UMATILLA COUNTY Comprehensive Plan TECHNICAL REPORT The preparation of this document was financed in part through a planning assistance grant from the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. UMATILLA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT COURTHOUSE, PENDLETON, OREGON 97801 MAY, 1980 MAJOR ADDITIONS SEPTEMBER 1982 JUNE 1984 SEPTEMBER 1984 TABLE OF CONTENTS Forward G G Agriculture . ~ . . . Chapter A Mountain Highlands (Forested) Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources Air, Land and Water Quality G • Natural Hazards and Development Limitations • G •• Recreational Needs Economy • • G .- • • Umatilla County Population Indicators -for the Year 2000 •• -. G • • 0 TO BE RESERVED FOR RURAL RESIDENTIAL Public Facilities •• Transportation Energy Conservation MAPS C D E F G H I K L Cultivation Capabilities: West Umatilla County (Dry Land) ...... 0.0.· ..... B-5 Cultivation Capabilities: West Umatilla County (Irrigated) Development Limitations: Meacham and Vicinity Development Limitations: Tollgate Area • CII 0 0 e • • • • • .... • • • 13-6 B-8a B-8b,8c,8d Generalized Agricultural Suitabilities: Umatilla County (Dry Land). • • G •• 0 • • • • • • • 13-10 ,Table of Contents: contld Irrigation Districts: West Umati '1'1 a County Genera'\ i zed Farm Pattern Areas: Umatilla County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-14 f3-34 i. ........ :--..: ... A~Jricultural Sample Study Areas: Uma t ill a County Cultivation Unit Study Areas Natural Landform Features Transportation Features. Man-Made Features (for con servat ion pu rposes ).. • • Irrigation Estate Settlements . .. . .. . . • • • 0 . . . . . . B-38 [3-54 [3-63 8-64 8-65, 8-66 8-67 B-68 Irrigation District Study Areas: West Umatilla County •• • • • • 0 0 • • • • • • • • ct • • • • B-70 Umapine Agricultutal Areas: Umapine and Vicinity .... •• o •••• o.e •• '* ••• ~ •••• B-71 Existing Land Use: Orchards District, Milton-Freewater Area Cultivation Capabilities: Orchards District, Milton-Freewater Area (Irrigated) . Sub-District Boundaries: Orchards District,_Milton-Freewater Area ••••• O$ •• $ ••••• 4t. •• O •• $ •• t ••••• o • • '* • • • • 0 • ., • • • • B-76 B-78 B-80 Farm Deferral and Small Farm~ Orchards District, Milton-Freewater Area Large Site Farm and Adjoining Agricultural Districts: Orchards District, Milton-Freewater Area Existing Land Use: Forks of Walla Walla River, Plates A and B Cultivation Capabilities: Forks of Walla Walla River, Plates A and B General Relief: Umatilla County. o • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • '* • 0 • /I • • • • • • 8-84 B-85 B-89, 90 B-91, 92 C-3 Timber Productivity: Northeastern Umatilla County (by Soil Association) ' C-ll -2- Timber Productivity: Central Umatilla County (by Soil Association) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . C-12 . . . . . . . . Timber Productivity: South Umatilla County (by Soil Association) Mountain Study Areas: Umatilla County • • • • • • • • • • • • • • e • • C-13 C-25 Forest Assessment Lands: Northeastern Umatilla County, Map A ••• 0 • • • • • • • • • •• C-28 Forest Assessment Lands: Central Umatilla County, Map B Forest Assessment Lands: South Umatilla County, Map C ••• C-34 C-39 Existing Land Use: Umatilla County 0-4 Deer and Elk Winter Range: Umatilla County ••••••••••••••••••••••• 0-14 Waterfowl and Furbearer Habitat: Umatilla County 11-24 Significant Wetlands Inventory 0-31-58 Habitats of Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species ••••••••••• 0 ••••• 0 • • • • •• 0-63, 0-64 Anadromous Fish Distribution: Umatilla County Significant Natural Areas Significant Scenic Area Archeological Site Density: Umatilla County •••• Indian Cultural and Historical Sites: Umatilla County (Off Reservation) Drainages Rock Mineral Resources: Umatilla County Significant Aggregate Resources 0-70 0-90-99 0-108 0-119 0-153 0-157 0-188 0-191-195 Seismic Risk Zones for Oregon F-8 Severe Wind Erosion: Morrow and Umatilla Counties ••.•.••••••.••••....•.• F-ll Recreational Facilities: West Umatilla County • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • G-11 Recreational Facilities: Umatilla County Identified Groundwater Aquifers . . . • 0 • • · . . · . . . . . G-12 J-4 Umatilla County Fire Districts Major Transportation: Umatilla County. Major Utilities: Umatilla County •••• Port of Umatilla District School District Boundaries Vector Control District Existing Land Uses: West Umatilla County . . . . . . . . · . . . . . . . . . . J-13 J-18 J-21 K-9 K-IO Back Pocket Tables, Figures, Charts and Graphs Relationships Between Land Use Capabilities and Soil Classes Grains, Field Crops, Truck "Crops, Fruit, Hay, and Silage Livestock Production in Umatilla County, 1970-78 • • • • • • • • • G • • • • • • • • • • • • . . . . . . . . . . ., .. . . . . . . • • • • .. • • • e , • • .. • • • • • • B-3 B-23 B-24 Gross Cash Receipts from Agricultural Marketing, Revised Estimates 1970-76 . . . .. . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . 8-25 Estimated Gross Cash Receipts from Agricultural Marketing, 1978 • • • • • • • • .a , • • • • • • B-26 Number of Farms by Size: Umatilla Co unt y., 1964, 1974, 1978 • 1\1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • B-32 Agricultural Use by Geographic or Special Agricultural Practices: Umatilla County • • • • • ,. • • • • e • .. • • • • • • B-35 Agricultural Sample Study Area Names: Umatilla County ••••••••••••••••••••• B-36 -4- Agricultural Sample Study Areas, Average Farm Parcel-Ownership Sizes and Predominate Soil Classification. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • B-40 Walla Walla Valley Project, 1974 Comparable Agricultural Statistics: Umatilla County ••••••••••••••••••• B-79 Acreage of Land Use Designations, Comparison of 1972 and 1980 Comprehensive Plans: Orchards District, Milton-Freewater •• Potential New Parcels: Orchards District, Milton-Freewater Volume of Timber Removed in Umatilla County •••• • • • • B-87 B-87 C-14 Lumber and Wood Products in Umatilla County: Employment and Payrolls •••••••••••••••••••••.•••• C-16 Average Ranch-Timber Industry Parcel-Ownership Sizes: Sample Study Areas, Umatilla County ••••••••••••••••••• C-24 ()". . -~- G 1 5 A 1 . P ~- e p. t.OVlr ,,() \LLri - ;:( t.1 D- 2 ~~oa na YS1S rocess •• T • • ·1· • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • XD-~ )1?-- }..t! '.t) = 170- ) 'D=J I ),I)={p~ ) I)"·' l(?(j! '~lJ? <':01';1 itv0/\1'-J'D·,~ll ') J)c:ffhd1~)V\.) La n.t~cJ~ftl,~F\~~~t~~)a iS~~?j~) :6-;C;~5>~) :1):- ,.()~>, ~,,;\{; )D i[)·cf· :D i\ 0C: I \~-~N,,!e.. J A Partial List of Wildife ) Species: Umatilla Gounty •••••••••••••••••••• 0-8-11 J)-- /LfS ) f (Q (p" J) r= r t:~(~'1 <;;,~ V\,·vi.\(,0:, , J)'~ [C,::( l(J , ! [) Est imated Big G'ame Popu1at ions : ), ) Umatilla County, 1978 • • • • • • • • • • • • • •••••• 0-12 Average Expenditures on Big Game Resources for 1977: Umatilla County ••.•••••••••••• 0-12 Compatible and Incompatible Land Uses: Umatilla County, Fish and Wildlife Department • • • • • • • • •• •••••••• • • • • • • • • 0-15 Estimated Upland Game Population: Umat ill a County, 1q78 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0- 20 Average Expenditures on Upland Game Resources: Umatilla County, 1977 Estimated Waterfowl Populations: Umatilla County, 1977 -5- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 0-20 • 0-22 Average Expenditures on Waterfowl Resources: Umatilla County 1977 · . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0-23 Estimated Furbearers and Certain Non-game Wildlife Populations: Umatilla County, 1977 ••••• Average Expenditures on Furbearers Resource: Umatilla County, 1977 Location of Known Heron Rookeries, Osprey, Prarie Falcon and Bald Eagle Nests and Long-billed Curlews: Umatilla County, 1982 Fish Distribution: Umatilla County · . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • · .' • 0-25 • 0-26 0-62 0-66-68 Effort and Economic Expenditure for Sport Fishery: Umatilla County, 1975 •••••••••• Oregon Natural Heritage Program, Site Inventory: Umatilla County . . . . . . . 0-69 • • • • •• 0-75-77 Site Evaluations for Significant Natural Areas: Umatilla County • • • • • $ • • 0 • • • • • • • • 0-88 Description of Outstanding Sites and Views: Umatilla County • • • • • • • • 0 • II • • • • • • • • 0-105, 106 Inventory of Historic Sites and Buildings (Outside of Incor- porated Towns): Umatilla County Off-Reservation Cultural/Historic Sites: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation •• 0-116, 117 •• 0-155 River Basin Drainage Areas and Average Annual Runoff . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . ••••. 0-158 Material Sources in Relation to Geologic Rock Types Inventory of Rock Material Sources; Umatilla County Annual Production of Sand and Gravel and Quarry Rock: Umatilla County •••• Flood Prone Area Diagram •• • • • • • • • eo. •• • • • • • 0-169 • 0-172-187 1)-201, 202 F-4 -6- Umatilla County Recreation Needs High Priority Needs Assessments; Umatilla County •••• Developed Recreation Sites: West Umatilla County •• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-5 G-6 G-13-14 Potential Recreation Sites in West County Recreation Sites in Umatilla County (except West County) •••••• Potential Recreation Sites in Umatilla County (except West County) • • ••• Breakdown of 1977 Visitor Days- Umatilla National Forest Employment by Type and Broad Industrial Sources •••••••••••••••• Umatilla County Employment Statistics and Employment Projections ••••••• Employment Forecasts for Umatilla County by Industry: 1980-95 •••• Trend Analysis - Table A Trend Analysis - Table B Major Industrial Sites: Umatilla County Age Distribution of Unincorporated West County Residents •••••••••• Age Distribution by Sex of Unincorporated West Umatilla County •••••••• Length of Residence in Area of Current Residence ••••• Household Income. Source of Income • Location of Employment -7- G-15 G-16-17 G-18 G-19 H-5-6 H-7 H-9, 10, 11, 12, 13 1-3 1-4 1-4 1-5 1-7 1-8 Level of Education and Household Income of Males over 25 ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • II • • 1-8 Level of Education and Household Income of Females over 25 •• Income levels of Large Families · . . . . . . . . I~9 1-11 Income Levels of Elderly Households Poverty level Guidelines St ructu re Type Monthly Housing Costs Age and Physical Condition of Housing Structures ••••• Desired Housing Type Current and Preferred Number of Bedrooms • . 0 0 0 • Persons per Bedroom Income and Housing Costs · . . . . . · . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-11 I-II 1-13 1-16 1-18 1-20 1-21 1-24 1-25 Income and Housing Costs of Elderly Over 62 •••• Income and Housing costs of Elderly over 65 Calculating Housing Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-26 1-27 I-3D Water Systems Assessment County Summary of Surveys • • • • • • • • • • • • ••••• J-7-10 Levels of Service Required in Urban and Rural Areas • Zero Lot Line Layouts. Clustering -8- · . . . J-26 L-8 L-8 FOREWORD This document is the technical background report employed in the development of the Comprehensive Plan for Umatilla County, Oregon. It ~=,=,~,~=="~~,~-""~""",,,,~,=,,-,-~,~ .·c._,.~ .. :~ .•,-"... ' ..~ ....."·, ..C." ... -L.,. " '. contains research data which forms the basis of the Plan1s Findings and Policies. To facilitate its use, subject matter has been arranged in an order approximating that of the Plan. Additional information, not readily incorporable (e.g. air photos, notes on citizen groups meetings, parcel size maps, staff work sheets and other referenced publications) are on file at the Umatilla County Planniny Department, Courthouse, Pendleton, Oregon. 1\ 1 CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT Citizen involvement is not new to the planning process in Umatilla County. During the initial planning program in the early 1970's, several hundred citizens contributed their valuable knowledge and community concerns in developing a County comprehensive land use plan and zoning ordinance. The underlying purpose back then (as it is today) was to insure that public wants and needs were reflected in the plans and balanced with environmental constraints and special interests" Apparently, many communities have not embraced the citizen involve- ment process. Often citizens have been ignored in important planning decisions directly affecting their life styles and livelyhoods. To correct non-representative planning processes, the Oregon Legislature in 1974 adopted Goal #1 IICitizen Involvement ll as one of 13 other land use planning goals. This goal outlines procedures to insure citizen involvement in all phases of developing comprehensive land use plans. Goal #1 specifically requires local governing bodies to develop and publicize a citizen involvement program clearly defining procedures by which the public will be involved. The Citizen involvement program is to be an on-going process as land use planning needs continuously change with time. Other supporting requirements of the citizen involve- ment goal include: (1) the appointment of a committee for citizen involvement to monitor and evaluate the citizen involvement program; (2) the availability to the public of technical information used to reach policy decisions; (3) assuring feedback mechanisms whereby citizens understand and have a record of why a policy decision was made; and (4) financial support helping to guarantee the continued operation of the citizen involvement program. In response to the citizen ihvolvement goal, Umatilla County imple- mented an intensive citizen involvement process. Umatilla County Citizen Involvement Processes A requirement of the citizen involvement goal is the establishment of an officialy recognized committee for citizen involvement (C.C.I.). A major component of the citizen involvement program, the C.C.I. must also be responsible for assisting the governing body (County Board of Commissioners) in developing a citizen involvement progarm and evalu- ating its progress and effectiveness in promoting citizen involvement. On January 23~ 1976, the Board of Commissioners officially recognized the Umatilla County Planning Commission as the C.C.I. Because of its County wide planning concepts, the County Planning Commission was felt to be the ideal group to fulfill C.C.I. responsibilities. The overseeing role by the County Planning Commission of County citizen involvement programs was somewhat short lived. As a requirement of receiving grant monies from the Land Conservation and Development Com- mission (LCDC), the County was instructed by this agency to formulate an independent C.C.I. by January 1, 1977. Reasons for requiring an A-2 indepf~ndent C.C.I. were to: (1) help guarantee d truely "c'it-izen oriented" review board; and (2) ease the work load of the already busy County Pl ann; ng Cornmi 5S'1 on. Consequently, a snven member committee of indepondent citizens was officially appointed by the County Board of Commissioners of Commissioners on June 1, 1977 to servo as the Urn at i '11 a County C.C•I • (List available for review at the County Planning Department.) Land use planning revisions first began in the west portion of Umatilla County. The Board of Commissioners recognized that the rapid population amd economic growth occurring there required immediate updating and rivision to the existing comprehensive plan. Pursuant to the adopted Citizen's Involvement Program expla'ined above, the Board of Commissioners appointed the West End Citizens' Adivsory Committee during February of 1976 to assist in the pre- paration of the comprehensive plan revision for the West County area. An organizational meeting was held, members chosen, and by-laws adopted (all are on file and available for review at the County Planning Department). The first responsibility of the West End Citizen Advisory Committee (W.E_C.A.C.) was to make necessary updates to the comprehensive plan maps and text. After considerable citizen input; several specific land use proposals were presented to t,he Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners. A comprehensiv~ plan map amendment along Highw'ay 395 and addition of a new "light industrial" text section were the result of W.E.C.A.C·s initial proposals. W.E.C.A.C. next proceeded to review state land use'planning goals 'and bring into compliance the area's comprehensive plan~ This task met with little success for several reasons. First, the by- laws regulating the group were too rigid, requiring a lengthy procedure to appoint constantly needed new members. Second, membership was not always representative of all areas in the pl a~ni ng u,ni t. , V~ri au,s..propos~,l ..~ .cq,~s~q,~en~ lY .J!1~t wi ~~_ 9PP,O,S ttJqn from the public. Third, W.E.C.A.C. was also provided little planning data and staff direction, making defensible proposals difficult. All of these circumstances contributed to dissention and frustration. Consequently, major by-law revisions (September 14 and 23 1976) were initiated which widened area membership and provided a more open public process in choosing new memberships. Despite these corrective measures, many original W.E.C.A.C. committee members lost interest"and' resigned. 'The, County planning staff then began taking a more active leadership role by providing technical data, resource speakers, a planning schedule and other organizational assistance. Thus, new citizen memberships were attracted and a citizen involvement committee was one again functioning in West Umatilla County. The newly functioning West County Citizen Advisory Committee met 18 times over a 10 month time period reviewing data inventories, soliciting citizen comments and reviewing goals and policies suggested for incorporation into the West County Framework Plan. Also, an agricultural advisory subcommittee contributed valuable citizen input in identifying agricultural land. Both groups A-3 worked diligently and faithfully and their valuable efforts were the foundation of land use policies found in this plan (see file available at County Planning Department). Still another opportunity for citizen involvement occurred when a special citizen task force was appointed to help resolve the location of rural-residential lands and several other citizen concerns that were objected to when the West County framework Plan was originally presented for adoption. This nine member body composed of six citizens, three County Planning Commission members, and one West County Citizen Advisory Committee member, grappled three months to revise unfavorable West County Citizens Advisory Committee and County Planning Commission Framework Plan recommendations. The task force reviewed all previous testimony, collected new comments, and submitted their recommendations to the County Board of Commis- sioners for appropriate consideration (membership lists are available on file at County Planning Department). Public Education and Awareness A wide variety of communication techniques were used to inform citizens of planning effort$ in West Umatilla County. Planning displays, newspaper releases, personal letter notices and presen- tation to clubs and civic groups were initial methods of generating public awareness. Specific informational efforts consisted of planning fair which explained the planning process to be undertaken, a fair booth disply information center at the County Fair showing planning progress made, and three community workshops explaining the citizen advisory committees' land use proposals suggested in the Framework Plan. Citizen involvement Committee meetings were advertised in west county newspapers (Hermiston Herald and the Tri-City Herald) and on area radio stations (KOHU, Hermiston; KTIX, Pendleton). Personal letter notices were mailed to each member of the Citizen involvement com- mittee regarding upcoming meetings and the topics to be discussed. The following are total numbers of citizen comprehensive planning meeting notificaitons from February 1976 to September 1977: a. Newspaper (press releases) - 8 b. Personal letter meeting notices- approximately 1,000* Records show active involvement of citizens in the 40 meetings held, while news stories relating to the West County Citizen participation process totals 60. Both Planning Commission and Board of Commis- sioners hearings pertaining to the West County Framework Plan are recorded on cassette tapes. These tapes and minutes are available at the Umatilla County Planning Department. Public Opinion Surveys and Review Opportunities Another 'important aspect of the citizen planning process was the distribution, compilation, and incorporation of public opionin survey * Rotating membership and inaccurate records makes an exact number impossible to determine. A-4 results and the; r reflected proposal s into cornmurrity po'l icies. Ouring the months of July and August of 1977, a door to door housing survey was conduGt(~d by the County Planning staff. In add'ition to questions p(~ r t ai ni n9 to h0 Usin g, seve ralop i nion qu(~S t ions w(~ reasknd, the m0 st 'important being that of what residents saw as serious problems in the 'j t~ Cornrnu nity • The survey inc1ud(-~d 1, 0B9 h0 usehold S 0 rap proxi mat ely 41 pf}rCent of the households in the unincorporatHd area of the West CO~tnty Planning Unit. Analysis of this ropr(~sentative survny was a major contributer to findings and policies later incorporate<1 into both the Framework Plan and the fi'nal West County Comprehensive Plan (survey qu(}sti ons and ana lysi s can be found in the Housi ng background report wi thi n th'i s dOCUJllent). . " ,. . , Incidental to the housing-public attitude survey mentioned above, was a fair booth display at the County fair in August of 1977. Although the main purpose of the display was to show the general public what planning progress had been made, speci fic comments were sol i ci ted ragarcti ng citizen desires and problems in the areas where they resided~ Several construct i ve suggest ions were added to the Framework Pl an text and po'I; ci es 0 Opportunities to review goals and policies which represented balancing West County citizen concerns and state planning goals were numerous. In addition to distributing copies of the Framework Plan to all West County Advisory Comfnittee members, interested citizens, and all affected government agencies and special districts, display copies were provided at convenient locations such as city halls and libraries. Copies were also provided in limited quantities at each County Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners public hearings. Other County Citizen Involvement Increasing development pressures on the fruit production lands. north of Milton-Freewater precipitated an Orchards District planning effort. Begin- ningin the spring of 1978 public involvement was encouraged thro~gh . informal meetings at each of five grade school districts. A Citizen Advisory Committep was appointed by the County Board of Commissioners which represented both geographic sub areas and ~pecial interest groups. Working through the fall and winter of 1978 the Orchards CAe, in conjiln- ction with County planners, developed the Orchards District Plan. In April 1979 the Plan was adopted by the County Board of Commissioners. To address planning for the mountainous areas of the County, th~ County staff conducted meetings (fall of 1979) in the vicinities of the two main. areas of population/development - Tollgate and Mea~ham. 'Additional public meetings .in 1980 and work with several mountqin area citizen committees in late 1981 to summer of 1982·were also,held. Results of those gatherings were incorporated into the exceptions process and Comprehensive Plan of Goal #4, Forest Lands. Further public involvemen,t in developing County Comprehensive Plan policies included contributions from County citizens participating in the Umatilla Overa 11 Economic p.eyeJ opment subC9mrJ1itt~~~ .•., Thes~$.ub­ committees developed goals and policies for further regional economic plans under the direction of East Central Oregon Association of Counties staff (ECOAC). The district, consisting of Morrow, Umatilla, Grant, Wheeler, and Gilliam counties, has area representation within each of A-5 the five county economic communities. Economic goals and policies proposed for Umatilla County are therefore representative of Umatilla County Citizens and do necessarily reflect County economic potential and desires. There contributions and resulting economic policies have been considered in development of the County Comprehensive Plan. A more detailed description of citizen involvement is given in the Comp- rehensive Plan. Citizen Involvement - A Continuing Process Because planning is a continuous process, so must be citizen involvement. It is the responsibility of Umatilla County to continue to make planning information available to the public and encourage continued citizen parti- cipation through planning programs. Conversely, citizens are equally responsible for using those opportunities. The County Board of Commis- sioners continues the policy of maintaining standing citizen advisory committees e.g., library, roads, parks, and recreation, solid waste, mental health, and housing authority committees. Agreements between the County and other jurisdictions (Joint Management Agreements, memos of understanding and cooperative agreements) also implicitly recognize and encourage public involvement in the decision processes. Citizen involvement then is a two-way street; it is a vehicle for every- one (city, county, state agencies, and private citizens) to take part in land use decisions. Future citizen involvement policy must provide mechanisms to facilitate citizen input and information at the local, regional, state and federal levels. n c - ,__ I _ ____. ( LJUATILU. CDUNn PLANNING DlP""H/£HT LEGEND CLASS I SOILS CLASS Ii 20lLS Cl-ASS III sal LS CLASS IV SOILS CLASS VI SOILS URBAN (within City Limits) UNMAPPED OR NO IRRIGATION CLASSIFICATION SOURCE: S.C.S. (Soil Conservarion Ser- vice) Preliminary Survey, July, 1978. NOTE: Information is PRELIMINARY and subject to cllange. For more detailed in- fm-mation contact tile County Planning Department. Pendleton. (l II<' I 2 ....... It ,./ UMATIL LA ORDNANCE DEPOT I I I I I i l._ ~ r. ~ ;~, ,,;'.~~_ r;~;/_.·· I I i LEG EN 0 SOURCE: S.C.S. ISoil Conservation Service) Preliminary Survey, July 1978 CLASS II,SOILS t:::,::;.:,J CLASS III SOl LS ~ CI ASS IV SOILS D CLASS VI SOILS ~ E2J II1m D CLASS VII SOilS CLASS VIII SOILS URBAN [Within City Llmitsl UNMAPPED OR NO IRRIGATION CLASS I FI- CATION NOTE: Information is PRELIMI- NARY and subject to change pending finalization ot S.C.S. Survey. For more detailed information contact: Umati lIa County PIa n ning Office, Room 23, Court hous e, Pend leton, Oregon 97801 ,CULTIVATION CAPABILITIES AGRICULTURE Umati 11 a County is farm country. Farmi ng is deeply rooted in the hi stori c development of the area. (See History and Settlement Section in Compre- hensive Plan for further details). Agriculture still dominates the area's economy and the area often gains national recognition for its rich agricultural diversity. During the past ten years, the development of irrigation projects in the West County has fostered an agricultural economic boom and created economic expansion in this area of Umatilla County. Irrigation in this dry-climate region has made possible both a diversification of crops and major increases in agricultural production. The availability of Columbia River water, im- proved techno~ogy in pumping and irrigation equipment, and suitable soils combine to make irrigated farming a profitable operation in much of the West County area. In fact, between 1969 and the present, the area experi- enced an increase in agricultural acreage! quite the opposite of what was occurring throughout most of the nation. Other farm statistics indicate that Umatilla County and the other Columbia Basin counties in Oregon are capturing a greater share of Oregon's agri- cultural income. It has been estimated that given sufficient water and the allowance of expansion of projected and present irrigation districts, the Columbia Basin Counties (Morrow, Gilliam, Hood River, Sherman, Wasco, _and Umatilla) would become the leading agricultural area of the state within 15 years, especially if urban sprawl continues to reduce the prime land base of Western Oregon agriculture. 2 Urban sprawl has not been totally avoided in Umatilla County. Increased agricultural production has lead to an increase in farm employment, has attracted a number of food processing plants, pnd has fostered considerable growth in and around the County's cities. Further intrusions of non-farm residences into surrounding farmland, especially in a piecemeal pattern, could undermine the agricultural economy similari1y to what is happening in the Wi1lamette Valley. Therefore, providing proper guidance of future growth in the County is vital to insure the area's agricultural potential and yet accommodate the needs of an expanding,popu1ation. This report will substantiate agriculture's importance to Umatilla County and the necessity for protection, preservation and expansion of this valuable resource. Soils Knowledge of the potentials and limitations of each soil for agricultural use (as well as for other uses) is basic resource planning. Because Oregon and Umatilla County are largely dependent on agriculture and related in- dustries, and because of the limited acreage of such lands, preservation of the most productive soils is extremely important. As part of the County Soil Survey conducted by the S.C.S. Soil Scientists, soil series are, identified as individual mapping units. Interpretations for use, development and agricultural management can be made considering the limitations of each soil The S.C.S. land capability classification system uses eight land capability classes. Soils placed within each class exhibit the same general limitations for preparation or treatment. The soil limitations become progressively greater from Class I to Class VIII. B-1 Within each class are sub-groupings which are classified according to the major cause of limtations. These include: (e) for erosion hazard becuase of slope or textural quality (e.g. sand, silts, loarns hamper crop product'ion unless a plant cover is maintained); (w) for wetness becuase of drainage conditions or overflow limitations because of soil qualities (e.g. shallow, droughty or stony); (c) for climate that is too co'ld, too dry or too cloudy for production of many crops. The f 0 11 0win g i s a summari zat ion and des crip t ion ofthe (~i 9ht S. C•S•1and capability classes: Class I - Soils having few limitations restricting their use and are excellent for cultivated crops. They are deep, well drained, and the topography is nearly level. Water holding capacity is high, and they need only ordinary crop management practices; Class II - Soils having some limitations that reduce the choice of plant crops or require moderate conservation practices. Some limiting factors may include gentle slopes, erosion hazards, res- tricted drainage, and slight to moderate alkali or salt conditions. Class III - Soils having severe limitations that reduce choices of plant crops or requires special conservation practices, or both. Limiting factors may include: moderate steep slopes, high erosion hazards, poor water penetration qualities, restricted root zones, low fertil'ity and unstable soils structure; Class IV - Soils having very severe limitations that reduce the choi ce of pl ant crops, requi res very careful management, or both. Limitations in use result from severe slopes and erosion problems, shallow soils, low water holding capacity, poor drainage and severe alkalinity or salinity soil qualities; Class V - Soils having, less erosion potential but have other limita- tions that limit their use largely to pasture, range, woodland, or wildlife. Limitations include: frequent stream overflow, too short a growing season, stony or rocky soils, no drainage (ponding areas). Pastures can often be improved on this class of land; Class VI - Soils possessing severe limitations that make them usually unsuited to cultivation. Agricultural uses are restricted to mainly pasture, range, woodland, or wildlife. Similar limitations are found in this class and are found in class IV soils, but they are more rigid; Class VII - Soils having very severe limitations that render them unsuited to cultivation and retrict their use largely to pasture or range, woodland or wildlife. These soils are the poorest for pro- ducing crops, but they have significant importance for grazing, timber production or wildlife uses; Class VIII - Soils usually associated with landforms having limita- tions that eliminate their use for commercial crop production. Uses are restricted to recreation, wildlife, water supply, or aesthetic purposes. Examples of types of soils or land forms include sandy beaches, river wash, and rock outcrop. B-2 The following table more clearly illustrates the "intensity with which each lan~ capability class can be used with safety. FIGURE I I NClll".!I::-jEII INTENSlTY UF 1.!I:\Jl lJ~;I-: ... "~ : 1-~--+--4--+--~-+--,-+--,-j--j---j- - til F. I.und I~ S' "0 0 Capahility "r<~ "0 ,-< If' ro II! Clasf; "0 II! N ~, ~ro "r< 0 ::r:: I... ~ ,... til "0 ..... II! " o til ro ;J til ~'4-l IIC ~o0 "r< "r<1I! 111'-' .00ro ro"rl I-' '-' 0 r< 0..0 IV~ roU"d .-I ...-r,1I-l V0 "0 T:l II! llJ til til VI 1lI '"II! OJ ~ H VII() u C II! Q \'111 SOURCE: Taken from Brady, Nyle C. and Buckman, Harry 0., The Nature and Properties of Soils, (New York: McMillan, 1974) 639 pp. Capability classifications for county agricultural soils are in various stages of completion. Updated, preliminary soils surveys have been finished for western Umatilla County, Orchards District (north of Milton-Freewater), selected mountain areas around Tollgate and Meacham, and rural lands surrounding the city of Pendleton. The remainder of the county will be surveyed later with a final compeltion date near 1990. Two detailed maps have been completed depicting both the dryland and irrigated agricultural capabilities of the West County. A general review follows, summarizing their agricultural capabilities characteristics. Maps were completed for the west County first because of the heavy pressures for rural development on agricultural soils. West County Two maps have been prepared dipicting both the dryland and irrigated agri- cultural capabilities. (See Maps on pages B-5 and B-6) It should be noted that agricultural capabilities improve with the availability of water. 3 Many of the limitations normally found in the semi-arid climate of the West County (e.g. wind erosion, lack of water for growing crops, poor soil stability) are overcome with the proper application of water. Water holds down blowing soil, reduces wind erosion and often the sandy desert soils have very low water holding capacities and few nutrients necessary for growing certain crops. Since irrigation is the major agricultural practice and greatly contributes to the economic diversity and stability of the East County, and future i rri gation projects are desi red and ar'e contemplated to occur in the area, it would be advantageous to know which soil would be the most desirable for irrigation. For the above reasons, most of the analysis pertaining to agricultural capabilities will be slanted towards irrigation potentials. " B-3 Analysis of the maps and preliminary data reveal the following: (1) Nearly 55% of the surveyed area has an irrigation agricultural capability class of I through III, and approximately 90% of the land area surveyed is classed as I through IV, indicating desirable soils for growing crops with water; (2) There are no Class V soils either irrigated or dryland; (3) The "Irrigation Agricultural Land Capabilities Map" (page 8-6) located the various soils capabilities for irrigation. Obser- vation indicated that the better soils are located in the southern part of the planning area and the more restrictive soils are located towards the Colubmia River to the north. Wind and topo- graphy have played a major role in the formation; and consequently, the capabilities of soils, because they follow the prevailing wind pattern (southwesterly), and soils in higher elevations do not contain the sandy materials associated near the Columbia River. (4) The major division between soil capabilities occurs at about the 650 foot contour which approximates the Union Pacific Railroad Line running southwest to northeast. There are inclusions of other soil types within each of the two general soil capability areas, mostly due to wind and water deposition. Orchards District Soil Survey Only a soils identification map has been completed for the Orchards District by the Soil Conservation Service staff. However, applying preliminary soil interpretatoin data, the following soil classification analysis is possible. - Nearly all of the survey area is irrigated, so an analysis of dryland soils capabilities is not discussed. - Approximately 98% of the soils in the Orchard District have an irrigation classification of I through IV. - Area soils are complex due to mixing of alluvial materials from the Walla Walla River. Immediately north of Milton-Freewater an alluvial fan occurs; this area is composed mainly of riverwash cobbles and gravels. - Most of the orchards. are located on the above mentioned' soi 1 (Freewater Very Cobbly Loam) because it's cobbles near the surface act as heat absorbers and radiators, stimulating early fruit harvest. Early fruit means higher prices for orchardists. A Class IV capability ;s assigned to the soil. - The northern half of the District's soil is a complex mixture of bottom- land and upland soils. Irrigated agricultural capability classes vary from I to IV. (See map on page B-78 for location of Orchards District soil capabilities.) Meacham/Tollgate/Pendleton Surveys New soil surveys have been completed for these selected areas of the county. (1) For the mountainous areas, several maps have been completed depicting soil limitations only. (See maps on pages B-7a, 7b, 7c, 7d, 7e.) (2) Preliminary data has been completed for Pendleton, but has not yet been mapped. (3) When time permits, maps and interpretations will be incorporated into the technical information, and any appropriate findings and policies will also be added to the Plan during updates. Remaining County It is recognized that there is need for a new detailed soils survey county- wide. This task is likely to be completed well beyond the County Plan completion date of 1982. This Plan has been accomplished using the new detailed soil mapping and less detailed soils assoc~~tion data for the remainder of the county. It is suggested that upon completion of the county soils survey, this part of the Technical Report document be updated. Generalized soils information available shows that the remaining area in the Columbia Basin varies in agricultural suitability. Soil associations 5, 6 and 7 on the map on page B-10 are within this area and have dryland suitabilities from Classes VI to VII. These soils are light, sandy soils. If irrigated, these soils improve in suitability (Classes III, IV, VI.) In the Columbia Plateau, which is east of the Columbia Basin and adjoins the footslopes of the Blue Mountains, there are roughly four sub-areas with somewhat different soil types. The largest sub-area is the highly productive wheat retion north of Peridleton. Deep loess soils such as Shano, Ritzville, Walla Walla and Athena soils (see Map page B-10) are very good dryland wheat areas and are classed as II and III. The second sub-area is located south of Pendleton. The Pilot Rock association makes up the major portion in this area. The Pilot Rock association is also a Class III soil and very good for dryland wheat. The thrid sub-region is located north and west of Milton-Freewater. Elisforde intermixed with other silty soils have a suitabilitY,classifiation of III and are mostly irrigated. The fourth sub-area is southwest of Pendleton. The most common soils are Condon and Morrow, having a suitability Class IV. Soil depth and slope, along with limited rainfall, reduces yields compared with the more productive soils north of Pendleton with intermixtures of dry- land wheat. Adjoining the Columbia Plateau area is the Palouse Prairie. This is a region of steep slopes, with deep soils on the north exposures and shallow, barren soils on southern aspects. Guardane, Palouse, Rockly and the Gwin-Umatilla-Kahler associations are soils found in this area. Suitabilities vary from Class IV to Classes VI and VII. This area is timbered rangeland. The Blue Mountain area is primarily used for timber and livestock grazing, so an agri~ultural capability is somewhat misleading in this area. Since the land capability classification system is primarily based on limitations n I LEGEND ~c;k1 AREAS WITH DEYEL,OPME~T . QO·,C> LIMITATIONS: )cL'Y[:" ll'~!".:'\ ';.Q :0' ~'J% AND. 011 SliM LOW SUH l1lPi I'~ [:·;\;::1 WET SOILS .MEACHAM ( DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS ~~ill©OOill~ ill~[[) W~©~~~UW o 1000 SCALE 2000 m 4000 PI --- ------ SCALE IN FEET LEGEND AREAS WITH DEPELOPMENT LIMITATIONS: SLOPES GREATER THAN 25 AND OR SHALLOW SOIL DEPTHS CORRIDOR BOUNDARY DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS u®~~~illu~ lill®ww~rnJ®w~ /}j o 500 1000 2000 ·~ :~·i:· .:'.