (0 K:. 9 z05-f PHONE D29f- (-1<-./(, I We would like to receive the following documents for review: Technical Report Wheeler County Plan and Implementation Measures Fossil Plan and Implementation Measures ____ Mitchell Plan and Implementation Measures Spray Plan and Implementation Measures We will not be able to review these documents or attend the public hearings. We feel that the activities of our agency do not affect land use in Wheeler County and, as such, \·lill not make comment on the documents. Please return to: Bea Donnelly Wheeler County Planning Coordinator County Courthouse Fossil, OR 97830 4/80 RECEIVED AGENCY RESPONSE FORr~ APR 2 B 198fl nns'dWhee1er County and the Citi es of Fossil> Mitche11, and Spray Techni ca1 ~~~... ~~~~~~ Report, Comprehensive Plans and Implementation Measures. Instructions: Please check all spaces which apply to your response and fill in information as appropriate. DATE NAt~E AGENCY PHONE ,Nf 0 f\J v (\/1. -Q AjJ- (JJ l? e L...----We would like to receive the fo11ov/ing documents for reviei'l: ~ Technical Report ~ Wheeler County Plan and Implementation Measures Fossil Plan and Implementation Measures _--_ r~itchell Plan and Implementation Measures -- Spray Plan and Implementation Measures We will not be able to review these documents or attend the public heat'ings. We feel that the activities of our agency do not affect land use in t~heeler County and, as such, \'Iill not make comment on the documents. Please return to: Bea Donnelly Wheeler County Planning Coordinator County Coul-thouse Fossil, OR 97830 4/80 AGENCY RESPONSE FORM APR 2 q 1980 Ans'd .............. Wheeler County and the Cities of Fossil, Mitchell, and Spray Technical Report, Comprehensive Plans and Implementation Measures. Instructions: Please check all spaces which apply to your response and fill in information as appropriate. DATE 4~~ lSo NAr~E ~~~ k~ AGENCY O~~ P-:.o~(~ B=c\y)~II\-,-'~~Ux.w.==t-...:...!.'(-----.., _ \\1£2 Ch?m<.U~ . Nf3 ~em I C9...- ':C1?>o( PHONE 3'10-¥llb i-. We \'lOuld like to receive the following documents for review: ~ Technical Report / Wheeler County Plan and Implementation Measures ~ Fossil Plan and Implementation Measures / Mitchell Plan and Implementation MeasuresI Spray Plan and Implementation Measures We will not be able to review these documents or attend the public hearings. We feel that the activities of our agency do not affect land use in \'Jheeler County and, as such, \'Iill not make comment on the documents. Please return to: Bea Donnelly Wheeler County Planning Coordinator County Courthouse Fossil, OR 97830 a~~s+ui Cot?~~ ~M-1/)..q ~ 4/80 AGENCY RESPONSE FORM Wheeler County and the Cities of Fossil, Mitchell, and Spray Report, Comprehensive Plans and Implementation Measures. RECEIVED APR 2 9 1980 ADS'd••••.••••_•• Technical Instructions: Please check all spaces which apply to your response and fill in information as appropriate. DATE Arpil 28, 1980 NAME Mark Lovgren, System Engineer AGENCY Columbia Basin Electric Cooperative, Inc. P. O. Box 398, Heppner, Oregon 97836 PHONE 676-9146 ~ We would like to receive the following documents for review: _~ Technical Report _x_ Hheeler County Plan and Implementation Measures Fossil Plan and Implementation Measures __ Mitchell Plan and Implementation Measures Spray Plan and Implementation Measures We will not be able to review these documents ~r attend the public headngs. We feel that the activities of out agency do not affect land use in t~heeler County and, as such, \-,i11 not make comment on the documents. Please return to: Bea Donnelly Wheeler County Planning Coordinator County Courthouse Fossil, OR 97830 1l0uL-'feJ Cof~ )t~ {/t.1 ~ 4/80 ., ~ RECEIVED AGENCY RESPONSE FOR~1 APR 29 1980 Ans'd Wheeler County and the Cities of Fossil, Mitchell, and Spray Technical············ Report, Comprehensive Plans and Implementation Measures . Instructions: Please check al I spaces which apply to your response and fill in information as appropriate. DATE Yr/ 2-7/ <;/ Q .; I NAME DONALD W. MINER, STAFF ATTORNEY AGENCY OREGON MANUFACTURED HOUSING DEALERS ASSOCIATION (OMHDA) 3850 PORTLAND ROAD NE SUITE 203, SALEM, OREGON 97303 PHONE 364-2470 ~ We would like to receive the following documents for review: ~ Technical Report ~ Wheeler County Plan and Implementation Measures ~ Fossil Plan and Implementation Measures ~ Mitchell Plan and Iniplementation t'1easures ~ Spray Pl an and Impl ementati on t'1easures We will not be able to review these documents or attend the public hearings. We feel that the activities of our agency do not affect land use in \·/heeler County and. as such, \':i11 not make COImient on the documents. Please return to: Bea Donnelly Wheeler County Planning Coordinator County Courthouse Fossil, OR 97830 il~£{e,~ Lof;(,S S2J tf/->7 u;Jp 4/80 AGENCY RESPONSE FORt~ REeEl VE0 APR 2 9 198L Wheeler County and the Cities of Fossil, Mitchell, and Spray Techni~a1 Report, Comprehensive Plans and Implementation t~easures. Aosd •••••••••••• Instructions: Please check all spaces which apply to your response and fill in information as appropriate. DATE . NAr~E AGENCY- PHONE , ('.';'/-) '. ") I L 212 ~~ -- lJ. ~/? I./) I L v/~ ~le would like to receive the following documents for review: y~ Technical Report ---r- >~ Hheeler County Plan and Implementation ~leasures Fossil Plan and Implementation Measures· __ Mitchell Plan and Implementation Heasures Spray Plan and Implementation Measures We will not be able to review these documents or attend the public hearings. We feel that the activities of our agency do not affect land use in \·lhee1er County and, as such, wi 11 not make cornrnent on the documents. Please return to: Sea Donnelly Wheeler County Planning Coordinator County Courthouse Fossil, OR 97830 4/80 P,PR 3 0 1980 '-- E.C.G.A.C. ............ -.--.x;.=~ -. . - •• "--_.._.--_." ~--- AGENCY RESPONSE FORM RECEIVED APR 3 0 1980 / / ( \ We would like to receive the following documents for review: Technical Report Hhee1er County Pl an and Imp1ementati on t1easures _____ Fossil Plan and Implementation Measures _____ Mitchell Plan and Implementation Measures _____ Spray Plan and Implementation Measures We will not be able to review these documents or attend the public hearings. We feel th~t the activities of our agency do not affect land use in Wheeler County and, as such, \'1; 11 not make cormnent on the documents. return to: Bea Donnelly Wheeler County Planning Coordinator County Courthouse Fossil, OR 97830 r,IAY 01 1980 , I t ==-_~_~_.O~.A~.C:.:...____.1 4/80 AGENCY RESPONSE FORM RECErVEO APR 3 0 iSBD Wheeler County and the Cities of Fossil, Mitchell, and Spray Tec~l Report, Comprehensive Plans and Implementation t~easures. ----------- Instructions: Please check al i spaces which apply to your response and fill in information as appropriate. DATE 1/ - >'~! c:~. 0 NAME AGENCY PHONE . '......... /" .' 1... _.- " ,h---./' I). '. ,1,,/ ';' ,~ ! -.' , .", ' . We would like to receive the following documents for review: ___.._ Technical Report ~/ Wheel er County Pl an and Impl ementati on t'ieasures c~Fossil Plan and Implementation Measures Mitchell Plan and Implementation Measures ---~/ ~ Spray Pl an and Impl ementati on t~easures We will not be able to review these documents or attend the publtc hearings. We feel that the activities of our agency do not affect land use in 14hee1er County and, as such, will not make comment on the documents. Please return to: Bea Donnelly Wheeler County Planning Coordinator County Courthouse Fossil, OR 97830 4/80 .. . AGENCY RESPONSE FORM Hheeler County and the Cities of Fossil, r~itchell, and Spray Technical Report, Comprehensive Plans and Implementation Measures. Instructions: Please check all spaces which apply to your response and fill in information as appropriate. DATE NAME AGENCY :\ P, --, \ .2 <1 .' I,' \ . PHONE C' . -. . ....-j (" "\ -- l -' "'I ? I. ~! . . _~ t J We will review the following documents: .~\C-<"·~ ./ ') ""'-.-.. Wheeler County Plan and Implementation J.1easures r··· .. '"; , \ .~ -, ._-(-- ~- --\ ~ \.:~._ :~_L- - ~~ . _ .-"'/v ,- -'~ ." \ r "_::_' (.... <..' (" ·.c'--_·..··· ....... .........'--- ,::'~ (~- _\_' Tecllni ca1 Report \ \ . Fossil Plan and Implernentution ~'leasul-es /. -- '-..,.. ~ Mitchell Plan and ImPlementati~n MeaS",.'es) . .\ Spray Pl an and Imp1ementa tl on heasures / --" We will not be able to review these documents or attend the public hearings. ~_ Our comments are enclosed. He \vill send wl-itten comments by the r~ay 27-30 meeting deadlines. We will not be able to complete our review and send our written comments until (Date) He plan to attend the following hearings: ------------- Page 1 of 2 Pages Agency activities \'Ihich affect land use in Hheeler County include ---.- (please specify and attach additional information as necessary): The follo'tling report(s) contain(s) information v,rhich should be added to the technical report (please specify and attach additional infor- mation as necessary): .-. I \ Please return to: Bea Donnelly Hheeler County Planning Coordinato.r County Courthouse Fossil, OR 97830 Page 2 of 2 Pages 3/80 VICTOR ATIYEH G<..""""'" Department of Transportation PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION RECEIVED MAY 6 1980 Ans'd .••••••••••• :E'O. BOX 850 HIGHWAY BUILDING LAGRANDE, OR 97850 MAY 2, 1980 .:";"."l:'-. Bea Donnelly Wheeler County Planning Coordinator County Courthouse Fossil, OR 97830 Dear Bea; I've completed review of the Wheeler County Draft Comprehensive Plan and Technical Report. I feel the plan is very well done. I would like to make the following suggestions. I note that in the Summary of-Protected Areas, Painted Hills, Clarno, and John Day Fossil Beds are recognized as Federal. However, under state Parks and Their Facilities, these same areas are refered to as being in our jurisdiction. This should be corrected. We do have a Scenic River access by the bridge near Clarno. This area is approximately 1 acre with a parking area and restrooms. Although Historic Preservation has been covered fairly well, there are some additions that would strengthen this section of the plan. I think development of a museum, for protection of artifacts, is commendable. To support this idea, some implementing devices should be developed to insure preservation of Historic Buildings as well. A mention of State and Federal Laws pertaining to Historic Preservation would also be beneficial. I've enclosed an example of a small citys l historical element. It has all the points I've discussed. If you have any questions regardinq this letter or need any assistance in the future, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ~~~ Cindy vergar~ Planning Representative Oregon state Parks Form 734-3122 enclosure cc: Wally Hibbard Jim Kennedy History Section George Strawn File ECOAC RECEfVED MAY 0 '--I ICO"'" IvUU _____~:,~:_?:A. c. ."--'-""""-,.~-",,......--. Nf\TURf'.L RES 0 U DeE S RECE\'JEO t\t\'i 6 ,gSO ~ns'd ••.•. .....•• Flocdi~g therefore, does not pose aoy proble~s in Sublinity and is not considered in the plc~n .. Scblinity lies ~ithin the Lower Santiam River Watershed and drains in n so~therly direc~ion into ~~ll Creek. The confluence of the ~otth fork and Sou~~ Fork of Beaver Creek occurs about one nile north of town while ~lill Creek flo'..:s sou~h of the to(.:D. Groundwater availability is somewhat vari2ble. according to the Willanette Basin 11".,·c·'02"o~.<' Stud.!... l "l"t'Ol"n t'lC F·"'-'" Rl·d~e. l.'O~ ... tl·on ',,"rer ~/l.-"'l"ls of ".bOl_lt·:;"_ _ _.v " I '- L L b '- L ..., " , ,_ _ • "" __ u • -oJ V g3110ns per cinu:c (gp~) at depths ranging from 100 to 300 feet ~ay be obtained. Sc\.:~r:e:·. :'iarion County Cvr:lPLt~llensiva PLm c:ue to c:·:cessive ':i025 2nd thus do not: lend th<2~selves to Cl.'!::::!~rci.21 use. T!~'e c' . ''1' .,..-...,... .. ,. l I..~ ..- .. ..../ to b~ of CC2~.1erc i:J.l .~:--:t2 St.:lt~' S His"::o't"iC2..1 su'::"v.~yis only oDOUr: 75 perce"L cor.:?let:e at, t~~is .~ ~C:lt~~~ucus ~~d ongoin; ~rocess ~hich reqltires revic~ 2C r~~ul~r inte~~als_ -.:: : ~~:.:~::..::>:: ;~·~~S f.~'.. C·:>:;-,?(·:"~1(~:1Si\.'