~~ :"1·:., . 'J • " , 1j. !i ~ .. '3:'. .•~~ i~.EY;~~ ;_; :':1%;~ __-l ---------..,...... LEGEND ~. AREAS WITH DEVELOPMENT"J;;~.~ LIMITATIONS: SLOPES GRATER THAN25% AND/OR SHALLOW SOIL DEPTHS . -.~ "'-- CORRIDOR BOUNDARY --- ............ 500 1000 SCALE IN FEET 2000 ... M o ~. /A...., /" r,/ - I DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS I I 'Iu®~~~ffiu~ ®®rnrn~[ID®rnn rID ------ -........ I- UJ UJ U. ~ UJ ..J « u (J) >- 0:: <:t o z ::> o 00 0:: o o 0:: 0:: o () I / o o ~ o o o ~ o o It) ~.6'.O.·\'.ca, o z w <-' W -l / / / / / / 1/ 1M ' / \LjJ / ~ C5 @ ---l B c:==:J 1-(5 Z C?S WE) ~@ .~~~~O_~ QP ---1~ w@§) >~ '1--'--+----i----:-rtW E)Op l--------....+--~~~'---_'\-___1 (f) z o I-~ « I- ~ ( J for cultivated cropping, timber and rangeland yields would be a more accurate way of comparing the soils with this area. Most soils in this area have suitability classes of V, VI, and VII. Creek and river bottom areas make up the remaining soils associatoins in the county. The lower elevation areas along major flood plains are generally deep, silty soils. Consequently, their suitability rating is better (Class III). The upper portions of the Umatilla and Walla Walla River have more cobbles and gravels, and are less suitable for cultivation. These soils have little chance to develop, due to the constant reworking of them by flood waters. Suitability is lower, having a Class VII. (See soil #1 on map on page B-10.) The above general soils information for the county was determined from detailed soils mapping, where available, and general reconnaissance and aerial photos. The land capability units for the general soil associations were obtained by averaging the capabilities of individual mapping units and their extent within each association. The average capabilities took into account steep erodable soils and non-arable rangeland soils. Capa- bilities were averaged only for non-irrigated cropping so that a county- wide comparison could be made. Climate Besides good soils, Umatilla County·s agricultural success is dependent upon climate. The desirable semi-arid to temperate climate allows between 120 to 150 frost-free growing days in the dry land farming plateaus, and about 200 frost-free days along the Columbia River. The more temperate mountain areas have shorter frost-free growing season which averages about 50 days.4 (See introduction of Comprehensive Plan for more detailed climatic description of the county.) Water County agriculture depends upon water in the form of natural precipitation falling directly on the ground, and also from stored water from surface sources such as rivers, streams, etc., and sub-surface groundwater. Natural precipitation amounts increase as elevation rises. Near the Columbia River less than 10 inches of rain is recorded in a year, with amounts averaging less than six inches during the growing season (April to September). In order to grow the many crops presently cultivated in the West County, large amounts of stored water are required to supplement the meager rainfall. 5 The central wheat lands rely upon a 12 to 16 inch rainfall. Because these amounts are low, ,a fallow-rotation crop system is practical where some land is not cropped one year a~d allowed to lay dormant to absorb necessary water for the next crop year. Natural precipitation reaches maximum amounts when approaching the Blue Mountains. Along its foothills annual rainfalls reach between 15 and 20 inches. Dry land farming mixes with grazing activities due to the steeper topography. Twenty to 50 inches fall in the blues, which supports grazing activities and some timber production. (See maps in Chapter C, pgs. 11, 12, 13.) B-9 , . - ~. ......... ..,. r m G) m Z o ~'~,O'.OJ""0 2000 - () o :0 :0 o o :0 OJ o c Z o » :0 -< Ir::;l \ L£:j ~ m -I (fl o r (fl / /--/; :,'(/ 11-1J\ I \ [ \ I I \ a 500 1000 IkJ,W!M H SCALE IN FEET ( \ \ " ~II / / I I l \ \ \ /....- ". / / / / I DEVELOPMENT LI rv11TATIO~JS lJ®~~rnmu~ ©®wwuWWrn [Q), ~ -.i-"'i~"""',""", ......----------~--- .."_~...."'.----I'III'"'IIIIpWI~~'!'"l,... ......,...----~-------.., SOURCE S.C S. (5011 Conservailon Survlce) Plulirllindly SUlVey l:Jbi tJOTE Inlormalion IS PRELiMINf,RY and suDler \ 10 cr.. ,lIlj'" i." C'lo'I' .1l:. /Il10fm.Jllon conlact the County P'dl1nlllq [),~p,lnll\el1\ f'en- - 0:: =:> 0 U) -1 ~ =:J~ I-- @ ~@~ :::::) ~U@s -§ 0: G_ ~~ OB WE) N@ .--J~~dw~ ZES W c-~L:_.:J C9§ LEGEND AREAS OF DETAIL SURVEY NATIONAL FOREST·INDIAN RESERVATION CLASS IV 8 SHAND-BURKE 9 RITZVILLE 14 CONDON-UCKSKILLET 15 MORROW·BAKEOVEN·UCKSKILLET 17 PALOUSEGWINLY 19 GURDANE-GWINLY 23 BRIDGE CREEK·HANKINS CLASS III 2 POWDER·PEDIGO 4 HERMISTON·YAKIMA 10 EUSFORDE 11 WALLA WALLA 12 PILOT ROCK CLASS II 16 ATHENA CLASS VI 7 ADKIN8-QUINCY-SAGEHILL 21 TOLD-KUCKER 22 HELTER 25 GWlN·UMATILLA·KAHLER CLASS VII 1 XEROFLUVENTS·VEAZIE 5 STARBUCK-QUINCY·ROCK OUTCROP 6 QUINCY·WINCH ESTERWANSER 18 ROCKLY-WAHA 20 KUCKER·TOLO CLASS V 24 . KLAMATH • ~l ~-i~ ]' .;; ':,' '1,r! .~ ·u·:, :t.:\ 1 :i: ::;j,)t1 In order to grow the many crops presently cultivated, large amounts of stored water are required. Water plays a critical role becuase it has other use demands (e.g. domestic consumption, generation of electricity, navigation, and fish migration), and is apparently being II mined ll or con- sumed at a faster rate than replenishment, especially in the West County. Should water supplies not continue, agricultural as well as most facets of the county economy will be adversely affected. For this reason, exami- ning existing and future agricultural water situations is pertinent. (Please refer to Natural Resources Technical Report for overall water picture). While recognizing natural precipitation's dry land wheat farming contri- bution, concentration will be given to irrigation farming noting its important crop yield capabilities. An excelle~t county review of water availabilities and situations is found within the Umatilla County Overall Economic Development Report. The effort here is to extract pertinent data. Before examining important extractions of the report, it should be noted that there are over 145,000 plus irrigated crop and pasture acres in the the county.6 The report indicated that: - A large majority of the irrigation water is from surface water sources (e.g. Columbia River, Umatilla River, Butter Creek, Cold Springs Reservoir) wlth significant acreages being irrigated from deep groundwater supplies. - Both surface and subsurface sources are being or threatening to be depleted. - The Oregon Water Resources Department has identified one critical groundwater area (Ordinance) where appropriations of groundwater from deep basalt aquifers may be curtailed. A similar situation is developing in the same regions (Stage Gulch, Butter Creek), likely creating additional groundwater supply cutback on an even larger area. - The"Umatilla River is the most obviously over-used surface source, with extreme low flows during summer irrigation seasons and further threatened by unused up-stream diversion claims. Other in-stream uses (e.g. fish migration) are adversely affected by these low flows and could impose additional irrigation cutbacks. Four irri- gation districts in the area (Westland, Stanfield, West Extension and Hermiston) rely upon Umatilla River water for irrigation and would be impacted by any allocation cuts. (See Irrigation District Map on page B-14). - Butter Creek stream flows are also inadequate to meet all agricultural demands. - Depleting groundwater and traditional irrigation surface source supplies cause irrigators to increasingly rely upon new surface water impoundments and the Columbia River. - Once thought to be inexhaustible, the Columbia River will not B-11 likely be able to supply projected irrigation demands without adversely affecting other instream uses • .... The State of Washington has recently "l ayed claim" to a future allocation of 1,360,000 acre feet per year of Columbia River water for several large irrigation projects seriously inhibiting future irrigation development opportunities in Northern Morrow and Umatilla Counties. Such decisions seem to ignore more advantageous alter- natives of downstream irrigation development (i .e., shorter pumping distance due to smaller elevation di fferenc(~s; diversions would be below electricity-producing dams, not as greatly impacting energy production on the Columbia River system; and better coordination peak river flows with irrigation seasons) • .... Future impoundment opportunities (adding 10 to 12 million acre feet) are po~sible on the Columbia River system, especially upstream of Grande Coulee Dam and in the upper Snake River basin. This develop- ment would not occur, however, without major economic and environ- mental costs. This additional capacity mayor may not benefit northern Umatilla County farmers and cannot be determined until a comprehensive study of costs vs. benefits of all regional issues and uses of the Columbia River is completed. - The Snipe Creek Project, if developed, could irrigate from 15,000 to 20,000 acres supplementing current inadequate Butter Creek water flows. A water impoundment, canal, and tunnel at Camus Creek would divert needed water during irrigation demand seasons. Much work remains to be done on the project, but there is strong 1oca1 support for it. - Another irrigation project (Stanfield-Westland) utilizing Columbia River water, was proposed to irrigate approximately 100,000 acres in Northern Morrow and Umatilla Counties. Original support for the project has since dissolved, but still under discussion is a smaller scale project that would serve low elevation farms near Hermiston and Stanfield where irrigation wells have dropped in recent years. In all, water is the backbone to continuing expansion of the agricultural economy in Umatilla County. Even though there are additional plans to expand irrigation water use, future availability of this precious resource is questionable. Aslo, currently escalating costs of energy could limit future irrigation expansion. For example, new thermal costs based on the cost of replacing hydropower with thermal power could have significant impact on an irrigator1s operating costs. Also, the costs of many pro- duction items are closely tied to energy costs (e.g. equipment costs related to aluminum reduction, a highly energy-intensive process). Other high energy cost items potentially limiting irrigation are fertilizers, essential to Columbia Plateau yields, food processing facilities, another energy user, and finally transportation costs deliver the product to often distant markets. Complicating the quantity issue is the unfortunate absence of a federal water policy to coordinate various local, state, and regional uses of the Columbia River. These federal decisions, besides often not accurately B-12 reflecting nor responding to local and regional needs, have tremendous local impacts upon the future availability of water for irrigation. 8 Constant pressure to use more and more of the limited Columbia River further complicates future administrative decisions. Most of this pressure felt locally is related to diminishing groundwater supplies previously relied upon for agricultural, industrial, and municipal uses. Deepening these wells is costly and as earlier explained, may not be allowed in specific areas in the future. Recharge is extremely slow, evidenced by 27,000 year old water analyzed. 9 Also, regulating fufure groundwater allocations is the responsibility of another non-local agency--the State of Oregon. Surface water sources are then viewed as the primary future water supply source. Mo~t agree that full county support is important for the most feasible of these surface water projects. However, local situations and concern may not be considered unless county involvement is effective. From this review, one becomes aware that perhaps the greatest challenge facing Umatilla County farmers is the accquisitions of adequate water supplies. This may not be easy with control in the hands of federal and state agencies. However, it is imperative that local irrigators, agri- cultural agency personell and local government officials become more actively involved in both surface and groundwater policy formulation. Area concerns need to be constantly addressd and liason with these policy makers insured to maintain accurate data and local peculiarities as allocation decisions are made. Not only important for maintaining irrigation water supplies participation is this process can also help coordinate locally required, agri-industrial and industrial land use development, and needed municipal water supplies, both dependent upon the availability of water. So important is water to the economic viability of the planning area that a special water policy has been incorporated in this plan to evaluate future development against its effects upon the water resource. Its purpose is to initiate a water management process considering the many uses of water. Agriculture will have a high priority in this process. (See Economy chapter in Comprehensive Plan for Water Policy.) B-13 -, -,- - _1- t1I1lATILLA 1 ,oRDN,~NCE I I n~r"lo ~ 0= = cg =© =~ ~ (jjjf) (J)~ t--~ u© -~0:[;= ~~ (f)~ -©C© ~Zd o~ -G=I-~- til r: 6 ATHENA WHEAT·PEA 07 VAN CYCLE CANYON ~ .. E ___ __ GRAZING·WHEAT f- I 8 UMAPINE IRRIGATION BASIN (J) E~ TIN I 9 ORCHARDS DISTRICT Wg,I --.J ,-,,-,L_--r 10 SPOFFORD WHEAT c=-_ I '- o.....~: T1S I 11 FORKS OF WAI I A WALLA ~~IRRIGATION ·ORCHAHDS ,-. « \:::-~ "12 BIG MEADOWS G(J) .--13 LOWER BUTTE8 CREEK IRRIGATION ~:=: 14 ALK/,L1 CANYON GRAZING·WHEAT --.J ~--::J c:::-J 15 COOMBS CANYON WHEAT «~. "16 UPPER MCKAY CREEK GRAZING o:~lc::.::=,:))~ ,_._- '17 GUARDANE GRAZING·WHEAT c_c;:! r- --'c "18 ALBEE PASTURE·GRAZING --.J '~ ~ STATE·FI::UtHAL LANUS ~::.._:-.:Ur~ -l..r--'''' 0: :_~~ • Areas studied In conjunctIOn Wlttl FORLS: CUi"l c.!J ~~::~I « ~~--~NO 4. Results 01 analysIs are IOUI'd III 1,!.«I]',1 r,ll~ ~-:. ::"_.: HIGlil.ANDS clldpler ~:j t~J :E '4? .... • r ~~1 '.; f~- } ff. ;;J~j f~'~f;;~: :1 ,. Inventory Results Arranging the inventory results into a meaningful form was not easy due to the great diversity of farming activities in the county. However, when average farm parcel sizes were placed in order, from the smallest to the largest, a pattern seemed to emerge indicating similarities and consolidation of information, as did the possibility of discussing similar minimum lot size protection measures for large areas of the county. Also after further review of the farm unit size and soil information, it was apparent that the Orchards District (includes the major subregion area of the Forks of the Walla Walla River), Westland, Stanfield, and Hermiston Irrigation District and the Umapine Irrigation Basin constituted a small percentage of the County·s agricultural land and because of unique circum- stances and management practices are characterized by exceptionallY small farms when compared to the rest of the county. An additional unique area is the forested grazing area of the Blue Mountains foothills, which contains both cultivated agriculture, livestock grazing, and forest related uses, and thereby involves decisions of whether to apply either State Land Use Goal #3 (Agriculture) or Goal #4 (Forest Lands). Therefore, for the purpose of determining agricultural and other resource protection measures or guidelines, these five special areas will be analyzed separately. The four remaining sample study areas of the county, Table B-VIII shows a pattern of somewhat smaller farm unit and ownership sizp-s in the north county than in the south county; however, agricultural practices are nearly identical in both of those regions. Review of farm sizes and patterns will, however, be discussed in two separate sections: (1) North County Agricultural Region, and (2) South County Agricultural Region. North County Agricultural Region Average farm parcel and ownership sizes for this region on Table VIII indicate several important factors. First, a size difference between these two catagories show that farm ownerships are made up of several tracts of parcels. Secondly, examination of Assessor's Tax Maps bears this point out and if more closely analyzed, show these farm ownerships are separated or not contiguous to one another. This situation of disjoined ownerships is especially prevalent in the productive Helix-Holdman wheat belt where the sample area examined had 12% of the owners representing 24% of land area in separated ownership patterns. Checking addresses of these ownerships show they area most locally owned and farmed. Addi- tional public testimony revealed that a significant number of farm parcels are owned by and leased to area farmers. Most all of the other sub-areas in the North County wheat district have significant numbers of separated farm ownerships except the Juniper-Van~ycle Canyon and Butter Creek districts. Butter creek farm parcel s have been continuously farmed by the same families for many years, whereas the sample area examined for the Juniper-Vansycle district does not adequately reflect the separated ownership patterns of the remaining area and thus the reasons for a more compact ownership pattern in these two areas. Information from farmers about past farming patterns in this region helps explain the occurrence of these disjoined ownerships. When the area was orginally home- steaded, units of 160, 80 and sometimes 40 acres were given to farm families if they made certain improvements and remained on the property for a specified length of time. Additional purchase of adjoining lands was allowed to expand famring operations. Many, however, could not or did not make the required improvements, and moved away. These parcels were eventually purchased by more pers'istent and efficient farm families, even though not adjacent to the original farmstead. B-39 I~BLE B-VIII Agricultural Sample Study Areas Average Farm Parcel-Ownership Sizes and Predominate Soil Classification Sample Area Name Average Farm Parcel Average Ownership Predominant Soil Suitability Special Agricultural Areas Orchards District Forks of Walla Walla Irrigated Orchard Westland Irrigation District A. Powerline/River Roads B. Rest of Area Stanfield Irrigation District Hermiston Irrigation District A. East Progress/Walls Roads B. Rest of Area Umapine Irrigation Basin A. East Umapine B. Rest of Area North County Agricultural Region Athena Wheat-Pea Area Spofford (East County) Wheat Helix-Holdman Wheat Area Vancycle Canyon Grazing-Wheat West County Irrigated Areas A. Butter Creek-Echo and Stanfield Meadows-Umatilla River B. Center-Pivot Irrigation South County Agricultural Region Camas Prarie Pilot Rock Basin A. Coombs Canyon Wheat B. Gurdane Grazing-Wheat C. Alkali Canyon Grazing-Wheat N/A N/A 42 (overall) 25 45 49 51 (overall) 31 42 51 (overall) 25 85 137 181 240 376 169 435 400 670 917 1,208 N/A N/A 65 (overall) 29 60 90 75 (overall) 54 83 92 30 130 310 455 520 706 371 983 819 1,155 2,085 2,550 N/A N/A IV IV IV III,IV Irrigated IV,V Irrigated IV,V Irrigated IV,V Irrigated III Irrigated III Irrigated III Irrigated III Dryland III Dryland III Dryland IV,VIIDryland I I I rri gated III,IV Irrigated IV,V Dryland IV,VII Dryland IV,VII Dryland IV,VIIDryland NOTE: Where two classifications are shown, each has about the same percentage or area of soils in the sample studied. See pages B-2 and B-3 for Soil Classification descriptions. B-40 The ability to successfully farm these separated parcels was due in large part to the abundant amount of deep, fertile soils and relatively stable rai nfall amounts. (See Table B-VIII for predominat soil classifications.) ,Wheat yields on these sized parcels provided enough family income to purchase' food and provide for other family needs, thus creating positive incentives to stay on in the area. Over a period of years to the present, and despite un- favorable economic stituations, deaths, moves and inheritances, the original farm ownership sizes have remained about the same. Specifically, the above historic faming pattern has resulted in average owner- ship sizes varying from 310 to 983 acres. (See Table B-VIII.) It is interes- ting to note that the average ownership size decreases as soil quality improves. Whi le these figures are interesting, only one sub-region (West County Center- Pivot) has a representative size of the agricultural land required to constitute a viable, economical farm. In the other sub-areas, many farmers have had to lease extra agricultural land in addition to their farm holdings. Unfortunately, lease agreements are not recorded, so determinations of comparitive farming sizes cannot be easily done. Approximately 800 to 1,500 acres (including fal low land) is considered an adequate size to make a living, the size range varying becasue of location and individual management capabilities. the option to lease extra land is due in part to available fragmented farm parcels and this factor partly accounts for the relatively few land partitions since 1972. In all of the sample areas in the North County Wheat Belt Region, only 20 land partitions in 10 years (average 2 per year) have occurred. Further examination shows that this low rate of p~rtitioning is representative of the remaining wheat belt areas. Over half (11) have occurred in the West County Center-Pivot Irrigation Region, resulting from sale of land to large farm corporations having capital to invest in these expansive irrigation systems. The smallest farm division was 30 acres, while the largest was over 3,000 acres. The average partition size is 80 acres, while the most prevalent was about 160 acres. Briefly mentioned earlier was the significant number of parcels that are leased--both large and small sizes. Seven, twelve, twenty and thirty acre parcels are leased from area owners, especially from those no longer actively engaged in farming (e.g. retirees or heirs). Public testimony revealed that this kind of farming situation is prevalent in this agricultural region. South County Agricultural Region Larger average farm parcel and ownership sizes are found in this region of the county. Farm parcel sizes reach those of ownership sizes found in the North County Wheat Region. Table B-VIII shows. the smallest average farm parcel size to be 400 acres in the Camas Prairied sample area and over 1,200 acres for the Alkali Canyon sample area. Respective ownership sizes start at about 820 acres and approach 2,550 acres. The range of sizes is probably due in part to the better soils and rainfalls in Camas Prairie as opposed to marginal soils and more scanty rainfall amounts in the Alkali Canyon area. Like the North County Agricultural Region, farm ownerships are not in unified blocks, but separated by other land ownerships. This is particularly the case in Camas Prairie. Again, the original homestead laws helped to create these separated ownerships; however, because of the poor shallow soils and meager rai nfalls, many homesteaders could not produce wheat or graze livestock in the quantities or on the scale possible in the north. Those who could adjust and diversify into cattle and sheep ranching along with hay and wheat crops B-41 were able to survive and could consolidate original farmst(~ad acreages. Since it took more land to produce or sustain agriculture, land holdings developed '1 nto the rather 1arge and somewhat fragmented ownershi ps menti oned earl i er'. Ownership sizes in the sample areas do approach economical farm sizes for livestock ranching and dryland wheat farming. Viable, self~sustaining wheat- livestock ranches approach 2,000 to 2,200 acres in size, including land for fallow (1,000 and 1,100 ac~es in crop per year). Leasing land to increase fa rm acrea ges, especia11 y wheat 1and, iss1i ght 1y 1(~s s preval en tin the Sou t h County area. Also, partitioning land has been nearly non~oxistent in the last 10 years (1972~1982) with only two (160 and 218 acres) occurring in the four sample study areas listed under the South County Agricultural Region in Table B-VIII, page B~40. Specific findings regarding actual leasing patterns as were offered for testi- mony in the North County Agricultural Region were not obtained for this area. However, knowledgable people expressed that it dose not matter what sizes were being leased, as long as the parcel could be feasibly farmed as part of an overall operation. There were too many complex and varible situations pertaining to ownership, inheritance and management decisions to determine any recognizable field leasing pattern for either of these major dryland wheat areas. Conclusions and Farm Protection Alternatives for North and South County Agricultural Regions Survey results confirmed that whether analyzed on an area basis, by farming management techniques (e.g. irrigation vs. dryland), or soils types, etc., commercial farms are highly variable in size, and complex as to structure and operation. This underscores the need for an innovative and flexible agricultural land protection proposal that recoginzes this complexity (the separated ownership patterns, farm land sale and leasing needs, inheritance considerations) and yet will help to protect the farm land base. The present method of farm land protection is a 19 acre minimum, exclusive farm use zone. This minimum parcel size has been in effect since 1972 and is based upon standard divisions of U.S. Government Survey sizes whereby 19.0 acres (actually 20 acres, but if adjacent road acreage is taken out, it becomes less than 20 acres) is a standard subdivision of a section unit (640 acres). The reasoning for a 19 acre minimun, is that this size would probably be too large an area for a rural, non-farm resident to maintain and/or too expansive for land upon which to place a non-farm residence. While the 19 acre exclusive farm use lot size minimum is not nearly large enough for a self-producing wheat or livestock operation, the zonels effectiveness in protecting agricultural land can be partially measured by the number of smallest partitions than can and have occurred in the North and South County Agricultural Regions since 1972. Only 8 parcel splits of 19 acres (the smallest allowed) have taken place in the last 10 years, in an area encompassing approxi- mately 1,000,000 acres. Also, only 12 non-farm parcels in these two regions have been allowed under exclusive farm use statutes and standards since 1977. It appears then that the 19 acre lot size minimum is, at least in part, preventing rampant creation of non-farm parcels throughout this important farming reigon. As just mentioned, the present 19 acre minimum lot size is apparently helping to maintain existing agricultural practices. However, there have been some B-42 comments at the state level that 19 acres is not large enough to protect dyrland wheat farming~ grazing operations or mechanized irrigation farmlands and also protect other resource concerns ;n the future, while the above statistical evidence shows otherwise, but acknowledging both the new agri- cultural lot size and pattern information and state planning, it is somewhat reluctantly agreed that the present agricultural minimum lot size cannot be proven to reflect existing or future agricultural patterns and resource needs. (See Comprehensive Plan Map section for further explanation). In answer to the above concerns and to reflect agricultural practices and farm owner needs, a variety of farm regulatory guidelines were formulated, rather than the adoption of a commercial farm lot size minimum or keeping the present 19 acre minimum lot size Exclusive Farm Use Zone, Testimony and research indi- cate that commercial lot size minimums will not reflect the existing scattered fanning operatians, be flexible enough to allow common sale, transfer and inheritance of any future farm parcels or be flexible enough to adjust to agriculture's rapidly changing market conditions and climatic uncertainties. Flexibility is a key to sustaining commerical wheat and grazing operations in the county. Mentioned earlier were the significant number of parcels being farmed which were much smaller than normal ownerships or even the predominate field manage- ment unit size. In addition, these parcels were often separated from other farmed parcels. Prior to this finding, the county originally felt that a farm management unit/minimum parcel size concept would be an effective yet flexible means to protect and regulate farm and non-farm activities. A farm management parcel size minimum was determined to be the smallest area of farm- land that could be partitioned and still permit normal farming practices that could occur in an efficient and effective manner. Normal farm practices included transporting farm equipment, fertilizers, sprays, seed, and feed to prepare, plant, grow~ harvest or ready for market area agricultural commodities. The key to flexibility was to set a minimum parcel size that reflected actual farming operations occurring in various areas of the county. Review of the agricultural inventory information findings showed that the North County Agricultural Region had generally smaller farming operations than the South County, because greater production per acre was possible, generally attributable to the better soils and more abundant rainfall ~ etc. Therefore, a smaller and different farm management unit was considered logical for the North County (40 acres) and a larger one more appropriate for the South County (80 acres). Further examination and farm community testimony showed that if farm partitions were tied to a management unit size, it would likely 'create unnecessary and restrictive farm management problems. For example, inheritance and estate planning~ finance farm related structures (e.g. grain storage buildings), land transfers to neighboring farms for management efficiency, etc. were complex~ varied with individual situations; and fixed minimum parcel size wouldn't respond to these various situations, and would likely create hardships for the farming community. ~ased upon a representative cross section of farm community testimony, a fixed or prescribed-lot size for farm partitions is not to be initiated. Basic standards and procedures are required to assure the partition is for farm purposes or will assist in the continued agricultural practices in the area. B-43 Now dwellings pose potential compatibility problems and were a concern. How should they be reviewed and by what means would help determine a farm related horne from a non-farm home? I\n income requirement was first cons'idered to help in this matter. However, farm prices fluctuate too much and really could not b~~ uSHd as a reliable measure to identify bona fide farm dwellings .. It was finally determined that a density for new dwellings would be the most appropriate method to assist in the identification of farm related dwellings from hobby or non-farm homes. Since 40 acres is the smallest predominate field size (farm management unit) in the North County Agricultural Region, this size should logically be used as the density to determine whether a proposed dwelling would be a farm or non- farm dwelling. Intimated earlier is the fact that there are minor differences' between the North and South County Agricultural regions such as slightly larger field patterns in the south part of the county. However, this minor difference really does not outweigh the many similarities of farming occurring in both of these agricultural regions. Therefore, the same forty acre dwelling density found to be apprdpriate for the North County Agricultural Region is also applicable for the South County Agricultural Region. There are significant acreages of identified critical deer winter ranges in the foothill grazing sub-area of the South County Agricultural Region. The Fish and Wildlife Department has recommended, based on its studies, that to protect and maintian for use this critical habitat, homes at 40 acre densities are acceptable, but that residences on 160 acre densities are desirable. The forty acre density standard for homes, based upon a farm management unit concept, is then a compromise between the presently adopted 19 acre minimum and the 160 acre minimum lot size recommended by the Fish and Wildlife Department. The recommended 40 acre density should help protect the critical deer winter range in this area. The possibility of dwellings on the farm management unit based density size of 40 acres needs further explanation. With the application of this new minimum size, creation of partitions and homes of 40 acres throughout the North and South County Agricultural Regions will not likely occur. This has not been the case with the 19 acre minimum lot size requirment in effect the last ten years. Where the 19 acre parcels were expensive to buy and maintain as rural residences, the 40 acre density guide would be even more cost prohibitive. In summary, it is agai n ernphasi zed that impl ementi ng a 40 acre mi nimum density guide for dwellings will not create this'lot size/home pattern throughout these two major county agricultural areas. Agriculturalists realize that to do so would not be in their best interests. However, there are situations in agriculture where adjustment is helpful to adapt to the continually changing needs of this industry. It is felt that the 40 acre density guide as offered in this report will do this. Planning is a continuing process and shou1d it become apparent that this form of protection management is not maintaining the, commercial agricultural characteristic of the area or not protecting other natural resources, then the county has the opportunity to re-evaluate it and make needed adjustments. Special Agricultural Area Lot Size Analysis As discussed earlier, there are areas in the county where special circumstances create or determine unusual and unique farming opportunities and patterns. B-44 Table B-VIII identifies these areas; they are separated into a s~ecial category mostly because of their much smaller average farm lot sizes. There are other reasons for this segregation and because these areas have their own unique circumstances, a separate discussion and analysis follows for each. Umapine Special Farm Area The Umapine Agricultural District is shown on the map on page B-52 and encompasses well over 13,500 acres. Located northwest of Milton-Freewater, this area has historically been tied together because of irrigation. Wheat, alfalfa seed and hay, livestock operations, some barley and small acreages of row crops (e.g. onions, asparagus) are the main agricultural activities here. The procedure used to determine average lot size information for Umapine farms was nearly the same as those followed in the North and South County Agricultural Regions. (See pages 8-33 and B-39.) The only differences were that the total area was analyzed instead of just a sample township, and that privately owned non-farm parcels to be eliminated from the farm lot study were smaller. Often the 20 acre separately owned non-farm parcels in the wheat/grazing areas were found to be typical farms in parts of the Umapine area. This was discovered to be true in portions east of Umapine where parcels were not necessarily economical or self-supporting farms but have been contributing to the overall agricultural economy of the county. Information indicated that a non-farm parcel was typically a separatly owned five acre or less parcel with a house. Individually owned vacant lots of this size range, and not on farm deferral tax:ation, were also classified as II non -farm. 1I Not very many of these exist. While results of the lot size study show an overall average farm parcel size to be nearly 60 acres and the average farm ownership over 90 acres, this does not reflect the varied nature of the area. Observation of parcel and ownership maps visually shows two different sub-areas. An area east of Umapine has smaller, more individually owned parcels with mixtures of agricultural activities like fruit orchards, small livestock operations and some row crop fields. West of Umapine most farm parcels are more similar to the neighboring wheat/grazing areas in the North County~ having larger, separated ownerships. Farm use activities are mostly irrigated wheat and alfalfa. Noting the above differences, an additional calculation was made to learn what the average farm parcel size and ownerships were east of and adjacent to Umapine, and the bigger farm parcels largely west of Umapine. Results showed 25 and 30 acre farm parcels versus ownership size in the areas generally east and immediately surrounding Umapine, and respective 85 and 130 acre lot and ownership sizes in the larger farms further west and south of Umapine. Further study helps to understand why there are these two farming patterns. The smaller farm parcels immediately surrounding Umapine were influenced by the nearness to thi s small rural town, where the prevalent rural-residential hobby farm exists around cities and towns throughout the coouty, while parcels east of Umapine are greatly influenced by the more intensively managed orchards district, where fruit farming has been marginally successful. The soils are somewhat similar to the Orchards District, but less stoney, and the area is less protected from forests than orchard lands nearar Milton-Freewater; both factors are important to sustaing the existing fruit farming industry. The east Umapine area contains a variety of farm sizes and activities because of its marginal or transitional nature. Records reveal thah 16 farm partitions B-45 have occurred, ranging in size from 9 to 105 acres (average 32 acres). How- ever, the most prevalent farm partition is 20 to 23 acres. Numerous lot size partitions since 1972 were probably influenced by the Orchards District to the east which itself has had significant rural residential and sma'll farm partitions. Farm patterns mostly west of lJrnapine have been much more stable than in the Central Walla Walla Valley north of Milton-Freewater, being influenced by differ- ent soils, climate and farming operations. Farming is a full time commercial venture here. Larger scale farms are not being phased out as is evident by only five farm partitions since 1972. The average size of these partitions is abount 140 acres, ranging in sizes from 20 to 290 acres. The same farm partition-dwelling concerns discussed in the North and South County agricultural Regions were expressed in the Umapine farm area. Placing a single purpose standard for both farm partitions and dwellings has been deemed to be inappropriate. The same approach used in the North and South County Agricultural areas of minimal requirement for legitimate farm use divisions, and a density requirement for controlling housing density to approximately the existing farm home and farm use activities, is similary desired for this area. The above review of existing farm use activities, management desires, and farm parcel size and ownerships leads to the recommendation of two minimum dwelling density sizes: 20 acres for smaller farms of approximately this size mostly east of Umapine, and 40 acres for larger farms west, south and north of Umapine (see map, page B-71). A 20 acre minimum dwelling density requirement east of Umapine will maintain the questionable farming pattern of small, not necessarily full-time commercial operations. While there are some fruit orchards here, extending the Orchards District 10 acre Fruit Tract Zone would not ftt the overall farm parcel pattern of the area. Also, development of orchards in this area seems improbable for quite some time in the future. This size could allow some additional small farms with residences without adversely affecting the commodity production of the area. Only about 20 new farm divisions could be created. Regulating the number of farm dwellings can also ensure a rural farming character. Not only would farming activities be protected, but this area would remain a buffer between the orchard lands to the east and the larger, more self-supporting irrigated wheat and alfalfa farms to the west. Because the area west of Umapine has many characteristics of the North and South County Agricultural Regions (e.g. larger parcels with separated ownerships, some leasing of land, very few partitions in 10 years), the same 40 acre minimum dwelling den si tyi s recommended here. The same fl exi bi 1i ty is needed here, and establishment of this size provides some regulation consitency with the dryl and wheat farms to the west and south. Forth acres is a1 so twi ce as large as the present 19 acre minimum requirement which has adequately protected these farms since 1972 from non-farm development. Wildlife protection is another benefit of larger density minimum. size than presently enforced. West County Irrigation Districts History, climate, soils, farming patterns and irrigation conveniently classify portions of the Hermiston, Westland and Stanfield Irrigation Districts into one lot size analysis grouping. These districts were formed in the early 1900's R-46 using water from the Umatilla River. Early homes envisioned great productivity, but soils, climate and oftentimes inexperience proved otherwise. Consequently, over the years the poorer lands were abandoned and left vacant, usually developing into rural residential hobby farms, especially lands nearer the towns of Hermiston, Stanfield and Umatilla. The extent and impact of non-farm development and other influences has varied in each irrigation district, mostly depending on its location· and soil quality. Portions of the Hermiston and Westland Irrigation District have intensive sub- urban and rural residential areas becuase of their proximity to Hermiston, which provides convenience to a wide range of services. These residential areas have either been incorporated into the city, designated for future city development or identified as rural residential. Other poritions of these dist- ricts have remained isolated or buffered from the above influences and have attained simil~r characteristics of the adjacent, more self-supporting farmlands. (South portions of the Westland Irrigation District are an example.) The remaining areas within these districts are those subject to this agricultural review. (See map page B-70 for study areas.) Agricultural lot size and ownership studies did not differ from the analysis made in the previous agricultural districts. Farm lots were identified along with those not considered farms. Non-farm parcels were deleted from the inven- tory so as not to distort the results. (Non-farm parcels were the same in size and circumstances as those in the Umapine Agricultural District, pages B-33-39 for explanation.) The results of adding and combining farm parcels and similar ownerships were average farm lot and ownership sizes. These figures are found in Table B-VIII, page B-40. The above procedure yielded similar farm size patterns for all three agricultural districts. All districts have a general mixture of parcel sizes ranging from 5 to sometimes 200+ acres. All districts have some existing small farm units that are not full-time, not self supporting operations. Each is a transition area between larger, more self-supporting farms and the rural non-farm areas mentioned earlier. However, similarities end here when examining the other factors in this study. The Stanfield Irrigation District has some significant differences when soils, zoning, crop types and closer scrutiny of ownerships are considered. This situation leads to a slightly different agricultural protection measure, the justification of which follows. B-47 [New] Agricultural Inventory and Farm Protection Alternative. Update for North and South County Agricultural Regions This section is being added in response to the county not receiving state acknowledgement of the agricultural plan and zoning as previously outlined. The additional information is also necessitated because the county is proposing a different system of regulating agricultural activities than the present housing density/no requirement for farm division combination. In the following sections, information is provided explaining the reasons for the regulation changes, how they provide desired flexibility, and yet still provide the county·s desire to protect the agricultural land lease from instrusive, harmful, and speculative land use activities. [New] Sri ef Summary of Compli ance Order Pertai ni ng to Presently AdoptedA9ri cul tu ra 1 Regulations First, LCDC says that the county·s present inventory suggests a higher minimum lot size (density) should be adopted to protect the existing commercial agricultural enterprises now taking place. Secondly, the state suggests that a minimum size should be placed on divisions strictly for farm purposes (no dwellings) to assure the continuation of existing commercial agricultural enter- prises in the North/South County Agricultural Regions. A minimum division size would reduce false expectations of the ability to develop on these often small and possibly unfarmable lots as opposed to the present no minimum policy for strictly farm purposes. The county has thoroughly discussed LCOC·s concerns and strongly feels that a minimum parcel size, let alone a large one, has the potential for creating more problems than it solves. This;s especially true if minimum lot sizes are used as the primary criteria for restricting construction of homes in agricul- tural areas, which is essentially unrelated to housing once area sizes for septic tanks and wells are exceeded. R-48 Minimum parcel sizes also create numerous stumbling blocks· for a variety of farm management options. The following examples, while not intended to be a complete study, outline a few of the management problems envisioned with a cumbersome minimum lot size. A. Undivided Interests. Very large InlnlmUm lot sizes move ahead the day when all parcels of land will be very likely to be held in undivided interests by heirs and other parties. The greater the number of persons involved in undivided interests in farm real estate, the greater the complications in all types of negotiations relative to that land, including but not limited to (a) lease agreements, (b) participation in government farm programs, (c) entry into contracts with the Soil Conservation Service concerning conser- vation tillage methods and construction of erosion control and water conservation structures such as terraces and grassed water- ways, and (d) negotiations for the sale of purchase of farmlands. The greater the number of persons involved in the undivided interests, the more likely that negotiations must be by correspondence and/or by phone. This slows down the negotiations, and often causes dead lines to be missed, often because the owners of the property who are not living in the immediate area and/or have little contact with the land, do not understand the nature of the problem being negotiated. Because they do not sense the urgency, and are not close by to facili- tate communication, the overall process of management of the property becomes less efficient than would be the case if the property could be partitioned strictly for farm purposes so more one-on-one nego- tiation could take place. B. Financing. For the most part, in Umatilla County, land cannot be transferred and financed except in separately described parcels. Banks, regardless of the statutory options open to them, will generally ~ot mortgage parcels not separately deeded. Hense, any property financing that might be accomplished in. parcels smaller than the minimum lot size become under large lot size impractical, if not impossible. At times, a farmer finds himself in a position of having to mortgage land to finance the construction of structures such as grain bins or shop and machinery storage. If parcels could not be created for mort- gage purposes smaller than a very large parcel minimum, the farmer would have no choice but to expose a greater acreage to the risk of being a specified security for a loan, plus be subject on that greater acreage to the often II not helpful ll supervision of the lender. Potential default would more severely disrupt his farming operation if foreclosure could proceed upon a much greater land base. And, as indicated above, inability to sell off a smaller piece of land would preclude him from extracating himself from his dilemma in better financial condition, and still retain as viable a farming unit as possible. B-49 C. Estates. Very large mlnlrllUrn parcel size requirements would in many instances severely handicap heirs in arranging to pay inheritance taxes without losing lithe. whole farm. 1I The ability to sell off a smaller parcel is very crucial to the transfer of land from one generation to another, without displacing more people from the land. One of the tragedies of estates is the often encountered bitterness associated with IIforced business relationships,1I generally arising out of uimposed und; vi ded interests. II For the most part, such can be avoided through a well planned estate--but not so easily if land could not be parcelled into "sma ller ll lot sizes. Some argue that the solution is simple--just incorporate the farm. There is some merit in this argument, but for most farm operations, it cannot be economically justified. The added costs, administrative requirements, record keeping, and in some cases added taxes are not conducive to incorporation. And, if the number of persons involved is too great, the corporation could not qualify for subchapter S treat- ment, and the farm would be subject to "double taxation" rather than the single tax treatment on a proprietary business basis. o. Interagency Complications. The Soil Conservation Service contracts with farmers for the making of improvements in farming methods in the construction of terraces and grass waterways to control erosion and conserve water. The more persons involved in undivided interests in a given field, the more difficult it is to negotiate such contracts to be both financially feasible and mutually acceptable to all parties involved in the contract. This delays or completely prevents some acreages from improvements that conserve soil and water. Reasonable partitioning requirements would allow more one-on-one negotiation, and promote a faster rate of conservation development. The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) administers the government farm programs related to commodities, such as the currently available reserve loans for grains, and loan programs for on-farm storage. The greater the number of persons involved in undivided interests, the more difficult it is to make decisions and enter into contracts anrl the related mortgages relating to the programs of the ASCS. Multiple undivided interests have such impacts as simply causing the number of required signatures to exceed the space available on forms, diviations from which can require legal review and authorization from a higher level office. This causes delays, and delays cost money. The above examples are discussed in more detail arguing against a single and large parcel size requirement in the appendix section. Also included in the appendix section is a signed resolution from the past president of the National Wheat Growers Association and local dryland wheat farmer, Don Woodward. The resolution represents the feelings of many of the wheat growers in Umatilla County, that large minimum parcel sizes are not appropriate in this county. B-50 In summary, observation of development and management options suggests that any area is generally better off if the investment and management opportunities in the area are kept many rather than reduced. Requiring a single, large minimum lot size would, in the county's opi~iqn, be contrary to the state's suggestion of minimum lot sizes tied to other new land divisions and dwellings. The county prefers to keep agricultural options open, not restricted unnecessarily. Minimum lot sizes ignore the future and assume the future is best if there is no provision for partitioning down to the minimum size or sizes for management and estate planning reasons. In other words, if a minimum size is set at a level of current or average ownership, tax lot, or even farm management unit sizes, the solution ignores most of the reasons that parcel sizes now exist smaller than normal or typical, and are being used for other than housing lots (in cultivation in most cases). [New] Additional Data Base Analysis To see why the above stated situations exist, the county undertook an additional study to more thoroughly examine the actual farming patterns and practices that comprise the overall commercial agricultural activities in the North/South County Agricultural Regions. After some initial farmer contacts and discussions with members of the Planning Commission, it was mentioned that within an ownership, and in particular within a tax lot, whether in a contiguous or non-contiguous situation, there are a series of natural or separated fields broken up by natural barriers such as rivers and ditches in such a way that it is in fact farmed as more than one unit or parcel. Bluffs, rock patches, clay knobs, and even more man-made barriers like roads and railroads all serve to partition fields into parcels of great diversity in size and shape. After review of previous information, it was the Planning Commission1s opinion that the background data base gathered in 1982-83 relative to appropriate parcel size did not adequately take into account ~he natural parcel, sizes caused B-51 by topographic features and roads and railroads so common throughout the county. They also felt that the 1982-83 data base didn't appropriately consider 'I cu lti- vation units" (parcels farmed separately from one another due to terrain, other natural features and because of a variety of farm management goals). The original data emphasized "ownership units " that considered only the configuration of deed lines and didn't reflect the way in which farmland was cultivated. The Planning Commission concluded that when considering or evaluating the appropriate- ness of farmland divisions that would continue the existing commercial agricultural use in the county, consideration of continued cultivation practices should take precedence over the traditional deed line configuration and redivision land division regulation programs. Upon examination of Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service's (ASCS) photography, field patterns are more clearly seen and identified. In fact, separate fields or cultivation units are outlined on these photos along with their appropriate acreages. These maps are one of the primary tools by which the government farm programs are managed in the local counties. They constitute a primary basis for ~eviewing proper program compliance by land owners/operator, and for making or denying payments to farmers and landowners participating in the government programs. These maps are made from aerial photos, are regularly updated, are definitive enough to show the pattern of cultivation and harvest in the fields, and are readily available for periodic review. A study of cultivation units was undertaken to determine what factors were involved in their creation, and how the county might formulate land division measures based upon actual cultivation practices that make up or constitute commercial agricultural practices occurring in the North/South County Agricultural Regions. Eight townships were analyzed that contained 1,233 measured cultivation units. The townships reviewed were selected to reflect as fairly as possible the B-52 overall land use activities occurring in the North/South County Agricultural Regions (those areas actively engaged in agricultural uses). This sample area strategy included a study of foothill areas where there is a transition from field cultivation to grazing activities. (The map titled IICultivation Unit Study Areas ll on the next page pictorially depicts the townships examined and the geographic areas they represent). The areas reviewed were: (1) Northwest County; (2) North- east County; (3) South County; (4) East County Foothills; and (5) South County Foothills. The cultivation unit data was summarized to document differences in common land use patterns with respect to cultivation unit size among the various areas of the county. Areas It 2, 3 mentioned in the previous paragraph each reflected both irrigated and dryland practices. ~reas 4 and 5 (East County Foothills and South County Foothills) were studied both separately and then combined into a single IIfoothills area. 1I The data was organized in the following manner: 1. Township summaries - Frequency distributions showing the distribution of cultivation units among various acre size categories and among various boundary configurations. This indicates both the number of parcels in each category and the percent of parcels in each category. This summary also indicates the total acres in parcels measured on the ASCS airphotos that are farmed in multiple cultivation units and the number of cultivation units therein for each. Two such township areas constitute the sample from which a Major Area summary was developed (see Cultivation Unit Study Areas Map). 2. Major Area summaries - Each summary includes two township areas, showing the percent distribution of cultivation units among various acre size categories for each township, and the same type distribu- tion for the aggregate of the two townships to reflect the overall land use pattern for the Major Area. 3. Major Area graphs - A graphic presentation of the distribution of cultivation unit sizes in each Major Area, compared to overall dis- tribution pattern among all Major Areas of the county combined. 4. County-wide summary - A distribution of cultivation units for all the Major Areas of the county combined. 5. County-wide graph - A graphic presentation of the distribution of cultivation units among the various acre size categories for each Major Area, plus the graph of the combined distrubition thereof for the overall county. B-53 -I T1N'IL------T I rls 1 _.\0........., _ LEGEND SUB·AREAS A NORTHWEST COUNTY B NORTHEAST COUNTY C SOUTH COUNTY D EAST COUNTY FOOTHILLS E SOUTH COUNTY FOOTHILLS ~ TOWNSHIP STUDY AREAS I I ___________._._ - -- ...1 OAl"'II' A Ii'" N'\'/()~1A1 L------'1'''''~' ,:Jr~3- r~-- '~~4'- .J CULTIVATION UNIT STUDY AREAS UMATILLA COUNTY, OREGON (A complete summary of the results is provided in the Appendix under the report titled IlCultivation Parcel Size Reivew ll by Clinton B. Reeder). [New] General Findings The ASCS aerial photo maps indicated farmland in Umatilla County was subdivided into various parcel sizes based on the following factors: 1. Natural landform features 2. Transportation features 3. Man-made features for conservation purposes 4. Irrigation 5. Estate settlements 6. Homebuilding and farmstead establishment A. Natural landform features. In most instances, it was obvious from the review of the aerial photos of the county farmland that the cultivation units were defined primarily by the natural features of the landscape--rock outcroppings, shallow soils, drainages, rivers and streams, bluffs, and steep slopes. It was for this primary reason that the distribution of cultivation units among the various size categories among the various Major Areas of the county were almost identical (see Airphoto Illustration No.1, pg. B-63). B. Transportation features. The second major factor that determined the configuration of cultivation units were the various modifications to the landforms that were man-made, especially roads and railroads. These transportation types were for the primary purpose of moving farm products to market and bringing farm production supplies to the farms. These features created permanent isolated independent cultivated units that, depending upon the nature of the boundaries other than the road or railroad, may remain isolated. Often a road or railroad would isolate a triangular piece of land with corners that would be difficult to farm into efficient units, or which would be difficult to move machinery into across the road or railroad that could be efficiently combined into a parcel on the other side of the road or railroad (see Airphoto Illustration No.2, pg. B-64). c. Man-made features, directly for farming purposes. It is very evident from the aerial photos that when farmers undertake more intensive agricultural practices such as terracing and strip-cropping, the size of cultivation units is decreased. These conservation practices are increasingly encouraged by public policy and are becoming more mandatory under the government farm programs (see Airphoto Illustration No.3, pgs. B-65, B-66). D. Irrigation. The airphotos clearly indicated that the average size of cultivation unit decreased when the land was changed from dry land management practices to irrigation. The cultivation pattern was especially complicated by the use of the more efficient Il circle" t echn0 logy, whi ch 1eft si gni f i cant acrea gesin II di am0 nd shapes II i n among the circles, and "triangular shapes" on the outer boundaries of the circles. (The increased intensity of such farming leads to the use of a completely different compliment of machinery, different timing of planting and harvest, and a much wider variety of crops, many of which require having marketing contracts) (see Airphoto Illustration No.4, pg. B-67). E. Estate Settlements. The farmland in this category is found infrequently. Most of the farmland in the North/South County Agricultural Regions is now owned by only the fourth or fifth generation since the original ownership patents were issued. As the land moved from generation to generation, in most cases undivided interests are created among heirs. In settling estates, for various reasons, it often becomes necessary to separately identify each party's interest to facilitate financing estate tax payments, or for financing so that one heir can transfer ownership to another, or to a third party or parties. These land divisions are evidenced most obviously on the ASCS airphotos by deed lines that equally divide a given area of land into exactly equal sized units, where no obvious reason for such a division can be seen from natural or man-made land features (see Airphoto Illus- tration.No. 5, pg. B-68). F. Homebuilding. The maps indicated that for the most part there were not a lot of homes in the rural areas, and the homes tended to be located so as not to adversely interfere with farming good land. The majority of rural homesites had a long history, and were located where water could be reached by hand dug wells and where horse drawn wagons could be moved efficiently from farm to trading centers and back. Newer rural homesight locations can be located most anywhere, with current well drilling and roadbutlding equipment. The maps suggest considerable care has been given to rural homesight location. This fact is also evident on a table in the "Cultivation Parcel Size Review" report in the appendix. Only two dwellings or 1% of the total homes in the sample areas have dwellings in the center of a parcel that would tend to disrupt farming practices. The remaining 99% are located'along parcel edges, corners and down in drainage bottoms not taking up valuable farmland or interfering with regular farming patterns. [New] Conclusions The above analysis and the more detailed information and data in the appendix show the following facts: (1) Cultivation units (separately farmed parcels due to terrain, topography, management goals/practices (eg. strip cropping, contour farming) do exist and are very prevalent farming patterns. (2) Cultivation units are clearly visible on ASCS aerial photos which are updated regularly showing major changes in management or the newer cultivation practices that are continually evolving in agriculture. (3) These ASCS aerial photos permit a reliable source to review proposed farm partitions to assess whether these proposed partitions would continue the existing commercial agricultural enterprises in a given area. 8-56 (4) There is a diversity of cultivation parcel sizes. There is also no IItypical ll or lIaveragell or IIrepresentativell farm parcel size in Umatilla County·s North/South County Agricultural Regions which as a single parcel size would fairly represent the actual parcel size situation in the county. IITypical ll is a rather wide range of cultivation parcel sizes, primarily determined by natural terrain features, with a distribution county-wide as follows (see the county-wide data summary): Cultivation Unit Size 1. Less than 20 acres 2. 20 to 60 acres 3. 60 to 100 acres 4. 100 to 200 acres 5. Over 200 acres Percent of Parcels (county-wide) 29.2% 20.9% 18.5% 22.4% 9.1% (5) The average cultivation unit size of all the sub-areas reviewed within the North/South County Agricultural Regions (less the two foothill sub-areas that are mostly within the Grazing/Forest plan designation) is 72.8 acres. If the two foothill cultivation unit study areas are added into this average cultivation unit size calculation, the figure decreases slightly to 63.8 acres. Both these figures plus a lot size/housing speculation study discussed in later portions of this report, supports an administrative policy that proposed divisions of 80 acres and lar~er are farm related and would continue the existing commercial agricultural enterprises within the North/South County Agricultural Regions. The 80 acres administrative size even leaves some room for possible error because it is larger than the overall cultivation unit size average of 72.8 acres • . (6) Creation of new parcels following a typical pattern of land use rather than an arbitrary Ilaverage lot size ll is a more efficient way to continue the existing agricultural enterprises in the North/South Agricultural Regions which as documented has a wide-range of cultivation parcel sizes. Cultivation parcel units are the typical patterns of land use occurring in these regions. (7) There is a need to have considerable flexibility in parcel size management for farm purposes since there is a wide range of documented cultivation parcel sizes that continue the existing commercial agri- cultural use of the land. This can mean the approval of farm parcel divisions smaller than 80 acres if the divisions meet certain stan- dards pertaining to shape, slope, access considerations as well as dwelling restrictions that will assure continued commercial agri- cultural use of the lands. (All these standards are discussed in detail in later sections of this report). (8) Review of the ASCS aerial photos shows that there are not a lot of homes (mostly farm and possibly a few non-farm dwellings, but they are not easily identified) improperly located that jeopardize agr,icultural practices. The airphotos also suggest that sites are available that would support rural, non-farm homes because they are sufficiently isolated from nearby agricultural lands. With strict criteria and standards to protect the continued commercial use of the adjacent lands, these non-farm dwellings could be accommodated with no adverse affectS (see following sections of report ,for a broader discussion of these standards). B-57 [New] Dwelling Controls If land is allowed to be partitioned into the smallest reasonable economic unit (ie, cultivated field sizes as shown to exist in the above-subsection review), then the maximum potential flexibility is preserved for the future management of the land over the long-term. Smaller parcels can be more easily financed by a greater number of persons with more widely va~ing equity bases, thus providing that the land resources can more fluidly flow among the various owners over time, providing that the land resource can be more precisely fit to the land needs of a wider range of farming activity as technology and price cycles vary over the long term. This is especially true if the placement of houses is carefully controlled and regulated. If dwellings are not controlled, they could limit and conflict with the economic use of the agricultural land resource base that produces our fibers and foods--an important concern of the county_ To control dwellings, the county looked at several options. For example, (a) require different (larger) lot size for housing construction than for continued farm use; (b) overlay the EFU zones with density limitations that would limit the number of homes in the area; (c) require that all rural housing be clustered so as to make sure they are in "controlled areas"; (d) require that rural homes can be no closer than a specified distance from another home (a density limitation). These options all seem to avoid the critical questions of whether or not the housing is the best use of the land, and whether or not farmers can continue generally accepted practices, etc. Another approach (which has been chosen by the county) which appears to be the easiest and most simple is to determine what parcel size would be an unspecu- lative one for non-farm dwellings. Above this size, all dwellings would be determined or categorized as farm related. Below this size, all dwellings would be classified as non-farm. Appropriate procedures, criteria and standards would apply to each B-58 to assure their compatibility within agricultural resource areas. To determine an appropriate size guideline, the county examined purchase and set cost analysises and also the ability or utility of using a certain sized parcel for farm management purposes (especially if a housing unit were placed on it as an individual farm unit or separated and part of a larger agricultural operation). If both items or criteria have a si~ilar size range, then a basic administrative policy can be realistically formulated that would properly place farm dwellings on these existing or proposed parcel sizes. These parcels are appropriate farm sizes, and the careful regulation of dwellings on existing or proposed divisions that are of a questionable size for typical agricultural uses would eliminate creation of speculative sizes for non-farm home development. Based upon the earlier lot size survey of 1982, a farm management unit concept was formulated, showing that certain sized rarcels existed and/or could be segregated, sold and/or leased to individuals who now or could farm this management unit, even if it was located some distance from other farmed parcels. The size settled upon was 40 acres, although there was some disagreement among those involved in various aspects of agriculture in the North/South County Regions and not conclusively supported or necessarily in agreement with the lot size survey. The management unit concept and size had been used as a form of a farm/ non-farm parcel size guide presently under discussion. If other testimony is considered, if recent partitioning were examined more closely, and if one would review the 1982-83 lot size review, 80 acres is a more realistic farm management unit size where normal farm practices, including transporting farm equipment, fertilizers, spray, seed and feed to prepare, plant, grow and harvest agricultural commodities can take place. Eighty acres in most cases and in the opinion of many farmers would be used, leased, sold, etc. to an agricultural operator in both the North and South County Agricultural Regions, even if a home were to be located on it. B-59 At 80 acres, the speculative aspect for non-farm uses (dwel lings) is also virtually eliminated. This can be shown by analyzing current market prices for land in both of these regions and gathering costs of basic improvements associated with dwelling construction. According to assessorls records and estimates, the average market value per acre of land is about $1,100 per acre and higher in the North County and $550 and higher per acre in the South County. A domestic well costs on the average of $8,000 to $10,000. A septic tank and drainfield amounts to nearly $1,500. Purchasing 80 acres plus installing a well and septic system would cost a perspective buyer nearly $100,000 ($99,500 actual) in the North County, and over $55,000 in the South County. These costs are independent of house construction or mobile home placement costs, utilities (especially electricity), and road access/driveway improvement costs. Very few people could afford such costs to secure the privilege of living in these two agricultural regions on parcels of 80 acres and over. One could make a good argument that 40 acres would eliminate non-farm dwelling speculation, but if dwellings were allowed on this size, some farmers feel uncomfortable in leasing or buying such properties. Therefore, 80 acres has been settled upon as the more realistic cut-off point to determine farm-related vs. non-farm dwelling categories and land speculation size limits. [New] Farm Partitioning Controls Current regulations dictate minimal requirements to approve partitions that are for strictly farm management reasons. The purp?se behind this strategy is to allow the greatest amount of flexibility which is needed to permit the continued and often complex management systems taking place in the county. LCDC has required that the county be more thorough in its review of these types of divisions to eliminate or more substantially reduce the speculative aspect of non-farm development that sometimes exists when smaller sized parcels exist as separate tax lots. After considerable discussion, the county feels that a few additional requirements could be adopted to reduce non-farm home speculation, although speculation can never be totally eliminated. However, in instituting these new standards, flexibility should be maintained. To accomplish both the protection/flexibility aspects above, partitions below 80 acres for strictly farm purposes can be permitted and still maintain and/or continue the existing commercial agricultural enterprises in both agricul- tural regions under discussion. This has been shown to be true in the review of cultivation parcel review study and sizes, pages B-52 through B-59. Since there is such a diversity of cultivation field sizes and patterns, no one size is representative or would adequately serve as a guide or standard for one minimum lot size. Therefore, the county intends to permit a diversity of partition si·zes based on an area review of field pattern sizes. A representative review area is two (2) miles, and if the proposed farm partition is similar to or not atypical of patterns of cultivated fields and cultivated field sizes within this area, and if no dwellings are allowed on the subject partition, then it is determined to continue the existing commercial agricultural enterprises in the area. These standards are explained in greater detail and are incorporated into the Compre- hensive Plan and Development Ordinance. [New] Partitioning anrl Development in Critical Winter Range Areas Mentioned in the 1982-83 IIFarm Protection Alternatives ll section was the fact that areas of critical winter range exist (especially for deer) along the edges of the foothills of both the North and South County Agricultural Regions. The Fish and Wildlife Department has recommended a 160 acre lot size and dwelling density minimum to protect and maintain the critical habitat in Umatilla County. Since the county is changing its present 40 acre density provision and replacing it with an 80 acre parcel size guide or cut-off to determine farm/non-farm dwellings, the county must accordingly change and· adopt appropriate regulations for these critical winter range areas. Briefly mentioned here, but explained in much greater detail in another portion of the Comprehensive Plan, is the adoption of an overlay protection zone placed upon land identified as critical winter range. A dwelling density restriction of 160 acres, notification of and comments from the Fish and Wildlife Department on most land use requests prior to county approval are several of the major regulations to protect critical winter range areas. [New] Non-Farm Dwellings and Other Non-Farm Use Restrictions Careful control of non-farm activities in agricultural areas is a major goal of Umatilla County. Use of the 80 acre lot size guide discussed earlier is just one tool to determine non-farm dwellings. There are many other agricultural protection standards that are being required when a non-farm dwelling or non-farm use is requested in the North and South County Agricultural Regions. These are discussed within the Plan Map Section of the Comprehensive Plan and incorporated as standards and criteria in the Development Ordinance. [New] Summary Since no one can ever be totally accurate and foresee the future exactly, the county feels that ·it needs to provide for flexibility in our resource areas and the management thereof. The county is choosing to do this through strict review of any dwelling or non-farm development proposal while allowing some flexibility in farm partitioning with controls and review designed to continue the existing agricultural enterprises in both North and South County Agricultural Regions. B-62 J~.... ". A 65.9Ac. -F-126- \ ,C ~33.8 Ac. Ii.~Jr.~' ~::.:C' G 17.5Ac. SOURCE: U.S.D.A., A.S.C.S. Aerial Photo No. B-25M (T6N, R37E), September, 1980. NATURAL LANDFORM FEATURES, AERIAL PHOTO ILLUSTRATION NOM 1 .. '. ',1,' ... I J J! a, ~t • 26~15Ac. . ; . • J .' 1-";~'~85; ..-' ........~ _ . . .:,' '#' ••~~ .. . -. t . . .~. '-:~:. ;.h,~ A 156.2Ac. H-93 / SOURCE: U.S.D.A., A.S.C.S. Aerial Photo No. H·16 (T4N, R33E), September, 1980. TRANSPORTAIION. FEATURES AERIAL PHOTO ILLUSTRATION NO. 2 --------- A 61.0Ac. SOURCE: U.S.D.A., A.S.C.S. Aerial Photo No. H·8 (T4N, R30E), September, 1980. MAN MADE FEATURES (for conservation purposes) AERIAL PHOTO ILLUSTRATION NO. 3 , "~,:, '. ' , ,- " SOURCE: U.S.D.A., A.S.C.S. Aerial Photo No. C-24M (T5N, R36E), September, 1980. lURES (for conservation purposes) i J~iI!i~~~~~~ll~L~~~~~T~R~A__TI_OiiiiiiiiiNiiOiiiiiiiiNi!iiii!liii!0~........ilI'ItJijjl3.~~1_iiiiii.illlniiiiiiiiiiA~~~.J 13 M ~ 98·1 Ac. ),:Ol~CLE P~-" ~1!t" 1,,'..:_ SOURCE: U.S.D.A., A.S.C.S. Aerial Photo No. G·19 (T4N, R30E), September, 1980. IRRIGATION AERIAL PHOTO ILLUSTRATION NO.4 SOURCE: U.S.D.A., A.S.C.S. Aerial Photo No. H·15 (T4N, R32E), September, 1980. ZW£&&&QMZ4imU;e;13.'JWi .".t:" . ~~ .;.~....... za ~:r. ·;.~~f· ~. .~~f~· .. ~. ~ -,? :"1 '';... ~" ...;;- .r!l •• ..:tt"" .,~ I i I I@ I -~..I ..J.... I I I 1 [New] Stanfield Irrigation Analysis and Conclusions In the Stanfield Irrigation District, the average farm ownership size is about 20 acres larger than in the Westland and Hermiston Irrigation Districts (90 acres). Farm parcels with the same ownership are separated much like the pattern found in the North County Agricultural Region. Better soils (Class I, II and III Irrigated), better condition of irrigation canals and more reliable water supplies than in the other two irrigation districts, create fewer restric- tions upon agriculture and more incentive to buy additional land, not necessarily adjacent to the home farm operation. These favorable conditions also provide opportunities to diversify farming activities, which is true in the Stanfield Irrigation District by the presence of several high return row crops, like mint and sweet corn. These crops are not commonly found in Hermiston and Westland Irrigation District, which are mostly small irrigated pastures with some fields in irrigated wheat and alfalfa crops. B-69 ~ ~~ (- ("~D O ~~:Jl: __ ) =:J ~~~ ~(~E Cf)~br~:.s _I:..~...... 0:: E=:0 ~@:';) en .--, O;d c.~Z r..=:JO~ I-~ --r- c-'" ........... c==; C!J[;:= - (&j" 0:: I'. : • I j' :- · 1_4 1 WATUA; i : ,. iORDN;'NC'E I •L I DEPOT I : - - ., - ! ~ - - - ,- f ~ !j- - - 1- : IL_u _ :_ ~. _: _ r~. ~ i " ~cr.U'UTlt.\.. ~,~ M ....TW"rT o ·1 .~ o II ::-1~.~ ....~'i ..'-~~;1Y:£t, ,: ..:\' ~ .y1. !, ::0 o 1> o ..' rn ()J f\) X:- (j) ~ (;j ::0 ::0 IT1 -i -i ::0 o X:- o ~1r' '\) ;j\ :~):-7~~:; j \ }1, ~i \(,' ~,;;: r~ ': ':[1; ;~.,:;-" ",\ I UMAPINE AGRICULTURAL AREAS I\) (JI --J a. ~DIDII0 (f) 0 0 £: c (J)8 }> )) )) ~ ~en ~ () () )) }> }> 0 0 m I I (;) :2 r» }> }> m r rr 0 z mfT1 N ::E )) )) "T1 m "T1 G)0 0 0 }> }>z 8 mZ (f) (f) )) )) Z ." m 0 0 ~ ~ 0fTI )) Vi Vi (f) (f) I\)111 (f) (j) --l I ~ ~ }> }> ~)) )) )) )) f\)~": .....