~.... S~UJ~l~" \';2~l:::-' .:-tt1U r;.~lated LZLl:i:ic ~~o~c.h".·.~es;: ;, .. ':'.~~: :~ :~s ir:s CVl~';::l.~;S l.v:-';. .. Th2!:"~ 3.~2 ::i :1li.mber of federal laws ,,,hich seek to protect historic and archeological s:"ces. Public Law 91-1~0)~ L~e DooKs, specifically Oregon Revised Statutes 273.705, 273.711 a~d 273.990, which , ) - r~q~i!:"e protection oi In2i~n burials on all lan~s GJhich has merit in th~ Sublimity - 2rea since I~dians ~pre the ear1ipst inhabitants of the area 2r:d objects on all- state-m;r..ed L::..nds. -----------~_......-- Th~~ity has adopted the followi~g policy to 4 - . ~2al ·,·,ith thQ preservation or: historic resources: !.·::i tt::':1 G. t" ..:o-year ~ .....--. ti~2 fraRe, the City will need to dev~lop ~nd adopt an histo!:"ic w. ""...~ to: e ...*"' ............. 4E • !IIl:lsQ :r~-"-"-""'---'. 0nliu2.11Ce to corres-pond ,.;:ith the above policy and set guidelines for _--..--"'...,.,A---..------------------'--.------.~ ...t_...........<~~"""~~ t~2 prese=vation o~ historical resourCQS in Sublimity. ~~~ ~~viror:~2ntal Protection Agency (EPA) has d2signatcd air quality control r2gibns :::0 .:} i.e t~2 i~pl~~~ntation of the Federal Cl~an Ai~ Act of 1970 as Sub- li::-,::':v is c~=rentl:' located in Portland's Intersu.te Air Quality Centrol Reg::'on [or ~h::'c~ th2cc~trol of pollution emission is necessa~y. The Department of Environ~~nt~ \:~21i.t~.· ~:..;:.:::.{) (12S ju~isG.icti0:'. over the air quality st·i \ .-,,_/( ", \";"'(' .'\') i ; \ ',\" '" '.', ",-, , DATE NAr~E AGENCY . "''')_1, ! ~:. ~-",..\ ADDRESS _'_'-'_1--,-":_(_,,:0..'__~-,-.;_,\";,,,:,_,_'--,-"__"_"_'_"_"_'-_- '_;'_h_-,,_r__i ,_'!._,,_~_~-__~~" c....; . i ..~.: ~ .-\ . , PHONE ,/ ", ;~ ( '-l We will review the following documents: v/ Technical Report _,/_"'_ Wheeler County Plan and Implementation j'ieasures Fossil Plan and Implementation Measures __ r~itchell Plan and Implementation r'1easures ____ Spray Plan and Implementation Measures We will not be able to review these documents or attend the public hearings. Our comments are enclosed. 1// I·!e wi 11 send wri tten comments by the t-Iay 27-30 meeti ng deadl i nes. \~e will not be able to complete our revievi and send our \'/ritten comments until (Date) plan to 1\ ') attend the following hearings: ------------- c;d,'(lc, 1",1 ,-C/, ,e,- (!"'-"I .J q t' -" Page 1 of 2 Pages ,/ Agency activities \'/hich affect land use in Hheeler County include ---- (please specify and attach additional information as necessary): , . n (' ~- ,,1. ~. p , / .'i • :. ", p'" ' -; I . . ~"i _ ,"I ~ " - ~ # ,~ _~j. \ c· ,,' -'..... The following report(s) contain(s) information which should be added to the technical report (please specify and attach additional infor- mation as necessary): So l. f ..... ~'- c).\ . ':.: -._. ~_'" Please return to: Bea Donnelly Wheeler County Planning Coordinator County Courthouse Fossil, OR 97830 3/80 Page 2 of 2 Pages E.C.O.A.C.""---=-~._- -~~. '------- REGION 5 OFFICE /_---~ VICTOR ATI'VEH ::;c-.~•."l()M Department of Transportation STATE HIGHWAY DIVISION W. E. Schwartz Region Engineer In Reply Refer to File No.: P. O. Box 850 May 5, 1980 La Grande, Oregon 97850 Telephone 963-3177 'The Hon. Andrew F. Leckie vfueeler COW1ty Courthouse Fossil, Oregon 97830 The Han. S"il 1 "1acInnes City Hall City of Fossil Fossil, Oregon 97830 Gentlemen: I have completed review of the transportation goal of your CoUI1ty' s and City's draft teclll"1ical report, Comprehensive Plan and Ordj..,'lances and it appears youX' efforts '.-Jere worthwhile. The following comment may clarifY some statements and will also aid the County and City in the realization of their Goals. Comprehens i ve Plan Technical Report Chapter II, page 14, Transportation - 'r:F'unding available for construction ...will be limited in the future ... highest potentiaL". I realize the future of highway financing looks bleak, however, this statement might be TIDre accurate if the \'lord "will" was removed aYJ.d replaced i'Jith 'Tray". 'There are two ballot measures, one this month regarding the use of highway revenues for high',\,ay purposes and one in NOVEmber raisi.l1g gasoline tax by 2 cents, which if approved by the voters would strengthen City, County and State highway fill1ding. Cnapter 5, page 42, discussed the present systems for transportation of the disadvantaged. I believe the COill1ty and City should consider expanding this section to include the ride-sharing program which I understand presently exists. The goal requirement; ''meet the needs of the transportation of disadvantaged by improving transportation services", is very difficult to satisfY in viev.' of your Coill1ty's size, population and available revenues. A policy which would help to meet these needs might be "to coordinate and encourage the present ride-sh..aring program". Form 734-3122 .. ~ ... 'Ihe Hon. Andrew F. Leckie Mayor of Fossil May 5, 1980 Page 2 Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances County Plan, page 6, Transportation, Policy 4 and City of Fossil Plan, page 7, Transportation, states !trIo study the feasibility ... airport in northern \'Jheeler County.!t. I believe it l,'lculd benefit the County if our D2paTtment assisted you in this process. I would suggest adding IrvJork with the Aeronautics Division, II to the begirm:Lng of this policy. If you have any questions about r:-.y comments, please contact me. Sincerely, . '/ ,'-- --? \.~- ~ I ' ,. c-- '-.. - v l ,'( (/ ._f~L-, -'. '- -l- ,-- ,. '-._- George Stra'NTI Region PlarLning Representative HES/vt cc: Bea Dormelly, Wheeler County Plarming Coordinator Charles Davis, Comprehensive Plarmer, ECOAC J. B. Kermedy, DLCD Roberta Young Aeronautics Division RECEIVED AGENCY RESPONSE FORt1 MAY 7 1980 Ans·d . Wheeler County and the Cities of Fossil, Mitchell, and Spray Technical Report, Comprehensive Plans and Implementation Measures. Instructions: Please check all spaces which apply to your response and fill in information as appropriate. DATE NAr~E AGENCY PHONE ')-~l "j .., ""'"'" .-'0 - " >(\; -'. -_.... ! -{; ~ 7 ~ We would like to-receive the following documents for review: Technical Report ~ Wheeler County Plan and Implementation Measures __ Fossil Plan and Implementation Measures __ Nitchell Plan and Implementation r'leasures Spray Plan and Implementation Measures We will not be able to review these documents or attend the public hearings. We feel that the activities of our agency do not affect land use in Hhee 1er County and, as such, wi 11 not make COfT'ment on the documents. Please return to: Sea Donnelly Wheeler County Planning Coordinator County Courthouse Fossil, OR 97830 4/80 "JCTOR ATtYEH GeM"""" Department of Transportation PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION RECEIVED MAY 7 1980 Ans'd h P.O. BOX 850 Bea Donnelly Planning Coordinator P.O. Box 327 Courthouse Fossil, OR 97830 Dear Bea, HIGHWAY BUILDING LAGRANDE, OR 97850 MAY 5, 1980 Form 734-3122 lIve completed review of the Draft Comprehensive Plans for the Cities of Fossil, Mitchell, and Spray. The only comments I have concern Historic Preservation. I note that all the Historic Sites were listed in the County Plan under the cities in which they are located. The city plans do not contain an inventory. I would suggest a change in this area. The first option for the cities would be to acknowledge the fact that an inventory is located in the County Plan and make a policy statement that an effort will be made to keep the inventory current in the future. The second option would be for each city to have it's own Historical Inventory, along with all the supporting policies nessesary. We feel these changes are an important step in insuring the preservation of the many historic sites located in these three cities. Again, please call if you have any questions regarding this review. Sincerely, ~. f' .., \~,-,---,v...(' CJCindy VergaLi Planning Representative Oregon State Parks cc: Wally Hibbard Jim Kennedy History Section ECOAC George Strawn ,-" VICTOR ATiYEH """'''''''' Department of Transportation PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION E'O. BOX 850 Chip Davis Box 1207 Pendleton, OR 97801 Dear Chipi HIGHWAY BUILtING LAGRANDE, OR 97850 MAY 19, 1980 Form 734-3122 Sorry for the misunderstanding in my review of the cities of Fossil, Mitchell, and Spray. I overlooked the first page of the plans where it was mentioned that the Technical Report covered both the County and the cities. We were concerned, unnecessarily, that people would not be aware of where to find the list of Historic Buildings and Sites. The above cities meet all of our concerns. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Sincerely, /). .C~~~-\- Cindy Vergar.i Planning Representative Oregon State Parks cc: Bea Donnelly \vally Hibbard Jim Kennedy . History Section George Strawn r .=.. . ._=- --. c~ E.C.O.A.C. - - '~_"._'"'O'._.'~,-,=,"~-. OREGON BUSINESS PLANNING COUNCIL 1178 CHEMEKETA. N.E. STAFF: KATHERINE KEENE Planning Director SALEM. OREGON 97301 May 12, 1980 . PHONE (503) 370-811. DAVID s. HILL Natura! Resources Director Ms. Bea Donnelly Wheeler County Planning Coordinator County Courthouse Fossil, OR 97830 Dear Ms. Donnelly: RECEIVED MAY 13 1980 Ans'd ...........• Thank you for providing us with draft comprehensive plans and ordinances for Fossil, Mitchell, Spray and Wheeler County. We have completed our review of the plans for the three cities and include our comments herein. We will shortly be sending you comments on Wheeler County's plan. I n general the pl ans appear to meet the needs of the three communi ti es. And from the point of view of our members we find little of concern in the plans. We would like to see individual population projections for the cities and the county. This would be especially useful since there appears to be no concensus in the population projections prepared by the BPA and the Department of Economic Development. The individual population projections would then serve as the basis for documenting the amount and type of land needed for urban development. A buildable lands inventory for each city is needed so that demand for urban land can be matched with the appropriate supply. If all the land in the cities is buildable the plans should so state. We are concerned with Fossil's decision to include street tree plant- ing requirements in the proposed subdivision ordinance. The provisions will be both costly to administer, given their extreme specificity, and will impose an additional cost burden on the new home buyer. Because purchase of a new home is rapidly becoming an impossibility for most Oregonians we strongly urge Fossil to carefully consider the full impacts of the proposed tree planting requirements. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, k~,~~~ Katherine Keene Planning Director KK:paw MAY 14 1980 E.C.O.A.C. -~...... MEMBERS: -ASSOCIATED OREGON INDUSTRIES .. Oregon Foresr Indusrfles Council·· Oregon Rerail Council ·OREGON ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS' OREGON· COLUMBIA ChAPTER ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS·· Cons'fucrion Industry Advancement Fund - OREGON ST ATE HOMEBUILDERS ASSOCIA TlON United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT District Office P.O. Box 550 Prineville, Oregon 97754 May 12, 1980 Bea D:mnelly 'Wheeler C01mty Plarming Coordinator Fossil, Oregon 97830 'Dear Ms. Donnelly: IN REPLY REFER TO 1600 RECEfVEO t1AY 11, 1980 Ans'd.•••• ~•••••~ Thank you for the opportunity to revie:v 'Wheeler's COlmty Draft Comp- rehension Plan. ~~le there is no Federal authority for B.L.M. to agree to be bound by such plans as developed under State law or regulations, it appears that current B.L.N. interests and land use plans have been adequately incorporated in the comprehensive plan. B.L.M. activities will be conducted in accordance vlith the plan to the m:-1Xinu:n extent consistent with Federal l~v and policy. Sincerely yours, yfJ;f/{//?YW-CM9J Paul W. Arrasmith District YBnager Kent W Christoferson, M.D.. P. C. Physician and Surgeon Ophthalmic Associates Building 1415 Pearl St., Suite 1 Eugene. Oregon 97401 Telephone 687-2441 Practice Limited to Op'hthalmr'log~>, ::a;y 13, 19~>() 3'3::1 =~'or;n{·:11=·,;- ·::~"v:?e1.8r CO'j."~+j~r ?~_.~~·;.t::.·~ Coorclj.':;.Fltol-- SO~~?1t:r CO·).":'··~::':;t:SA ?n~~il'J C~e~ci~ ??~Jn RECEIVED MAY 15 1980 t1ri'~J;.I. ~:.~.p. MAY 1t. ) Ans'd ••••.••.•••• 1 :rec2i~·:·ed ~);:'; ~~:b~_i(; "::h~~I~:-:r C01:.!1.t~:;r .. notice of the proposed IJlan for , .OrCll!1ar:ce. "~Y' c":l.:r ::'~0::-+,i.Cf'"'~ ~s ":.~11·-:-.t!~e~ :··1~," !,,~(~~.-.:-~:-t~t }"~a.s dj.·r;~:·~·~. :1.CC:::·S~~ .~d.j0i~-:~~.. !-::\·) t..':""' ~'-:". :-l.·~ l ·..:~?.~..~~~l'" ~"n~/;., ?.~1d I ~·-f)'JJcJ ~"l:·'~,'-:-.~~~-"~:;e:l.·?.~.-.~~ "" .J~ ........ " ..~':. .i 1 ' ;>nt ". Christoferson, ... D. :~ -r /'''1.'•••• ..J ! •• RECEI\jF:'D J MAY 16 1980 E.C.O.A.C. AGENCY RESPONSE FORM i RECElVEO MAY i 5 1980 ~ns'd .... , . Wheeler County and the Cities of Fossil, Mitchell, and Spray Technical Report, Comprehensive Plans and Implementation Measures. Instructions: Please check all spaces whi~h a~~ly to your response and fill in information as appropri; , " DATE NAf1E AGENCY PHONE X We will review the following documents: Technical Report )( Wheeler County P12n. and Implementation Measures Fossil Plan and I~pjementation Measures Mi~chell Plan and I~plementation Measures ____ Spray Plan and Implementation Measures We will not be able to review these documents or attend the public hearings. Our co~ments are enclosed. We will send vlritten COfT"J1ents by the ~lay 27-30 meeting deadlines. We will not be able to complete our review and send our written cowments until (Date) We plan to attend the following hearings: ------------ Page 1 of 2 Pages ~gencY activities which affect land use in Wheeler County include -. .. ._ _. - .- ----~--_.-._,- If the project would require the removal, fill or alteratlon of 50 cubic yards or more of material within the baru~s of the 'vaterway(s), we urge the applicant to apply for state fill or removal permits well in advance of construction deadlines to prevent unnecessary project delays. Specific information on the need for permits may be obtained from the Division of State Lands' office at 1445 State Street, Salem, OR 97310. Phone 378-3805 0 Thank you for the opportunity to co~ment on this project. /1 The following report(s) contain(s) information which should be added to the technical report (please specify and attach additional infor- mation as necessary): Please return to: Bea Donnelly Wheeler County Planning Coordinator County Courthouse Fossil. OR 97830 Page 2 of 2 Pages 3/80 AGENCY RESPONSE FORM RECEIVED t1AY 2 3 1980 Ans'd . Wheeler County and the Cities of Fossil, Mitchell, and Spray Technical Report, Comprehensive Plans and Implementation Measures. Instructions: Please check all spaces which apply to your response and fill in information as appropriate. / I/;' 'k/! C')DATE -'7~ .A I Le( AGENCY ---r- --r~//?/=:;.! ADDRESS -----------------------"-------- PHONE ·,5~,·) ··..eMz- 0 ;;'.'47 ~ We will review the following documents: ~ Technical Report >' Wheeler County Plan and Implementation t~leasures . Fossil Plan and Imolementation Measures -- , x Mitchell Plan and Implementation Measures Spray Plan and Implementation Measures We will not be able to review these documents or attend the public hearings .. ..- Our comments are enclosed. We \'/ill send \'lritten corrments by the r'1ay 27-30 meeting deadlines. He will not be able to complete our revie\,/ and send our vvritten COrTi.'f.ents unti 1 (Date) We plan to attend the following hearings: ------------- Page 1 of 2 Pages Agency activities which affect land use in \~heeler County include ---- (please specify and attach additional information as necessary): •IJ\~.""" .'. ,,':-'.,", c"'" ---(1<, .. C'cl'.,-c·C' l\.. n4[~".'J·1 -fc:,:(-,-s,t iJ::r-t,~,.-~ c-- .' ~~.; .. ) .. ~ , , . \' \" ---r-. I \ ' _·.:-.tt"'c'C':-':.:-.'-,-''_'-.:-.'~-'--''_"'_'..:;.',':='....;'__.:-.'_,'"-'__'_"_'---='-_I....;l-',... t.:.....~,....;.'_'...=:'''--t-,--:..'\>-.:"-,-'",,-,-'.__\ ,-,-I·~.-,-,l.:.-,'~-,--.,_'':-"-'-":..-,...,','--,l'--',-'--~·...~r'>,----'-,_....::c,-,-'-,-'I....::. ,..:..;,·"-"---'- ':" ... \ (" (" ,", ~ t\..\. ~~.:' \\':' l L\ '·~_l.(. \ .. ,,::.": :- .:..-..~~ -". .:\ .,,:. (,_ -t t: (\ . \.~ 'J The following report(s) contain(s) information which should be added to the technical report (please specify and attach additional infor- mation as necessary): C'c-,c I-{l',~:(,.,'. (\~(\ nc.,i;· I''\:'~'f(l \ C~"\'i :h(0~,,',: ,c,~t.,.'-(',f.:-',. ,-,~·-t-C,- \\i(( "I~!U~ ("ie C,,11'\.("·c" ".',_ ~,(,l..,',·I, .._.J ('::' e, "d 'Ie,. r,.,r•. L~';.-,o.j \ :r;-'F"'\':' ((\d'~"((· 1 eL). ,,"\0- r\ c\.c+~,-:;L(·'~, Please return to: Bea Donnelly Wheeler County Planning Coordinator County Courthouse Fossil, OR 97830 --..... .:5;!CO~) '3- ~l i:~:~;. ~ 2 ),V!!,J r. r".•-- .... _....-L-- --/c. 1-" !. !. '/ / /,"? }'J Page 2 of 2 Pages 3/80 'I, •. _.\" ••. oJ .,~ • \ .... ..:' • ' I "---- ------"-~--~.:.. AGENCY RESPONSE FORM RECE\\JEO Mf\'{ 2 7 \geO ~ns'd .•.....•...• Wheeler County and the Cities of Fossil, f1itchell, and Spray Technical Report, Comprehensive Plans and Implementation Measures. Instructions: Please check all spaces which apply to your response and fill in information as appropriate. DATE NAME AGENCY ADDRESS .!19 O. O--et4Vv'"\ (9-0~. 5lC't ~.-LL), ~ y-d} < eDet\o~\ De. 91-~OY . t PHONE '2--&3 - 4~ 0). ~ ~ We will review the following documents: Technical Report V \·Iheel er County Pl an and Impl ementa ti on ~leasures ____ Fossil Plan and Implementation Measures Mitchell Plan and Implementation Measu~es Spray·~1an and Implementation Measures We \~ill not be able to review these documents or attend the public hearings. Our comments al~e enclosed. V \~e will send \'ii~itten corrments by the ~'ay 27-30 meeting deadl ines. We \'/ill not be able to complete our review and send our written comments until (Date) We plan to attend the following hearings: ------------ Page 1 of 2 Pages Agency activities which affect land use in Wheeler County include ---- (please specify and attach additional information as necessary): t~ lAJ. L\ 'o~ I.e \.A eJ.DIV\) -f:w6-ocJs 3, I-{ l 6 a~ "1 The following report(s) contain(s) information which should be added to the technical report (please specify and attach additional infor- mation as necessary): Please return to: Sea Donnelly Wheeler County Planning Coordinator County Courthouse Fossil, OR 97830 3/80 Page 2 of 2 Pages . .1 ' 1000 FRIENDS OF OREGON 400 DEKUM BUILDING, 519 SW. THIRD AVENUE. PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 (503) 223-4396 May 27, 1980 Judge Andre\v F. Leckie, Chairman Wheeler County Court Wheeler County Courthouse Fossil, OR 97830 Dear Co~~issioners and Judge Leckie: 1000 Friends of Oregon appreciates this opportunity to com- ment on the draft Wheeler County Comprehensive Plan to be con- sidered at the scheduled May 29, 1980 public hearing. We have reviewed the draft plan document, implementing measures and technical report, and wish to co~~end the county for its adop- tion of policies and implementing measures which should, with some minor adjustments, fully satisfy the requirements of the statewide planning goals. We will address Goal 3 (Agriculture), Goal 4 (Forest Lands) and Goal 5 (Open Space) in our comments which follO\'1. GOAL 3 - AGRICULTURE and GOAL 4 - FOREST LANDS The Wheeler County Technical Report states on page 11-4 that "a county-\·;ide soils survey has not been completed and conse- quently capability classes ... are not available." The county further has no cubic site class inventory of its forestlands. However, Goals 3 and 4 require that inventories of resource land serve as the basis for comprehensive plan land use designations. 'l'hese omissions have resulted in an over-generalized plan desig- nation map. The county's "Comprehensive Plan" map keys all land usc designations for the single grouping "farm, grazing, forest and open space." It is not possible to determine from the plan how much land is designated for each of these uses, or where such lands are located. The county has wisely chosen to propose for exclusive farm use zoning and permanent open space the entire unincorporated portion of the county until such time as soils information which would justify alternate zoning becomes available. According to page 3 of the plan document, the county will at that time "con- sider adoption of separate grazing and forest lands zones." However, we believe the county should 1) move quickly to complete its inventories and refine its plan designations, and 2) adopt and apply at least its proposed fGrestlands zone prior to submittal to LCDC for acknowledgment of compliance. The county's existing "Land Use" map (Technical Report, chapter VI) indicates that approximately one-third of county land is in forest Judge Andrew F. Leckie May 27, 1980 Page 2 use. Unless the county can demonstrate that EFU zoning is appro- priate for the protection of these forestlands, it must adopt and apply an appropriate forestry zone. The county's agricultural and forest land policies (page 3, plan document) are generally good; however, they need to be pre- sented as two separate sets of policies. Page 11-5 of the county technical report provides a rationale for the appropriateness of a 160 acre minimum lot size in protecting forestlands. ~he plan lacks a statement which demonstrates the appropriateness of the 160 acre minimum lot size in preserving agricultural or grazing lands. Such a statement could be included as a finding in the technical report. Assuming that there is adequate justification for the minimum lot size, the county's EFU zone provisions comply fully with state statute and with Goal 3. 1000 Friends has been unable to locate a statement within the subdivision ordinance describing the appeals process for subdivi- sion and minor and major partition approvals. Such a process is necessary to ensure that persons affected by a proposed land divi- sion have redress against a decision made in error. GOAL 5 - OPEN SPACE Wheeler County has inventoried its open spaces and has adopted a Permanent Open Space (POS) zone. POS zoning has been proposed for that portion of the John Day River designated as a State Scenic waterway. We encourage POS zoning for this area as proposed. In other cases, hOYlever, plan policies fail to commit the county to protect other identlfied open spaces. POS zoning has not been proposed for areas other than the John Day River. The county has not adopted specific measures to protect areas such as the Nature Conservancy's "Identified Rare and Endangered Species Natural Areas" (Technical Report, Table J-7). CONCLUSION , lvheeler County is to be co~nended for its efforts to preserve its resource base and to discourage the development of nonfarm d\vellings outside urban growth boundaries (Technical Report find- ing, p. 11-2 and Plan policy, p. 5). The adoption and application of effective implementing measures have moved the county signifi- cantly in the direction of achieving its goals. However, some work yet remains to be done by the county, which can be summarized as follm'15: 1. The completion of inventories for ag~icultural and forest lands. 2. The refinement of the "Comprehensive Plan" map designations. c-._ ..... ' Judge Andrew F. Leckie May 27; 1980 Page 3 3. The adoption and application of a forest lands zone. 4. The adoption of a land division appeals process. 5. The application of the POS zone to or other suitable measure identified open spaces and natural areas. Very truly yours, j{~)j J1'L·) ....~: ... " !.I p..l,lI L) - I. ~ Il\-L Ulll~f' If- { '} ci 'I/{.~-l. Katherine Handwerg Plan Review Speci~list KH/eec cc: Bea Donnelly ECOAC W.J. Kvarsten, DLCD Director May 27, 1980 Bea Donnelly, County Planning Coordinator Wheeler County v.TJ1eeler County Courthouse Fossil, OR 97830 Subject: City of Fossil Draft Comprehensive Plan Dear Ms. Donnelly: RECEIVED r1AY 2 B 1980 flns'd ............. The Department of Economic Development has reviewed the subject Plan with particular emphasis on Goal 9 and the relationship of other goals as they relate to economic development. The Plan has been well prepared and the policy statements are clear and realistic. Your analysis of the local economy is clear and you have presented the economic proble.llls that the City and County are facing in a realistic straightforward manner. I see no reason why our Department cannot recommend approval of the Plan to LCDC when it is presented for acknowledgment. /Sincerely, ,,_ //( _-----0---\ /' .