~ \-....;!,~. ~ :0 () () m ~ 01 r(f) }> './> ~ -I Z0 OJ rn0 0 0 C Z 0}> )) -< Several other factors support a different agricultural situation in Stanfield Irrigation District. First of all, farms, becaus(~ tfley are 'larger, are more self-supporting than the part-time farming operations which dominate the other two irrigation districts. Secondly, farms are not as adversely impacted by non-farm uses, nor is there the great presence of rural residential/homes and zoning as is found in the other two. Further distance frOnt Hermiston helps isolate these lands from delnands for rural residential development that seeks a close and convenient location to city services. Thirdly, public support, particularly from local farmers in the Stanfield Irrigation district have led to the denial of several residential rezoning requests as well as opposition to a planned freeway through the area. Denial had been largely based upon the presence of good agricultural land and the desire to preserve it. This type of public support is probably the real indicator of why the Stanfield Irrigation District has remained a more stable agricultural area than the other two. Examination of recent land partitions does not significantly aid in determination of an appropriate lot size. Based on the above discussion, the Stanfield Irrigation District is recommended for a 40 acre dwelling density minimum. Even though the area is in smaller, irrigated farm parcels, it has several similarities to the dry1and and larger irrigation farm patterns of the surrounding area. The disjoined ownerships, leasing of land, and other complex factors pertaining to irrigation, demand a flexible farm protection system similar to the farm partition-dwelling density proposal for the dryland wheat areas. As recommended for the West Umapine agri- cultural area, a similar size density standard with the adjecent wheat lands permits regulation consistency. This size (40 acres) should better protect farming activities because it is twice as large as the present 19 acre regula- tion and is a size that approaches a self-supporting farm unit in the Stanfield Irrigation District. The dwelling density size is also reflective of the local farming community's desire to protect the area for continued agricultural uses. Agricultural operations like moving farm and irrigation equipment is also easier and more practical on parcel sizes of 40 acres and larger. Westland-Hermiston Irrigation Analysis and Conclusions Previous discussion leads to the fact ,that farms in the outer fringe of these two districts have increasingly experienced difficulties in continuing normal farming operations. Pressures from rural residential development, sometimes unreliable water supplies and inefficient, poorly maintained canal systems decrease the opportunity to diversify into more intensive and efficient agri- cultural practices. Irrigation is just barely sustaining these marginal farming areas of mostly Class IV Irrigated soils. The present average farm parcel sizes (38 acres in Westland and 51 in Hermiston) are too large to be committed to ru ra1 res i dences, of whi ch there is already a 1arge inventory. These fa rms are not large-scale enterprises and they do not contribute significantly to the overall agricultural economy of the county. Agricultural identification and subsequent preservation must then recognize the special circumstances occurrring in the Hermiston and Westland Irrigation Districts. Flexibility that will protect and yet encourage these non-farm pressured agricultural lands to be more efficient should conditions change, is important. Perhaps with improvements in irrigation practices or improving the present irrigation system, more intensive and efficient agricultural practices would take place and special commodity production areas would develop. This 8-72 might be accomplished by discouraging speculation on the conversion of marginal farm land to homesite development, and by encouraging more intensive managed small farm units by assigning an agricultural designation and protective farm 'zoning to protect these farms. Originally, the existing 20-acre dwelling density was felt to provide the flexibility needed in these two transitional irrigation districts. However, during hearings held for IIDeferred ll areas, of which these two irrigation districts were a part, area agriculturalists were favorable to the earlier adopted EFU zone placed upon adjacent and nearby agricultural lands. This parcel-density farm protection zone was also clJser to the existing average parcel/ownership sizes for most of these two irrigation districts (see Table B- VIII), thereby affording more stability by reducing the number of potential land division and potential dwellings. However, since this zone was not approved by LCDC, the County has adopted a new EFU zone which incorporated standards in a m'atrix that regulates both farm divisions and dwellings. The above action has in effect recategorized most of the deferred areas of the Hermiston and Westland Irrigation Districts into the North County Plan designation and the EFU zoning classification from the originally proposed Special Agricul- tural designation and EFU-20 zoning. Powerline Road/River Road Area There are exceptions to the EFU zoning in the deferred areas of the two above-mentioned irrigation districts. One area is the Powerline Road/River Road part of the Westland Irrigation District. The Powerline Road/River Road area has much smaller parcel sizes and a majority of them are individually owned. The average parcel size is 25 acres and the average ownership size is 29 acres, or almost the same. The area is large enough (390 acres) and definable enough to be separated into a Special Agricultural designation and a 20 acre dwelling density minimum. This agricultural designation will maintain the existing farm pattern of small, irrigated pastures associated with part-time farming pursuits which are also quite prevalent throughout the entire Hermiston and Westland Irrigation districts even with the parcel sizes being of a larger size than in this sub-area of the Westland area. Three potential land divisions would be possible at the 20 acre density protection zoning. A similar 20 acre protection measure has been in effect in the Westland area since 1972 which has had success in limiting partitions in an area where rural residintial pressure has been great. The newer and more restrictive exclusive farm zone should do equally as well. It should also be noted that the soils in this area are mostly Class IV and have drainage management problems. The ever-present pressure to convert these marginally-productive part-time farms into rural residential lots rather than spending large sums of money to improve even maintain these part-time farming operations is lessend by preserving these marginal areas by designating them Special Agriculture. Westland Road Area The second special farm area is also in the Westland Irrigation District. It is located mostly south of Westland Road between it and the Umatilla River. This area had been originally designated as rural residential when the county submitted the comprehensive plan to the state for acknowledgement in 1983. B-73 After reviewing the area and updating agricultur'al developl1l(~rlt that has taken place in the last two years here, the County is redesignating the area for Special Agriculture. The Westland Special Agriculture Area is a rather small area of 680 acres. It is an anomaly area bounded by extensive rural residential development on the northwest and west sides. The Umatilla River forms the east and south boundaries. Across the Umatilla I~iver to the east is the Hermiston Urban Growth Boundary which is planned for future urban density. Across the river to the south and southeast is a mixture of rural residential and special agri- cultural designated areas. Within the Westland Road Special Agriculture Area is a mixture of agricultural land and activities, along with some undeveloped vacant land. Within the past two years, several center-pivot irrigation circles have been developed within the area. There is one 79 acre parcel which has a wheel-line irrigation system. Several other parcels are irrigated pastures. There are also several non-agricultural uses within this area which include a dirt bike race track, a county gravel pit and a commercial agricultural related business of a honey processing facility building. The average lot size within the area is 38 acres and the average ownership size is 80 acres. However, there is really only one full-time farming operation of 390 acres which makes up nearly 60% of this area. Most of the remaining area is marginal farms of rather small acreages of pasture land averaging in sizes from 30 to 46 acres in size. A Special Agriculture designation of 20 acre lot size mlnlmums is placed upon the Westland Road Area because the long-term agricultural outlook for the area is very uncertain and because for most of the area the parcel size and ownership size is 35 acres. The negative long-term outlook is based upon the area being an island of marginally economic farms and sizes circled by a ring of existing non-agricultural development. The soils are marginal, even when irrigated (Class IV) and irrigation water is very limited. Only existing surface sources from the Westland Irrigation District and some existing sources from the Umatilla River are available to the area. Additional capacities from these sources are not likely as the Westland Irrigation District is at capacity limits and the Umatilla River will likely have minimum stream flow levels to maintain. No irrigation water from groundwater sources are now or likely to be permitted in the near future from existing and anticipated critical groundwater desig- nations enforced by the State Water Resources Board. The above coupled with the expansion of non-agricultural development to the north, east and south that will likely squeeze out the remaining agricultural uses in this area eventually will certainly not permit long-term consolidation of these lands into commercial units. Besides, only about 15 partitions are possible with a 20 acre minimum density. Concluding, the unusual situation in the Westland Road Area warrants unusual remedies. The County will zone the area to a Special Agriculture designation recognizing the interim agricultural use picture drawn above. Another area having smaller parcel sizes than adjacent part-time farms in the West County deferred area is in the far east end of the Hermiston Irrigation District. The average parcel size in this area is slightly over 31 acres as compared to a 54 acre average parcel size in the rest of the Hermiston Irrigation District. Average ownership size comparisons between the east and west sub-areas of this district are 42 acres and 83 acres respectively. B-73a The eastern sub-area has smaller lot patterns because it is interspersed with rock outcroppings~ bluffs, ponds and sub-irrigated ground. It is not prime farmland. Soil capability classifications support the marginal ~ature for agriculture, being mostly Class IV and Class V. Very few full-time farm operators are found in this sub-area. Public testimony gathered through the planning program in Umatilla County since 1972 has consistently shown part- time farming operations to be the dominant activity here~ and as mentioned earlier, in the' entire Hermiston and Northern Westland Irrigation Districts. A Special Agricultural designation with its 20 jcre density protection features will be placed on this eastern sub-region to keep approximately the same parcel size pattern. This action is consistent with protection measures in all other Special Agricultural areas throughout the county having a similar 20 to 35 acre parcel pattern. About 22 to 25. new partitions are possible in a total area of about 1,460 acres. With the expense of the area involved~ this number of possible partitions should not have any appreciable effects upon these already marginally producing soils. The Minnehaha EFU-20 acre Special Agricultural Area was s sudden addition to the county planning process. This was a result of Hermiston taking ·the area out of its Urban Growth Boundary at the end of their plan adoption process. Rather than submitting the county plans without a plan and zoning designation, which would create a IIhole,1I the county chose to place a Special AgricLiltural desig~ nation to maintain the appropriate lot size pattern and small farm activity taking place here. The Minnehaha Special Agricultural Area totals 190 acres. The average parcel size is approximately 14 acres and the average ownership size approaches 17 acres. These parcel pattern figures more obviously reveal that the 20 acre density provision of the Special Agricultural designation will lIfreezell housing in this area. South Ott Road This is another island area of agricultural uses and lot sizes which do not quite meet the irrevocably committed criteria for a non-agaricultural use exceptions. The surrounding land uses are rural residential hobby farms and dwellings. Most of the agricultural uses within this 390 acre area are irri- gated pastures for horses and cattle. Some irrigated wheat and alfalfa fields are along the south boundary. Two small (less than 35 acres) irrigation center pivot systems have recently been installed in the northwest corner of this Special Agricultural Area. Corn is this year's crop under them. The average parcel size within South Ott Special Agricultural Area is 27.6 acres and the average ownership size is 57.2 acres. Placing the Special Agriculture zoning density of 20 acres to these parcels would permit some 5 to 7 partitions or approximately the same parcel size pattern that exists at present. This would also be consistent with the other Special Agricultural Area in the county having similar parcel size patterns. B-73b In summary, a majority of the Westland and Hermiston Irrigation Districts' land involved in the agricultural lot size review and placed in the 1982 "deferred area" status is going to be protected with exclusive farm zoning. The EFlJ zone would be an extension of the earlier-adopted (June 1984) county-wide EFU zone placed on adjacent, commercial, full-time agricultural lands. Maintenance of the the existing parcel pattern will likely be the result, with only 10 farms-sized partitions with new dwellings (over 20 acres) since 1972 occurring in these same areas under a 19 acre minimum lot size zoning. Under this EFU Zone, the proliferation of questionable dwellings should be effectively controlled. The five Special Agricultural areas discussed above ~ith the prescribed EFU-20 zoning will maintain the existing parcel patterns. Placing the 1984 adopted EFU zoning on these five areas is too late and impractical, because present conditions do not, nor are they likely in the future to, allow easy consolidation of similar ownerships into large-scale commercial farm units. Appropriate policies in the Comprehensive Plan recommending smaller agricultural lot size minimums in the future when circumstances permit them will provide additional flexibility for these farm acres and recognize their precarious marginal farm use. Policies to assist in determining when and where to allow conversion to smaller farms will help to insure a more timely changeover and hopefully discourage inappropriate land use activities that might otherwise occur a McKay Creek Special Agricultural Area This area is a unique farming region northeast of Pilot Rock, along the stream and lower hillsides of McKay Creek. Its uniqueness is the isolated nature ,of B-74 smaller sized alfalfa and pasture fields surrounded by rather large dryland wheat and grazing operations. Associated with these small fields is a concen- trated dwelling density which is also quite different from adjacent farmlands where houses are few and far between. Field sizes are largely influenced by the meandering stream, county road, and topography. Also suspected as an influence is the intermixture of soils having different farm management capabilities. Although not documented by a detailed soils survey, general testimony indicates that the area has mostly classes IV, VI and VII capabilities. Average lot and ownership size information was obtained in the same manner as for the Umapine Special Agricultural Area (see pages B-80 to B-86). Following this process yielded an average lot and ownership size of 43 acres. Mentioned earlier was that several of these farm lots go up onto the hillside where very marginal soils and steepness of the land render agricultural use or any kind of develop- ment virtually impossible. If this area is not computed in the lot size/owner- ship calculations, average sizes are reduced to 35 acres. The McKay Creek Special Agricultural Area is very similar to other special agricultural areas in the county. Parcel sizes, marginal farming activities and desired rural part-time farming all help to point out the specific simila- rities. Logically, the same 20 acre minimum dwellind density and other farm regions prescribed for other special agricultural areas would fit the over- all farm parcel pattern of this area. Very few additional 20 acre lots with homes could be partitioned. An estimate yields about four new divisions. The introduction of these new homes and farms would maintain the rural far~ing character of the area and also would not negatively impact the larger, more important farming operations which are buffered by the area topography. Wild- life protection is also maintained by the lower density farm use regulations to be applied. Orchards District Agricultural lot size review and discussion will be treated somewhat differently in this agricultural district tha~ inthe previous ones examined. The "reason is the Orchards District was replanned and zoned to comply with the statewide planning goals and agricultural land preservation laws in 1979. Treated as a special area and completed earlier than the rest of the County, the Orchards District Plan is being included into pertinent sections of the overall County Comprehensive Plan. The following contains highlights of planning information and findings leading to adopted agricultural protection measures including agri- cultural lot size minimums for the Orchards District. (It should be noted here that the Forks of the Walla Walla River will be treated as a sub-district of the major fruit growing industry in East Umatilla County. A separate discussion about the Forks area follows this section). The identification of agricultural lands and choosing acceptable protection standards for the Orhcards District was not an easy task. The basic problem was that the project area has historically been a small but important specialty agricultural district, however, since a devasting freeze in 1955, has witness much non-farm residential and some commercial development. (See Map on page B- 76.) Furthermore, the 1972 Umatilla County Comprehensive Plan designated most of the area as "res idential" and over half the 13,000 acres in the district were zoned for rural residential in densities of two and four acres. Continued development in this fashion could eventually have harmed the area1s existing agricultural industry, especially orcharding, by interfering with horticultural practices (spraying, harvesting), breaking up the land use pattern with small B-75 ~,v~: ~1 [:!}(;~y ;') (-; : Sr-(J(":;J ,/;," V-:V.h. " [1,,(7:;'\ r.~) , ../L~; .il'J\...':-!)LJ;' .; i. \'J)",'-rJ\" F.·.~'J'~jIJ \..) r In G) In Z tJ ~_.. I('Q(1 ,'.pp tIll eW r; l : : :J; • l ;.:J' ,i .i '1:r-".t:I5-Ft"';1~~R'~;: :': : :': : : r : : : : : : : : >:,' D ; IO§ID::0 z 0 'l1 G) ... .... ·z·:-:at...:~ ;; ;0 :z: 0 'l1 G) 0 (J) E::: 0 Z ~ 0 0 ;00 c ;r,. m ::0 ::x:: 0 0 ~ ;0 0 c0 tJ :J; i m ;r,. c ::x:: tI.J m 0 (J) 0 E::: ::0;r,. (J) 0 C --l Z In m 0-< .. Z ::0 0 r .. (J) c ::x:: E::: ;r,. ..; 0 ::0 0 (;') 0 0 In r -l ::0 ;r,. m rm ::x:: .. Z ::0 ::0G) 0-< -l ::x:: In tJ ::0 ::0 ::0 0 G) s: " 0 m 0 E::: .r 0 s: (I)C In (;') ::0 r 5z 0 m tJ )l; ::0 'U Z ::0 ~ -l A m s:r r 0 'U m ::0 ~ 0 z ~ IEXISTING LAND USE - ?~'.\\~'~~~i{:~>" :."{B :~~!:'r:~' .":<{: ir{-1 ~ 0 (') 'Z_ * -11~ -<~~ 0 :-I m 'TI.~ ...; ~); 4-1 Jm ):::0 ~-'\....- '."I._''-''''~ ~'t(.~·::};;~~~;w:.(.,.. ~ __~ ~__'_'"I-"'==i"_~-~"~ .... •• ·__......... -==4..~~=Y-~·.,.=< lots and taking quality land out of production. Area orchardists, witnessing a resurgence in the fresh-market apple industry, actively petitioned the County to put a stop to these trends. In addition the State planning goals require ·that agricultural land shall be preserved from non-farm development to ensure future food supplies. Something different had to be done because the present County Comprehensive Plan and zoning did not preserve the quality agricultural lands in this area and did not comply with State planning goals. As a means of assessing the agricultural character of the Orchards District, the County planning staff first inventoried the type and extent of agricultural uses, analyzed production records and had an up-dated soils survey conducted. The new soils information showed that over 95% of the land within the Orchards District was rated Classes I through IV in irrigated agricultural capability, and State planning goal #3 (Agriculture) requires that with Class I-VI agricul- tural land be protected. (Map, page B-78) The land use survey further revealed that most of the land is devoted to orchards (e.g. apple, cherry, prune or plums), irrigated and dryland field crops (e.g., wheat, alfalfa and barley), small scale livestock operations, horse breeding and raising, and specialty vegetable crops such as onions, tomatoes and asparagus. Interviews with fruit packers and crop production records indicated that the Milton-Freewater area orchards, though small in extent, contribute significantly to regional and even national fruit production, especially for the high-value fresh markets (see Table IX.) All this research indicated the critical need to protect the Orchards District form further non-farm development. Farm uses, farm management arrangments, and field sizes were next examined. The study revealed great diversity-parcelization throughout the Orchards District but several farming patterns were identified. Small orchards and hobby farms devoted largely to pasture, exhibiting parcel sizes of 4-9 acres are typical of the central Ferndale, lower Tum~a-lum, central Fruitvale and southern Eastside sudistricts. Another common farm pattern is the 10-to 20-acre fruit orchard, reflecting original p1attings of fruit tracts done in the early 1900's, found throughout the Sunnyside and Pleasant View areas, western Ferndale and a majority of Fruitvale (Subdistrict Map, 8-80). On the fringe areas and larger upland ter~a~es df the Orchards District, farms are devoted to mixed farming with cattle and fields of wheat, alfalfa and barley. Field sizes in these areas range from 20 to 40 acres and more. There is also an area of 10-20 acre hobby farms in the low-lying eastern Ferndale and Central Tum-a-1um areas. These fields are mainly pastures for horses or cattle, the land being too wet for successful orchard growth. Upon examination of the farming pattern data, several Board of Commissioners appointed Citizen Advisory Committee members recommended a small farm designation for aboun 1000 acres ln the north-central po~tion of the Orchards District where the smallest farm lot groupings were found. The remaining 90% of agricultural lands in the Orchards District was proposed for a commercial agricultural desig- nation with EFU zoning. Oregon's land use laws require that the County zone all agricultural land with an Exclusive Farm Use zone that is developed to meet the needs of the community within the constraints of the aforementioned zone enabling legislation. The dominant economic feature and land use pattern of the Orchards District consists of a large commercial orchards industry, rural hobby farming and rural residential and commercial development influenced by the proximity to Walla Wal la, Washington. The F-l zone, designed primarily to accommodate the region1s B-77 • Possible Name SOURCE: U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, 1978 survey, Pendleton, OR 97801 t...J @J-~C (~W~~!:; ~i) ~@ (!JE2:::J OC~~ ,...,..(5 -!:: @ --~~ C-=.:J(f) OC:::::J ~W C:::J -t: G=-~' :. ~. 456 EI:.: 457 D ~:: 40 A:.<:. 62 A.:~:....... 65 Ab:·:~ 285 G 820A45 AII 63 A280 B45SG CITY OF MILTON-FREEWATER G o ~I~ ::.~( L1·, ~.;;o~ l;~ ft-." ~. ;. r~ ..~~:;~, TABLE B-IX WALLA WALLA VALLEY PROJECT, UMATILLA COUNTY, OREGON 1974 COMPARATIVE STATISTICS APPLE PRODUCTION: OREGON Acres (30% semi-dwarf) boxes packed value of sales sales/acre 6,909 3,929,000 $10,230,000 $ 1,480,680 UMATILLA COUNTY (all production in Walla Walla Valley) %state total acres (16% semi-dwarf) boxes packed value of sales sales/acre PRUNE AND PLUM PRODUCTION: 1,467 1,055,000 $2,550,000 $1,893,100 21% 27% 25% 128% % state total OREGON acres (14% plums) tons sold value of sales sales/acre 8,581 28,000 $4,200,000 489 42% U.S. production UMATILLA COUNTY (all production is in Walla Walla Valley) %state total acres (20% plums) tons sold value of sales sales/acre SWEET CHERRY PRODUCITON: 1,104 8,800 $1,334,000 $ 1,208 13% .31% 32% 247% % state total OREGON acres tons sold value of sales sales/acre 14,972 33,500 23% U.S. production $12,496,000 $ 835 UMATILLA COUNTY (all produciton is in Walla Walla Valley) % state total acres tons sold value of sales sales/acre 313 920 $ 472,000 $ 1,508 2% 3% 4% 181% SOURCES: 1974 Census of Agriculture Oregon Cooperative Extension Service Commodity Reports Blue Mountain Growers (7(>;' . 'I) l J ( .; I :111 I- () -.. a: ~ CJ) _ !-J[ o r:l·J I • r. - . J to ~ 1:/ ::> (r ','(' ~ CJ) (( ), :;:~'. (GT. ~ 'lJI L- L":; .J 2.- ~~ , "'J ':\(f) ~0 .'1.. .• r J ·W ~~, - [lr".--' IV" ._<.~u... ;'>-.J C3 ~-,; Z r? ::',\ - ~"" / ::> ~,v 10:':1 CO o ;1 :1 :>=& I~ .. L::-__I .. r'1<-. C··-::-LEGEND 1 FRUITVALE 2 PLEASANT VIEW 3 STATELINE 4 FERNDALE 5 SUNNYSIDE 6 TUM-A-LUM 7 EASTSIDE L'. I. ~ ! i -,---L,I I-- I i ! ~;sc I • • ~,........,.... >~~~~_. ~ .... :. __ .~'-'o.o.,;.-_~-.lo...,~'-.!_..,. -~?-~-. r~ ~ .~__7.a: t-_t-.- ...... ... . ~ ~.- • . e_ • "ii _~~ • ~- --I _..) • "/ ., • ~ ·:1 ·i .- . --;. ~.II .. , . - .- -_ .._.,.'-- .. .....,..,..... . .-~.. _~c~ ~.1! I , ~·U ~, F-RU;TVAlE•• \ -- -- ~-I\'" UMAPI.J::; U I,..D I _ ; 1. ",~ .<:,(i I· , i i~I :----...-----, ! L-.--..-.i ,.. , "''''''U;:>J~~i. I .j • PJ: ',i, !.1 5 ,'/ I I!.I ·1. 1,1.. 7 •.-,--,.j ('lu < ~, _. : :1 o '3 o 4" ~~~~ f~· -"1 '.-~~>'~ i: '1 size that is typical for only 1/3 of the land area within th Orchards District and permit uses outright that could be very incompatible within a more densely settled area. However, it became apparent that the County1s existing Exclusive Farm Use zone, the F-l zone, might not be appropriate to much of the Orchards District because of its 19-acre minimum farm parcel size and use standards. Under the F-l zone, only about 30 parcels within an area of over 9,000 acres and 4,500 residents could ever be partitioned. Plus, feedlots and hog farms would be considered outright uses even on the Old Walla Walla Highway, stretches of which were identified as residential and commerical. Also, a blanket zoning of 19 acres would not recognize the area1s separated and small ownerships especially typical of orcharding. Most commerical orchards consist of several separate units, often scattered over a wide area. In fact, it is quite common for orchards as small as 3 acres to be owned or rented and managed by orchardists living several miles away. Leasing arrangements are common, so retired farmers can continue to live in the country and so rural non-farm families can earn supplemental income from their land. Consolidation of fruit orchards is difficult. The County1s existing minimum EFU zone would not have permitted the continuance of this effective and functional yet complex farming pattern. Application of this zone would have permitted large-scale operation, limited entry of new orchardists, and disrupted rural lifestyles. A smaller parcel size, flexible partitioning arrangements and more restrictive use standards seemed to be appropriate for most of the fruit growing area. Statistics from local fruit-growers and processors showed that the average net income for apple orchards in the Orchards District during 1976 and 1977 was around $970 per gross income of $2,320 per acre. If the farm operator did much of his own labor, his total net annual income for ten acres could reach $18,000. Under these circumstances a ten-acre apple orchard could consititute an entire commercial farm unit. An orchard farm contianing more than ten acres would be more stable and economical, but could easily be composed of several tracts, as indeed is the norm for most of the commerical operations. Area farmers advised that a ten-acre orchard unit is an easy and convenient size to farm, and ten acres is indeed the average IIfield size ll and parcel size in the primary producing areas of the Orchards District. Therefore, a Fruit Tract designation and IO-acre minimum EFU zone was recommended and generally acceptable to the Orchards District Citizen Advisory Committee. Ater public hearings, the County approved the 10-acre minimum lot size with additional protective measures which are discussed later. Ten acres planted to high-value vegetable crops such as onions, tomatoes ann asparagus, which are common crops in the Walla Walla valley, could also constitute a commercial farm unit, so the Fruit Tract zone was applied to certain non-orchard areas with a typical ten-acre parcel pattern. It should be noted that a nine-acre parcel size was originally adopted for fruit tracts instead of ten acres because most IIten-acre ll properties included descriptions to the middle of a public road. They are actually only 9.5 to 9.9 acres due to the Assessorls practice of excluding for assessment purposes the non-assessable acreage in the road right-of-way. However, since 1979 when the 9-acre lot size minimum was adopted, an amendment to the Umatilla County sub- division and partition ordinance was adopted, which allows road right-of-way to be included in the total parcel acreage. A full ten-acre partition is now possible, so the original 9-acre minimum lot size has been revised to 10 acres. B-81 How do deal with the many small, part-time. "conlmor'ci al" crop farms was another major task. The map on page B-84 depicts the areas where th'is farming type occu rs • Intermi xed with parcel s of from 5 to 10 acres are many smal '1 er parcel s usually occupied by a rural non-farm family. Over 75% of the numerous 5-to 10-acre tracts qualify for farm deferral. (See map, page B-84) Many of the remaining parcels, as well as a number of the smaller ones, would qualify, especia'lly those planted to orchards. While these small farms are not usually full .... time operations, commercial crops are produced, and family incomes considerably increased. Part-time farmers with outside jobs are typical, and the orchards District provides one of the few areas in Umatilla County where this type of rural lifestyle has developed. A Small Farm designation and Small Parcel EFU zoning was considered by the Citizen Advisory Committee because small-scale farming in the County is an established, desirable lifestyle, and several portions of the Orchards District were already committed to this type of land use. A 4-acre parcel size minimum along with this special designation was supported by area residents for portions of the Ferndale and Tum-a-Lum districts were already zoned with a 4 acre Agri- cultural-Residential zone and this size would maintain the existing field sizes now being farmed in those neighborhoods. Included were several large parcels suitable to provide additional small farm units for families in the future. The Small Farm designation as adopted by the County together with special controls. In the attempt to receive state acknowledgement of the Small Farms designation and zoning, the County was unsuccessful. L.C.D.C stated that detailed justification had not been provided and said that it would be impossible to show that such a small-sized lot size minimum for the crops and types of agriculture involved would continue the existing commercial agricultural enterprises in the area. L.e.D.C further suggested that some of the areas within the small farms designation would be more appropriately placed with- in the Fruit Tract Plan Designation and Zoning and other areas included in a rural residential plan and zone category upon taking a developed/committed exceptions. The County, upon further examination of the questioned small farms area, reluctantly concludes that it can not justify this special EFU zone. As instructed by L.C.D.C, the County has instead, taken a developed/committed exception to several areas and placed them into a 4 acre minimum rural residential zoning (see Rural Residential Exceptions Statement in the Comprehensive Plan for map showing these areas). The remaining areas have been put into the Fruit Tract Plan Designation and 10 acre minimum zoning because the parcel sizes in these areas more closely relate to its 10 acre minimum lot size. The same EFU-I0 land use controls will apply to these new areas and are described later in this report. Application of EFU zoning to the field crop-livestock farms on one upland terrace in the Orchards District was conceived as an interim measure. During the formulation and eventual adoption of the Orchards District plan in 1978-79, adjacent agricultrual areas had not been studied to see if the existing agricul- tural preservation regulations need changing to comply with new State planning B-82 goals. The existing County Exclusive Farm Use zoning and 19-acre lot size minimum were placed upon these more extensive farms until a study which might indicate possible different recommendations for field size minimum or other appropriate protection standards could be made. In 1983, the County replaced its 19 acre minimun lot size with a 20 acre EFU zone and applied it to areas having existing average parcel sizes around 20 to 35 acres. The map on page B-7! shows the areas of large-site agriculture recommended for the interim 20 acre EFU zone and some fringe ares of several adjoining agricultural districts. Examination of the same map B-62 shows more clearly how the Orchards District is located in the midrlle of three different agri- cultural districts; Umapine Irrigation Area, ~heat-Pea District and Northeast County Dryland Wheat District. The agricultural activities of the fringe areas within the Orchards District are the same as those in the adjacent agricultural districts. Thus, new agricultural protection measures recommended for these adjacent farm districts shall also be app1ieds to the adjoining large site farmlands in the Orchards District. (See Umapine Special Farm Area and North County agricu1trual Region sections for explanations of recommened agricultural protection sizes and standards.) Lot size minimums recommended for the Large Site Farm area snd adjacent agricultural districts are also depicted on the map on page B-85. The only Large-Site Farm area not bordering on another agricultural district is a small island of three farm properties in the Stateline subdistrict. This area is topographically separated from th~ surrounding low land and supports a dairy farm and wheat fields. Being unique locally, this area is, however, very similar to the east Umapine area, with fields of 30 to 40 acres surrounded by small parcels. Accordingly, the 20-acre lot size minimum suggested for East Umapine are recommended for this lIisland ll area. Only two partitions would be possible if applying the 20-acre density requirement. This number of divisions would not adversely impact existing agricultural activities or the surrounding area of small farms and rural residential homes. As mentioned earlier, there were other concerns than an agricultural minimum lot size alone would not solve in the Orchards District. With the numerous farm- steads combine with the considerable rural residential development of the past 35 years, some ground water pollution problems developed. The high water table in the valley floor has spread the increased amount of domestic sewage into some domestic wells. To avoid worsening this problem most of the valley floor areas have been designated (exclusively) for agricultural and additional, bona fide rural residential growth has been directed mostly to two upland terraces where soils are better suited to seawage disposal, views of the Blue Mountains can be obtained, and non-farm committment is already present. Several other areas in the valley floor where designated rural residential as per action required by LCDC to eliminate a EFU-4 zone. However, these actions alone would not address the more complex issues involved in an area where the opportunity for ~maller farm development needed preservation and was desired. Without certain controls in the Orchards District th~re could be land use conflicts with rural residents and sometimes between themselves. Also, issues such as selling old farmsteads, providing homesites for family members, maintaining a retirement life estate or making use of land suited for farming adds to the difficulties of complying with State goals, maintaining a rural atmosphere, and yet providing opportunities for the lifestyle desired. . Fortunately, there is some flexibility provided to local governments when estab- lishing Exclusive Farm Use zoning protection, and this option was utilized to B-83 address some of the needs and problems just discussed. While a local Exclusive Farm Use zone must be designed to adequately reflect the provisions of ORS 215 in order to qualify farms for automatic farm-value assessment under OI~S 308.370, the local Exclusive 17arm Use zone Inay also be more but not less than State statutes. Uses allowed by the State enabling legislation may be disallowed or Illay be shifted from a "permitted" to a "conditional" category. Development standards can also be pr{~pared for various uses, and additional criteria may be utilized for' governing the creation of non~farm rural homesites. Other development standards can also be applied to splitting off farmsteads and the building of new farm dwellings. All of the above options were used in designing the Farms and Fruit Tract Exclusive Farm Use zone to meet the needs of the Orchards District. This zone was adopted and approved by the County as an effective tool for the preservation of farm land for agricultural use while allowing the flexibility required to continue orcharding and similar small-scale farm acti vities. Several important changes have been made that sets this new Exclusive Farm zone apart from the other EFU zones, within and adjacent to the Orchards District. These differences are itemized below: 1. Intensive livestock farming is treated as a Conditional Use due to problems of odor, dust, noise and flies that would create serious negative impacts in a densely settled area. The Conditional Use status allows for control of the design and operation of such facilities or for disallowing them in some locations due to gross incompatibility with the neighborhood. 2. Churches, schools and utility facilities are also transferred from a "permitted ll to a Conditional Use status, in compliance with current normal zoning practices. Impacts can be reduced and neighborhood comments addressed in this manner. 3. 80arding of horses for profit and private-use airstrips are added as new Conditional Uses in keeping with recent revisions to the State Exclusive Farm Use legislation. 4. Evaluation criteria are added to the introductory clauses of the Conditional Use section. Compatibility with the neighborhood, compliance with the County Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and other relevant policies, design to reduce potential negative impacts, compliance with stated conditions, and serving of a useful purpose to the community area all required before a proposed Conditional Use may be approved; 5. Additional criteria had been added for the evaluation of new rural or non- farm homesites and for the conversion of exising farm homes into farm retirement homes or homesteads. They included site evaluation and access requirements. However, L.C.D.C felt that these standards were not adequate to protect the valuable orchards from the intrusion of non-farm dwelling. Therefore, the County has tighten up approval standards and are briefly described in 6, 7, 8 below. 6. New non-farm dwellings will be only allowed on parcels up to 2 acres or on 5 acres bounded on two sides by other non-farm development. No new parcels shall be created for the establishing new, non-farm dwellings and will only be permmitted on pre-existing lots as defined in the Comprehensive Plan anct Development Ordinance. B-83A LEGEND SMALL FARMS DESIGNATION UNDER MARKET VALUE UNDER FARM DEFERRALo D ~ :t >me I~ I l':c, (~}~; [ rL .~ "\,./ .. ~ \.';,.',' .A r.::;--",~ L-':" r.';>.JW '.10-\~,~/ 0::: ~l~ C=J o o~ «~ 0() e-,;p ~g cr: ES·p' c:::( (~1LL .--:: W -"'-: ~ ~r~. - c-U) ~-~ ESW8 CJB 0: @~ «G5 ---l §) ATHENA WHEAT-PEA SPOFFORD EAST COUNTY WHEAT FRUITVALE - PLEASAN T VIEW SUBDISTRICTS :I~I >< I ADJOINING AGRICULTURAL STUDY AREAS LEGEND t~ U LARGE SITE INTERIM FARM I 0:: AREA (ORCHARDS DISTRICT) ~ en STATELINE SUBDISTRICT : 0 ;, :} ~ 't :,:,··'::"'l";":"" ";'\\.f:;";:':':':Of':·i-t1 ~(~1~~~}J [dO"..........-I::~··· ./ :;, ~i~; ~'.,i'~: . ~c' 3. :~ 'i z; .f .~ .:: ~ i CITY OF t:,,·::::{:.;<~:w~f.l}~-:·~::·' !.1 h : ~ j .»= Jf~~.!:l.0N-FF!~~WA"I!..~~ r':::}:J·\~::::::~·:::~~·::·:;d·: ':.·:'::,:~,I J .~,_..~ ....' . .:~ o n ~I 7. Must meet access and sanitation requirements as well as crop history requirements, setback regulations and signing a IIcovenant not to sue ll against accepted farming practices. 8. Homestead dwellings must meet access, area and density requirements, appropriate state statutes, first right of refusal stipulations and sign a "covenent not to sue ll prior to the homestead approval. The importance of the adopotion of the Orchards District Plan in 1979 was illustrated by Table B-X which dramatically showed the reclassification of nearly 5,690 acres from 2-acre rural residentia~ zoning into agricultural designations with protective EFU zoning. Only 470 acres of rural residen- tial land was retained to accommodate additional non-farm families in this attractive and popular area. The Plan also provides additional opportunities to start new orchards, a factor important to most area residents and farmers. Table B-X listed by subdistrict the number of new orchard and small farm parti- tions that were possible in 1979. Only 115 Fruit Tract and 67 Small Farm parcels could have been created in an area encompassing nearly 10,000 acres. Thus, a reasonable flexibility was allowed, while protection of valuable farming opera- tions is insured, a security that had not existed prior to 1979. The real credit for the successful development and adoption of the Orchards District Plan lies with citizen acceptance of reasonable compromises as State planning goals were balanced with- local ccncer~s. The three years the Plan had been in effect prove the success of the adopted program, since few partitions and/or homesites had been requested, and fewer approved. Since the adoption of The Orchards District Plan in 1979 and re-adoption into the overall comprehensive plan in 1983, several additional standards as previously outlined above and land use plan designation area changes also briefly discussed previously have been adopted. These actions will change the data information in tables B-X and B-XI, but the information is still dramatic enough to show that the County and area citizens have taken serious steps to preserve the special, and intensive agricultural land base within this very complex region. New acreage figures now approximately total 7,395 acres in the Fruit Tract Zone, 2,295 acres in the Large Site Agricultural Zone, 450 acres in Rural Residential - 2 acre minimum, and 230 acres in Rural Residential - 4 acre minimum. B-86 TABLE I3-X ACREAGE OF LAND USE DESIGNATIONS COMPARISON OF 1972 AND 1980 COMPREHENSIVE PLANS 1972 Plan Orchards District Plan Small Farm Fruit TractResidential 6,160 Farm 4,230 Ru ra 1 Res. 4'70 1,260 6,365 L9. Site 2,295 10,390 TOTAL 10,390 TOTAL TABLE B-XI ORCHARDS DISTRICT POTENTIAL NEW PARCELS FERNDALE 4 Fruit Tracts 27 Small Farms FRUITVALE 57 Fruit Tracts PLEASANT VIEW 35 Fruit Tracts STATELINE 4 Fruit Tracts 18 Small Farms SUNNYSIDE 12 Fruit Tracts TUM-A-LUM 22 Small Farms TOTAL 115 Fruit Tracts 67 Small Farms Fruit Tracrts - 10 Acres Small Farms 4 Acres EASTSIDE 5 Fruit Tracts Area Acreage (Approx.) 1,000 1,350 2,500 1,900 900 1,400 600 9,650 Based on the Orchards District Land Use Plan May 1979 B-87 Forks of Walla Walla Special Sub-Area Viewing the map on page B-34 shows the general location of the Forks of Walla Walla Agricultural Unit. Situated south of Milton-Freewater in northeast Umatilla County, these protected river bottom lands are providing a mixture of agricultural and related rural activities. Agricultural activities include apple, cherry, prune and plum orchards, intermixed with irrigated pastures and hay fields. Rural activities include spots or rural residential development where land ownership sizes produce lttle to no farm income, but provide rural living settings desired by some county residents. The largest and most conti- guous area of rural residential is on the main stem of the Walla Walla nearest to Milton-Freewater which provides a convenient service center only a short distance away. This area has been identified as developed and committed to rural residential (see discussion in Plan Map section of Comprehensive Plan) and is not incl~ded in the agricultural analysis. The remaining areas of rural residential lots are small and sparsely scattered along the valley bottoms, not greatly impacting the majority of surrounding agricultural uses. These areas are noted but are not significant enough to classify parts or the entire Forks area as rural residential. Like the Orchards District north of Milton-Freewater, the Forks of the Walla Walla agricultural Sub-area has been largely zoned rural or recreational resi- dential. This factor adds to the area1s uniqueness, complexity and need for additional explanation before summarizing results of the agricultural lot size study or recommending agricultural preservation policies. In the early. seventies when the county was developing a Comprehensive Plan and zoning, assigning various land categories and zones was not a complex matter and largely done based upon area residents l desires. During this period (1969- 1971), the fruit industry in the Walla Walla Valley was experiencing difficult crop and marketing promblems. Many growers were considering conversions to other crops9 while many more opted to quit and sell their land for rural homesites. A's-ignificanlnumber of the upper Walla Walla Valley residents chose th'e latter alternative, probably because of the pleasant rural setting, good roads, near- ness to Milton-Freewater and Walla Walla, and because historically marginal fruit and other agricultural crop returns tipped the scales towards an antici- pated market for rural residences. Since the 1972 plan and zoning effort, not many rural homesites have been partitioned. This is probably due to the much improved fruit market where per-acre returns have made it more desirable to leave the land in agricultural use. Inflation and high interest rates are also likely contributers to the relative few rural residential houses constructed. The continuation of rural residential zoning in the Forks of Walla Walla is no longer possible. Statewide Planning Goals made law in early 1975 supercede prior adopted county plans and require amendments to these plans in accordance with State Land Use Goal Requirements. State Goals #2 and #3 (Land Use Planning and Agriculture) require an inventory of all land uses and an analysis of soils. Areas found in agricultural uses and having a majority of soils in the Soil Conservation Service Classes I through VI have to preserved for agriculturla uses and zoned exclusive farm use. Application of the Soil Conesrvation Service i nve ntory requi rment sin Goa 1s 2 and 3 i ndi cate t hat m0 st 0 f the 1and a10 ng the Forks and main stem of the Walla Walla are soil classes II, III, and IV and are being used largely for agricultural purposes, and therefore must be preserved for agricultural uses. This is one reason why an agricultural lot size survey and preservatiQn study was conducted and an agri~ultural land use. designation B-88 -~.-..:.:. ~: ~-: ~...::= i?~ ~ ~ ,.........---J ~~~ e.' )- o o ---~:. ~1- itM~ ~t: ..:~~ t-:~~ :~ .~ i -~/ ;fi ~: . ~ ; "-i .:::( :'; ~i I ___ SCALE IN FE E T o 1000 2000 3000 ~OOO j ~ ~ ~ C=:-~ c::v;-" L::.-:.:3 :':::": 1~. ~.'I L..:.::: . c=:f1G"~g; (·"r, <> ""'-"- . r .. C---- P ~ ~: ............... ;.. C=. @'it ~5 ~=: 8 c=.!J c·~:§¥ :. ---:... ~ [~~- \c=~. ~,' .. @:~ o:J w en =:) o z CR££~ ,29 /32 ...... , 19 ·.~ 25 2 _.:.,:~r:---- t:·~~ ;c"f I ,. i t!~ r;- • I ~: 7\ ! 18 I 19 10, I I I I I I \1 • LEGEND I '7r I }.. IBJ CI ASS I 1A HERMISTON SILT LOAM ~!: 10A ONYX SILT LOAMh c::i ~Iw I- @/r:)w I0: 29u 30 \:1 28 ---.J ~S,----.,-JW 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 L'=-=:Jt/) ~~........::> I I ~:;0 U ru-t....f]) • U SCALE IN FEET - ~....:~ ~if~~ ~ 3~·L r1 ~/~ ~::: en ~'S ..:] I~ a: - . a: G:"~< r;v-- (f) ~j W~~: - C~::J r---~~~_.: --.J ~§ o:J .. , - "']t" l-.- \::.k· .-- ~~.-'~'~ J --.J r--.'-'- G[~\ CLASS III 140A VEAZIE SILT LOAM UNMAPPED OR NO IRRJGAnoN ClASSlFlCAnoN CLASS VI 72A XEROFLUVENTS CLASS IV 62A FREEWATER VERY COBBLY LOAM 141AvEAZIE COBBLY LOAM LEGEND CLASS II 64AYAKIMA SILT LOAM wet substratum 1000 2000 3000 ~ooo - ----, SOURCE: S.C.S. (Soil Cons\~r vation ServiCe) Prelim/nol', Survey, 1980 NOTE: Information I~, preliminary and subject In change pending finallz~llon r',' SCS. 'urvey. ~or rr,,·;r. de~a;lec ;nlo"na~;on conl3,.;t: S.C.S. :;):1 Survey Ol',e::. PC'r" dleton.Orego'l. SCALE IN FEET o [J o ~~ o"-'. cR."~ ;29 /32 .- ..... , " ..~ I --------r- / / 2 ~;' .\oJ ). :";> "'1 ! ~1:':1": H·ti· placed on the bottomlands of the Forks area (see maps on pages B~90 through B-93 for detailed location, and lots, soils and existing land uses). There are some areas of class VII soils especially in the upper reaches of the two river forks where the canyons are more confined by topography. Specifically, these soils are found along the river edges and banks where frequent flooding has deposited gravel and rocks. Although not required to be protected according to State Agricultural Goal #3, these soils are so located and intermixed with other farm soils required to be protected, that a non-farm c1assifict"ion could seriously interfere with existing agricultural from possible non-farm use. The metr10d of figuring average farm parcel si7.(~s, ownerships and review of important factors to determine protection recommendations were the same as those used for all the previous agricultural districts examined. Non-farm parcels to be eliminated from the study were identified by applying similar criteria to those used in the Orchards District Plan. Parcels less than two acres or parcels less than five acres with a dwelling not on farm defertal, and both these sizes not centered to a similarly owned agricultural parcel, were classified as non-farm. It should be noted that few of the sized parcels are actively farmed either in orchards or pasture land. Sizes over two acres without a dwelling are nearly non-existent. Results of the agricultural lot size process yields an 18-acre average farm parcel size and a 27 acre ownership size. Both averages are probably a little smaller than the actual situation because few lots extend a distance beyond the valley bottom into grazing or dryland wheat fields, and their total acreage is not figured into the review. Only the acreages in the valley floor were calcu- lated. Some of the ownerships are separated by other ownerships, but not to the large extent as that in the wheatbelt areas. Leasing information is not readily available but believed to be significant, indicating leasee farming. Soils data does not give any real clue to farming patterns, due partly to the very mixed soils types created by seasonal flooding. Pasture and hay fields are grown and maintained in similar soils where orchards are planted. Productivity information was gathered to assist in the determination of appro- priate agricultural land use measures in the Walla Walla Forks area. Fruit yields here were found to be about the same as those in the Orchards District. Yield figures vary slightly year to year and from orchardist to orchardist; but an average figure of 800 boxes of apples per acre for 1982 can be used as a representative figure. 29 Apple yields are used because this is the main fruit grown in the Forks area. Slightly lower yields have been experienced in the upper reaches of the South Fork of the Walla Walla River (starting about one mile above its confluence with the North Fork). Reasons for this are not exactly known, but it might be due to climate conditions or management practices. 30 Income return form fruit on the average is slightly less than received in the Orchards District. In the Upper Walla Walla Valley, the fruit matures about two to three weeks later. Prices growers secure for this later fruit are significantly less than what IIfirst fruit ll prices demand. Findings from fruit growers and processors in the Orchards District show that about $1,000 per acre net income was possible in 1976. A comparitive net income amount for the upper valley orchards was not easily obtainable. However, because the two areas were found to be very similar, net incomes could be assumed to be around $800 to $900 per acre in 1976. What contribution the Forks area makes as to the total company fruit sales and processing is not exactly known. nata and statistics are gathered together on a county-wiqe basis and not d~lineated by B-93 sub-regions. Several estimates from fruit processors indicate that on the average and when looking at fuit acreages, maybe 20 to 30% of all fruit comes from the Upper Walla Walla Valley. The other agricultural uses in the forks area (hay and pasture) do not provide nearly the income as fruit. These fields are mostly part-time or retirement farms, providing a rural lifestyle enjoyed by many in the county. Family in- comes are supplemented by these agricultural commodities, but they do contribute to the overall agricultural economy of the county. Farm partitions in the past 10 years give littl~ guidance to recommending farm protection measures. Since the area is dotted with part-time farms and has had residential zoning for 10 years, lot partition sizes tend to be smaller than typical farm enterprises in the area •. Of the eight. partitions over five acres in size, 60% are between 6 and 10 acres and the remaining range betwen 19 and 27 acres. (Eleven other partitions have occurred but these are all under 4 acres, and generally considered marginal farms or rural residential, which is very typical of East County Orchard areas~) Conclusions and Recommendations Concluding, the Forks of the Walla Walla River is very similar to the orcharding- small farm area north of Milton-Freewater. Farming activities are nearly iden- tical as well as similar yields, incomes and management problems. Specifically, complexities of smaller ownerships, changing markets and influenes of non-farm uses and zoning characterize this area as a marginal farm area, yet required by state land use goals to be protected for continual agricultural uses. Any regulations to protect farmland here must be flexible enough to reflect what is happening. Since orcharding is the most economical farming activity here, any minimum parcel size regulation should consider this more intensive, higher return crop. Because hay and pasture farms are in scattered locations, a different lot size minimum for them is not practical to develop nor administer. In the Forks area, yields and prices for fruit were found to be similar as those in the Orchards District. In the Orchards District, a 10 acre minimum farm size was adopted, because this size could net around $18,000 (1976 crop year estimate which was a size that approached a self-supporting, commercial orchard, the chosen 10 acre minimum .lot size would also be an appropriate measure of regulating land divivsions in this orchards-small f~rm sub-area. Mentioned earlier was the difficulty of consolidating land in the Orchards District into economic fruit orchards due to extensive land fragmentation. Both the lower valley area (Orchards District) and the upper valley sub-area (Forks) are quite fragmented. The same 10 acre minimum lot size, adopted for fruit orcharding in the Orchards District, should also be appropriate for the upper valley fruit orchards. The number of new parcels possible at this density would be relatively few and shouldn't create any detrimental effects upon commerical orcharding efforts in this subdistrict. To recognize existing property fragmentation and/or parcelization, and to assist in maintaining the agricultural activitjes in the Forks area, a 10 acre minimum parcel size and dwelling density is recommended. This size reflects the existing farm pattern in the area and realistically approaches commercial sizes or orcharding. Non-farm dwellings and homestead dwellings shall be treated the same as described in the Orchards District section of this chapter. B-94 - SOURCES 1. Comprehensive Plan Part I - Hermiston'U"_Or_~on. Umatirla County and Hermiston City Planning Commissions, August 1972, p. 5. 2. 1I0vera n Economi c Devellopment Prag ram Commi ttee Economi c Element: Agricultural Technical Report,1I East Central Oregon Association of Counties for Umatilla County Planning Department, January 1918, P. A-14. 3. Obermiller, Frederick W., IIEvaluating the Social Benefits and Social Costs of Irrigation Development ll presentation paper to Water Policy advisory Committee and Oregon Legislative Committee on Trade and Economic Development, February 28, 1978, p. 36. 4 • II Res0urce Act ion, II RCOReport; June 1974, p. 10. 5. Water and Related Land Resources Umatilla Drainage Basin, Oregon Economic Research Service - Forest Service - Soil Conservation Service, December 1962, p. 19. 6. Existing Land Use Data, West County, Computations by County Planning Staff, Winter 1977. 7. John F. Spencer, Letter from Water Resources Department, State of Washington, August 17, 1978. 8. Agricultural Subcommittee of the Umatilla County Overall Economic Program - Discussion at the January 18, 1978 meeting. 9. McCall, William B., Groundwater Conditions and Declining Water Levels in the Ordinance Area,Mcrro~ and Umatilla Counties, Oregon, Groundwater Report #23, Water Resources Department, State of Oregon, 1975, P. 15. 10. Existing Land Use Data, Winter 1977. 11. "Estimated Gross Cash Receipts from Agricultural Marketings, II County Extension Service, 1977 p. 1. 12. Existing Land Use Data, Winter 1977. 13. Existing Land Use Data and "Estimated Gross Cash Receipts." 14. "Increase in Potato Acres" newspaper article, East Oregonian, March 22, 1978, p. 1. 15. Interview--Darrell Maxell and Luther Fitch, Hermiston Extension Agents, with Bob Perry, County Planner, May 1978. 16. Ibid. 17. Ibid. 18. "Estimated Gross Cash Receipts from Agricultural Marketings,'l 1977. B-96 19. Interview--Darrel1 Maxwell, Luther Fitch, May 1978. 20. Ibid. 21. Existing Land Use Survey, Winter 1977. 22. Water and Related Land Resources Umatilla Drainage Basin, Oregon, p. 50. 23. Ibid. 24. "Cattle Ranching, East Oregonian, September 11, 1979, p. D-12. 25. Umatilla Basi- Development - Its Economic Impact and Implications for Planning, Bureau of Governmental Research and Service, University of Oregon, February 1970, p. 51. 26. Ibid. 27. A Plan for Development, Umatilla County Oregon~ Part II of the Comprehensive Plan, Umatilla County Planning Commission, April 6, 1972, p. 6. 28. West County Citizen Involvement Minute File, Agricultural Subcommittee comments, 1977. 29. "Phone Interview--Glenn Gibbons, President of Blue Mountain Growers, Milton-Freewater, January, 1983" B-97 MOUNTAIN HIGHLANDS (Grazing/Forest Lands) INTRODUCTION Forest Lands are defined by the Land Conservation and Development Commission as: (1) Lands composed of existing and potential forest land suitable for commercial forest use; (2) other forested land needed for watershed protection, wildlife and fisheries habitat, and recreation; (3) Land where extreme conditions of climate, soils, and topography require the maintenance of vegetative cover irrespective of use; (4) Other forested lands in urban and agricultural areas that provide urban buffers, windbreaks, wildlife and fisheries habitat, livestock habitat, scenic corridors, and recreational use. [New] Further refinement of the forest lands definition by the state in 1983 recognizes two types of forest land: (1) predominant forest use areas; (2) mixed use forest areas. Predomin~te forest use areas are those containing large mostly commercially managed forest parcels and mixed use forest areas are managed for both farm and forest uses. [Revised] Lands fitting the mixed use forest description are located in the east and southwest quarter of the county within the Blue Mountain Slope and Highland. The Blue Mountain Slope starts at about the 2000 ft. elevation and rises to about 3700 ft. 1 This area was probably more densely forested at the time of original settlement. 2 Areas of it have since been cleared for agricultural purposes. What little remaining timber there is is found at higher elevations (about 3500-3700 ft.) and along creek bottoms draining from the Blue Mountain Highland. Stream bottoms in the lower elevations of the Blue Mountain Slope and in the Ukiah Basin contain hoth deciduous and coniferious stands. Mixed coniferious trees (e.g. Logdepole, pine, Douglas fir, Ponderosa Pine, etc.) are found on the more level and deeper soils and favorable moisture retaining C-l slopes. Only the higher elevation timber stands within this area are conisdered for the Forest Lands goalo Lower elevation stream bottom stands are less productive and are completely surrounded by agricultural uses; thereby, the Agricultural Lands Goal is applied. (See Map, page C-3 for locations of topo- graphic and geologic areas mentioned in this section.) Better value timber areas are found in the higher elevated, higher rainfall areas within the Umatilla National Forest. The 8lue Mountain Highland forested zone begins at about the 3700 to 3900 ft. elevation and extends up to about 5,100 feet. 3 This area contains the majority of the marginal to moderate timber-producing land of the county. Nearly 65% of this land is in public ownership (mostly National Forest). Pre- dominant tree species are Douglas Fir, Ponderosa and Lodgepole Pine, Western Larch and several scattered areas of the sub-alpine tree species (Grand Fir, Sub-alpine Fir). Non-timbered or sparsely timbered lands meeting the State Forest Lands Goal d~ftDitiQO ar~ also found within this Blue Mountain Highland Region. Isolated meadows, north-facing slopes in steeper topographic areas and the Bridge Creek Game Management Unit south of Ukiah are mostly open areas providing fish and wildlife habitat, livestock rangeland, watershed resources and other conservation and open space benefits. A portion of the island-like Ukiah Basin is one of the largest open areas surrounded by the Blue Mountain Highlands that is being defined as mixed-use forest lands. Higher rainfalls, low~r elevations and non-timber soils have allowed some areas of the Ukiah Basin to be used as irrigated pastures and grassland meadows for summer grazing of livestock. This area is more agricultural, but according to the state planning goals and administrative rules can be defined as mixed-use forest lands. C-2 ~!I' 1~ x. ~: aN3~31 ONV'lH8IH NIV.LNnOV'4 3n18 ~ \ \ \ 1 o o If', w 3f1Zlj tH1 su 35l:lj tf';r?j;tT" J .,. T r 1If t 'jUt t S91 , t" t '1. t I , •. t t.r. iu tg!!j " • • ••• 'r, q .'t".-t-tl-.(,r t t t t t t t t ~ 1::~~};'{~1 NIVld Vlll.LVWn 3d01S NIV.LNnOV'4 3m8 G) m z m ::0 » I ::0 m I m 11 ~ _-: ...J '-=.:':'~::J >~ ~~-~ 2~~ c:::J ...Jt:.J __,--I r----' LI"J"'..J ~-----­C..:::-:::) '-JL..-/ ,-@ ~--5 ':5~ .--\ '3 ..~.--:: ~~;~ --,r--:'_~~ . ~ SurnnH~t gr'dzing occurs throughout all the Blue Mountain Slop(} and Highland areas .. Seventy-four percent of the National Forest in Umatilla County is included in dOllles~i c grazi ng allotments, whi 1e grazi ng occurs on much of the t illlber industry und privately-owned lands, too .. Range conditions vary throughout th(~ area from poor to good. Past overgrazing during the late 1800's and early 1900's caused considerable deterioration of grazing lands, but through improved management practices, these areas are slowly recovering. 4 On even the best s-ites, one cow and calf (" an imal unit ll ) require over 14 acres for a six month season; most other forest sites require in excess of 150 acres~4** These figures highlight the need for large areas to support the very important and extens i ve 1'1 vestock i ndust ry of the county, and exp1ai n why ranchers must secure grazing leases from other land ownerships. The importance of the live- stock industry and its dependence upon mountainous lands in the county must be stressed and is further explained in other areas of this Technical Report. Timber Productivity One important factor influencing the identification and application of the Forest Lands .. Goal and is a requirement of this state planning goal is the mapping of timber productive soils .. Productivity mapping assists in the process of iden- tifying commercial or non-commercial timberland in forested areas. Commercial timberland is capable of producing harvestable timber or other wood crops. The Oregon Department of Forestry defines commercial forest lands in Oregon as lands capable of produc'fng 20 cubic feet of timber per acre per year, which seems to be a rather inappropriate arid high standard, especially for eastern Oregon, where overall timber productivity is much less than in western Oregon. While many forests in western Oregon grow in excess of 225 cubic feet/acre/year, even the most productive sites in Umatilla County do not exceed 100 cubic feet ** These minimum acreage requirements, provided by the U.S. Forest Service, take" into account several variables" such as estimated wildl ife use, which competes for much of the same forage. C-4 of growth/acre/year. Low precipitation~ cold winters and hot~ dry summers are two major factors contributing to this lower rat~ of growth. Non-commercial lands are incapable of producing industrial wood crops because of adverse site conditions or they are formerly forested lands that have been converted to another use. The boundaries of non-commercial timberlands often delineate where agricultural lands and forest lands begin. However~ they can be in small or large pockets within forested areas serving other important values and lumped together under the forest lands catagory. The implication here is that the State Forest Lands Goal does not directly relate to identifying and protecting only commercial forest land. It is however~ important to be able to determine by a (comparison)system~ what the relative timber values are when determining appropriate land use plans and actions. The most important tool to assist in productivity mapping is soils information. Detailed soils surveys include a host of local factors including slope position, elevation, topography~ precipitation, and soil characteristics which influence timber productivity. Unfortunately, many forested lands in Umatilla County do not have detailed soils information. On a county-wide scale, only preliminary information using soils associations (a grouping of similar soil types) is avail- able. Soil associations are very general, and when converted into timber produc- tivities, give the false appearance that they have a uniform productivity. In fact, some areas within a soils association may not be timber-growing soil. Also, some timber fringe areas in the Weston Mountain area are equally good for timber or agricultural purposes. However, for planning purposes, soil association infor- mation is useful as a general guide and is more easily understood by planners and the general public when making land use decisions over broad areas as is the purpose of the comprehensive plan. A summary description developed by the Soil Conservation Service was a valuable C-5 tool to identify and convert tho general"ized sons associationinforrnation into productivity measures of forest lands according to their capability to grow wood fiber. According to the SCS summary, the first step in determining timber productivity of a particular soil is finding the site index of those tree species growing on that soil. Site index is the height in feet of the larger trees (dominant and codominant) at some given age, 50 or 100 years. If a soil is said to have a site index of 95 at age 100 for ponderosa pine. this means that the dominant and co-dominant ponderosa pine trees growing in a "normal" stand in usual competition, but not overcrowded, will average a high of 95 feet at an age of 100 years. A single measurement of site index is not considered sufficient evidence of productivity for a species. The average of several measurements on a similar soil can be considered reliable. The higher the site index, the more productive the soil. Site index may be interpreted in terms of cubic feet per acre. This conversion from site index to cubic feet per acre per year is done through the use of a yield table developed for the most productive tree species selected for each soil. The prodlJctivity of the indicator species for each soil is a result of climatic conditions and soil characteristics. The Blue Mountains can be divided into several contrasting climatic and associated soil areas. These areas correspond to the general soil map for the county in Chapter B, page B-9. The general forest soil associations that occur in the Blue Mountains are: (1) Tolo-Klicker; (2) Helter; (3) Klicker-Tolo; (4) Gwin-Umatilla- Kahler; and (5) Bridgecreek-Hankins. A brief description and average cubic feet per acre per year productivity for each follows: A. Tolo-Klicker Association The Tolo-Klicker association consists mostly of deep, ashy Tolo soils on more level summit land areas and the less deep,'less prevalent Klicker soils C-6 on the steeper fringe areas of this association. Timber productivity of this association is considered very good, not only due to the gentle topography and deep soils, but also because rainfall amounts greatest in these summit areas. Lodgepole pine, western larch, grand fir and douglas fir grow well on the deep, ashy Tolo soils. The most productive indicator species for site index determination are western larch and douglas fir. The Tolo-Klicker association has an average productivity of about 80 cubic feet per acre per year. Klicker soils and some small areas of rangeland reduce the total pro- ductivity only slightly from a pure Tolo unit. A pure Tolo unit will produce about 95 cu/ft/ac/yr for the indicator species of douglas fir and western larch. The Tolo-Klicker unit around the Meacham area is currently producing lower quality, less marketable, lodgepole pine due to fires and not using good management practices, in the opinions of forest managers and soil scientists. While rainfall amounts are somewhat less here than in other Tolo-Klikcer units in the county (5" per year less), and significant use and ownership is related to livestock grazing, timber productivity could be improved with time, care and planting of more marketable tree species. B. Helter Association The Helter soils association is somewhat similar to soil types like Tolo but are found at even higher elevations, and thus have a colder average summer temperature. Sub-alpine tree species grow well in these areas with sub-alpine fir and Englemann spruce being the site, index species. The Helter association has an average productivity of about 90 cubic feet per acre per year, due to intermixes of lower timber-productive soils. When the soils are mapped in more detail, a more pure Helter soils can produce about 110 cu/ft/ac/yr of Englemann spruce and sub-alpine fir. C-7 The rea rethree sIna11 areas oft he He1t erassoci a t 'j on fa undon pri vat<~ 1and s • One area is in the Langdon Lake area on Tollgate Mountain. This association unit is predominantly within the National Forest. c. Klicker-Tolo Association Klicker soils are moderately deep and contain Illany rock fragments. They are more stony and have less silt (ash) than Tolo soils. Moisture or rainfall is relatively low on these soils, often supporting only the more drought- resistant ponderosa pine. Some lodgepole pine and douglas fir are found on Tolo soils within this unit. Ponderosa pine is the indicator species for this association. The Klicker-Tolo association has an average productivity of about 40 cubic feet per acre per year of ponderosa pine. This unit is about 1/3 rangeland. Becuase of the rangeland soils, site specific timber productivity is reduced from a 60 cu/ft/ac/yr figure computed from yield tables for a better defined Klicker soil. Private lands west of Ukiah that are adjacent to the National Forest a~e within this soil association and have the average timber productivity figure explained aboveG D. Gwin-Umatilla-Kahler Association This soil association is the most complex of all mountain soils in the county. It occurs on the footslopes of the Blue Mountains. The steep side slopes along the major streams and rivers have forested soils (Umatilla-Kahl~r) on the north facing slopes and rangeland soils (Gwin) on the shallow, south facing slopes. The deep Kahler and Umatilla soils, on steep northerly slopes along the major streams of the Blue Mountains, have adequate moisture to support fir trees, C-8 Douglas fir is the indicator species, and is a striking contrast with the shallow Gwin rangeland soils on the southern exposures where soil shallowness cannot support tree growth. The Gwin-Umatilla-Kahler association has an average productivity of about 35 cubic feet per acre per year. The non-forested Gwin soils lower the total productivity significantly in this unit. E. Bridgecreek-Hankins Association The Bridgecreek soils are moderately deep and in range. The Hankins soils are deep and forested with ponderosa pine, due to the high content of droughty clay in the soil. Only about 1/4 of this association is forested, so timber productivity in the whole association is reduced from about 90 cu/ft/ac/yr to about 20 cu/ft/ac/yr. The yields for the general forest soil association were obtained by estimating the acreage of individual soils within each associaation throughout the county. The cubic feet per acre per year figure for each soil along with estimated extent of the soils in the association were averaged. Non-forested rangeland was considered to be non-productive for timber. Three maps on the following pages graphically show the general potential for timber growth in terms of cu/ft/ac/yr. It should be noted again that conclusive comparisons of timber productivity between areas is not advisable because the soils data is general and predominate tree species differ by area and market- ability. Also, an average productivity for differing forest soils associations may be misleading. For example: The Umatilla and Kahler soils produce approxi- mately 100 cubic feet per acre per year. When the total acreage of these highly productive soils is combined with the non-forested Gwin soils, the total forest productivity in the Gwin-Umatilla-Kahler unit is reduced by about two-thrids. C-9 z' 0- _: ~-; ~: 0' O'~l~;~ ~';B ---I: B oj§) (f)~ @:2) >-: m~ ES """'-...:..- _J.J ".,-.. c=....-t--. r ..:-JJ r--- r ..:~'-j - ..- e=-'-'J>,02~ L-- C::::J r--- L~U B ::JE;5 °BO~ 0:: p o..i @JV "8a: ~Ij WF~ COp -:::::5 c:::::::(§) -8~ "'"u ..... \ I ,: R39E I I T G N .r-" / UMA TlLLA I T 5 N .j , I l r-1j, I J I ~ T 3 N I; 'T 2 N J.- , ,I . . . · · · · · . . ••• .J I i/ f I 'I 1 -j-._. --1-R 36 E 1------- '1 \ ! .. MILTON' F RE EWATER ~~ - R35E 1,''..7"------ I UMA TIL LA INDIAN RESERVATION , I I ..._~---1 \ , __I I ~, I ; , _ I· .: R 34 E LEGEND G:~i:::::;'l =:::DDUCii:Vr,y ,W:RAGE GROWTH R;"1EPER YEAR GOO\) •t::23i iOLO·KueKER 80 c~.ft.fAcre ~ HEt..TER 90 cu.ft./Acre - FA1R r.:J.... Gwtl':-UMATILLA- 35 cu.ft.fAcre .L:.J. KA~LER R 33 E POORrNO PRODUCTIVITY O•P.OCKY OR less than 20 cu.ft./AcreAU..tNIAL SOILS 20"···PER YEAR RA!NFAll f:"1?~~ t;,<;;.. I I I 1- f--~ I I r--- , I,.. ... _-__ --_->-I; r"~' /--' ---------.--I ~ ,, .J :~~i:~ ;:~ .Q< ft~'- -~ I I -l I I o R 37 E j~_J __ .J 1 II WALLOWA WH/~MAN NA TrONAl FORESTI- I I ~/ 1--- UMATILLA NATIONAL FOREST i ',,- \ \)," ...... R 36 E .~_. - ------ "\ \ \ '\ "'I \ ~~-- -L '\I --- ----- ) \ LEGEND GENERAL PRODUCTIVITY AVERAGE GROWTH RA TEPER YEAR GOOD s:ElTOLO-KLlCKER 80 cU.ft./Acre WHELTER 90cu.ft./Acre FAIR r::1.~..··.a.·.·. GWIN-UMATILLA- 35 cu.ft./Acre C11KAHLER POORINO PRODUCTIVITY O ROCKY OR less than 20 cu.fUAcreALLUVIAL SOILS 20..... PER YEAR RAINFALL o u R 35 E UNION R 34 E SCALE IN MILES I UMA TlLLA INDIAN RESERVA TlON I ,_ gA Tl MBER PRODUCTIVITY BY SOIL ASSOCIATION ©rn[KrITwffi~ rnJ~ffiu~~~ffi ©®(ill~UW I I 1-_1 I I I WALLOWA WHITMAN NA TlONAL FOREST I I I I - -- L__-J-- - \ '~ J _ 'I • t-Ictc.~:r .~ .._ CRp'\. to -..::. .:.-..::.~ ---- . -----..--- iifIi',,;,;-~----- - ._-- ____1.-__ I T 1 N T 2 S R 31 E T 2 N ~ ..::-·..l '"f-~ ') ~Wjty'.:- i:~ J : ~-. ..to· ;,(, ~, . ~/'. ;-;-i- <; FOREST UMAfiLLA ~ C=-~ §:~' 8· §=::) C?~) z o I- « o o Cf) if) « --..J o Cf) >- CO >-r-- > --, _r:.::::c: ~ c~_Jj <:...) ~-l_J c_--::::J ~ [;=:::.J 0 8O~,' a: B CL E:~; a: ro:s' ~. w 'CO §=(G==-r w::::::::::: c:::-.::-' .:::::::: r=:.:'., -8I- (0-2 ... U V) . I WHITMAN , I --, I :_-. i_ -- - L 1 NA TlON!' - I FORrS7 .. i-I i - I l _L COUNTY --n-l I : ---- '1--' I- -- -, ---'-. 1 1 I ~ 'WALLOWA 1 __I \ LOW 'i;1BRIDGE CREEK 20 cu.ft.JAcre I£1HANKINS POORINO PRODUCTIVITY DROCKY OR less than 20 cU.ft./AcreALLUVIL SOILS 20"...PER YEAR RAINFALL .j FOREST I I IL_- _ -_. '-- NATIONAL i.'.;'t...~·/\!.; .•·· ·:W.~~~~\;.~·~;i\i.~~F)i;jjt~Y}W:@t&~Qi~t~#JSi.R·37;::~~%t $#J;~ij»:~';R 3 _-iOlI ....-1-~ GEN. ERAL PRODUCTIVITY AVERAGE GROWTH RATE PER YEAR 'J GOOD mTOlO-KlICKER 80 cu.ft.JAcre ~ HElTER 90 cu.ft.lAcre FAIR , t{J2 KUCKER-TOLO 40 cu.ft.JAcre I GWIN-UMATIlLA- 35 cu.ft.JAcrel- _ KAHLER I _... j "'- ... R 30 E NA,rONAL I 2 s: lt--- T 3 S I- I I I r 5 si This soils association is then one of the lowest in production but contains some of the most productive forest soils in the Blue Mountains. However, in general, timber productivity is somewhat higher in the northeast county study area, especially in the Tollgate Mountain area. Wood growth per year is said to be somewhat greater here than that in the Meacham areas, and even greater than in the Ukiah areas, largely due to more rainfall abouts which approach 50 to 55 11 per year. This general comparison tends to agree with many private landowner and citizen comments that timber harvest rotation periods for timber (as opposed to fiber for wood pulp) in the Meacham-Ukiah areas take up to 60-75 years, whereas harvest rotations on Tollgate Mountain and other good northeast county forested sites are at 40-45-50 year intervals. [Revised] Commercial Forest Lands (Private Ownerships) A meaningful and accurate acreage of commercial forest lands in Umatilla County is virtually impossible, mostly due to incomplete and general soils information. Also, many do not agree what IIcommercialll means. Even studies by the U.S. Forest Service and State Forestry Department in the 1960's and 70·s give con- flicting commercial forest land figures ranging from 470,000 acres to 562,000 acres. 5 These reports say that private lands considered having commercial timber stands ranged from 33% to 40% of the total IIcommercial forest lands. Even the cubic foot site inventory analysis above designed to aid in determining commercial vs. non-commercial forest lands is generalized and not yet in detailed form to be meaningful or useful for site specific reference. So, based on the above factors, no acrage figures of commrecial tibrliand, based upon new preli- minary data, is given for Umatilla County. When detailed soils information becomes available, then perhaps a detailed study of what is commercial forest lands would be practical and useful. Until then, only a ball-park figure of 190,000 to 225,000 acres of private and tribal trust lands outside of the C-I0 National Forest and Umatilla Indian Reservation have a generalized commercial forest definition based upon the two forest service studies mentioned earlier. [Nnw] Commercial Forest Land (Public Ownerships) Touched on briefly in the introduction is the statement that National Forest "lands have somewhat higher timber productivity. While this "information is either not available or not directly comparable, the basic productivity indicators like rai nfa 11 and e1e v"a t i on i s avail ab1e and does i ndi cate t hat the bet t er t i Inber growing areas are within the National Forest. For example, examination of maps on pages C-10, 11, and 12 show that rainfall amounts are greater on National Forest lands and the map on page C-3 indicates that elevations are also higher in this area. Timber Harvests Table C-I summarizes the volume of timber harvested in Umatilla County from 1970 to 1976. While total cuts during this period increased by 113%, contri- butions for private lands actually dropped by 66%. Most of the timber removed during this timespan was obtained from the Umatilla National Forest, increasing from 18.1 MMBF (million board feet) in 1970 to 78.3 MMBF in 1976. Ponderosa Pine, Douglas Fir, and Grand Fir comprise the majority of existing growing stock volume in the county, with 324 million cubic feet, 290 million cubic feet, and 131"million cubic feet respectively.6 Marta1i ty Consider~ble losses of tim~er occur annualJy in Umatilla County. Weath~r, insects, and disease are leading causes, accounting for an estimated 64% of total board foot loss. Infestations of bark beetles and tussock and gypsy moths are respnosible for much of the insect-killed tress. Although now on the decline, bark beetles in Umatilla County have in recent years destroyed an C-13 TABLE C-I Volume of Timber Removed (MMBF) in Umatilla County UMATILLA COUNTY U.S. Forest State B.l.M. Indian Pr; vate Total for Total Service lands lands lands lands Lands Non-forest Service lands MMBF %Total MMBF MMBF %Total MMBF %Total MMBF %Total MMBF %Tota1 MMBF 1970 18.8 40% 0 0.3 0 .. 