~ ./,. , ~, ) - _//,/'x.,. --t.>:"/--/--;-"/-;---- / . ;" ':-t , ~ c;' _ ~, -,-/ Donald D. Farnam Economic Development Specialist DF/cm May 27, 1980 RECEIVED MAY 2 8 1980 ~ns'd .. .............. Bea Donnelly. County Planning Coordinator Wheeler County Wheeler County Courthouse Fossil, OR 97830 Subject: Wheeler County Draft Comprehensive Plan Dear Ms. Donnelly: The Department of Economic Development has reviewed the Wheeler County Draft Plan with particular emphasis on Goal 9 and the relationship of other goals as they relate to economic development. We found the Plan to contain a clear analysis of the local economy and a realistic statement of goals and policies. The background information in the technical report was well presented and did not fall short in addressing problems that exist in the County. I see no reason why our Department cannot recommend approval of the Plan to LCDC when it is presented for acknowledgment. Donald D. Farnam Economic Development Specialist DF/cm , . RECEIVED MAY 2 8 1980 Ans'd .0 0 DATE: . May 9, 1980 I have reviewed the Wheeler County Plan and recommend that the Department comment on the following six points. 1) Forest Inventory: There are several statements in the Technical R~port which claim that soil survey and forest productivity information have not been developed for Wheeler County (p. 11-1, VI-l, and VI-8). Our research indicates that soil survey information is available f0r most of the County through the SCS and the State Water Resources Board (Oregon's Long Ranqe Requirements for Water, Appendix 1-6). The information contained in these two documents are sufficient to identify and locate cubic foot site classes for the forest lands within the County. The Department of Forestry recommends that this information be compiled, mapped, and included in the Wheeler County Final Comprehensive Plan. Also, in Chapter VI, there is a map titled "Land Use," which shows Wheeler County divided into 3 land use zones: grazing, irrigable crop land, and forest land. The source of this map, though cited, does not state how these zones were identified. The Department of Forestry recommends that the discrepancy between the land use map and the stated level of soils and forest productivity data be resolved in the Final Plan. 2) Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zone Wheeler County has placed all of its land outside the city limits of Fossil, Mitchell, and Sprague, in an EFU zone to "protect" the County's resources until soils and productivity information becomes available. However, the EPU zone as defined in the Zoning Ordinance does not apply Goal 4 to the forest lands located within this zone. Goal 4 states that "forest land shall be retained for production of wood fiber and other forest uses." This should be achieved by limiting non-forest uses on forest land even if they have been placed in an EFU zone. The \qheeler County EFU zone does not limit non-forest uses on forest land, in fact, churches, and schools are uses which are permitted outright .. This does not meet Goal 4 requirements and therefore either an exception must be taken or non-forest use of forest .land in the EFU zone must be classified as conditional uses subject to specific criteria designed to conserve the forest land. /' . " 3) Grazing lands (GL), and Forest lands (FL). Space has been "reserved in the zoning Ordinances for GL and FL zone classifications when soil and"forest productivity "becomes available." The Department of Forestry recommends that the Final Plan Zoning Ordinance contain articles describing the FL and GL zones so that they can be reviewed for compliance wi th Goal 4: ." Tliese articles can be dr afted wi thout soil or forest productivity information. 4) Comprehensive Plan Ordinance. In Section 5(c), of the Plan Ordinance, Goal 4 is stated. This statement is backed up by County policies. Policy ~2 is not consistent with Goal 4, and should be altered as suggested above in Section #2. Policy ~3 states that a FL zone may be adopted when information becomes available. This information is available and should be included in the Final Plan. 5) Fire Protection. Pages II-7, and IV-54 of the Technical Report mentions the threat posed by range and forest fires to life and property, especially in high density" developments near range and forest lands. It is stated that "the County's zoning and subdivision ordinances provide the means for implementing effective measures to lessen the risk of fire ... " A review of the " implementation measures reveals no discussion of fire "protection. Wheeler County's zoning ordinances should contain ftre protection policies and measures. The following document, available through OSDF, may be of use to the County planners: Fire Safet~nsiderations for Development in Forested Areas. 6} Zoning Federal Land It should be noted here that although Wheeler County is permitted to zone federally owned lands, these zoning ordinances cannot regulate forest uses on these lands. 5690B SJ:gu RECEIVED MAY 2 8 t980 .Ans'd •• ~•.••••••• AGENCY RESPONSE FOR!'1 RECEIVED MAY 2 8 1980 (If/s'd .D •• _•••••• ~ Wheeler County and the Cities of Fossil, Mitchell, and Spray Technical Report, Comprehensive Plans and Implementation Measures. Instructions: Please check all spaces which apply to your response and fill in information as appropriate. DATE NAi,lE AGENCY 5/29/80 Glen ';fard Oregon De~"J!:'"rtr.1ent of Fish c:nd ',{ild1ife P. O. Box 2sJ.!-ADDRESS ----------------------------- HC9pner, Ore. 97836 PHONE 676-9195 We will review the following documents: Technical Report Wheel er County Pl an and Imp1ementati on j'~2asures Fossil Plan and Implementation Measures Mitchell Plan and Implementation Measures ____ Spray Plan and Implementation Measures We will not be able to review these documents or attend the public hearings. x He \'/ill send \·:ri tten comments by the j'1ay 27-30 meet; n9 deadl i nes. We will not be able to complete our review and send our written comments unti 1 (Date) He plan to attend the following hearings: . ------------- r-::.'ly 29th, 1980 Agency activities v/hich affect land use in Wheeler County include ---- (please specify and attach additional information as necessary): The following report(s) contain(s) information which should be added to the technical report (please specify and attach additional infor- mation as necessary): Please return to: Bea Donnelly Wheeler County Planning Coordinator County Courthouse Fossil, OR 97830 .' l'Page 2 of 2.,Pages 3/80 Oregon Depart~ent of Fish ~nd Wildlife Heppner, Oregon 97836 !·rrs. Bea Donnelly, Cooydin~tor \}heeler Cou."1ty' s Comprehensive Tolan \Iheeler County Court Eouse ?ossil, Oregon 97 30 The Or·~;gon :De~artment of Fish <::n.cL ':iildli;~e 1Lc s revie\·:ed the.'heeler CO'.l:tty Comprehensive ~lan in dr~:.ft fOYI:} \Iith district fish a.nd ' .... ildlife biologists and regional sts.ff coordinators P:.!1Cl. vIe find the :;:bn c nforms Hi th I:CDC goals a,."1d guidelines concening fish -",nd. vi1,'~life reso'J.rces. There are 8. fe"l minor ch.c:.nges VIe Hould like to recOTIunend or sdd. 1. Zoning ordin::mce-pc"-ge I-iter;] 7: ch n{je timber products to forest:)roducts. page 2-item 10: s~ecifically incl'.lde riDsrian h~bitat (streamsicle cover) \-Jhich hie.s the highest v::due for ltlildlife- species inc1udLii; both a:::uo:.tic and terre~;tis.l forms of \/ildlife. . / 2. Include the "Sensitive Fish ~~8.'citat _"~reas .I·;a:9J' in :.1·~eereer County trla.t \{as su'bmi tted ~.,ri th the ';l11eeler County:iildlife l-hbi tat Protection Pla.n. 3. In the ,,,ppenc.lx under big ge.TJ.e, upL:nd g,:tffie, and. ,·raterfo,n :r.ecQ:::f1p.ndations chccnge 1,,11 resicle:1tia.1 "r;o'J.sinf; l'ec,y'!:;e:',ci.?tiions to one house per 160 c,cr2S to confor,') ,·!i th the :'le2ler Co~mty j,L:r;Ylin[ Go:nmis~.;j.on's reco:n;~.e:1Cl.~:c t ion s. TL'he ~eo?le of ',iheeler County are to 'be co:E:nended for their long hours of effort in compiling this comprehe!1sive pL.D \-lh:'ch will benefit the large ID2.jori ty of the resid.ence aI1d future generations in ;'·.'heeler County. Sincerely, .' /.. ( .- '- ". /'.' " .. .... Glen ~ard, District ~ildlife B!olo~ist Oregon Dep~rtTJ.ent of ?ish "nd ~ildlffe P.O. 30x 28c~ He~:pner, O":'e. 97836 cc: ~:CO.~.C La Gr nde & Bend Offices :8::-1'01 Cbire RECEIVED t1AY 2 8 1980 ~Ils'd ... Department of Land Conservation and Development 1175 COURT STREET N.E., SALEM, OREGON 97310 PHONE (503) 378-4926 M E M 0 RAN DUM ~1ay 28, 1980 RECEIVED t'1AY 2 8 ~980 TO: FROJ"'1 : Charles Davis, Planner ECOAC Andrew Freeman, Plan Reviewer SUBJECT: DEPARH1ENT OF LJ\ND Cm1SERVATION AND DEVELOPi·jENT ' S REVIE\>J OF ~!HEELER COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IMPLEMENTING MEASURES At the request of Wheeler County, the Department agreed to conduct a pfeliminary review of the County's comprehensive plan prior to its submission to the Commission for ackno\vledgment. The Department's overall conclusion regarding the County's Plan is that it is generally very good. The Department \'laS impressed by the depth of the information provided in the technical l~eport and the clear and concise nature of the plan policies. Overall, the Dep'artment found the plan to be It:ell organized, well \<:ritten and comprehensive in its scope. The plan, for all its good points, does contain a few deficiencies, though. This revieltl \>/ill focus on these areas Itlhich the Department believes requil'e additional vIOl'k. The Department cannot guarantee, hO\"lever, that attention to all of the points raised in this revtew will automatically result in an acknowledgeable plan. During the acknowledgment process, other issues beyond the scope of this l'evie\'1 may be raised by the Department or other parties, which could cause the acknowledgment request tci be continued. This review was hased on the best information available at this time. The Department's Field Representative, Jim Kennedy, can provide additional information or clarification if necessary. 1. Goals 3 and 4: (Agricultural Land and Forest Resources) Goal 4 states: "Lands suitable for forest uses sha.ll be inventoried and designated as fm'est lands." The plan notes that data on forest productivity is unavailable. The County must, however, inventory forest resources and develop productivity maps. A policy which commits the County to developing an inventory of forest resources before the next plan update would be adequate for compliance with GOal 4. Regarding the exclusive far'm use zone, the Department finds that policy 4 on page 3 of the plan and Section 2.1S0(2)(b) would permit farm uses to be conducted on parcels less than 160 acres. For example, the policy states: "To limit the creation of new lots or parcels of land to a minimum of 160 acres unless intended for a permitted use or upon aoproval of a conditionc;l use as allo'tled by ORS 215" (emphasis added). ( '. t~HEELER COUNTY Section 2.150(2)(b) states: -2- IIEach lot or parcel created, if less than 160 acres in size, can and is intended to be used for a permitted use as given in Section 2.050 of this ordinance ... 11 The Department interprets the City's intent in this area to be that lot sizes less than 160 acres should be prohibited except for specific permitted or conditional uses Ylhich do not require such large lots. In particular, there is no reason to require a minimum lot size of 160 acres for a school, church, or landfill site (all permitted uses in the EFU zone). Similarly, many of the conditional uses allo",,'ed in the EFU zone do not normally require 160 acre lots. However, the Department does not believe that the County intends to allm'l partitions I'lhich create lots less than 160 acres for IIfarm usesll-also keeping in mind that the statutes allo\'l residences in conjunction Ylith IIfarm uses ll . The County must: Amend the policy and ordinance section cited above to include the words lIexcepting farm uses as defined in ORS 215.203 11 after the words II permitted use" in both cases. For example, the policy should read: liTo limit the creation of nel'l lots or parcels of land to a minimum of 160 acres unless intended for a permitted use, exceptinq farm uses as defined in DRS 215.203, or upon approval of a conditional use as a11m'led by ORS 214. 