7% 0.8% 1.8% 25.9 57.4% 27 59.9% 45.1 1971 24.9 56% 0 0 - 0.3 0.7% 19.3 43.5% 19.6 44.1% 44.4 1972 41.4 66% 0 0.5 0.8% 0 - 21.2 33.6% 21.7 34.4% 63.1 1973 53.6 81% O· 0 - 0 - 12.7 19.2% 12.7 19.2% 66.3 1974 42.2 57% 0 0 - 0 - 31.6 42.8% 31.6 42.8% 73.8 1975 62.7 73% 0 1.3 1.5% 0 - 21.5 24.9% 22.8 26.5% 86.2 1976 78.3 82% 0 4.8 5.0% 0 - 13.0 13.5% 17.8 18.5% 96.0 - NOTE: Discrepencies in %total due to rounding. SOURCES: IIApproximate Acres logged and MMBF Volume Removed", State of Oregon, Department of Forestry, Genera 1 Fi 1e 1-9-4-5000, 1970 -1976; "log Product ion ; nOr r~g0 n by Co unt y, Reg ion and Ownership", Oregon Economic Statistics, 1972. C-14 average of four million board feet of timber on private holdings annually.7 Roo tand hear t rot, need1e b1i 9ht, and dwar f lid st 1etoe ar (~ the IIIaj 0 r dis eases affecting forest in the county. The Oregon Oeparment of Forestry estimates that these diseases are removing 2.1 million board feet of timber from the county's available supply each year. 8 Other causes of tree mortality include loses from animals, fire, and micsel- laneous agents such as land slides, erosion, fluctuating water tables and various activities of man. 9 Employment in the Timber Industry The wood products industry in Umatilla County is usually the second most impor- tant source of bas'ic employment, payroll and publc revenue, supporting secondry employment in the transportation, construction, trade, finance, service and govern- ment sectors. 10 Table C-II breaks down Umatilla County timber industry employment and payroll figures into logging, sawmills and plywood-veneer-other. The table makes it possible to analyze the changing character of the county's lumber industry .. From 1970 to 1976, the number of employees in logging dropped 18.03% (from 122 to 100). The number of sawmill employees remained fairly constant, increasing only 4.29% (from 325 to 340). But, the number of employees in plywood-veneer-other increased 1000% (from 40 to 440). The major change in lumber employment occurred between 1974 and 1975 when total employment increased from 365 to 670; plywood- veneer-other jumped to 292, then to 440 in 1976. Until 1975 sawmills employed over tw6-thifds of'Umatilla Courity's ltimb~r employees. Beginning ih 1975 saw- mills split 80% of the employment with plywood-veneer-other employers. Much of the change in 1975 was due to new mills and wood processing plants in the county, and to the addition of second and third shifts of employees at existing wood processing plants. In effect, local employers have diversified their timber C-15 II-\BLE C-II Lumber and Wood Products in Umatilla County Covered Employment (#)1 and Payrolls (in $1,000) 1970 1971 1972 19732 1974 1975 1976 # $1,000 # $1,000 # $1,000 # $1,000 # $1,000 # $1,000 # $1,000 Logging Amount 122 823 63 575 71 588 73 668 108 1,185 103 1,283 100 1,489 %Total Lumber 25.00% 23.01% 16.62% 18.65% 20.52% 20.24% 21.09% 21.45% 29.58% . 32.94% 15.37% 19.5% 11.36% 15.55% Sawmills Amount 326 2,401 266 1,989 244 2,022 273 2,445 259 2,412 275 2,741 340 3,878 %Total Lumber 66.8% 67.14% 70.18% 64.53% 70.52% 69.62% 78.91% 78.54% 70.95% 67.05% 41.04% 41.66% 38.64% 40.5% Includes Pl~wOOd, Veneer and Other Plywood, Veneer Other Amount 40 352 50 518 31 294 292 2,554 440 4,207 %Total Lumber 8.91% 9.84% 13.19% 16.8% 8.95% 10.12% 43.58% 38.82% 50% 43.94% Total Lumber 488 3,576 379 3,082 346 2,904 346 3,113 365 3,597 670 6,578 880 9,574 1. Average number of employees per year. 2. 1973 Figures estimated from data collected for 1st quarter, 2nd quarter, and 4th quarter. 3. Data for 1973 and 1974 Sawmills, Plywood, Veneer and Other was reported but not separately disclosed. SOURCE: Covered Employment and Payroll Statistics by Industry and County, Oregon Employment Division, 1970 - 1976 quarterly reports. C-16 processing activities. Further exapansion of secondary wood products, plus promoting other forest uses, would make the county less vulnerable to econorrric fluctuations. Table C-II also illsutrates how payrolls increased form 1970 to 1976. By converting 1976 dollars to 1970 values to account for inflation (consumer price index), it is poss'ible to compute the net chang0 in payroll amounts for this perio~. I.ogging increased 80.92% (gross) or 37.06% after acccounting for infla- tion (net). Sawmills increased 61.51%(gross) or 28.17% (net). Plywood-veneer- other increased 1,095.17% (gross) but only 501 0 58% (net). Lumber totals increased 167.72% (gross) or 76.82% (net). Recently, however (1981-82), there have been major reductions and fluctuations in timber industry employment as has been the trend statewide and regionally. The erratic employment sftuation has been due to the poor economy and high interest rates nationwide which have greatly affected the housing market of which the timber industry is heavily dependent upon. Outlooks for quick recovery are not likely, and this creates some difficulties for comprehensive planning. County Revenues for Forest Lands Umatilla County receives revenue for the use of its forest lands from two sources. Because federal lands are not taxable by the county, the federal government, pre- dominately through the U.S. Forest Service, makes an annual payment to the county lIin lieu of taxes. 1I Basically, the annual payment consists of 25% of the forest service1s annual receipts from timber sales, grazing land permits and recreational fees. About 98% of the receipts in Umatilla County come from timber sales. The forest service turns this money into the Oreton Department of Revenue which then redistributes it to the counties on a proportional basis (per acres of national forest lands in each county). Federal law requires that these receipts be used by the counties only frir school and' r6adfund~. At the present time, Or~gon law requires the receipts to be distributed 25% to schools and 75% to roads. In 1977, Umatilla County received about $1,007,000 in forest service receipts ($962,000 from Umatilla National Forest, $45,000 from Wallowa-Whitman National Forest).ll [New] New forest service receipt figures from the Oregon Forestry Industries Council, 1983, shows that Umatilla County in 1981-82 ranked 24th out of 31 counties receiving receipts from the U.S.F.S. Of the total $95,112,710 received statewide, only $803,223 had been received in Umatilla County. The State of Oregon also IIcompensatesll each county for the use of forest lands. The Eastern Oregon Serverance Tax, administered by the Oregon Department of Revenue, requires that a tax be paid for the timber harvested on private lands (other than national forest lands). The tax is set by the Department according to size of timber cut, immediate harvest value of the timber (determined by the Department), type of timber and classification of code area. 12 [New] In 1981-82 Umatilla County received $140,361 from this tax source. This compares to a total of $45,885,619 paid statewide under the severance tax program. This also relates to a ranking 21st out of 35 counties receiving this money or on ly 3% of the tota1• The Department collects and distributes the tax for eastern Oregon on a quarterly basis. The tax receipts are given to the counties according to a set ratio (percentage share of the value of private standing timber in all eastern Oregon as of 1962). The counties use these receipts as an offset against the annual federal property tax levy in each county. In other words, the severance tax receipts reduce the amount of property tax required to be paid by Umatilla County Residents. 13 [New] A last thought regarding the above timber harvest tax data is that timber management is not as an important an issue in Umatilla County as is grazing. The relatively small amount of tax receipts alloted to the county, as compared to other Oregon counties and timber income generated being less that half that C-18 of the income from grazing ($9 million v.s. $23 rnill'jonin 19/6 figures), also substantiates these thoughts. These factors are also another indicator of the mixed use nature of the county's mountain highland areas. JJlllb~~"_~anagement The public agencies (National Forest Service, BrA, BLM) have managed their large share of the forest lands in Umatilla County based on their interest and knowledge in long-term multiple use concepts. Managem~nt of the public and private industry owned forest lands in Umatilla County is accomplished through their extensive knowledge and capabilities to deal with long-term forest management issues. Public agencies, as well as private timber companies, have the capabilities to manage their areas of responsibility and interest and therefore attempt to maximize forest land values. Timber on private non-industrial lands is not intensively managed. The majority of these lands are predominantly owned by livestock ranchers with intermixtures of minor areas of small farm woodlots or recreational ownerships. All have varied knowledge of capabilities to intensively manage their lands for timber production. Forested lands in this category comprise approximately 50% of the privately owned land acreage in Umatilla County. (Ownerships in forested lands are more throughly discussed in latter sections of this chapter.) According to some state foresters and timber industry spokesmen, some management problems exist on private non-timber industry land. They say some owners are not aware of all the economic benefits to be gained from property timber manage- ment or do not possess the cash flow necessary for long-term committments that forest management requires. Also, some landowners do not have the technical forest management capabilities that may help them meet their particular needs and objectives. Assistance in dealing with these education, finacial and technical problems is C-19 available from many public and private sources. The state has published a catalog of programs that provide this assistance and is available at the State Forestry Department. Additional incentives for timber production includes deferred property and timber taxes and tax credits for placing underutilized land into timber production. These program incentives plus the availability of a productive land base provide the structure for a significant contribution of forest products from the many private forested land parcels in Umatilla County. These tracts occur throughout the forested areas in the Blue Mountains and generally in a strip between the predomi- nantly agricultural lands to the west and the national forest to the east. (See pages through for more detailed discussion of the existing forest tax system and also the farm deferral tax program; both programs applied in county forested areas.) Land use planning of forest lands is involved primarily with the consequenses of forested land uses. The acutal operations, such as timber harvest or management, is beyond the plan's scope and is dealt with directly by the state. In 1972, the State legislature adopted the Oregon Forest Practices Act contained in DRS 527.610 to 527.730. By recognizing that the forest makes a significant contri- bution to Oregon and Umatilla County by providing jobs, products, tax base and other social and ecomomic benefits, the act is intended as a means to assure continuos growth and harvest of timber and to protect Oregon's forest soil, air and water resource. The State Board of Forestry is responsible for implementing this law and has, therefore, adopted the Oregon Forest Practices Rules. These rules apply to all commercial forest operations providing guidelines for the application of chemicals, disposal of slash, reforestation, road construction and harvesting. All state and private forest lands in Umatilla County are subject to compliance with the adopted rules. C-20 One aspect of the Forest Practices Act meeting some opposition is clear-cutting. This is especially true in or near areas of established recreational uses and development. Citizens and property owners in these ares do not object to forest management and harvesting per se, but feel certain management techniques will better protect scenic and other aesthetic values in r'ecreational areas. Several foresters have suggested the uneven age timber management system can be implemented quite successfully in timber areas impacted by recreational uses. Other Forest Uses Forest lahds serve a multitude of functions. The unique scenic and environmental qualities·of forest lands make them attractive for recreational activities such as camping, hiking, fishing, hunting, water sports, etc. These activities, in addition to providing an important social benefit, also con- tribute significantly to the economy of Umatilla County, and are more thoroughly discussed inthe"Natural Resource andRecreation·-chapter.·~· Most of the water resources of the county originate in the many watershed areas high in the tree-covered Blue Mountains. The trees and associated vegetation provide runoff control and therefore conserve the water and land resource~ The conservation and protection of the watersheds is a key to maintain the high quality and quantity of water supplies in Umatilla County. Forest lands provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species. Deer, elk, and bear are the major game species found in the county. Food, cover, water, and freedom from harassment are primary requi rements for these animal s. Al so, Umati 11 a County streams and rivers support fish populations important to the sport fishery lIindust ry ll and basic food supplies of the Confederated Indian Tribes of the Umatillc Indian Reservation. Both the watershed and fish and game issues mentioned above are examined more closely in ·the Open Space and N~tural Resources chapter. C-21 [New] Summary By far the most important forest use in Umatilla County is livestock grazing. An extensive report on this activity is found in Chapter B of this Technical Report. It cannot be stressed enough that most livestock ranchers are not actively engaged in timber management because of the marginal nature of productivity. Most have testified that commercial harvesting of timber would ruin the fragile topsoil and thus the grasses which they grown and try to protect. As shown later, even timber industry owners manage much of their property for livestock purposes because the land is either non-timber producing or used more efficiently for grazing because of the very long crop rotation period involved in harvesting timber in Umatilla County. The following lot size and management pattern analysis is therefore largely cencerned with the livestock industry. [Revised] MOUNTAIN/HIGHLANDS LOT SIZE ANALYSIS Goal #4 Forest Lands requires an inventory of lands suitable for forset uses (including agricultural uses) and devlopment of measures to protect these lands somewhat similar to requirements in State Land Use Goal #3 Agriculture. A general description of the mixed use nature of forested areas in the mostly publicly owned foothill and mountainous lands of the county and review of forest produc- tivity have been earlier analyzed, but this alone will not greatly aid in deter- mining appropriate protection measures. Other pertinent information (lot size, ownerships, field or cultivation patterns, grazing use practices, existing lanrl uses, present plan and zoning effectiveness, recent partitions, taxing methods, local opinions, etc.) must also be considered to help choose realistic protection guidelines. The federal government owns nearly 60% of mountainous areas in the county, but because the county has little control of these lands, studies were not conducted for this area. C-22 In conjlJnction with the agricultural lot size study (Section 8), lot size infor- mation in two separate townships (5N 37, IS 34) within privately owned foothill/ grazing forested land was gathered. These areas were chosen as representative of the majority of other privately owned areas in this part of the county. (See the map Chapter B on page B-38). An additional township (45 31) was examined along with the two above more forested mountain townshi~s, even though it is slightly different in character. It was chosen to represent a foothill/grazing/timbered area in the south county. The township has meadows and pastures adjacent to forest lands, whereas open foothill grazing lands are adjacent and intermixed with forest highlands in the other two study townships. However, all three areas are used predominantly for livestock grazing with timber management a secondary, long-term resource activity. Some timber company lands are within these study areas whose management concentrate on the production of wood fiber, but also lease much of th~if-lands for grazing because timber productivity is either marginal to non- existent on parts of their property or grazing is a viable, long-term, intrim use between harvesting the portions which have timber producing capabilities. Methods to determine average lot and ownership sizes in these study areas_were very similar to those proc~dures followed in the agricultural study (see chapter B). The only differences were-that timber industry lot--sizes and ownerships were compiled separately from other private ownerships, and that additional infor- mation from the Tollgate and South County Mountain Citizen's committees were considered in this study. These were very few non-agricultural, non-timber industry parcels (those less than 20 acres), and they were not included in the averaging. These smaller, non-resource parcels, when in single ownerships, were considered recreational in nature; however, larger recreational lots probably do exist, but are difficult to determine and separate. Basic results of the lot and ownership inventory shown in Table C-III and other C-23 similar data analysis did not reveal any significanct differences or similarities to aid in the overall organization of this report. However, when considering geographic differences, general timber productivity, and other factors like existing zoning and plan policies, and imformation from the various citizen involvement groups, it becomes apparent that three sub-area analyses would be appropriate: (1) Northeast County Mountainous Lands (those lands north of the Umatilla River): (2) Central Mountainous Lands (those lands around Meacham): and (3) South County Mountainous Lands (those lands near Battle Mountain, Carney Buttes, and around the Camas Prarie Basin). The map on page C-25 shows the general boundaries of these three study units. A general summary for each follows. TABLE C-III Mountain Forest and Grazing (Sample Study Areas) Average Ranch-Timber Industry Parcel-Ownership Sizes Sample Area Parcel Size Ranch Acres Timber Acres Ownership Size Ranch Acres Timber Acres Northeast County 5N 37 (Big Meadows) 351 782 861 2,306 Central County IS 34 (Upper McKay Creek) 406 528 1,000 5,017 South County 45 31 (Camas Prarie) 400 N/A 810 N/A [New] Critical Winter Range Inve~tory A more detailed lot and ownership study has been done for critical winter range lands in Chapter 0 of this Technical Report. Critical Winter Range areas include a very large majority of land involved in this analysis (mountain grazing and forest lands). Applicable facts from the critical winter range study will be briefly mentioned and/or referenced in this chapter (Chapter C) when found to be pertinent to the following three grazing/forest sub-areas reviews. C-24 --- "-~ -; ~;; . ::-:... }:-..~ . ~ R2!E T1N R~E 1 I ,-- I I I ,I I --- Vit;· ~ ~ o ~ LEGEND NORTH COUNTY SUB·AREA CENTRAL COUNTY SUB·AREA SOUTH COUNTY SUB·AREA UKIAH BASIN AGRICULTURAL AREA (f) - C. _ ~] °6::::J G:~~ l-- c en t::-.c.-·····, l;- ., (f) E~ ~ c.--;' ---J c=... O@, Z @:§'/ « ~:'::":2'-- . I-- ~.i.;Z[--·l '~ :::::> L":::':,,:-,o r.:.:~ c:::::::: c:-:] c::::::::: §::._~' Inventory Results, Northeast County Sub-Area [Revised] The table above shows that the average ranch (livestock operation) parcel and ownership size in this sub-area is aobut 350 acres and 860 acres respectively. These sizes are comparible to the other two sample townships examined. Whether the 350 acres or 860 acre sizes in the sample study are indicators of economical livestock operation is hard to determine. These arverage lot and ownership sizes are probably somewhat smaller than actual livestock ranching operations, which often reach an average size of 2,000 acres. Management patterns on thse grazing lands often consist of land holdings that are a part of a larger farming operation which might be some distance revmoved from the home base farm. Also, even ownerships within this separated segment of the ranching operation are disjoined from one another by other ownerships, as is frequently the case in the adjacent wheat farming and open range land areas. Additional grazing leases are sought on Forest Service and timber company p\operty in order to sustain livestock herds for a full summer grazing season, adding to the complexity of ranching operations occurring here. A much more detailed lot size analysis for Critical Winter Range Areas showed similar average lot and ownership sizes (312 acres and 634 acres respectively). The arithmetic median of all parcels includes both timber industry and livestock ranching ownerships) was 184 acres and the mode or most frequent parcel size was 72 acres. Thirty percent (30%) of all parcels were less than 80 acres. These last three figures highlighted the fractured and complex ownership patterns occuring in this sub-region. Timber company average lot and ownership sizes in Table C-III for the northeast sub-area indicate larger units than those for livestock grazing. Quickly examining other timber industry land outside of the sample township on the map on page C-2g C-26 the average ownership size of the three timber company hol~ings in this study ared is over 7,400 acre rather than the 2,300 acre averago shown in Table C-III. The largest timber company is this area is Harris Pine (approximately 3,855 acres) and lastly Crown Zellerbach at 2,280 acres. General timber productivity data examined earlier shows that several sites in the study area have some of the best timber growing potential in t~1e county. Due much to a yearly 55-inch rainfall, these better-producing sites average 95 cu/ft/ac/yr. About an even percentage of private grazing and timber industry ownerships possess these better wood producing sites, although this is only an estimate, due to the generality of the data. The Northeast County Mountain/Highlands study area contains other land uses and reosurces categorizing it as a true multiple-use area. Like the other forest/ grazing areas in the mountian highlands of this county, recreation uses as well as water and wildlife resources are additional activities found in these rugged terrain areas. The National Forest and Um~tilla Indial Reservation border stretches along this study unit, adding to the complexity of management coordination. Present taxation methods were also examined to see how land use changes might affect the assessment of future taxes. A large majority of the grazing lands owned in the timbered areas were under the unzoned farm deferral program because it was currently zoned F-5 and F,-2,.tw.o ..non-exclusive farm uses zones adopted in 1972. Property could qualify for farm deferred taxes, but it was not automatic, and requalification could have been required by the County Assessor. Current tax rates on properties qualifying for unzoned farm deferral run about $5 to $15 per acres. Some ranches had their grazing lands zoned Exclusive Farm Use in 1972, a true farm deferral zone where once qualification was verified, future deferral assessment was automatic, ~ith less ch~hce of assessor exa~ination and'requalifi- C-27 « 0- «~~[;:::=:J(/)§ DE) Z@§) «~~~ r-g Z[;:::=:J W~ ~~ (/) §) CJ)B W@5 Cf) ~ (/)~ «EE r-~ (/) p=-J WG==J CC @S OE) LLB &II loll =a ! loll ~ II) o .., J- GI) J.u cr o l.L. R3t3e '""~ o i:" <:~ 'z ..;~o T3N i ;:, - .. ~..... ~~.J""" ".-/" R37 ER36'E ~-- ~. t ". '....~ " .i;,. ..Ii;' R34E-- OWNERSHIP LEGEND HARRIS PINE MILLS, TIMBER INDUSTRY TAX LOT ACRES UNDER FOREST ASSESSMENT ACRES UNDER FARM DEFERRAL ,CROWN ZE L L ERBACH CORP.; I BOise CASCADE CORP) ir.; OTHER PRIVATE LAND OWNERSHIP R33E 753 233 CLJ ~ lli.iliiliill -~ >',fl .7:~ 4~~;' ;t 'i' .?t: :X',;' c:!i: g lk ~,:t -; t: t}. ,-: r r~' C· l: t1 t i ~ , i <~~ t .~~ s; \it~~~.1 .~~~. ':~. :':~'I I I ,.~y:#.. I i I;;;;:~"~ --~ :T A~~~.~! . ,i~nimjri;0Liii11!!R r-- Ij >-...ZToJlglllU /, " g.. ,. I ~ I .~ LrJ I '" ~~'< , • 15'~ ...... :::::.::::::: j~~ ()~ t~: ./ ~ ~... . _::::::!;:::~::; \".~ ~.' ~.';:'i\-~~~ o SCALE IN MILES ~ I B'lillll""I~liiii!!::!: 1 I UMATILLAT3S T 1 N R 31 E T2N T 2 S r·... . I. t:~:11 NATIONAL I FOREST! FOREST ASSESSMENT LANDS l.. I----.! I -® ~[TIm~@~[\f]r~&'IT~~~& ®®[\f][TI'ITW L2i~_m __ .. . ... -,' .' ...., ~.,,~-_.. 'I within resource areas of this sub-area since 1972. Only three partitions have been recorded si nce 1981 (two 20 acre pi ec(~s and a 380 acre parcel). Overa'll, the area has remain~~d quite stable considering the large area involved where these few partitions occurred. Comments from two citizen involvement groups, sub-area recreational property owners and ranchers indicated that opinions vary on measures needed to accommodate all interests and uses, and still protect the resource base. Various lot size minimums ranging .from 20 to 160 acres had been suggested to keep homesite develop- ment at densities unlikely to interfere with resource uses. Boise Cascade, a a timber company, suggested that an aD-acre minimum lot size be adopted, which it felt would curtail the usual conflict from adjacent recreafional landowners' when' spraying, thinning and harvesting timber. Those advocating a 20-acre minimum size felt that this size was a more realistic compromise between the old five acre size which was associated more with and would likely allow recreational activities, and the larger suggested lot size minimum of 40 to 160 acres, which they felt were too restrictive. A few citizens felt that lot size regulations were not appropriate for a multiple-use area. They asked that review standar~s be set up where individual partitioning requests would be approved or denied based on how well the proposal complied with a set of criteria or standards designed to assure resource protection and still permit divisions that normally and logically should be allowed but would not be po?sible with a standard minimum size. The Bureau of Indian Affairs and Tribal Planning Department have expressed concern about potential protection measures in the Meacham area where some 13,000 acres of Tribal Trust land lies outside of the reservations southwest of Meacham. Verbal .. and written communicationindicates ..concern for compatibility with .these lands and adjacent lands, especially pertaining to the protection of elk winter range and fishery streams. Such areas within the reservation are proposed for resource zones with 79 to 159 acre minimum lot sizes; it is, presumed that something similar is being requested by the Tribe for most private lands around Meacham. [Revised] Inventory Results, South County Sub-Area Inventory of sample study areas in the South County mountain areas reveal similar average parcel and ownership sizes as found in the Northeast and Central mountain/ highland sub-areas. (See Table C-III Page C-24). Only information on cattle ranching operations was obtainable, because no timber industry lands are within the sample study area. It is important to mention that ranching ownerships are often separated as indicated by the smaller average parcel size, when compared with average ownership sizes. Likely reasons for this situation are similar to those explanations offered in the Central Mountain/Highland Sub-Area study. This fractured nature of operations is also substantiated in the Critical Winter Range lot and ownership size study in Chapter D. Of importance to note from the study is that the parcel size mode of 40 acres, the ownership mode size of 160 acres, and that 25% of all parcels are less than 80 acres. While no timber industry lands were encountered in this region's lot size analysis, a separate review was initiated. Private timber holdings were located and mapped along with their estimated acres. The largest timber holding in the South County mountain/highland region is Lousiana Pacific, with 15,360 acres. Following, in decreasing acreage sizes, are Lousiana Pacific (10,380 acres), Harris Pine (1,900) acres and Boise Cascade (320 acres). Private land owners whose lands are assessed for timber management total only 580 acres, the smallest such acreage found in any of the three study units. This situation is probably due to the lower timber productivities found here. The average parcel size and ownership size are the same under this forest deferral program, being 96.6 acres. The most frequent parcel size or model size is 160 acres. It ;s important to note, however, that timber holdings are also disjoined or scattered as are the livestock grazing lands. This is evident upon examination of the lot survey study within Critical Winter Ranges, Chapter D, and looking on the Map C titled Forest Assessment Lands which locates timberland holdings. C-38 U 0- i; t,r ..~}: ~~:; .............. ~,.: ~':. --:: ,:. . ~. ~ .~ .~~~-~ .:>.-~ "-:.r.-"': .-. .t::-:. ,.:•• C :~~~ ~;:J ··ji. '::h--. 1k.: ':~:.~. ~~{~ ~~y :1 }'t 6¥.-;'·· !S1 ~~ #.~-~ .,';,........-:.. . , .~- ~.¥: ~~""~1 Publ ic land management/coordination~ tax situations and existing plan and zoning analysis are nearly the same as discussed in the previous two study areas. Further review of the map on the previous page shows the similar mixed-use nature of the sub-area with the farm deferral/forest assessment acerages on timber industry proper- ties. The actual acreages are in the appendix for Parcels A through D. Relatively few land partitions have occurred here as is also the case in the other two mountain/highland study regions. Only eight land partitions in ten years illustrate the stability of grazing and timberland operations~ even under the rather small existing minimum lot size standards of five and 19 acres adopted in 1972 and in effect up to May of 1983. The average partition size was around 35 acres~ and the most frequent size was 40 acres. Half, or four, of the parcels were 40 acres, and two of the eight were 20 acres in size. Most of these partitions occurred where some recreational pressures have existed for many years. Again, as might be expected, no real consensus could be reached on an appropriate resource minimum lot size here. However, the South County Committee~ which consisted largely of cattle ranchers~ felt that the 1972~ 19 acre minimum lot size had been workable and had not created conflicts in resource areas. They recommended continuing this 19 acre minimum lot size to protect private grazing and forest lands. In 1983~ the County adopted two resource zones. One applied to timber industry lands, and one applied to livestock ranchers' properties, both having a 40 acre minimum lot size. [Revised] Conclusions of Mountain/Hig~lands Lot Size Analysis Results of the above area studies show that mountain/highlands in the county are areas of multiple uses. Inventory information supports the variableness of activities occurring here. It is apparent that management and protection measures should then be flexible yet effective to protect the important land use activities occurring in this portion of the c~unty. This flexibility, while C-40 not as evident as in the North/South County Agriculture Regions, is still evident from the fractured lot size and ownership patterns. At a minimum, any regulations should consider the smallest, most frequent and separated parcel size which is owned by timber or livestock managers and still being successfully utilized. From the above, data indicates this size to be around 80 acres. A more detailed discussion follows regarding management regulation choices that relate to lot and management pattern sizes. Sub-area reviews also showed that the 1972 plan and zones of F-2, F-5 and F-l had been fairly successful in protecting resource uses and values despite their low to medium-low minimum lot sizes. The explanation for originally choosing 19 acres as the minimum lot size for agriculture was explained in Chapter B. The five acre minimum lot size for the forest zone in 1972 was felt to be a size flexible enough to also allow small timber interests to reasonably purchase lots for forest management and also to allow recreation lots to be sold. Both uses were considered appropriate and assumptions were that very few recreational lots would be sold because many of the areas zoned F-5 were highly inaccessible and largely owned by livestock ranchers or major timber companies not usually interested in selling off their lands. The effectiveness of the 1972 five acre forest and 19 acre agriculture zones can be seen more directlY by the number of non-resource land partitions. An eleven-year record totaled only 21 land divisions (about two per year) in some 200,000 acres of.forest/grazing land. Apparently, the original assumption of the unlikeliness of rampant'--recreational lot df\ifsfonswe're borrie 6ut 'a-nd-the minihiCfrnlot sizes of the zones (particularly the 19 acre zone), at least in part prevented vast areas of r,esource lands from being converted to non-resource uses. Many more recreational land divisions could have taken place especially in the approximately 47,000 acres of F-5 zoned land (five acre minimum lots sizes) and on some scattered properties zonea R-4 (one acre recreational residential) totall~ surrounded by resource land uses. 'C-41 The above evidence tends to reflect a favorable record of the existing plan's effectiveness with the exception of some state goals conflict problems pertaining to the R-4 Recreational Residential zoning that was corrected with 1983 amendments to this plan. Publ ic involvement comments on minimum lot sizes, including agency and property owner opinions, had varied so much, they did not give a very clear guidance as to what might have been acceptable or workable. Some citizens felt that the 1972 lot sizes were doing the original job of protection and providing flexibility, while others have expressed that a more realistic resource size of a 20 acre minimum should have replaced the old 1972 five acre minimum lot size, the latter being more of a recreational lot size and density. State and federal agencies and several large timber companies maintained that larger minimum lot sizes (around 80 or 160 acres) would have better protected and maintained those resource lands. A few wheat and livestock ranchers also agreed to larger lot size minimums than required in 1972. (See Steve Corey letter in Appendix). As previously reported, a few citizens had expressed that no minimum parcel size be established, but instead a land partitioning review be made for each partition proposal. It was evident from the above analysis that no matter what protection measures were proposed, they would be unpopular. In 1983, the county adopted a 40 acre minimum lot size as a compromise between all the sizes that were suggested for the two zones (Grazing Farm and Forest Conservation) that applied to this area. However, LCDC said that the county did not adequately justify its 40 acre minimum lot size. They also said that a 40 acre minimum lot size wouldn't necessarily conserve forest lands for forest uses. Upon further review of the Grazing/Forest area, the county has decided to take a slightly different approach than ~easures adopted in 1983. First, the county has, (' /I ') according to LCOC's most recent policy changes, documentec! that the Grazing/Forest area is a mixed use forest--the most predominate use being for grazing, with secondary uses of timber management and some inclusions of cultivated agriculture. Based upon the mixed use forest designation, the county has decided that only one zone instead of the present two zones would be appropriate. The present Grazing/ Farm zone is to be retained while the Forest Conservation Zone is to be eliminated. The choice of the zone was felt appropriate for foothill/highland grazing/forested lands because existing management patterns, management concerns and needs, state goals, current tax policies and adjacent zon~ng all logically point toward this number. The zone is to be applied to the two major resource users and owners: (1) timber industry property; and (2) livestock grazing and other agricultural use lands. A one zone concept not only fits in with the present tax deferral programs occurring here but also with the North/South County Agricultural Region's zoning which are both adjacent to the Grazing/Forest designated areas. What types of standards that would protect resource uses and still remain flexible enough to administer was largely determined by the following: (1) resource capa- bilities of the area; (2) adjacent'zoning proposals; (3) partition records from 1972-1984; (4) management and field patterns; (5) lot and ownership inventory studies; and (6) compromises of various protection suggestions from citizens and public agencies for a variety of mountain/highland resources (eg. fish and wildlife habitat, watershed management, timber and grazing management). Examination of these factors indicates that with slight modifications to the matrix system adopted for the North/South County Agriculture area, this system can be applied here as well. Not only does the matrix system provide the desired flexibility and resource protection, but this system permits a fairly unified land use regulation scheme for the two major resource areas of the county that boarder one another. Speci- fically, the 80 ~cre administrative parcel size guide used in the North/South C-43 County Agriculture areas can be used in a similar manner for the Grazing/Forest lands. These lands are often just extensions of the lower foothill and plateau wheat/grazing land operations found in the North/South Agriculture Regions. Livestock ranchers and other forest users owning land in the Grazing/Forest area suggested that lot size flexibility was not as critical here. This fact was supported by the relatively few number of partitions that have occurred since 1972 (only sixteen). However, resource users and owners said that there were instances where boundary adjustments to permit land trading would be needed. They requested that this type of flexibility be incorporated into the matrix system. The matrix system would work in the following manner or the Grazing/forest area: (1) The same 80 acre minimum lot size guide used in the North/South Agriculture Region1s review will be utilized here mostly as a lot size minimum rather than a guideline. (2) Only where cultivation now takes place within the Grazing/Forest designation will the S3.lHe policies and standards adopted for the North/south County Agriculture Regions apply. (3) Slightly modified standards pertaining to a variety of non-farm uses found in the North/South Agriculture Regions will apply to a range of permitted non-resource uses that may wish to locate in the Grazing/ Forest areas of the county. In particular, non-resource dwellings must ~eet stricter standards and criteria which includes fire safety measures and a narrower definition of what constitutes generally unsuitable soils. The 80 acre lot size minimum has been determined to be a size that will conserve the mixed use forest land of Umatilla County for the variety of activities occurring C-44 here that are defined as forest uses in State Land Use Planning Goal #4. This size is chosen and is supported for a variety of reasons. First, the most prevalent, separated parcel size owned by established livestock ranchers is 80 acres. This is quite often the case for timber "industry ownerships as well. Testimony shows that these sizes are successfully managed even in an isolated situation. Secondly, those privately owned, non-timber industry lands which qualify under the forest assessment program to manage their land for eventual timber harvests have an overall parcel size average of 58.2 acres and an- overall ownership size of 80.3 acres. Both these average size figur~s are in the fange of the 80 acre minimum lot size chosen, thereby reflective of this current forest use size. Thirdly, past partitioning since 1972 in areas truly resource-oriented (without existing recreational influences) has an overall average parcel size of 112 acres; whereas if all past partitions since 1972 are taken into account, with some being in areas adjacent to recreat; onal pressure;--the avera-gepartition si z"e"; s reduced to" 65 acres. Fourthly, 80 acres rerluces the speculation aspect, so much a concern of the state and of local livestock ranchers and timber industry owners. The average market value per acre in the Grazing/Forest area according to the assessor is about $175 per acre. To buy 80 acres, a purchaser would pay $14,000 and upward for just the lando While this is not a large amount, it can, along with other factors, be very much a deterent to non-resource land speculation. These other deterents include location~ access'and desired purchase sizes. There are very few areas outside of presently designated multiple use lands that have the accessibilty to major roads and services expected by potential recreational land buyers. Most buyers only want enough land to build or place a recreational dwelling on and C-45 have a little elbow room. This usually amounts to about five acres. Most certainly, if 80 acres is the minimum lot size, the cost of the land along with the unwanted size and usual inaccessibility of most of the land would all greatly reduce speculation. Fifthly, a significant amount of the written and public testimony also tends to support a larger minimum lot size than presently in effect. Letters from Steve Corey (a livestock rancher), Boise Cascade (a timber industry) and from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Tribal Planners of the Umatilla Indian Reservation all indicate that an 80 acre minimum lot size would be acceptable and would protect forest lands for forest uses. (See attachments at end of chapter for letters submitted). Also, several other livestock ranchers interviewed were agreeable to this minimum lot size--that it would protect grazing interests in the Grazing/ Forest areas of the county. Sixthly, watershed quantity and quality will be protected by the 80 acre minimum lot size standard and other plan policies. Department of Environmental Quality regulations and the Forest Practices Act remain as the main forms of water quality protection along with new stream bank protection policies assigned to any new development proposing locations near streams and lakes. Concluding, the County feels that if new parcels of 80 acres or larger are permitted, they will conserve forest lands for most forest uses and will continue the existing commercial agricultural enterprises of the small inclusion areas devoted to agriculture. The last important forest use not touched upon yet ;s the critical winter range lands found in the grazing/forest areas of Umatilla County. As part of the matrix review system, a special overlay zone and review process has been incorporated to C-46 protect these lands. The specifics explaining the overlay zone and review process are explained in detail in Chapter D. C-47 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Part I Comprehensive Plan of Umatilla County. 