11 In addition, while the EFU zone clearly states the County's intent to protect farm uses, it is less explicit when it comes to protecting forest resources. Until forest productivity mapping is completed and a "forest cQnservation~ zone developed, the County should include an additional standard in the 20ning ordinance relating to the protection of forest reSOUl'ces. For example, an additional finding should be required for the approval of single-family residences in the EFU zone that the residence will not conflict with the management, harvesting or processing of forest products (Section 2.100(12)). A similar standard should be added to the criteria used for approving conditional uses (Section 13.250(3)). 2. Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Areas: (Goal 5) ~Jhile the inventory information submitted is excellent, the Depar'tment does not find the policies and implementing measures to be adequate for pt'otecting resources. In particul at', it does not appear that the County has incorporated any of the Department of Fish and Wildlife's recorrrnendations into their policies or ordinances. The County should adopt policies based on the DFW's recommendations concerninq the preservation of riparian vegetation and the protection of sensitive habitats. Additional policies which state that the County will work with the DEQ, SCS, BLM, Forest Service, and the State Department of Forest to ~'. ~mEELER COUNTY -3- implement "best [r;anagement practi ces", rehabi 1itate heavi ly impacted watersheds and insure compliance with state water quality standard~ should also be adopted. The Department also concurs with the DFW's recommendation that all development (i.e, residential, commercial or industrial) along streams be identified as conditional uses and a setback or buffer reouired. Farming, grazing and timber harvest operations should also be encouraged to leave a buffer strip of adequate size to protect water quality and prevent erosion. (One mechanism the County might consider would be to provide a property tax credit to ranchers who rehabilitate streambanks by building fences and re-seeding. the bank. The credit \A/auld (hopefully) be large enough to cover the cost to the rancher of putting in the fence and re-seeding the bank. A similar credit could be offered to farmers who agree to not plow all the way to the stream, but leave a buffer strip. The impact on the County's tax base v~uld have to be considered though, before such a program could be put into place. The Department believes that such actions taken at the local level to rehabilitate streambanks would do much to enhance water qua lity, quantity and fish andwildl ife habitat.) ~ Policy no. 5 on page 4 must also be amended to include identified natural areas. A mechanism for implementing the policy must also be pl'ovided. (The Department believes that the best Ivay to Jo this would be to amend the zoning and subdivision ordinances to include a requirement that all applications for land use actions identify and descdbe any resources - histOl'ic sites, natural areas, fish and v/ildlife habitat.-:- that are present on the site and whicn would be affected by the proposal. Some form of revie\·! Ylhich considers the impact of the development on the resource and gives the County the authority to modify the proposal to ptotect the resou~'ce should be provided.) Regarding archeological sites, the County should include in the plan, by reference, any inventoties conducted by the stc.te as well as other sites which county officials are a',.:are of. A list of identified sites should be kept on file at the County Courthouse (this list must be kept confidential). In evaluating land-use proposals, the County must determine It/nether the action \·:ould affect an identified archaeological site. If it is determined that the development would affect the resource, the County must either take steps to protect the resource or develop a program for resolving the conflict, as required by Goal 5. The County should also adopt a policy encouraging landowners ftom engaging in new farming or forest related activities y/hich \A/ould affect archaeological sites. 3. Public Facilities and Services: (Goal 11) The County's treatment of solid waste disposal 'problems is inadequate. The 1974 solid waste plan should be included in the plan be refetence. A strategy for phasing out the open dumps and bringing the County into I I. WHEELER COUNTY -4- compliance with state regulations must be developed. A strong policy commitment for working \-/ith the DEO to develop and imolement a program for a properly disposing of solid waste must be adopt~d. Summary: In general, the County's plan is in good snape. Minor problems with Goal 3 and 4 havp been identified. Additional oolicies and implementing measures are required, as noted, for compliance \'/ith Goal 5. (The Department's concern is that the County has not fully assumed the responsibility for protecting resources thnt is required of it by Goal 5.) A stronger commitment to developing a solid waste program is also required. The Department would also note that the amount of time available for this revi e\v \,Ias 1imi ted. The Oep artment vias not ab 1e to look at the County 's plan in as much detail as it would have liked. However, the Department hopes that as the County begins holding hearings on the plan, this review will give the County some indication as to how close it is to being in compliance with all the applicable goals. AF: cp 2052AI 5/27/80 ('. " . ()r "0 .... " ..,: .' -? ~ .. ': ';,",:~:~ ,:::>~~" ., ::...:: .._...._~~.:, z ". ,""::<.,:-:,' , ;~5~ VICTOR A TlYEH W'.E Rl·.(~ Department of Land Conservation and Developlnent 1175 COURT STREET N.E., SALEM, OREGON 97310 PHONE (503) 378-4926 M E M 0 RAN DUM ~lay 27, 1980 TO: FROM: Charles Davis, Planner ECOAC James Millegan, Plan Reviewer SUBJECT: DEPARTrljENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPfvlENT DRAFT REVIEH OF SPRAY'S PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IMPLEMENTING MEASURES Genera1 Ovel~vi evl Overall, the Spray plan and ordinances appear adequate to meet most goal requirements. There are however, some deficiencies that must be corrected before the plan can be acknowledged as being in compliance wth the Statewide Goals. The major co~rections that must be accomplished before the plan is submitted include: population and land need projections (Goal 2), ordinance protection for historic structures (Goal 5), a buildahle lands inventory (Goal 10) and adoption of adequate findings on the City's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB, Goal 14). Specific points are listed in the following review on a goal by goal basis. While there are many positive aspects in the City's plan, the review centers only on the deficiencies. It is emphasized that this review does not assure automatic approval by the Department or the Commission if the points identified are corrected; this report was orepared at the request of the City to give it the best advice possible at this time. Items with the word "should" are suggested as plan improvements only. Materials used in this draft review were: 1. Draft Comprehensive Plan and Implementing Measures, City of Spray, ECOAC, Apr i 1 1980. 2. Draft Comprehensive Plan and Technical Reoort, I-lheeleY' County and the Cities of Fossil, Mitchell and Spray, ECOAC, April 1980. 1. Citizen Involvement: (Goal 1) The plan appears adequate to meet this goal. When the City submits the plan for compliance with Statewide Goals, information should be included which discusses ongoing citizen involvement activities. Spray Draft Review -2- 2. l.and Use Pl anninq: (Goal 2) To improve the plan and meet goal requirements, the City must: A. Amend the plan to include the following factual base data required for goal compliance: 1. population projections (year 2000) based on justifiable assumotions and the best information available (data must be coord~nated with county projections); and . 2. land need and public facility needs as required for Goals c, 10, 11 and 14 (year 2000). While it is difficult to predict future population and various land needs, such information is necessary for the development of any land use plan. The City must make projections based on the best information available and assumptions which are reasonable and justified. Plan policies on page 2 which require the City to develop the pt'ojections \'Iill not meet the State\:lide Goals. Failure to develoo these projections will result in noncompliance. B. Adopt the Technical Reports as part of the City's Plan material. The inventory material contained within the Technical Reoort is required for goal compliance and will not be considered as part of the City's submission unless adopted. Failure to adopt the material will result in noncompliance. C. The plan material should be amended to include a discussion on the coordination activities that occurred v!ith othe)~ local, state and federal agencies in the development of the plan. 3. Agricultural Lands: (Goal 3) Previous Conmission policy did not apply Goal 3 within city limits. The COlnmissi on is currently attempting to comply It/ith the State Appeal CoUt~ts decision on this matter (Hillamette University v. LCDC, IlCone-Breeden"). Depending on the outcome of the Commission's deliberations, Goal 3· requirements may chunge (see factor 6 and 7 under Goal 14; contact this office also for more information). 4. Forest Lands: (Goal 4) Not applicable. 5. Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources: (Goal 5) To improve the plan and meet goal requirements, the City must: A. Amend the plan to correct the following inventory deficiencies: 1. land needed or desirable for open space and 2. outstanding scenic vie'tls and sites. Spray Draft Review -3- - " The plan must use the best available information for the above items. If certain items are found not applicable, the plan must demonstrate so. The inventories must determine possible conflicting uses and oetermine "the economic, 'social and energy conseouences of the conflictinq uses" (Goal 5 language). B. Adopt plan policies on the following resources: 1. fish and wildlife areas and habitats; and 2. ltlater areas, ltJetlands, \'ICltf:rshed and grounChJi1t2r resources. If the plan identifies conflicting uses, the policies must resolve these conflicts; if no conflicting uses are identified, policies must provide resource protection. C. Insure that implementing measures are consistent with policies adopted in B. above. D. Amend the Zoning Ordinance and map to provide protection for historic structures inventoried in the Technical Report (p. IV-73). Failure to provide ordinance protection for historic structures will result in noncompliance (Section 4.9 of the Subdivision Ordinance is not adequate) . 6. r\ir~ vlate..!:.. and Land Resource Ouality: (Goal 6) To i~~rove the plan and meet goal requirements, the City must: f\. I\;nend the: plcrl rna'tt:riel to irlentify Ciny noise problems in the ar'ea (if then:> are none, the plan must state so). G. Amend the plan material to identify the applicable airshed ano requirements (State Implementation Plan -for air quality). 7. Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards: (Goal 7) To improve the plan and meet goal requirements, the City must: fl.. !\:ncnd the pI ell pol icy to COOrer'J t2 and \'iCJrk wi til \'!hee 1e:' County and the So il Conservati on Set'vi ce to )'educe haz a)'ds associ ated ','/ith via tel'S pou ts . B. Amend the Zoning Oroinance to provide specific protection for areas \'Jithin known flood hazards. Even though the City has not yet received a final flood hazard 8ap, the City must provide adequate interim protection in areas identified on the preliminary maps (Dlan policy on D. 4 and Section 3.5? is inadequate to meet goal compliance). This can he in the form of a separate zone, an overlay zone or development restrictions which only Spray Draft Review allow development under soecified criteria (at a mlnlmum, the criteria must meet the standards required by the Federal Flood Insurance Program). 8. Recreational NReds: (Goal 8) -4- Background material, policies and implementing measures appear adequate to meet goal requirements. 9. Economy of the State: (Goal 9) Plan material appears adequate to meet Goal requirements (see Goal 14, point A concerning land needs and point B concerning acreage figures). 10. HOllsinq: (Goal J.O) To meet goal requirements, the City must amend the plan to include a buildable lands inventm·y. Failure to include this inventory will result in noncompliance. Goal 10 defines buildable lands as ".. . lands in urban and urbanizable areas that are suitable, available and necessary for jOesidential use" (emphasis added;. Ine goal ;'equires that this inventory be used to determine if enough land has been pro~ided to meet projected housing needs in the planning area (see attachr.;ent fO!° further information on this inventory requirement. 11. Public Facilities end Services: (Goal 11) To improve the plan and meet goal requil'ements, the City must: A. Insure that pubic facilities and services are adequate to meet the projected year' 2000 population e.g., \'!ater, septic, schools, solid waste etc ... (This information should be included in plan material; see Goal 2, point A); B. The City should amend the plan to include septic suitability mapping (information on p. IV-14 of the Technical Report is inadequate). 12. Transportation: (Goal 12) The City must adopt policy on the transportation disadvantaged. At a minimum, the City could adopt policy lc.:lguage \·thich requires the City to work with the District 12 Area Agency on Aging (AAA) in providing transportation services. 13. Enerqy Conservation: (Goal 13) Plan material should be amended to include a discussion on the energy conservation ideas listed in the policies on page 7 of the plan, e.g.) explain \'Ihat type of street and building techniques v!ill save energy, hm'i Spray Draft Review -5- trees can assist and alternative ways to incoroorate solar access in the zoning ordinance. 14. Urbcnization: (Goal 14) To improve thr plan and meet goal requirem2nts, the City must: A. Pmend the plan to demonstrate that the USB meets all seven factors under Goal 14. This goal requirement consists of the two hasic parts: 1. Adopt findings that demonstrate a year 2000 need for land within the USB based on fectors 1 and 2 under Goal 14; 2. Adopt findings which demonstrate that the location of the USB meets factors 3-7 under the goal. These findings must be coordinated with population and land needs projections under Goal 2, 9, 10 and 11 (see Goal 3 also). The City should consider reducing the UGB in the NorUlI':est corner of the City to follow property lines if that is the intent of the plan. B. In order to demonstrate the results of A. above, the plan should contain a table that shows the amount of land existing, needed, zoned and planned (buildable) for the various uses. Assumptions used in deriving the figw'es must be stated. C. P.dopt plan policy that commits the City to requil'e that the conversion of urbanizable land to urban uses be consistent with LOCO Goals (see conversion factor 3 under Goal 14). D. The City should adopt plan procedures and criteria for changing the UGB. Goal 14 requires findings that any proposed expansion of Ule USB meet the ~even factors under the Goal and procedures set forth in Goal 2 even if the City does not expressly adopt them as part of their plan. In order that citizens and puhlic officials in the . community are fully al-Iare of this requirement, the City should adopt standards for changing the UGB which reflect these requirements. JI..;'.~: 11]'3 20t10A 5/24/80 ~:-.' . Spray Draft Review ATTACH~·::~H A. BUILDABLE LA~DS INVENTORY -6- In order to meet this requirement, the plan must include the followinq items: 1. An analysis of the amount of land necessary for residential use. Such an analvsis is deD2ndent on (1) an examination of current housing an2 pODulati6n characte~istics, (2) a projection of future housinq needs ~hich translates into the number of units needed by ~ousing tyo2 and/or cost level, and (3) a determination of the amount of land necessary to accommodate housing needs based on d~nsity assumptions. This analysis should include the following items: a. population projection that considers employment characteristics (see Goal 2, Point A); b. income analysis to determine financial capability; c. household size determination; d. vacancy rate determinaiton; e. existing housing in terms of type, condition and cost; f. determina.ton of future housing needs-by type or cost level- i.e., the number of units that will be needed during the plan period, based on a-e above (year 2000 needs); and g. determination of residential land requirements based upon density calculations of future housing needs from f. above. Much of this data is available within the plan material, but has not been brought together to detennine housing needs. t\lso, since the proposed alan and implementing measures allow every housing type outright except mobile home parks, the need analysis will not have to determine needs by type or income (be sure to include the reasoning in the text discussion). 2. An inventory of the amount of lands suitable and available for residential use. At a minimum, the inventory must demonstrate adequate consideration of the following factors: a. topographic and soil considerations; b. floodplain and hazci'(i considerations; c. land ownership (e.g., exclusive of land in public ownership and for streets); d. paicel size (e.g., redevelopment potential of oversized pal' ce 1s) ; e. public facilities a~d services (consistent with Goal 11); and f. conflicting uses (e.g., commercial, agricultural, and wildlife). As with 1. above, this information appears available within the plan, but has not been brought together in a usable format. Spray Draft Review -7 - 3. Insure that there is sufficient amount of buildable land to accommodate residential needs by type (see Goal 14, Point A). B. In order to demonstrate the results of A. above, the following tables must be included when the plan is submitted for compliance. 1. A table on the amount of buildable land within the city limits. The table should start with the overall amount of land and then sho',', and justify each subtraction of land. 2. A table should be included on the amount of builable land planned and zoned. NOTE: Although in britten form, it looks like the City has a substantial amount of work to do in order to meet Goal 10 requirements, in actuality this inventory \'!or~ can easily be accomplished before the July I, 1980 deadline. These deficiencies can be corrected because most of the information is available within plan documents and plan policies and ordinances appear adequate for a city of this size and potential grOl·!th rate. HO;'i2ver, if the plan is not amended to include a buildable lands study, it will not meet with goal comp 1i ance . J\,g!J:mg 2040A 5/24/80 fRECEIVED ~ MAY 3 01980 -I I j ".-.-' E.C.O..A.C. - l ....~~:· __ .:;:a... .....__..................~·..__ l r.----.~r (>; ') I < -: . 0>••,~ '",.. r .,).. 0 I " -"8~-') .- ~ J I VICiOR A' IYt...HCov'F '.QAL__~_ Oepartrnent of Land Conservation and Developrner 1175 COURT STREET N.E .. SALEM, OREGON 97310 PHONE (503) 378-4926 M E M 0 RAN 0 U M May 27, 1980 TO: Charles Davis, Planner ECOAC FROM: James Millegan, Plan Reviewer SUBJECT: DEPART~1ENT OF LMD COi';SERVATION AND DEVELOPiIJENT DRAFT REVIHJ OF FOSSIL'S PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IMPLEMENTING MEASURES General Overview Overall, the Fossil plan and ordinances appear adequate to meet most goal requiremEnts. There are however, some deficiencies that must be corrected before the plan can be ackno':,lecJged as being in compliance \,!th the State':iide Go~ls. The major corrections that must be accomplished before the plan is submitted include: pODulation 21d land need projections (Goal 2), ord~nance pl'otectin:l for historic structures (Goal 5), a buildable lands inveiltory (Cjoa 1 10) and a.dort i on of adequate fi nci i ngs on the City I S Urban Growth Boundary (UGB, Goal 14). Specific points are listed in the follO\ving review on a goal by goal bilsis. While there are many positive aspects in the City!s plan, the review centers only on the deficiencies. It is emphasized that this review does not assure automatic approval by the Department or the Commission if the points identified are corrected; this report was prepared at the request of the City to give it the best advice possible at this time. Items with the word "shou 1d" are suggested as plan improvel1le:lts on 1y. Materials used in this draft review were: 1. Draft Comprehensive Plan and Implementing Measures, City of Fossil, ECOAC, fl.pr i 1 1980. 2. Draft Comprehensive Plan and Technical Report, Wheeler County and the Cities of Fossil, Mitchell and Spray, ECOAC, April 1980. 1. Citizen Involvement: (Goal 1) The plan appears adequate to meet this goal. When the City submits the plan for compliance with Statewide Goals, information should be included which discusses ongoing citizen involvement activities. Fossil Draft Review -2- 2. Land Use Plan~ing: (Goal 2} To improve the plan and meet goal requirements, the City must: A. Amend the plan to include the following factual base data required for goal compliance: 1. oopulation projecti8ns Cyr::ar 2000) based 0'1 justifiable assumotions and the best infcrmatinn available (data must be coordinated with county projections); and 2. land need and public facility needs as required for Goals 9, 10, 11 and 14 (year 2000). While it is difficult to predict future population and various land needs. such information is necessary for the development of any land use plan. The City mrist make pi'ojections based on the best information available and assumotions ~hich are reasonable and justified. Plan policies on page 2 which require the City to develop the projections will not meet the State~ide Goals. Failure to develop these projections will result in noncompliance. B. Adopt the Technical Reports as part of the City's Plan material. The inventory material contained within the Technical Report is required for goal compliance and will not be considered as part of the City's submission unless adopted. Failure to adopt the material v:i11 result in noncoinpliance. C. The plcrl Inatericil should be a':1end<~d to include a disU1ssion :m the coordination activities that occurred vlith orn2r local, state and federal agencies in the development of the plan. 3. Aqricultural Lands: (Goal 3) Previous Comnission policy did not apply Goal 3 \'!ithin city limits. The Com:nission is currently attempting to comply v.'ith the State f\opeal Couds dec,'sl'on on ""l~S m;,1-ter (1.11·11"'rl1~t·'-P Un"1\10Y'Sl''''V \' !l~f'(' JI~one R"eoo'an Jl ), Lr I Cd... t\ ... ,-.1 __ L _ >1 ...... 1 •. L... • __,~),.", l, -1.... 1 '__ c~ • Depending on the outcome ()j7[/~e CO:'1nission's delibe;-ations, Goal 3 . requin~:nents rnay change (see factor G and 7 undel' Goal 111; contact this office also for more infonnatioll). 4. Forest Lands: (Goal 4) Not applicable. 