2. Interview with Larry Hoffman, State Forestry Department, June 1982. 3. Ibid of 1. 4. USDA, U.S. Forest Service, Elgin Planning Unit Final EIS, 1979. 5. Ibid of 3 and 1. 6. "The Forest Resources of Umatilla County, Oregon," State Department of Forestry, 197.1. 7. Ibid. 8. Ibid. 9. Ibid. 10. Ibid of 4. 11 • "Umatilla Economic 12. Ibid. 13. Ibid. Statement," East Central Oregon Association of Counties, 1979. C-48 OPEN SPACES, SCENIC AND HISTORIC AREAS AND NATURAL RESOURCES INVENTORYING GOAL 5 RESOURCES [New] Existing and potential resources covered by this chapter were analyzed according to the required statewide land use Goal 5 process (OAR 660-16-000). Sites and resources were first reviewed to see whether or not they should be included as Il va lid ll inventory. If so, uses that conflict or may conflict with the inventoried Goal 5 resource were identified. A conflicting use is one which, if allowed, could negatively impact a Goal 5 resource. Where conflicting uses have been identified Goal 5 resources may impact those uses as well. These impacts were addressed by analyzing economic, social, environmental and energy (ESEE) consequences. Then, a determination was made to preserve the resource if no conflicts were evident; or if conflicts were present, to protect the resource, allow conflict"irlg uses or to limit conflicting use, depending upon the importance of the resource and the specific circumstances. This Goal 5 process is shown on the diagram on page 0- 2 • LAND NEEDED OR DESIRABLE FOR OPEN SPACE Open space is defined by Statewide Planning Goal 5 as Ill ands used for agricultural or forest uses, and any land area that would, if preserved and continued in its present use: (a)C~~~~rve and enhance natural or scenic resources; (b) Protect air or streams or water supply; (c) Promote conservation of soils, wetlands, beaches or tidal marshes; (d) Consrve landscaped areas, such as public or private golf courses, that reduce air pollution and enhance the value of abutting or neighboring property; (e) Enhance the value to the public of abutting or neighboring parks, forests, wildife presrves, nature reservations or 5ancturaries or other open space; ~ 1 =- - (Per'j ad; c Updates)- - - ....... 1 COLLECT, DEVELOP DATA......- - -(Pl an Amendments) -- ON GOAL 5 RESOURCES ANALYZE, REFINE DATA; ,DETERMINE SUFFICIENCY, SIGNIFICANCE, ETC. 1A t U ...•. • 1B • U .. •.... .. + AVAILABLE INFORMATION ON LOCATION, SOME INFORMATION AVAILABLE BUT QUALITY AND QUANTITY INDICATES INADEQUATE TO IDENTIFY THE RESOURCE SITE NOT IMPORTANT: RESOURCE SITE: , I NOT INCLUDED ON PLAN INVENTORY; NO FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED OR APPROPRIATE FOR GOAL 5 COMPLIANCE I I .....- 1 INCLUDE ON PLAN INVENTORY AS A SPECIAL CATEGORY; ADOPT PLAN STATEMENT TO ADDRESS THE RESOURCE SITE AND GOAL 5 PROCESS IN FUTURE, STATING TIME FRAME; NO SPECIAL RESTRICTING PLAN POLICIES, I ZONING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS, OR INTERIM REVIEW MECHANISM REQUIRED I OR APPROPRIATE FOR GOAL 5 COMPLIANCE I I I I I I d lC INFORMATION AVAILABLE: DETERMINE ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, ENERGY CONSEQUENCE+OF CONFLICTING USES 3 DEVELOP A PROGRAM TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL: RESOLVE CONFLICTS BASED ON PRESENTLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION AND DETERMINATION OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, ENERGY CONSEQUENCES: • PROVIDE INFORMATION ON LOCATION, QUALITY, AND QUANTITY AND INCLUDE ON PLAN INVENTORY +2 IDENTIFY CONFLICTING USES ! ~I I 2B "t CONFLICTING USES IDENTIFIED: 2A NO CONFLICTING USES IDENTIFIED: MANAGE RESOURCE SITE SO AS TO PRESERVE ORIGINAL CHARACTER _-J..... 3A PRESERVE THE RESOURCE SITE: _II1II_-" 3B ALLOW CONFLICTING USE: .....~~3C SPECIFICALLY LIMIT CONFLICTING USE I f ::::~:~~~~::~~f=:~~:~:~==~:~:(~~~T:~2~~~~1~~1~H~~:::::::::~~::::::::::~~~~f:~::::~:::: ...----. t I t I ! PERIODIC UPDATES ADDRESS AS STATED IN THE PLAN I __ T~Rnllr,H PI AN AMFNnMFNTS ll, II PI llN .I1MJ:"I\If1MJ:"I\IT- - - -- (f) Promote orderly urban development. II In a county such as Umatilla, which has a total area of 2,074,496 acres, with less than .02% of it urban or built-up, it is difficult to comprehend the need to preserve "open space. 1I Yet, some measures are necessary to insure the maintenance of t he qual i ty of the open space en vi ronment now enj oyed in Umat ill a County. As noted in the above definition, lands on which agricultural and forest crops are produced provide a secondary use as open space. Of the 2.07 million acres that comprise the county·s land base, over 95% is in crop, pasture, range and forest production (see Land Use Map, page 0-4 and Table 0-1). In addition, lands scattered among areas suitable for agricultural or forest uses, but not themselves suitable, such as scabland and sand dunes, also serve as open space. See the agricultural and forest sections of this report for a detailed analysis of those area s • TABLE 0-1 LAND-USES IN UMATILLA COUNTY LAND-USE Range Cropland Forested Urban and Built-up Pasture Lakes, River, and Streams TOTAL AREA ACRES 760,000 'L', i(J) --~'2-1 It; Up &0 (> 700,000 ~.20, 000 40,000 36,000 4,000 2,060,000 I.u J SOURCE: Soil and Water Conservation Needs Inventory, January 1971, and U.S. Forest Service, 1979. D-3 NOTE: This map is :or illustration purposes only. For more detailed information please contact the Umatilla County Planning Department, Pendleton, Oregon. R27E R28: 10", .:. S w 1'29: " jZi j - ~~r WA£":'Q~·t": s,",,=F: :_ i~~,: o o o o II o o LEGEND CITIES RURAL/RECREATIONAL RESIDENTIAL NON·IRRIGATED CROPLAND PASTURE ORCHARD IRRIGATED CROPLAND RANGE LAND and MOUNTAIN GRAZING FOREST LAND FEDERAL LAND JANUARY, 1980 ~ W§)2) (J)~ ::>E 2) C Z? <~ W§) Several culturally significant resources may need an open space designation for protection or enhancement. Geological, historical, and other natural scenic features require vision clearance. Wilderness areas, wild and scenic waterways, and significant natural areas need to remain undisturbed to insure proper results of experiments and observations; in this case, neighboring activities may disturb a natural area, and open space designation can be spelled out for both the area and its surroundings. In areas needed for eventual conversion into a non-agricultural or non-forest use, an open space designation can help reduce economic costs and minimize incompatible land uses. Many examples of this can be cited. Extraction of sand and gravel resources can be blocked by development on, or immediately adjacent to, deposits. Identification of resource areas is difficult, limited now to noting existing extraction areas and some lands owned by extraction companies. Once identified, future protection areas will need designations of open space uses or readily removable, temporary interim uses, with sand and gravel extraction as the primary use, and post-extraction and uses delineated to better guide state reclamation requi rements. Industrial and energy facilities often require large areas of buffer land that will prevent conflicting land uses. Interim open space designation is appropriate for these sites. Hinkle-Feedville, Westland, and from the Port of Umatilla to Hat Rock State Park are interim open space areas to be preserved for land-extensive industries and their buffers. Specific inventories and management needs for various types of open spaces follow. FISH AND WILDLIFE AREAS AND HABITATS [This section (text and Tables D-II through D-XIV) is excerpted and adopted from the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Plan for Umatilla County, prepared by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, June 1978 0-5 and revised by letter, June 16, 1982. 1 2 Additional material provided by the Umatilla County Planning Department Staff.] Introduction Production of fish and wildlife is dependant on a quality environment. The production diminishes almost in inverse proportion to the leve'! of indiscriminate land use activities affecting their habitat. The goals of fish and wildlife resource management is to maintain the highest possible level of fish and wildlife production in order to provide a variety of harvest opportunities by recreational and commercial uses. This means -guiding the development of road, hou-sing, and land clearing and general development activities to assure minimal impacts to the environment. With careful planning, protection of the fish and wildlife habitat can be accomplished while still permitting a wide range of land uses. [Revised] It must be emphasized that few, if any, areas in the County are devoid of fish and wildlife and all areas are subject to land use impacts. However, certain habitats are of particular importance and so are designated as IIsensitive.1I A sensitive habitat is a land or water area where sustaining the natural resource characteristics is important or essential to the production and maintenance of fish or wildlife. Thus, the designation of sensitive areas is designed to focus attention on particular areas, habitats and species that are especially sensitive to land use activities. As will be noted later, these sensitive habitats are categorized as IIsignificnat natural areas,1I "species occurance areas" and "good habitat areas. 1I Significant natural areas and species occurance areas are generally so important and sensitive that some form of land use protection measures are warrented. The good habitat areas include valuable wildlife areas) such as critical deer and elk winter range. These areas may, depending on individual situations, require additional protection. These sensitive habitats will be addressed in more detail later in this chapter. 0-6 SPECIES WATERFOWL: Ma 11 ard Gadwa 11 Pintail Green-wing teal Blue-wing teal Cinnamon teal Widgeon Shoveler Wood duck Redhead Ruddy duck Common Merganser Coot Common Snipe SHORE BIRDS: Great blue heron Ni ght heron Common egret American Bittern White pelican Ring-billed gull California gull Forester l stern Caspian tern Cu r 1ew HAWKS AND OWLS: Goshawk Sharp shinned hawk Cooper1s hawk Swainson1s hawk Red-tailed hawk Rough-legged hawk Ferruginous hawk Marsh Hawk Osprey Golden Eagle Bald Eagle Prarie falcon Peregrine Falcon Kestrel Hawk Me r1in Screech owl Great horned owl Pygmy owl Burrowing owl 0-9 RELATIVE ABUNDANCE Few Common Few Abundant Common Few Few Few Few Few Few Few Common Common Few Common Few Few Few Common Common Common Common Fe\'J Few Few Few Common Common Common Few Common Few Few Few Few Few Common Few Common Few Few Few SPECIES HAWKS A~D OWLS/cont'd: Long-eared owl Barn owl Great grey owl Turkey vulture REPTILES AND ANPHIBIANS: Pacific pond turtle Western painted turtle Rattle Snake Rubber boa Ring-necked snake Blue racer Gopher snake Mountain king snake Garter snake Western collared lizerd Leopard 1i zard Swift Blue-bellied lizard Pigmy horned lizard Desert horned lizard Western skink Oregon red-legged frog California yellow-legged frog Bullfrog Loepard frog Spotted frog North Western toad; Long-toed salamander Oregon newt NON-GAME MAMMALS: Short-tailed weasel Long-tailed weasel Yellow bellied marmot Hoary marmot Townsend ground squirrel Belding ground squirrel Columbia ground squirrel Golden mantled ground squirrel Townsend chipmunk Yellow pine chipmunk Heast chipmunk Chickaree Northern flying squirrel Ord kangaroo rat Dusky-footed wood rat Bushy-tailed woodrat RELATIVE ABUNDANCE Few Few Few Few Common Few Few Few Few Few Common Few Common Common Few Abundant Few Few Common Few Common Common Common Common Common Few Common Few Few Few Common Few Few Few Common Common Common Common Common Common Common Few Common Common 0-10 It is not only important that sensitive habitats or species receive protection, but it is also important to consider impacts on land and water use on all habitats and species. Wi 1dl i fe Habi tat In Umatilla County there are twenty-six species of amphibians and reptiles, two hundred fifty-nine species of birds and eighty-nine species of mammals (see Table D-II for a detail~d list). All forms of wildlife require specific kinds of habitat (food, water and cover) in order to maintain themselves. The key to maintaining wildlife in Umatilla County is the retention of as much cover as possible through wise land use planning. For wildlife, the most important land classifications are agriculture, forestry, open space and hazardous floodplain. Due to the importance of fish and wildlife to Umatilla County for both consumptive and non-consumptive uses, fish and wildlife need to be considered as acceptable uses in these major land use classifications. Hunting of big game, upland game and waterfowl provided 226,000 days of recreation in Umatilla County during 1981. Associated with these recreational days are hunter expenditures of around $8.8 million. Some unknown proportion of these expenditures were made in Umatilla County. Also associated with the days of hunting are net benefits (hypothetical access charge) to hunters of about $5 million. In addition to the hunting recreational days, the wildlife resource in Umatilla County also provided many additional days of recreation for the non-consumptive user for acti- vities such as photography, bird and animal viewing, and nature study activities. Although not as important as recreational hunting, trapping and furbearer hunting provided some 1500 days of activity and yielded a harvest of pelts worth approximately $27,600 at first sale. D-7 TABLE D~II A PARTIAL LIST OF WILDLIFE SPECIES COMMONLY FOUND IN UMATILLA COUNTY This list does not include non-game birds as they are too numerous to list here. SPECIES BIG GAME: Rocky Mountain Elk Mule Deer White-tailed deer Pronghorn antelope Black bear Cougar FURBEARERS: Beaver Muskrat River Otter Mink Ma rt in Coyote Redfox Bob cat Raccoon Spotted skunk Striped skunk Badger Porcupine GAME BIRDS: Bob white quail California quail Chukar partridge Hungarian partridge Tu rkey Ring-necked pheasant Blue grouse Ruffed grouse Mourning dove WATERFOWL: Whistling swan Canada Goose Snow Goose 0-8 RELATIVE ABUNDANCE Common (East half) Abundant Few Few Few Few Common Common Few Few Few Common Few Few Common Few Few Common Few Few Common Common Common Few Abundant Common Common Common Few Common Few SPECIES NON-GAME MAMMALS/cont'd: Pika Pigmy rabbit 8rush rabbit Montain cottontail Eastern cottontail Snowshoe hare White tailed jackrabbit Black tailed jackrabbit RELATIVE ABUNDANCE Few Common Common Common Few Common Common Common SOURCE: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Plan for Umatilla County, June, 1978. Big Game A statewide Department of Fish and Wildlife goal is to protect habitat and manage big game so that it will provide for the optimum number of big game mammals. This will provide needed recreational opportunities, both consumptive and non-consumptive. Umatilla County not only provides wintering areas for summering animals found in ~matilla County, it also provides a wintering areas for big game animals which summer in parts of Wallowa, Union, Grant and Morrow Counties. Deer, elk and bear are the major big game species in Umatilla County. The basic habitat requirements of big game mammals include food, water, cover and freedom from harrassment. These requirements are found in and adjacent to the forested and rangeland areas of Umatilla County. Estimated population and average expenditures for big game are presented in Tables 0-111 and D-IV. D-11 TABLE 0-111 Estimated Big Game Populations in Umatilla County, 1978 Species Big Game: Rocky Mountain Elk Mule Deer White-tailed Deer Pronghorn Antelope Black Bear Mountain Lion Estimated Populations 9,000 18,500 270 60 150 25 During 1977, big game hunting in Umatilla County provided nearly 150,000 recreational days valued at over six million dollars (Table D-IV). Demand for bi g game hunt; ng increases yearly. TABLE O-IV Average Expenditures on Big Game Resources for One Year (1977) in Umatilla County Species Hunters Recreational Expenditu res Total Days for One Expenditure Recreational Day Big Game: Rocky Mt .. E'l k 28,000 104,053 $ 36 .. 44 $ 3,791,691 .. 00 Mule Deer 10,043 42,212 49.90 2,106,378 .. 00 Black Bear 620 3,181 55.23 175,686 .. 00 Total: 39,043 149,446 $ 6,073,755 .. 00 0-12 The sensitive areas for big game are those lands essential to the survival of deer and elk during the critical winter periods (map, page D-14). They include gentle south facing slopes found in forested land types created naturally; by fire or by logging. Additional sites are found on grassy portions of drainages at low elevation. These areas are primarily in wood fiber production or agricultural use such as pasture lands. Examples of these areas are found on Cottonwood Creek, North and South Fork of Walla Walla River, Couse Creek, Wildhorse Creek, Umatilla River, Meacham Creek, McKay Creek, Birch Creek, Snipe Creek, Ownings Creek, Camas Creek, Bridge Creek and Butter Creek, to name a few. [New] The Nature Conservancy has specifically noted four good habitat areas for big game; Upper Cottonwood Creek, Blalock Mountain and Flume Canyon, Bridge Creek and the south Fork of the Walla Walla River. Bridge Creek is already part of a state wildlife management area and the South Fork Walla Walla is located on BLM and County land (Harris Park) for which a management plan has been developed. The other two areas should be protected by a winter range overlay zone or similar zoning provisions (further discussions of these areas is found later in this Chapter). The major land use conflict with big game mammals is the constant degradation of the land through developments such as single dwelling houses, roads and recreational homesites. This degradation is observed in the animal population as reduced carrying capacity and a decline in reproduction. The problem is not just the loss of land displaced by a house, road or multiple dwelling development; it is also the harassment associated with these activities. For example, a single dwelling density of one house per 40 acres on the McKay Creek deer winter range will reduce the carrying capacity of that range by twenty-five to fifty percent. However, if the housing density is maintained at one house per 160 acres, the carrying capacity is reduced by 0 to fifteen percent. See Table D-V for a more detailed list of acceptable and non-acceptable uses on sensitive wildlife habitats. 0-13 SOURCE: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Mission Highway, Pendleton, Oregon 97801. E::s § @?\ ~-.:J G5 w "z« cc. 0: W Iw-Z8 ;; C:;--~::>~ ~ §-:~::'~ ..;;L. §;;' -I §:, W @:§) ~ ~2:- .- ..... 0: ;~~~~; W~ W ~~.~ C···&-..I -":.:":." 16 MILES 6 LEGEND DEER & ELK o DEER o R29E l1N .."C--> -'-=1...>':1: r::::>i:""~ I ::." C)~l:' ~ ! I c -':::1 (-"~'e;l') - c: ::: "'-- :::1 ~ ~l:. > C (j ..... O·--{ -,::.; U: 1 ::;:1c., I ;. -I >::> 1 =1 ~: ~'.. ::.:. ~- :-~i t- i f!- f ;-;- -- t-- -- -- -- -- -r=~--t-:--JI; i-i -I--T~- -lJ-Trl'l~i-tx: ---~i-i-f-! "-l-i--'---l---t-~ I-lrti---t --l--j--r ~xt---~" L j I_L! ~~l-- ! __ .J._ -- - I ~'I ~-~_. I -t"-'1- I t-[);~-- '--.!~ i l..-__+ \ 0 - 0 i f- 0 I : --,- \ _L.. , I' f---.- _. ~, I I 1 i I I I i I IJ II I I I I: I '"I I I i I! I I 1 I 'I I : I I I I ~ I . t.,": ~ :" J.',: I I r 0 l' I I ~ I i-I Y J'X X' vly; II IX IXI v 'i I' l IX; iX' ,i l ! vi I -, - > - ' L 1 I ,.... t" I ,'Ar- I I 1 I I I ,\ I til' II' I l I I 1\ I ., -,.'~::<·-",:.l--t:--r !-i-41i I-l----~--------------I li- --f ----ftj-l-I-!Tlo-l-I-l-o--ij - ---II 1--!-I'---- 1---, --l-~- r-t1--; -~~-r- -, -- t -r-t------ r,· • _." ., '~D I I ' : : ! I I I r~ I ',' • " I I i XI I X I I t. I I l I I 0 I I A 1 I : I:' i.~ t ~ .';:- '. ~ ~-,.: ~+-I"r-r ll-~ r t_·ill -; ----t--------------l-~-l-t'i- r~-t --- -t -~t·-ll-t1- -- --: ~I ~-tl- -J1-'-~l -- ~---- iX~+I.j -'I --I --\--+-;-'---11-:-, -~--f---'.~' " iL.J, ,I I" I I r -, I :t I I j I t I I /\ I I, I l ~)\ I /'" I I I:'ca'~." npqTrll1rT-----~-- --f,-l:1x1 n;. - ~. JT,++W,-f -f --lltllJr---I-l-tTlxtt~ --r-n-------II-;<---- r-t-t-r+t-tJ1-t----1--.------ -' -----11t1 -\' '-- '- -rt-11 - -l----t-t-t- - t---~-- ---i--l--1-+ L -~-J.:... --.l. -l __ ~~-----3.~;:, :. r)1 ! 0 HilL! tf I , I i I: I I ; I II ! IS",v-" lD, 1 j I iX :i ~ X I. X I X I I I to I 0 I~ L' : i I '\:_'_'~n~~e"jltllLl[[=_=--~l---OJ::I]lIUU -L---' IT iLJJJJ111~! JxJl TI-;--- A = .,',.cc,-:p::3~le le'.rel of dev~lo?::e:1c D - Desirable lev~l 0: c~·:e:'o?:-:-.ent x - This t<;ni: 2.?plies. ,1--{ Ra-:l.ge of reduction i;l carrying capacity Source: Department of Pish and Wildlife, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Plan for Umatilla County, 1978. While corrective action attempts to resolve the present levels of conflicts between big game and other land uses, planning efforts must consider the impact of new homes and commercial developments on big game and game habitat. When new homes, agr-icultural crops and other developments are placed in areas that have strong populations of deer and elk, damage to gardens, ornamental shrubs and croplands will intensify. These conflicts are usually difficult and expensive to resolve, both in terms of loss to the landowner and loss of valuable game habitat. [New] Each year the Department of Fish and Wildlife spends a substantial amount of money and staff time attempting to resolve perennial conflicts between big game and rural residents. Attempting to minimize future conflicts certainly will prove to be a cost-saving measure for ODFW. The state also spends considerable time and money each year to reduce elk and deer damage to crops and pasture land. [New] The hunting of big game species is a major form of recreation in this county. As noted in Table D-IV, annually hunters become significant contributers to the local economy as well as substantial financiers of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Because hunting and hunters are dependent on survival of the species, the economic consequences of not insuring adequate quantities of habitat would be very costly both locally and statewide. The general economic benefits associated with land use planning also can be considered as an economic consequence of limiting development in rural areas. Other resources besides wildlife benefit from a minimization of development. Also, facilitiy and other potential development costs to taxpayers are reduced. [New] If the conflicting uses were not allowed, it would cause financial hardship and possibly remove housing opportunity for resource uses. By not being permitted to construct a residence or accessory use on a specific site, the property owner may suffer a severe financial lasso However, if specific siting of structures were 0-16 possi ble which may preserve habitat but allow the use~ the financial hardship would be reduced. Limiting farm uses would severely reduce agricultural production and perhaps withdraw valuable agricultural land from production. The current farmi ng practices still maintain a sufficient amount of diversified vegetation for cover and food. [New] Only a small portion of the actual confl~cts associated with rural living and big game are documented by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Browsing by deer and elk on ornamental vegetation is a most common nuisance. Dogs chasing big game is also common. These potential conflicts can be minimized by limiting uses in designated habitat areas. The negative social consequences of limiting residential densities in habitat areas means the desire to live in rural areas for many people will reamin unsatisfied. Also~ as mentioned under economic consequences, personal financial hardship may be a soical as well as economic by- product of strict adherence to a presecribed regulation. [New] The environmental consequences of limiting development are predominantly positive in that they preserve habitat areas. The elk and deer will have greater opportunities to flourish within an area of undisturbed habitat. The riparian corridors would not be intruded upon and the deer and elk could move from one habitat type to another freely. The deer and elk would have greater access to water areas~ especially during dry summer months. In addition~ other game and nongame wildlife would have opportunities for use of the habitat. [New] The energy consequences of limiting development should be entirely positive. Trip generation associated with development located in remote parts of the county will be minimized by density and development restrictions. As a result~ develop- ment will occur closer to cities and services for which specific trips are often made and thus energy is often used. [New] The consequences of establishing requirements which limit development and 0-17 residential density in specified big game habitat areas should prove generally to be an overall benefit not only to big game and the OOFW but also to the en vi ronlllcnt, the economy, and to the goa 1 of conservi ng energy. Pr'ovi ded a prov i - sian for extenuating circumstances in conjunction with review by ODFW is included, the benefits of limiting development and residential density in specified habitat areas ;s warranted. [New] No limitation should be placed on current agricultural practices other than maintaining a minimum lot size which will minimize big game harrassment and providing streambank setbacks for riparion vegetation protection. Upland Game Birds A State Department of Fish and Wildlife goal is to protect existing agricultural, range and forest habitats and manage upland game in a manner to provide for optimum numbers of upland game birds. This will provide for needed recreational opportunities, consumptive as well as non-consumptive. Seven upland game bird species are found in Umatilla County. Three basic habitat types provide the food, water and cover requirements. It is important to note that in many areas these three habitat types are intermixed and that all seven species or birds can be found utilizing the same area. (1) Lowland Farmlands This habitat type is utilized mainly by pheasants, quail, and mourning doves. The habitat type includes dry land and irrigated land intermixed with wet meadows; riparian zones along watercourses; pasture land; brushy fence rows; and woodlots and brushy draws. The key habitat requirement is cover for nesting, hiding and protection from winter weather. Actions that have reduced the available cover for these species are: (a) removal of riparian habitat through 0-18 overgrazing or more efficient farming methods; (b) removal of roadside and fence row cover; (c) loss of cover from aerial application of chemicals on agricultural crops (spray drift); and (d) spread of residential home developments into productive agricultural farmlands. (2) Upland Range Lands This habitat type is utilized by the Hungarian partridge and chukar partridge and can be defined as open range land associated with brushy draws, rock tallis slopes and canyon rim rock. These species are seed, grass and insect feeders and will generally maintain themselves at high levels when sound rangeland management is applied to the land. (3) Forest Lands This habitat type is utilized by both the ruffed and blue grouse and can be defined as forested lands associated with brushy draws, dense stands of timber and open grassy slopes. Not a great deal is known about managing habitat to increase grouse populations. Main- taining a wide variety of vegetative types appears to be important. Seed and fruit bearing plants should be protected during forest and woodlot operations. Riparian zones along all watercourses should be maintained. Umatilla County, like most of eastern Oregon, has experienced a substantial reduction in upland game bird species. Reasons for this are varied and complex. Factors causing the decline include destruction of habitat, chemical minipulation of insect, and vegetation and predator increases (mainly domestic dogs and cats). Estimated populations and average expenditures for upland game are presented in Tables O-VI and D-VII. 0-19 1Y TABLE D~VI Estimated Upland Game Population in Umatilla County, 1978 Species Upland Game: Ring-necked Pheasant Va 11 ey Quai 1 Ruffed Grouse Blue Grouse Chukar Partridge Hungarian Partridge Mourning Dove Est i ,-nafec1-·~.-. Population 48,000 31,000 3,000 4,800 16,000 5,000 29,000 In 1977, upland game hunting provided over 90,000 recreational days valued at over one million dollars (Table D-VII). TABLE D-VII Average Expenditures on Upland Game Resources for One Year (1977) in Umatilla County Species Hunters Recreational Expenditures Total Days for One Expenditures Recreational Day Upland Game: Ring-necked Pheasant 8,340 43,455 $ 11.95 $ 507.337 Vall ey Quail 2,827 16,126 11.95 192.705 Grouse 2,136 14,437 11.95 172.522 Chukar Partri dge 1,517 6,142 11.95 73,396 Hungarian Partri dge 861 3,386 11.95 40,462 Mourning Dove ~~ 7,628 11.95 91,154 TOTAL 17,145 90,174 $1,007,579 ....:.=-_'"::Z,=~==--~~ ":-:::::S':":=":::.::.=.-::=:-":::_:;I..;...=;::-::::;"::::::::=.• . -::'.::::l-._==-=a-='~.'~~~-:::-=-~~~•.~.-::z~.::::2:~="~= .::&.~;::l:",:;~~~ . %"~-::::::= Specific sensitive habitat areas for upland game birds are difficult to identify on a map due to the diversity of habitat requirements and the large land area within the county that is considered productive habitat. As a general rule 0-20 the following habitat should be maintained wherever possible: 1. Riparian zone along all watercourses. 2. Brushy cover associated with wet medaows or woodlots. 3. Sagebrush land in draws that are untillable for farming. 4. Cover associated with irrigation ditches. 5. Brushy roadside cover and fence row cover. Upland game bird populations are affected whenever agricultural, range or forested lands are taken out of production through urban expansion, road construc- tion, industrial development and other land clearing activities. [New] Table D-VII indicates that over a million dollars a year is spent by upland game hunters in Umatilla County. Thus, any decrease in upland bird hunting would result in less expenditures. Most upland birds survive and in fact prosper in agricultural and rural residential areas. But increased clearing of brush, fence lines and riparian areas would reduce habitat. Hous~ pets can disturb birds, raid nests and kill chicks. [New] Very little energy consequences can be imagined because of ~rotection of upland bird habitat since no general change of land use pattern is necessary. [New] The environmental consequences of the upland bird protection is positive in that some natural habitat will be preserved. Habitat is really only lost when urban expansion, road construction, industrial development and other such intensive land use activities occur. Maintenace of fence and roadside cover and riparian zone setbacks would seem to be the most useful policies for preservation of upland bird populations. Waterfowl The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildife goals include preventing further destruction of waterfowl habitat by protecting existing habitat, retaining wet lands and lands adjacent to water areas and providing for needed recreational opportuni- ties, both consumptive and non-consumptive. 0-21 Nesting, feeding and resting areas are definite habitat needs for waterfowl. Nesting is the most critical activity in late spring and early summer. Marsh areas, irrigation canals, lakes and slow moving streams with brushy banks provide important nesting habitat for mallards, Canada Geese, teal, pintails, and wood ducks. During the late fall and early winter, large populations of birds that nest in Canada and Alaska migrate into Umatilla County to winter. Areas that have large bodies of standing water with food nearby provide ideal resting and feeding areas needed For maintaining waterfoil populations. Estimated populations and average expenditures for waterfowl are presented in Tables V-III and O-IX. TABLE O-VIII Estimated Waterfowl Populations In Umatilla County, 1977 Species Waterfowl: Whistling Swan Canada Geese Mallards Pintails Widgeon Blue-winged Teal Green-winged Teal Cinnamon Teal Redhead Duck Shoveler Canvas Back Coots Common Merganser Wood Duck Estimated Populations Summer Wi nte r 200 200 15,000 1,100 45,000 170 18,000 6,000 500 150 5,000 150 85 200 50 3,000 300 200 2,500 50 250 50 In 1977, waterfowl, coot and snipe hunting provided over 32,000 recreational days valued at over $489,000 (Table D-IX). 0-22 TABLE O-IX Average Expenditures on Waterfowl Resources for One Year (1977) in Umatilla County Species Hunters Recreational Expenditures Total or Days for One Expenditure Groups Recreational Day Waterfowl: Ducks 2,108 Geese 657 32,053 $15.27 $489,449.00 Snipe 45 Coots 328 Totals 3,138 32,053 $489,449.00 _ :~::::~c.:'"~.~~ ~~~ Sensitive areas have been mapped for waterfowl and are indicated on the map on page D-24. These lands are wet during most of the year and provide both wintering area and important nesting habitat. They include the following: 1. Columbia River and associated sloughs and potholes 2. Umatilla River 3. Umatilla Meadows near Echo 4. Walla Walla River 5. McKay and Cold Springs Resevoirs 6. Small streams, lakes and potholes scattered throughout the county 7. All irrigation ditches in the county [New] The Nature Conservancy has noted two specific good habitat areas for waterfowl and shore birds. These are the McNary Potholes and the Irrigon Wildlife Mamagement Area. Part of the McNay Potholes area is within a state wildlife preserve; some of the rest of the area should be given additional protection. All of the Irrigon area is already under the management of state and federal wildlife agencies. (These areas are discussed further later in this chapter.) Waterfowl nesting habitat is shrinking in Umatilla County. One reason is because wet areas have little agricultural use and can be easily converted by industry to industrial sites through filling or diking out the water. Examples of this can be found along the Columbia, Umatilla and Walla Walla Rivers. Other conflicts include conversion to farmland, home developments and human activities adjacent to wet marshy areas. 0-23 ~ <:( r CO « :r: 0:: WB o::@ « C~~ w~:r; CO r~~ a: E>.' ::::J t--...c c>U- ,C-., Lr-" c0 ~~c, c::::::..- -.-.J §~) ::::::- ,C,'\::>@-:') 0 ':,:-;'210._-. Ll- ["'.~, 0:: r::-=.fJ c..:.: J WG=-_'! r- ~~?«~ ::> ;=.'~~::> L .. LEGEND SOURCE: FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITA T PROTECTION PLAN FOR UMA TlLLA COUNTY, Oregon DepJrlmenl 01 F1':,11 (J'1r. W,ldlile, Pendleton, OR, June, 1978 t;,i(!;tl!i;~ft;:,'1 WATER FOWL & FURBEARER HABITAT ::::.;,;~?-,,::)_:,:~::;; ----r-- . +""'"'"" I' -7Si3: e, . __ u I";: ~+_'3, r -+---J....- .-J "",.r",. ~ . ,< • , ":;~~~'r j~ R30ER2SERUEM~"I: ( Ii'~ f:'~_,_1 ; f· Ins I,/-c~>. "i • !'-~-:q- I I I I;:".... I ns f '~:'-?A ,I l'1:~ ~~,. '>' I Furbearers and Hunted Non-Game Wildlife A Department of Fish and Wildlife goal is to protect habitat to provide optimum numbers of furbearing and non-game animals for recreational and aesthetic opportunities while sitll keeping land use conflicts to a minimum. These animals include both aquatic forms such as beaver t muskrat, otter and mink, and te~restrial forms such as coyote, bobcat t raccoon and skunk. They have a wide variety of habitat needs including brushy streams t wetlands, and various types of range and forest lands. Estimated populations and average expenditures for furbearers and some commonly hunted non-game wildlife are found in Tables D-X and D-XI. TABLE D-X Estimated Furbearers and Certain Non-game Wildlife Populations in Umatilla County, 1977 Species Beaver Muskrat River Otter Mink Marten Coyote Red Fox Bobcat Raccoon Spotted Skunk Striped Skunk Badger Rabbits and Hares Estimated Populations 900 2400 20 800 80 4600 20 175 300 250 300 100 60,000 Trapping and hunting of furbearers during 1977 provided 5,300 recreational days valued at over $63,000 (Table D-XI). 1978 data indicates a harvest in fur wotht approximately $32 t OOO. 0-25 TABLE O-XI Average Expenditures on Furbearers Resource for One Year (1977) in Umatilla County Species Beaver Muskrat Mink Badger Raccoon Skunks Coyote Rabbits and Hares Totals Recreational Days 1,300 1,500 2,500 5,300 Expenditures for One Recreational Day $11.95 11.95 11 .. 95 Total Expenditues $15,535 17,925 29,875 $63,335 Portions of the sensitive habitat areas outlined for big game, upland game and waterfowl should be considered as sensitive habitat for both furbearers and non- game wil dl i fe .. Conflicts between these animals and other land use are minimal in the county .. Loss of habitat occurs when any kind of development occurs in the riparion zone (map on page 0-24) .. Other Non-Game Wildlife Umatilla County contains some rather small but important populations of wildlife that need special considerations due to their limited numbers, special habitat requirements and the adverse effects created by human activities. Included in this group are the eagles, falcons, hawks, herons, and owls. Two basic requirements for these predator-type birds are: (1) they need large trees or rocky cliffs for nesting; (2) this group of birds are hunters and will not tolerate human disturbance around the nest site. Due to the sparcity of large 0-26 trees and the poor distribution of existing trees in the agricultural and rangeland portions of the county, it is of great importance to maintain these wherever possible. The long-billed curlew which is found in western Umatilla County is experiencing a reduction in nesting habitat (see Table D-XII). This loss is due to the coverting of sagebrush and cheatgrass type rangelands to irrigated circles for the production of wheat, potatoes, sugar beets and alfalfa. One of the most important values of non-game wildlife is the non-consumptive use these forms provide. Numerous hours of bird watching, photography, nature studies, etc., are spent on non-game wildlife. It is estimated that two-thirds of all wildlife use is non-consumptive. A 1974 survey showed that during a one- year period in Oregon an estimated 719,000 people watched birds or other wildlife; 688,000 fed birds, and 245,000 put up bird houses or nest boxes. The importance of non-game wildlife cannot be over emphasized. Parks are extremely important, particularly in urban areas, because they provide the habitat for small non-farm mammals and birds. The land use conflicts listed previously in the text for big game, upland game, and waterfowl also affect non-game wildlife since they are found throughout the same habitat. In addition, land use activities in the urban setting that eliminate open space, surface water, and riparian vegetation are detrimental to non-game wildlife. Wetlands and Riparian Vegetation Corridors [New] As just discussed, the basic habitat for waterfowl, furbearers and much of the non-game wildlife is wetlands or streambanks. Therefore, these areas need to be reviewed in some detail and the Goal 5 process applied. D-27 BJJ?arianVe9,.etation Corridors Along Rivers and Streams [New] At the present time, a map of specified riparian vegetation corridors in Umatilla County is not available. However, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wild- life generally considers all riparian vegetation located within 50 feet of a streambank and important habitat. The location of a perennial and intermittent streams in Umatilla County are shown on State Department of Water Resources maps for the Umatilla and John Day River drainage basins.