5. Open Spaces, Sc~nic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources: (Goal 5) To improve the plan and meet goal requirements. the City must: fl.. Amend the plan to correct the following inventol~y deficiencies: 1. land needed OY' desirable for epen space and 2. outstanding scenic views and sites. Fossil Draft Review -3- The plan must use the best available information ~or the abDve items. If certain items are found not applicable, the plan must demonst,ate so. The inventories must determine possible conflictinq uses and determine "the economic, social and energy consequences o( the conflicting uses" (Goal 5 language). B. Adopt plan policies on the following resources: 1. fish and wildlife areas and habitats; and 2. water areas, wetlands, watershed and groundwater resources. If the plan identifies conflicting uses, the policies must resolve these conflicts; if no conflicting uses are identified, policies must provide resource protection. C. Insure that implementing measures are consistent with policies adopted in B. above. D. Amend the Zoning Ordinance and map to provide pl'otect"ion for historic structures inventoried in the Technical Repod (p. IV-73). Failure to provide ordinance protection for historic structures will result in noncompliance (Section 4.9 of the Subdivision Ordinance is not adequate). 6. ~ir. Water and Land Resource Quality: (Goal G) To improve the plan and meet goal requirements, the City must: fl.. funend the plan f:1aterial to identify any noise problems in the area (if there ar'e none, the plan must state so). B. Amend the Dl~n material to identify the applicahle airshed and requirements (State Implementation Plan for air quality). 7. Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards: (Goal 7) To improve the plan and meet goal requirements, the City must: fl.. Amend the plan policy to cooperate and work with Wheeler Cdunty and the Soil Conservation Service to reduce hazards associated with watel'spouts. B. Amend the Zoni1g Ordinance to provide specific protection for areas within known flood hazards. Even though the City has not yet received a final flood hazard map, the City must provide adequate interim protection in areas identified on the preliminary maps (plan policy on p. 3 and Section 3.52 is inadequate to meet goal compliance). This should be in the form of a separate zone, an overlay zone ·or development Fossil Draft Review -/1- restrictions \'/hich only a1101.-/ develooment under soecified criteria (at a minimum, the critei'ia must meet the standards required by the Feder~l Flood Insurance Program). 8. Recreational Needs: (Goal 8) Background material, policies and implementing measures appear adequate to meet goal requirements. 9. Economy of the State: (Goa 1 9) Pi an mater i a1 appears adequate to meet Goal feqU irements (see Goa 1 1.'1, point A concerning land needs and point B concerning acreage figures). To meet goal requirements, the City must ~nend the plan to include a buildable lands inventory. Faillll'e to include this inventory will result in noncompliance. Goal 10 defines buildilble lands as " ... lands in urban and urba.nizahle arees that ai'e suitahle, aV2ilable and necessary for residential use" (emphasis added). The goar--i~equircs thatth-;slnlJentory be used to determine if enol/gh land has been pi'ovided to meet projected housing needs in the planning area (see attachment for further information on this inventory requirement). 11. ·Public Facilities' and SrTvicc's: (Goal 11) To irnpi'o'Je tr1e plan and mee'i~ goal require,n2nts, the City m:Jst: A. Include a text discussion on possible conflicts betl-/een the S2\·:aqe plan and the proposed residential area ~irectly to the east of the plant. Plan policies and imple~2nting measures must be amended, if necessary based on this discussion. B. Insure that pubic facilities and services are adequate to meet the projected year 2000 population e.g., water, se~er, schools, solid \'iaste etc ... (This -information should be included in plan material; see Goal 2, point A). 12. Transportation: (Goal 12) The City must adopt policy on the transportation disadvantaged. At a minimum, the City could adopt policy langua?e \'ihich requires the City to work with the District 12 Area Agency on Aging (AAA) in providing transportation services. 13. Enerqy Conservation: (Goal 13) Plan material should be amenrled to in:lude a discussion on the enrrgy conservation ideas listed in the policies.on page 7-8 of the plan 2.9., explain \·:hat type of street and building techniques "Jill save energy, ho',', Fossil Draft Review -5- trees can assist and alternative ways to incorporate solar access in the zoning ordinance .. 14. Urbcnization: (Goal 14) To improve the plan and meet goal requirements, the City must: A. A~end the plan to demonstrate that the UGB meets all seven factors under Goal 14. This goal requirement consists of the two following basic pal'ts: 1. Adopt findings that demonstrate a year 2000 need for land within the UGB based on factors 1 and 2 under Goal 14; 2. Adopt findings which demonstrate that the location of the UGB meets factors 3-7 under the goal. These findings must be coordinated with population and land needs projections under Goal 2, 9, 10 and 11 (see Goal 3). B. In order to demonstrate the results of A. above, the plan should contain a table that shows the amount of land existing, needed, zoned and planned (buildable) for the various uses. Assumptions used in deriving the figures must be stated. C. Adopt plan policy that commits the City to require that the conversion of urbanizab1e land to urban uses be consistent with LCDC Goals (see conversion factor 3 under Goal 14). D. The City should adopt plan procedures and criteria for changing the UGB. Goal 14 reauires findings that any proposed expansion of the UGB meet the seven factors under the Goal and procedures set forth in Goal 2 even if the City does not expressly adopt them as part of their plan. In order that citizens and public officials in the community are fully av/are of this requirement, the City should adopt standards for changing the UGB which reflect these requirements. J ~,,7·\ : ill';! 2039A 5/24/80 ,f'" ~ossil Draft Review ATTACH~·1ENT A BUILDABLE LANDS INVENTORY -6- In order to meet this requirement, the plan must include the following items: 1. An at,alysis of the 2mount of land necessary for reside.nt-:al use. Such an analysis is dependent on (1) an examination of current housing and population characteristics, (?) a projection of future housing needs which translates into the number of units needed by housinq type and/or cost level, and (3} a determination of the amount of land necessary to accommodate housing needs based on density assumptions. This analysis should include the following items: a. b. c. d. e. f. c'..... g. population projection that considers employment characteristics (see Goal ?, Point A); income analysis to determine financial capability; household size determination; vacancy rate determinaiton; existing housing in terms of type, tondition and cost; determinaton of future housing needs-by type or cost level- i.e., the number of units that will be needed during the plan period, based on a-e above (year 2000 needs}; and determination of residential land requirements based upon density calculations of future housing needs from f. above. !·iuch of this d,3ta is avc:tilclble within the plan materia-I, but h:',s not been brouqht tooethe~ to determine housinq needs. Also, since the Pl'oposcd plan a'1d implementing meaSL1\'eS an v.': 8'/ery hOlls-ing type outl-ight, except mobile home parks, the need analysis I'/i11 not have to determine needs by type or income (be sure to include the reasoning in the text discussion). 2. An inventory of the amount of lands suitahle and available for residential use. At a minimum, the inventory must demonstrate adequate consideration of the following factors: a. topographic and soil considerations; b. floodplain and hazard considerations; c. land ovmership (e.g., exclusive of land in pUblic ownership and for streets); d. parcel size (e.g., redevelopment potential of oversized parce 1 s); e. public facilities and services (consistent "'lith Goal 1)); and f. conflicting uses (e.g., commercial, agricultural, and wildlife). As with 1. above, this information appears avail able \'Iithin the plan, but has not been brought toge.ther ,in a' usable format. Fossil Draft Review -7- 3. Insure that there is sufficient amount of buildable land to accommodate residential needs by type (see Goal 14, Point A). B. In order to demonstrate the results of A. above, the following tables must be included when the plan is submitted for compliance. 1. A table on the amount of buildable land within the city limits. The tahle should start with the overall amount of land and then show and justify each subtraction of lanrl. 2. A table should be included on the amount of builable land planned and zoned. NOTE: Although in written form, it looks like the City has a substantial amount of work to do in order to meet Goal 10 requirements, in actuality this inventory work can easil.v be accomplished before t.he July 1, 1980 deadline. These deficiencies can be corrected because most of the information is available within plan document and plan policies and ordinances appear adequate for a city of this size and potential growth rate. HOI'lever, if the plan is not amended to include a buildable lands study, it will not meet with goal comp1i ance. JI·;,'1:mg 2039iV 5/24/80 Department of Land Conservation and D8velop!TJent 1175 COURT STREET t--J.E., SALEM, OREGON 97310 PHONE (503) 3~'e-l'f~26 M E M 0 RAN D U M ~1ay 27, 1980 TO: Charles Davis, Planner ECOAC FROM: James Millegan, Plan Reviewer SUBJECT: DEPARTr'1ENTOF LMD CONSERVATION I\ND DEVELOpr"lENT DRf\FT REVIEH OF MITCHELL'S PROPOSED CO~PREHENSIVE PLAN AND IMPLEMENTING MEASURES General Overview Overall, the r~itchell plcm and ordinances appear adequate to 102et most goal requirements. There are however, some deficiencies that must be corrected before the plun can be acknowledged as being in compliance \'Ith the Statcl-ric:e Goals. The major corrections thRt ~ust be accomplished before the plan is ,I .: .'. +'-' rl: 1 (,",. , 1 _··t . "11 ··1 l' I .• 0 .. , y ; t . y ~ (G '" 1 ')) ,- -l ' ,. -,,' -'SL,Jmll.L-~U Inc LL.lc. pODU d lon (.,,1. one. nr,_L. r rO,jec .len:> . (.L. c, > 0, l. "ICl"C0. pr6tection for historic structur2S (Goal 5), il buildable lands inventory (Goal 10) end adoption of adequate findings on the City's Urho.n Gro'::t!i Boundary (UGB, Goal 14). Specific points are listed in the follm'!ing reviE~~\1 on a goal by goal basis. While there are many positive aspects in the City's plan, the review centers only on the deficiencies. It is emphasized that this review does not assure automatic approval by the Departllent or the Commission if the Doints identified are corrected; this reoort was prepared at the request of the City to give it the best advice possible at this time. Items vJ1th the "lOrd "should" are suggested as plan improvements only. Materials used in this draft review were: 1. Draft Comprehensive Plan and IJTIDlementing ~'leasures, City of Mitchell, ECOAC, April 1980. 2. Draft Comprehensive Plan and Technical Report, Wheeler County and the Cities of Fossi), Mitchell and Spray, ECOAC, Apri] 1980. 1. Citizen Involvement: (Goal 1) The plan appears adequate to meet this goal. Wh-n the City submits the plan for compliance with Statewide Goals, information should be includeri which discusses ongoing citizen involvement activities. Mitchel Draft Review -2- '2. Land Use ~l~nninl]: (Goal 2) To improve the plan and meet goal requirements, the City must: A. Amend the plan to include the follo~ing factual base data required for goal compliance: 1. population projections (yen 2000) hased on justifiable assumptions and,the best information available (data must be coordina.ted \'/ith county projections); and 2. land need and public facil"ity needs as required for Goals 9, 10, 11 a!ld 14 (year 2000). While it is difficult to predict future population and various land needs, such information is necessary for the develooment of any land use p'lan. The City must make projections based on the best information available and assumotions which are reasonable and justified. Plan policies on page 2 which require the City to devr.lop the projections \"ill not meet the State/ide Goals. Failure to develop these projections will result in noncompliance. B. Adopt the Technical Reports as part of the City's Plan material. The inventory material contained within the Technical Report is required for goal compliance and will not be considered as part of the City's submission unless adopted. Failure to adopt the material \-:ill result in noncompliance. C. Tk: plon mctLericl should be c.iT'2nded to include a discussion on the coordination activities that occurred with other local, state and federal agencies in the development of the plan. 3. Aqricultural Lands: (Goal 3) Previous Commission policy did not apply Goal 3 I'/ithin city limits. The Commission is currently atternoting to comply with the State Appeal Courts decision on this matter (~rill2.m2tte University v. LCDC, "Cone-Breeden"). Depending on the outcome of the Co~~ission's deliberations, Goal 3 requin:::c-:'ilts may ChCiilg:~ (see factor 6 and 7 under GOiJl 1!1; contact this office also for mon:~ infonnation). 4. FO\'E:st Lands: (Goal 4) flot applicable. 5. Open SpJces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources: (Goal 5) To improve the plan and meet goal requirements, the City must: A. Amend the plan to correct the follm·/in9 inventory deficiencies: 1. land needed 01' oesil'able for open space and 2. outstanding scenic views Jnd sites. Mitchel Draft Review -3- The plan must use the best available information for the above items. If certain items are found not applicable, the plan must demonstrate so .. The inventories must determine possible conflictinq uses and determine "the economic, social and energy consequences of the conflicting uses" (Goal 5 1anguage). B. Adopt plan policies on the following resources: 1. fish and vlilcil He areas and habitats; 2. \'Jater areas, vletlands, '1latershed and groundwater resources; ano. 3. to cooperate 'tlith the state on development of the Trans/\mericCl:l Bikev/ay. If the plan identifies conflictinq uses, the policies must resolve these conflicts; if no conflict.ing uses are identified, policies must provide resource protection. C. Insure that implementing measures are consistent with policies adopted in B. above. D. Arnend the Zoninq Ordinance and map to provide protection for historic structu)'es inventoried in the Technical f<.epo,:,,"C (p. IV-73). Failure to provide ordinance protection for historic structures will result in noncompliance (Section 4.9 of the Subdivision Ordinance is not adequate). G. Air, Water and Land Resource Oualitv: (Goal 6) To improve the p"i2n and meet goal requil"(~mcnts, the City must: A. PJnencl the plan materic:l to identify any noise problp.n1s in the area (if there are none, the plan must state so). B. Amend the plan material to identify the appliCable airshed and requir~ments (State Imolementation Plan for air quality). 7. Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards: (Goal 7) To improve the plan and meet goal requirements, the City must: A. .t\mend the plan policy to coopel~ate ancl I'lork with It/heeler County ancl the Soil Conservation Service to reduc~ hazards associated with 'IIi) ters pou ts . B. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide specific protection for areas within knO\'m fl008 hazards. Even though the City has not yet received a final flood hazard map, the City must provide adequate interim protection in areas identified on the preliminary maps (plan policy"on p. 4 and Section 3.52 is inadequat.e to meet goal corn~liance). This can be in Mitchel Draft Review -4- the form of a seoarate zone, an overlav zone or develooment restrictions which only allow develooment under specified criteria (at a minimum, the criteria must meet the standards required by the Federal Flood Insurance Program). 8. Recreational NEeds: (Goal 8) Background material, policies and implementing measures appear adequate to meet goal requirements. 9. Economy of the State.: (Goal 9) The City should amend or eliminate Plan Policy One, under economic development so that it is consistent '.'lith the results of the plan (Plan, p. 4). The Technical Reoort states that th~re is no lend "suitable for industrial development" in f~itchell (Plan, p. IV-B). The comorehensive plan and ordinances do not provide for industrial uses. If the Dolicy is not eliminated, then the amended policy and text discussion must recognize and deal with the above factors (see also Goal 14, point A concerning land needs). 10. H01Jsi.!29.: (Goal 10) To meet goal requirements, the City must Clm2J1d the plan to include a buildc,ble lands inventory. Failure to include this invento\~'y will result in noncompliance. Goal ]0 defines buildable lands as 11 ••• lands in urbsn and u\~banizahle areas that are suitable, available and neceSS2rv for resident"ial use" (emphllsis added--Y-:--Tfle"goal reC]uires that thTslnventory be used to determine if enough land has been provided to meet projected housing needs in the planning area (see attachment for further information on this inventory requirement). 11. Public Facilities and Services: (Goal 11) To improve the plan and meet goal rcC]uirements, the City must: A. Insure that puhic facilities and services are adeC]uate to meet the projected year 2000 population e.g., water, septic, schools, solid waste etc ... (This infOl'mation should be included in plan material; see Goal 2, point A); B. The City should amend the plan to include septic suitahility mapping (information on D. IV-14 of the Technical RepOl't is inadequate). ~litchel Draft Review -5- 12. TransDorti'lti on: (Goal 12) The City must adopt policy on the transportation disadvantaged. At a minimum, the City could adopt policy language which requires the City to work with the District 12 Area Agency on Aging (AAA) in providing transportation services. 13. Enerqy Conservation: (Goal 13) Plan material should be amended to include a discussion on the enerov conservation ideas listed in the oolicies on page 7 of the plan, e.g~, explain vlhat type of street and b~lilding techniques \'/i11 save energ'/, hQ!,'! trees can help and alternative ways to incorporate solar access in the zoning ordinance. 14. Urbanization: (Goal 14) To improve the plan and meet goal requirements, the City must: A. Amend the plan to demonstrate that the UGB meets all seven factors under Goal 14. This goal requirement consists of the two basic par'ts: 1. Adopt findings that demonstrate a year 2000 need for land within the UGB based on fa~tors 1 and 2 under Goal 14; 2. r""\c1opt findings v!hich c1emonstre,t2 that the location of the USB meets factors 3-7 under the goal. These findings must be coordinated with population and land needs projections under Goal 2,9, 10 and 11 (see Goal :3 also). B. In oreler to liemonstrate the results of A. above, the plan should contain a table that shows the amount of land existing, needed, zoned and planned (buildable) for the various uses. Assumptions used in deriving the figures must be stated. C. Adopt plan policy that commits the City to require that the conversion of urbanizable land to urban uses be consistent with LCDC Goals (see conversion factor 3 under Goal 14). J\'~'i:mg 2028;; 5/24/80 Mitchel Draft Review ATTf\,CHi'·iENT A BUILDABLE LANDS INVE~T02Y -6- In order to meet this requirement, the plan must include the following items: 1. An aralysis of th2 amount of land ~ecessary for residential - use. Such an analvsis is dependent on (1) an exarn~naticn of current housing and popula;:ion charecteristics, (2) a projection of future housing needs '::hich translates into the number of units needed by !lousing type and/or cost level, and (3) a determination of the amount of land necessary to accoIT~odate housing needs based on density assumptions. This analysis should include the following items: a. population projection that cons·id~;'s- employment characteristics (see Goal 2, Point A); b. income analysis to determine fina~cial capability; c. household size determination; d. vacancy rate determinaiton; c. eXisti~g housing in terms of tyoe, condition and cost; T. determi naton of flltul'e hou si n9 needs- by type or cost 1eve 1- i.e., the number of units that \·,i11 be needed during the plan P21"iod, based on a-e above (yea)" 2000 needs); and g. determination of residential land requirements based upon density calculations of future housing needs from f. above. l~l1ch of this data is avaihble \·:ithin the plan rnatei'ial, but has not been br01l9ht to~~ethet to determine housing nCc'2ds . .1\1 so, since the proposed plan ~nd implementing measures allow every housing type outri~ht;exc~Dt mo~i1e home parks, the need analysis \.'-!ill not have to detenr:ine needs by type or -income (be sure to include the reaso:ling in th2 text discussion). 2. An inventory of the amount of lands suitable and available for residential use. At a minimum, the inventory must demonstrate adequate consideration of the following factors: a. topographic and soil considerations; b. floodplain and h2z2rd considerations; c. land ownership (e.g., exclusive of land in public ownership and for streets); d. parcel size (e.g., redevelopmerit potential of oversized p arce 1s); e. public facilities and services (consistent with Goal 11); and f. conflicting uses (e.g., commercial, agl"icultural, and \'/ il d1 i f e ) . As with 1. above, this information appears availahle within the pl an, but has not been brought toge~her in a ·usable format. Mitchel Draft Review -7 - 3. Insure that there is sufficie~t amount of buildable land to accommodate residential needs by type (see Goal 14, Point A). B. In order to demonstrate the results of A. above, the following tables must be included \'Ihen the plan is submitted for compliance. 1. A table on the amount of~buildable land within the city limits. The table should start with the overall amount of land and then show and justify each subtraction of land. 2. A table should be included on the amount of builable land planned and zoned. NOTE: Although in I'fl'itten form, it looks like the. City has a substantial amount of work to do in order to meet Goal 10 requirements, in actuality this inventory work can easily be accomplished before the July 1, 1980 deadline. These deficiencies can be corrected because most of the information is available within plan documents and plan policies and ordinances appear adequate for a city of this size and potenti2.l grO\'lth rate. HO~";::ve(, if the plan is not a:l1ended to inclucie a buildab"'e lands stud\', it \'li11 not meet v,lith gOill complionce, \.l\~ : rn9 2028A/ 5/24/80 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE Umatilla National Forest 2517 S. W. Hailey Avenue Pendleton, Oregon 97801 r Ben Donnelly \Theeler County Planning Coordinator County Courthouse Fossil, Oregon 97830 L Dear Coordinator: HECEIVEO JU N 13 1980 Ans·d . The Umatilla National Forest has revic"I\'ed the Draft COml)r2he.nsive Plan for \~lleeler County. '1'11e follm\ling are the CO!;lmem: s from that revici-'. General It is Forest Service policy to coordinate our planning - Kational, Regional, and For2st uith equivalent and i-elated pli'~Imi.llg efforts of State and local govern:nents. The aiu: of s1.'.ch coordlnatiorl is to :Lnf;UT(:. that Forest Service planning recognizes the objectives expressed in the plans and policies of State and local governnents, assess interrelated impacts and conflicts beti\lcen Forest Service and State a.nd local govern- ment policies and programs, and identify optic'ns for add)~essillg impacts and conflicts. County comprehensive plans are an importaul: area for coordinat.ion. They regulate uses on all non-Federal lands within their respective juris- dictions. Federal laws, regulations, policies, and pla~s govern the man0gement of National Forest lands. Consequently, programs and plans developed for these lands administered by the Forest Service are guided by these l8\\lS and regulations, and final decisions concerning management activities are made by the Federal Land Hanagement 1,gency. The Forest Service has no objection if County and local planning agencies, in cooperation with the Forest Service, Hish to shaH ~ational Forest lands on their land use planning maps and to include National Forest land uses in associated zoning ordinances. These plans and ordinances should reflect the current and forseeable future'programs and plans of the Forest Service as developed under Federal LaH. This will help to assure over-