* Particularly sensitive habitat areas have been mapped by OSDFW as shown on the map on page 0-24. The quality of riparian vegetation in these areas is generally good which enhances shoreline stability and water quality and provides excellent habitat for fish and wildlife. For those areas classified as important riparian vegetation corridors, Umatilla County employs most if not all of its present land use classifications. With these land use classifications, certain activities, if allowed, could perma- nently alter riparian vegetation. Such activities include structural development such as single-family dwellings, commercial and industrial buildings, recreational acti vit i es, !tc_~ Sagebrush, grass, shrubs -. ___ . Deciduous trees __. .. ._..__.__ ...~~II',.. +--Upland_ Zone * Note that the Walla Walla River drainage is River drainage basin. Although dollar figures are not available, it is estimated that a substantial amount of money is spent each year attempting to resolve conflicts from locating structural development in riparian vegetation corridors. The major conflict centers on the removal or riparian vegetation which reduces fish and wildlife habitat and endangers adjacent development through streambank erosion and flooding. In many areas loss of riparian vegetation has caus€d excessive erosion depleting agricultural land and damaging residential structures. This loss is incurred by the property owner as. well as local jurisdictions involved. Given the importance of the riparian vegetation, it would appear that regulating structural development in such areas would be economically beneficial. Although the benefits of conserving riparian vegetation appear to be great, as shown in the economic consequences, a conflict arises when attempting to regulate riparian vegetation in nonresource areas. In many designated residential, industrial and commercial areas, existing development is located well within the riparian vege tation corridor. Land in such areas is at a high demand and is usually purchased at a good price due to river frontage and view. Although regulating development could conserve riparian vegetation, a ha~dship maybe incurred by a property owner desiring to build in the riparian corridor. If construction is prohibited on prime river frontage, the property owner could experience a substantial decrease in property value, not to mention a significant change in personal desires. This hardships would be magnified if adjacent development had/already occurred within the riparian corridor. In many cases, regulating the development in such areas would not conform to existing land use patterns. A positive social consequence of conserving riparian vegetation would include the protection of property from flood haz?rds. Given that most riparian vegetation corridors are located well within designated floodplain areas, regulating development would help reduce hazards associated with flooding. 0-29 The environmental consequences of limiting structural development in' riparian vegetation corridors is positive. By limiting development, erosion is reduced which increases habitat protection and helps to maintain water quality. The energy consequences of limiting structural development in riparian vegetation corridors is also positive. By protecting riparian vegetation, less energy will be spent trying to rectify erosion problems. Excluding some areas presently designated for future development in the County's Comprehensive Plan, it appears that regulating structural development in riparian vegetation corridors would have a positive effect on conserving fish and wildlfie habitat and maintian streambank suitability. Maintaining a 50- or 100-foot stream setback would also permit better stream pollution control and preserve natural visual amenities. Therefore, in order to conserve riparian vegetatoin corridors the County should develop streambank setbacks within all or most zoning designations for structures and sewage disposal installations. ,Significant Wetlands [New Section] There are a number of areas in Umatilla County that are considered by OSOFW as good wet 1and habi tat s. The waterfowl s. and fu rbea rer habi tat map, page 0-24, shows the areas in a general manner. The maps on the following pages and Table O-XI(a) show those areas which are particularly important and should be acknowledged as such. 0-30 TABLE D-XI (a) SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS INVENTORY Inv~ntory Township/ Goal 5 Map Page Range Sections Type/Name Analysis 0-32 6N,30 4,5,7,8 Lake Wallula (McNary Pool) 3A/1A 0-33 6N 34 13 Mud Creek Springs 3C 0-34 6N 34 18 White Reservoir 3C 0-35 6N 34 22,23 Swartz Creek 3C 0-36 6N 34 25,26 Pine Creek; Ory Creek 3C 0-37 6N 35 13 Grandview Ponds 3C 0-38 5N 27 13,14 Lake Umatilla (John Day Pool) 3C 0-39 5N 28 13,15,19, IIMcNary Potholes ll 3C 22-26 0-40 5N 28 13,14 IIMcNary Potholes ll (North) 3B 0-41 5N 28 22 Power City Wildlife Area 3A 0-42 5N 28 32,33 Pond, swamp 3C 0-43 5N 29 13,14 IIDodd's Pond Jl 3C 0-44 5N 29 22 Drainage area 3C 0-45 4N/5N 29/30 Cold Springs National Wildlife Refuge 3A/IA 0-46 4N 28 33,34 "Mann's Pond Jl 3C 0-47 4N 28 35 Ponds 3C 0-48 4N 29 11 IIBritt's Pond Jl 3C 0-49 3N 27 1,2,3, Pond s, swamps 3C 0-50 3N 27 10 Lost Lake 3C 0-'51 . 3N 28 '1,2,11,12 IIEcho Meadows ll 3C 0-52 3N 29 5 Water-filled rock pit 3C 0-53 3N 29 21,22,27 Spring-fed swamp 3C 0-54 1N/2N 32 McKay Creek National l~il dl i fe Refuge 3A/1A 0-55 IS 35 9 Meacham Lake 3C 0-56 45 30 9-16 liThe Bi g Pot II (Gu rdane) 3C 0-57 4S 32 19 Albee area 3C 0-58 5S 31 13,14, Camas Creek drainage 3C 15,23 0-31 INVENTORY SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS MAP: _D=.--...;:;...;;32~_ AREA: La k e WaJ] u1 a..l!1......cN....,.uu...Y'.r-Y---,-P-,,-oUoLo-,-lJ...-)__~__ T/R: T6N R30EWM; ~tiQns4, 5,7,8 Wetland Area 0 = Corps Taki n~ Line Map Source: U.S.G.5. Plan Designation: County:::: EFU; Corps :::: Moderate Fi sh & Wi] dl i fe Management Zoning Designat ion: '--..Ex~c<..L'l~us_j~y~e--JE~a~r..Ll.!.m--:U""",s!.:..:e,--- _ Possible Land Use~onflicts:~No~n~e_s~j~g~n~jf~j~c~an~t~ ~ Goal 5 Analysis: 3A/1A; Protect the Resource Site/No County Jurisdiction Management Program: Wi 1dl i fe management by Corps of Engi neers (see McNary Master Plan, 1982) INVENTORY SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS MAP: _D_-3_3__ AREA: Mud Creek Spri ngs T/R: T6N R 34 EWM; Section 13 Map Source: U.S.G.S.Wetland Are.a 0 (Exact boundaries may require site inspection) Plan Designation: _A..,.:::..g_ri_c_ul_t_"u_ra_l _ Zoning Designation: ·--=E~xc;:::..l~u:.=s~iv~e~Fa:....:.r~m--..:U=s:.;:::.e _ Possible Land Use Conflicts: Some farming activities (draining wetlands; feedlots, lack of soil conservation practices), Goal 5 Analysis: 3C; Limit Conflicting Uses Management Program: Plan and zoning li~it conflicting uses; 100 foot installations, setback from wetlands and streams required for structures and sewage disposal INVENTORY SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS MAP: _D_-3_3__ AREA:, Mud Creek Spr"ings T/ R: T6N R 34 EWM; Sect'i 0 n 'j 3 Map Source: U.S.G.S.Wetland Are.a 0 (Exact boundaries may require site inspection) Plan Designation: _A..;:::..gr_i_c_u'_t_u_ra_' _ Zoning Designat ion: ·----=:E:..:..:..x.:;:..c'~u::.::::.s-=-iv.=....::e:::...-:....F;:::-:ar~m.:......:::..;Us~e::..__ _ Possible Land Use Conflicts: Some farmi ng acti vi ti es (drai ni ng wetl ands; feedlots, lack of soil conservation practices). Goal 5 Analysis: 3C; Limit Conflicting Uses Management Program: Plan and zoning lim1t conflicting uses; 100 foot setback from wetlands and streams required for structures and sewage disposal in, trl 11CI t. ions . MAP: D-34 INVENTORY SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS AREA: Whi te Reservoi r T/R: T6N R34 EWM; Section 18 WALLA WALLA CO "Well 535 Map Source: U.S.G.S.Wetland A a 0 (Exact boundaries mayreo require site inspection) Plan Designat ion: --J-A~g.1-rl~·C<..lou......r >4..aJ.1.- _ Zoning Designation:· Excl us i ve Fa rm Use; Speci a1 Agri cu 1ture Possible Land Use Conflicts: Some farming activities (draining wetlands; feedlots, lack of soil conservation practices). Goa·1 5 Analysis: 3C; Limi t Confl i cti nq Uses Management Program: Plan and zoning lim;j· conflicting liSPS; lOa foot setback from wetlands and streams required for structures and sewage disposal INVENTORY SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS MAP: _D-~4~5~_ AREA:, Col d. Spri ngs Nat i ana 1 Wi ldl i fe Refuge T/R: T4N/5N 829/30 EWM Wetland Area 0 = Refuge boundari es Map Source: U.S.G.s. Plan Designation: _A~gr_i_c_u_lt_u_re _ Zoning Designation:' Exclusive Aariculture; Special Agriculture Possible Land Use Conflicts: No si gni fi cant confl i cts Goal 5 Analysis: 3A/1A; Resource protected; No County Jurisdiction Management Program: --=-F=..:ed=..::e:..:...ra~l~Wl.:.....l·l~d...L.ll.l....!·f...:>::e--JRw..::.e~f~Ug~e,--- _ INVENTORY SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS MAP: __D-_4D__ AREA: T4N R28 EWM; Sections 33 and 34 T/R: "Mann's Pond" C'O~' ~::' I '\ i.~ i \' I Map Source: U.S.G.S.O (Exact boundaries mayWetland Are.a require site inspection) Plan Designat ion: _A_9r_i_c_ul_t_u_ra_l _ Zoning Designation: ·_E_xc~l--:.;u...=...s_iv~e___:.....;Fa~r....;.;.m;.....U.;:..;s;...;;:e _ Possible Land Use Conflicts: Some farming activities (draining wetlands; feedlots, lack of soil conservation practices). GoaI 5 Analysis: 3C; Limi t Confl i cti n9 Uses Management Program: Pl an and zoni no 1im'i t confl i ctino uses; 100 foot setback from wetlands and streams required for structures and sewage disposal . L .... I i -.. :t .... ,... ........ _ INVENTORY SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS MAP: ~D-~4~7~_ AREA: Ponds.~_~_~~ ~~ T/ R: T4N R28 EW~1; Sect; on 35 Map Source: U.S.GS.O (Exact boundaries mayWetland Are.a requ ire site ins pect ion) Plan Designat ion: _A.::o-gr_i_cu_l_t_ur_a_l _ Zoning ~esignation:·__E_xc_l_u_s_iv_e~Fa_r_m~Us_e~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_ Possible Land Use Conflicts: Some farmi ng acti vi ti es (drai ni ng wetl ands; feedlots, lack of soil conservation practices). GoalS Analysis: 3C; Limit Conflicting Uses Management Program: plan and zonjng limit conflicting lISPS; lOa foot setback from wetlands and streams required for structures and sewage disposal installations. INVENTORY SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS MAP: _D-_48__ / V 623 ",I: \i\ I \ ~ AREA: "Bri tt I S Ponds II T/R: T4N R29 EWM; Section 11 Wetland Are,a o (Exact boundaries mayrequire site inspection) Map Source: U.S.G.S. Plan Designat ion: _A..:::-gr_i_c_ul_t_u_ra_l _ Zan ing Designation: ·--=E::.:..;x'-=c..:....:lu::..:::s,-,-i....:...;ye:=:..-.:....F.......a.......rmJ..l-.>o'J 27 , I 3.04.800 I V Western white pine--isolated populacion.c_L.,-t-------- --- --Bobsled Ridge Ui 37E 3 2.02.643 V Northern bald eagleZO I -- - L~~f- 35 Cold Springs National I 4N, 29E 2 NV Special species occurrence Wildlife Refuge 1-3, 12 2.02.503 V White pelican I- h5N' 29E 2.02.557 V Long-billed curlew34-36 2.02.654 V Western burrowing owl 5N, 30E 5.14.500 V Waterfowl wetland 31 5.14.550 V Shorebird/marshbird habitat ----- -- ------------ ---- ------------- --- ------~--_._._._._-_._._- ----- -'_..',-- l-M-36 McKay Creek National Wild- 1N, 32E 2 5.14.500 V Waterf0wl wetland I life Refuge Z 3, 10, 11, 12, II 5.14.550 V S h 0 reb i r (1 /;:13 r- s h b i r d h a bit a t, 14 23 I~-'2N, 32E ---------------- _~12_____ -- L~-37 I Bridge Creek Wildlife_ I f, ,- f:" .., J. E 2 5.17.804 V IDeer critical ~inter range L ~1anagement Area _-~_~-Lf.:-(-{7E -- - 5.17.806 V Elk critical winter rangeI ....... , "2 -- II I I , KEY: SR=Site Report PS = Protect ion Status 1- preserved 2-I ega Ily protected 3- unprotected VO=Verification of Occurrence V - verified NV- not verified Table D-XV (cont1d) OHNP Site Inventory for Unatjlla County REFERENCE NAME ---- -.-~ I I ILOCATION . ELEMENT· I T - R - s IPSt' NO. VOl ELEMENT NAME I Ti I' M-im,,7n:;: i"r>ge.,..m~:"':n-;n;":;c.s~ •• _ ...... __ ........ - J -.;;. - .....c;.;~J:_ ... __ -- - "-" ....... V I Wate.r-fowl wetland2 11 5.14.500 3 I 3.02.000 IN, 35E , 3 3.01.049 I IN ~ 35£ 13 4.04.100 I II 5.11.200 5N, 27E 14-17, 19-21 2N, 31E NE\ 11 Irrigon Wildlife Management Area Reith Area -i t:::J I -........J -........J 3N ~ 35£ I 1 35,36 It~f-42 Kamela Area 1S, 35£ 3,1.06.631 V Grand fir/thinleaf hU~klebe~ry ---~- . 26 Il~f-43 I Pilot Rock Grassland +IS, 32;--- 3 .11.28.911 V Bluebunch wheatgrass/Sandbe:-g f s S~ 7 bluegrass 2.02.557 I V ,Long-billed curlew UM-44 I t~orth Fork John Day Ri-'ley I ~-, 30-31£ 3 - I 4.~4.110 I \·lLowland stream segment, hig;-, s"2dieClt 75, 29-31E ! reach 1.- 5.11.200 1 V Fish sp_ay.'TIing aree. . 6.06.000 I V Recreation/open space/scenic features I I KEY: SR=Site Report Source: Oregon:\atura 1 Heritage Prop'am. LMa til 1a COlmt 'o' D f '" ~,- /: J I I : / ' " ,,'I / 1/~~' 1 / .I // 1/ /1 -,/ t ; ..el), i ...61( I / : \U" i'! '~H (j I ,I I I\ ',::! I ' I . I" -j-'"1 ",-7 --. - + . i I' J I, Sl~rhf(1 ;\ ,( v r 'J \ I I \ ,,).~ , (I) !I / . , ,I , I ,....~/ ",I ... 'l I . ',' I ; 3~j" ,j , ';.1 I.,,,: A T SF =-:: ::::::--~ . -', ! ~, /I .. \ --- ....., Grave~ ( m Map Source: U.S.G.S.Significant Natural Areas Generalizedfor Habitat Protection Plan Designat ion: _Ag~r_ic_u_l_tur_e _ Zoning Designation: Exclusive Fam Use - -------------- Possible Land Use Conflicts: Cultivation. overgrazing Goal 5 Analysis: __ ~'3A'~rot(~ct tll.~ resource with cooperati
.Lr_i_cu~l-.:tu_r_e _ Zoning Designation: Exclusive Fann Use; 8m Qverlay zone Possible Land Use Conflicts: ell] tjvatj on and other agri cn] tura] activities Goal 5 Analysis: lBi. Delay the GoalS process Management Program: Signi fj cant NabJral ,Arm overlay zone may be MAP: D-95 INVENTORY SIGNIFICANT NATURAL AREAS AREA: South Fo.rk 1 Walla Walla River CUM-20) Irnport;Jtlce : Good 'Flab:L tat TI R ~ T LN ·)')~7 S' c.' 10• eel· [Ll..,......... .ec.."'..t.:l.on- --.~~ .._----- Significant Natural Areas Generalized for Habitat Protection Map Source: State o.f OR,Hwy. Dlv. Plan Designat ion: _G_r_az_i_n_g_/F_o_r_es_t _ Zoning Designat i,or:': _F_or_e_s-.:.t_C..::...ons::..::.=..~e~....:-.:....::.a.:..=t=io.::.::n:.:..._ _ Possible Land Use Conflicts: Recreation overuse. (County park and adjacent RIM lands) GoalS Analysis: 3Cj limit conflicting uses Management Program: CMned by Connry and 131M; see Management PJ an, prepared in 198~~__ . , ,, . llWENTORY SIGNIFICANT NATURAL AREAS MAP: D-96 AREA: Pilot Rock Area CUM-22) Importance: Prairie Falcon Nesting Area T/R: T lS R 3JE . _ r· /) ,.. ~ ./ Significant Natural Areas Generalized for Habitat Protection Map Source: State o.f OR,Hwy. Dlv. Plan Designat ion: ---=Ag=-==r.=.ic=u=l:.=tu=r=-"'a"""'l _ Zoning Designation: ~_l_~_l_·v_e_F_~U_s_e ~ Possible Land Use Conflicts: Some agricultural practices Goal 5 Analysis: 3C; limit cant] i cting llses Management Program: AgrjcnlDlral zonjng,wi 11 linri1- conflicting llS~8 ------------_._--._- ---_._--.-------_.- .Ll~Vl~l~lUl~Y. SIGNIFICANT NATURAL AREAS MAP: ~D-~9_7~_ AREA: Bridge Greek Wildlife M:Jnagernent Area (IJM<17) Importance: Deer and elk wLnter range T/ R: T 58/ 6~Dl/--'J2----~"._-~~.." Significant Natural Areas Generalized 0 for Habitat Protection 'Map Source: State o! R,Hwy. Dlv. Plan Designat ion: ~G~ra.......z......j .......n'6g--,F,-,"o.ll.r.......e>-L.stL...-- _ Zoning Designation: . Fores~,Conser:'ation; CWR Overlay Possible Land Use ~onflicts:~N~~~e~sl~·~=l~·f=ic~~~t~~~~~~~~~~~ GoalS Analysis: 3A; protect the resource site Management Program: Critical Wildlife Ov~rlay Zone; managed by Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife ._---------_._---- . INVENTORY SJGNIFICANT NATURAL AREAS MAP: -'Hl-n-....::...98:::..-_ AREA: Squaw Creek CUM-Ljl) Importance: Fish spawning area T/R: T IN R 36 , " :4,0(" :~ <'1(' (,' ," ., ~J'.; .~, I I iJI I I i r :", , .1\ (14,06] (~~o" \:' \: Significant Natural Areas Generalized for Habitat Protection Map Source: State 0t OR,Hwy. Dlv. Plan Designat ion: --=-G_raz::..:....r.::..::.i::::..:.!ng~F-=.o.=...re=.::s~t=-- _ Zoning Designation: Gr~ing/Farm and Forest Conservation Possible Land Use Conflicts: Agricultural and timber practices Goal 5 Analysis:~ limit conflicting land llses Management Program: Agricultural and forest zones; CWR overlay on part of areaL-__-J..--,--=--=-='--""~o.d<...a_. . - _ --_._._-.- INVENTORY SIGNIFICANT NATURAL AREAS MAP: ~D_-_99_.~~ AREA: North Fork J~hEl Day River (UM-L~LI.) Importi1nce: Fish spawning area T/ R:_6SLZ;:L_1<2}lLlQL3~1~EI....--_~ -- Significant Natural Areas Generalized 0 for Habitat P.rotection Map Source: State o! R,Hwy. Dlv. Plan Designat ion: _G_ra_z_i_ng-'--F_o_res_t ~ _ Zonir:-'g Designation: Grazing/Farm and Forest Conservation Possible Land Use Conflicts: Poor tirnbermanagement practices: recreati on over-llse GoalS Analysis: 3C; limit conflicting uses Management Program: Forest Zones: Forest l'1@agement Act: GJR overlay. [New] As noted~ four areas have been designated as significant natural areas. The economic consequences of protecting the Oarr Flat~ Stage Gulch and Pilot Rock Grassland would be minimal since the sites do not have a potential for cultivation or other intensive farm use. Oarr Flat is only a small spot in a vast rangeland so it is not likely that heavy grazing would be comtemplated by the landowners. The Stage Gulch and Pilot Rock Grassland sites are steep slopes and hillsides too steep and rocky to cultivate. [New] Economic losses of timber sales from the Albee sites (UM 21) are possible~ but the amount of merchantable timber is not known. This;s another aspect of the Albee area that needs to be determined before a Goal 5 determination is finally made. [New] The social consequences of the protection of these four sites would mainly be the loss to this and future generations for educational and scientific purposes. Other than that~ the sites are not directly related to the County's history or traditions~ nor are they directly associated with cultural values~ or current life- style or quality of life. [New] The environmental consequences of protection means the preservation of several unique and important plant communities of the County and region for future education and scientific purposes. There appears to be no negative environmental consequences associated with protecting these sites. [New] There would seem to be little or no energy consequences associated with protecting these sites. [New] Two areas were determined to be species occurrence areas, the Pilot Rock area (UM 22) and Reith (UM 39). The Pilot Rock area covers an entire township and is an area where Prarie Falcons nest. No additional protection is necessary for this rangeland area so there should be no negative economic effects of the designation. The Reith site is a small area along the road and on some hillsides here the mimulus jungermannioides gross. Since no building sites or other development uses are involved~ no negative economic effects of preservation are likely. For 0-101 the same reasons, no negative energy consequences should occur. [New] The environmental consequences of not RrQtacting thes~ species occurrence areas would diminish the potential for survival of these specees in Eastern Oregon. There appears to be no negative environmental consequences associated with thes sites. [New] Those sites determined to be good habitat areas fall under the discussions and policies of the wildlife portion of this report and the Comprehensive Plan. [New] It must be noted that because of the potential for disruption and vandalism by humans, it is unwise to pinpoint in-this report locations of certain -wi-ldlife habitat or species occurance areas. The Planning Department staff is aware of the locations of such sites. Should if become necessary, the Department can make them known to prospective developers, etc. Management Programs Several management techniques are available to preserve these sites if warranted: 1. Detailed site reports (such as those for Darr Flat and Albee Area) should be completed for all sites designated good habitat area, species occurrence or significant natural area. 2. Property owners (public-and private) s~ould be notified of the significance of the sites and attempts made to insure coopertative protection. 3. The Comprehensive Plan should address these specific areas and set protection policies. 4. The land use development ordinance should contain provisions for protection of these areas. 5. The County should watch for potential threats to the areas and seek similar important areas with the help of the public. •WILDERNESS AREAS Wilderness areas are, according to Statewide Planning Goal #5: Areas where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. It is an area of undeveloped land retaining its premeval character and influence, without permanent improvement or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) may also contain ecological, geological or other features of scientific, educational scenic or historical value. Although there are over 250,000 acres of forest and over 376,000 acres of U.S. Forest Service land in Umatilla County, none of it is currently or potentially wilderness areas as defined above. There are, however, abuut 172,000 acres of National Forest land classified as "roadless and undeveloped. 1I9 0-103 OUTSTANDING SCENIC VIEWS AND SITES There area areas and views which are commonly recognized as striking in their effect on those who experience them. Geological features, green vegetation, and water are major scenic features; human works and dry, shrub-steppe landscape are other attractions (Table O-XVII). So that areas do not lose their eye-catching attributes, plans attempt to identify "commonly recognized ll scenic features, and suggest uses for these areas that minimize c6nflcits with the valuable features. Because of increased development and population pressures, some scenic areas in Umatilla County may lose their attractiveness as the beauty-sustaining elements are altered. Certain developments or occurrences may conflict with scenic values. Industrial plants and energy facilities may create their own offensive scenic feature or obscure a natural scene. Residential subdivisions placed to take advantage of a view may be in turn more visible, covering higher ridges that are scenic features themselves. Scenicly offensive development may ameliorate its effect by careful design, strategic placement of structures, and landscaping. Scenic regions that are lost to development may be found to be compensated by other benefits of the development for 1oca1 soc i ety • [NEW] Table O-XVII lists outstanding sites and views in Umatilla County. After Goal 5 analysis (OAR-16-000), 22 were determined to be not important enough to be included in the inventory, or not under the jurisdiction of the County (four in the Umatilla National Forest, two on the Indian Reservation, two within UGB1s) (llA"). Two other sites (Westland School and Oregon Trail) are discussed under the historical element of this chapter. [NEW] Ten sites and vistas were classified as justifying limits to conflicting land uses CI 3C II ). The comprehensive land use plan designations and zoning classifications adopted by the county are meant, in large part, to maintain the 0-104 .-J I Table D-XVII DESCRIPTION OF OlJI'STANDING SITES AND VIEWS (Revised) QUALITY OF INTEREST HOW ENJOYED EVALUATION SITES QUAL ITI ES OR POTENTIAL C (Bat RD~k~ ]C x x x x x x X Adjacent Resi- State Parkdential Dev. Historic Site Wallula Gap 3A x x x x x 'PotentialDevelopment Aggregate Recreational Development Scenic Highway Lake Wallula 3C x x x Power,Recreation, Transportation McNary Dam lA x x x x Lake Vma ti1la 3C x x x x Power,Recreation, Transportation Dam Viewpoint 1A x x X X X Urban Development IIi UGB Cold Springs Reservoir 3C X x X X x NO Summer Drawdown Irrigation, Wildlife Refuge ) ! X X x XX X Umatilla River downstrean lA from Highway 207 Umatilla/Echo Meadows lA PleasantSummer Low Irrigation, Rural X NO Flow Fishing Vistas r---------------t--+---i--+---+--1I--+----1---t---t-~!__-+------_II_--------41'rea san t X NO Floodplain, Rural Agriculture Vistas Umatilla River upstream from Echo lA x x x X NO lA x x X X NO Liability Concerns, Seasonal Flows Irrigation Umatilla Butte lA x x x X NO Municipal Reservoir, Nearby Indus- try Billboards BLM Hermiston Butte lA x X x X NO Radio Towers, Microwave Relay In City / Emigrant Butte lA x x x X NO Nearby Feed Lots Private PrivateGrazingHard to DistinguishNOXxxx Westland District Service Buttes Pleasant Columbia District lA X X X X NO Residences, Suburban ------------.---.-~_'_I~-l--_i---+---.--+--I--_I_-_+-_1~-_+_--_4-----__+-H_ob_b_y=----_F_a_rm_s_-J_Vi~_ I ,',' Pleasant IA X X X X NO Agriculture, Suburban Residences Vistas D-10S I'l'ablo f)-XVII (conI. I d) Ji; DESCrUVl'TON OF cx.nSl'ANDING SITES AND vn~vs (Itt,V i sed) QUALITY OF INTEREST HO\aJ ENJOYED EVALUATION ~f .:::",'r:J ....... ~ /$ ,I lA X X NO Residences, [lobby Farms . lA X X NO Residences, Hobby Farms lA X X X NO Industrial Possible __t\:ceai Museum ... ,- ...-_. " '" .. .. ------ -..... "-- .. Bi'llboards Historic t ~ 1''''-''' '/ , IQUAL! TIESSITES ORPOTENTIAL~ Minnohaha CQotlCY Lane VWcstland School )\. :.") " " . I------------~~~~",..·· ~,- --'- --+---...----jl----+-----f--I'---....-----I---f-------;--------j------j PublicI Private NOx X x xx X x x Summer RecreatiQr~ drilw-down W:l.ldl:tfe R,,!.cug ---- ---f- -'-1---1---1---1---" .-.;;):i:...... ---.--- -:-nnU'r-- ~ ). R~s:Ldential or i 1\~ 'Agriculture Recreot· ana~ Development X lA 3CNcKllY Reservoir Oregon Tran ----------------.---f---I-----jl----I---f---t--- -- - ----J--....--t--------t---------t-------f Langdon Lake 3C x x Recreation Recreational Homesites Private Forest Service Campgrot on Wes: Umatilla Fork~ Fote~t Campgrounds lA x x x Logging Operations .Camping ~ishirig Hiking' U.S,f,S. Managed ._~~._.l~,..)l.;.!'-~~':'~ ........ 'Cabb'ug'e Hill Vista) ._.-:.! .• ft., .....·.,· .... ·•· _.. Squaw C:r:eek._'{j.sta lA lA X X x x x x x x Picknicking Picknicking On Indian Reservation On Indian Reservation Table Rock Lookout Tower lA x X x U.S.F.S. Fire Lookout To,wer., In National Forest High Ridge Lookout lA X x x U.S.F.S. Fire Lookout Tower In National Forest Goodman Ridge Lookout lA x x x U.S.F.S Fire Lookout Tower In National Forest Earnest S. Haney Vista 3C x x x X Logging Activities Picknicking .,' .....\c-- State Highway 204 ,,-1 ',d-(} iLi j 3C x x x x RecreationalHomesites Important Scenic Transportation Highway Route Elephant Rock I 3C X X NO Historic I '- I D-I06 existing 1and use patterns which have resulted in the Ilpleasant rural (or suburban) vistas, II etc. described in Table D-XVII. Thus, it is the position of the county that the plan designations and zoning already limit conflicts by limiting land uses or by mitigating conflicts through ordinance criteria. Examples are: a. Density requirements b. Conditional use criteria c. Overlay zones d. Stream setbacks e. Sign standards f. Right-of-way, road, easement and driveway standards However, to draw particular attention to "3C II designated areas, and to specifically address the potential conflicts noted earlier, the county should adopt a policy to insure special consideration of the following when reviewing a proposed change of land use: a. Maintaining natural vegetation whenever possible. b. Landscaping areas where vegetation is removed and erosion might result. c. Screening unsightly land uses, preferably with natural vegetation or landscaping. d. Limiting rights-of-way widths and numbers of roads intersecting scenic roadways to the minimum needed to safely and adequately serve the uses to which they connect. e. Limiting signs in size and design so as not to distract from the attractiveness of the area. f. Siting developments to be compatible with surrounding area development, and recognizing the natural characteristics of the location. g. Limiting excavation and filling only to those areas where alteration of the natural terrain is necessary, and revegetating such areas as soon as possible. D-107 SIGNIFICANT SCENIC AREA MAP: D-lOB AREA: vJallula Gap T/R: T5/6N R 30/31 EWM CORPS OF ENGINEERS • FISH &WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA 6 EI.l.123 ,u" f "-"'r,:/-~ i/ f,~-.; ..;:/ . ~ " •. JIN~.L£ . '. J: 1270 , •• 0 _ _ __ # -...a__ i _ EI IJK'4.31 t I '. 3~' A'\Jumper : ./ .... - "''''f' .... l J T !~""'__-"'f---;:~--r~-----.(~:"'~ f' ·1· .. • 2 ! : T -~-.-. r .. - T SCALE IN MILES o, Scenic Area: __I Map Source: State Highway Div. Plan Designation: North CQlillty Agri cn] hlre Zoning Designation: '_Ex_cl_us_iv_e_F_arm__Us_e _ Possible Land Use Conflicts: Recreational uses; rock pits. Part of area controlled by Corps of Engineers. GoaI 5 Analysis: 3A protect the reSOllrce Management Program: Specific Comprehens:i.ve Plan policy; apply HAC Overlay Zone h. Protecting vistas and other views which are important to be recognized because of their limited number and importance to the visual attrac- tiveness of the area. i. Concentrating commercial developments in areas where adequate parking and public services are available and discouraging strip commercial deve10 pment • [New] One area has been determined by the county as being so important, relative to conflicting uses, that the resource site should be protected and all conflicting uses prohibited ("3A II ). The Wallula Gap is of great historic, geologic and scenic significance. It is the largest, most spectacular and most geologically signifi- cant of the several large water gaps in the Columbia River Basin. It has been a "l an dmark ll for travelers since Lewis and Clark. The final environmental impact statement for the McNary Project states: Although the concept of beauty is subjective, most people would agree that the Wallula Gap area is one of special natural attraction. At this point, the Columbia River narrows and turns more westerly in its course to the Pacific Ocean. The Gap is dominated by steep, basalt formations rising nearly vertically from both banks of the river. Aside from its natural beauty, this area is of particular geological interest. (9a) [New] The United States Department of Interior has designated a portion of Wallula Gap just north of Umatilla County in Walla Walla County, Washington, as IIWallula Gap National Natural Landmark. 1I (9b) And the Corps of Engineers, in its McNary Master Plan, has classified its lands along the Columbia through Wallula Gap as an area for II moderate management ll for fish and wildlife. (See map 0-108). Therefore, because of its significance sited above, the county should develop a policy to protect the scenic, historic, and geologic landmark quality of Wallula Gap. D-109 Historic and Scenic Highway Program [New SE-}ction] The 1983 Legislature enacted the Historic and Scenic Highway Program (ORS 377.100[IJ and ORS 377.105) to "ma intain and .preserve certain highways and highway related structures for their historical, engineering, recreational, scenic and tourism significance. 1I The Oregon Department of Transportation has requested the county to provide an inventory or list of suggested highways for consideration under this new program. The county provided the following: 1. 1,...84 ~ Besides its scenic value-, e-spec.ially through the Blue Mountains, its association with the Oregon Trail makes it a natural choice for the inventory. 2. Highway 730 ,... From Hat Rock to the Walla Walla County line is a very scenic and historic route (with geologic significance as well) as it follows Lewis and Clark's trail through Wallula Gap. Just across the Washington border is the Wallula Gap National Natural Landmark area. 3. Highway 395 - From Battle Mountain south, this highway is a beautiful route all the way to Mt. Vernon. It has historic value, too (ie, Battle Mountain State Park). 4. Highway 244 - From Highway 395/Ukiah to 1-84 is a scenic drive with hi stari c interest prov; ded by Lehman, Hot Sp ri ngs and Hi daway Sp ri ngs • 50 Highway 204 - From Weston to Elgin is an important scenic, historic and recreational route through Tollgate and Spout Springs. 6. Highway 37 - From Pendleton-to Highway 130 is a nice pastoral drive through a variety of farmland with a spectacular viewpoint over the Columbia River at its north end. 7. Highway 11 - Historically, this highway follows the early route of the Oregon Trail to Whitman Mission. Perhaps this fact would qualify this highway for the inventory. Besides these state highways, two other roads in Umatilla County should be examined for their historic and scenic significance: 8. County Road 900 - (Mission-Thornhollow Road). From Mission to the National Forest, this road travels the length of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, past historic Bingham Springs and the Bar-M Dude Ranch to a popular Umatilla National Forest campground area. 9. County Road 1300 - (Old Pendleton Echo Highway). This stretch of road f~llows the Umatilla River and the Oregon Trail. 0-110 The county recognizes in this report and the Comprehensive Plan the historic, geologic and scenic significance of Highway 730. Also, various Oregon Trail sites are inventoried and protected. Highway 204 through Tollgate is recognized as a recreation route. However, any further local response to this program at this time would be premature. POTENTIAL AND APPROVED FEDERAL WILD AND SCENIC WATERWAYS AND STATE SCENIC WATERWAYS Wild and scenic rivers in the state is a jointly coordinated effort consisting of the National Wild and Scenie Rivers system and the State Scenic Waterways Program. The purpose of the programs is to maintain the free flowing nature of designated rivers in order to preserve the scenic, historic, fish, wildlife, geologic, archeological, and recreational values. There are no state-designated scenic waterways or potential scenic waterways in Umatilla County.(lO) However, the North Fork of the John Day River, a portion of which flows through Umatilla County, is included in the u.S. Department of the Interior "Nationwide Rivers Inventory" for possible inclusion in the national wild and scenic rivers program.(ll) The inventory notes the "outstandingly remarkable values" for recreation, fish and other attributres of the river and elaborates: Long undeveloped portion of major river system. Still accessible to anadromous fish-potential steel head and salmon resource. Highly scenic canyon region. Area provides for many back-country opportunities. The North Fork will be studied by the appropriate agencies as time and funding permits. Depending on recreational demand, the findings of the studies, and funding available for management or acquisition, and state and/or the federal government may designate all or part of the river as a scenic waterway, under any of several classifications. There is at present no specific schedule for study of the North Fork and no guarantee that it will ever be actually designated as a scenic wateray. However, it has been designated by the Wild and Scenic 0-111 Rivers Act as a 5(d) stream. Section 5(d) directs federal agencies to consider impacts to the river during the planning process.(12) Much of the North fork of the John Day River, which passes through Umatilla County, is within the Umatilla National Forest. A forest service report states that: [Timber] (a)llocations to the area adjacent to the segment of the North Fork John Day River from the western forest boundary to Big Creek ••• may create changes in the existing character of the areas. This could have an adverse effect on (the river) being classified as 5(a). Section 5(a) requires formal study for either'Wild, Scenic, or Recreational status.{13) Several more miles of the river is within the State Park Departmentls Ukiah- Dale Forest Wayside. It is assumed that protection for the river will occur in accordance with the defined purpose of a wayside.(14) Umatilla County land use designations and zoning along the river provides for a continuation of existing resource land use patterns; ie, primarily forest and agricultural uses with residential designations in existing built and committed areas~ Maintaining this existing use pattern will not substantially change the character of these areas along the river and therefore will not conf";'ct wi"th--fhe" potent i a1 for fu rther study' as 'a- sceni·c waterway..• HISTORIC AREAS, SITES, STRUCTURES AND OBJECTS The historical and archeological heritage of Umatilla County is an irre- placeable and nonrenewable environmental resource, an intrinsic cultural heritage to the people of the county and the state. Historic resources are districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects which have a relationship to events or conditions of the human past. Archeological resources are those districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects which possess material evidience of human life and culture of the prehistoric and historic past and may be recorded and stUdied. Historical and archeological resources are important in many ways. They , offer present and future generations educational and scientific opportunities. 0-112 They are a cultural resource in that they allow us to better understand the ways, values and traditions of the past, and their effects on the county as we know it today. Historical and archeological resources have great aesthetic value, a product of age, uniqueness, beauty and the cultural aspect already mentioned. Not least of all, these resources are important for their economic value. The high cost of educational and scientific tools, of antiques an works of art point out the economic value of such resources. These historical and archeological resources are also important to the county's economy for their attraction to vacationers and tourists. Historical and archeological resources are extremely valuable in many ways, and the value for one purpose such as a field trip for a history class, does not destroy the value for another purpose, such as a sight-seeing tour, if the resource is protected. However, if destroyed, or allowed to deteriorate, the loss is irreplaceable. For these reasons, it is important that these resources be identified (inventoried) and considered as a factor in the land use planning process. The historic sites and buildings listed in Table D-XIII have been compiled from a variety of sources, including the 1976 Statewide Inventory of Historic Sites and Buildings, conducted by the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office. For purposes of analysis of conflicting uses, the sites have been placed into one or more of the following categories: A. Symbolic Sites: These are historic sites which have value in a symbolic sense as the location of some event of cultural or historic significance or as a representation of some pa~ticular period in the past. These are simply geographical locations, such as an old wagon road, a townsite or the confluence of major rivers. Their value as historic sites is not associated with any specific building or other structure. These sites have a variety of zoning, generally compatible with the existing use or uses of the site. Generally, continuation of these uses will not conflict with the historic values of these sites. However, as a part of the normal review of uses and activities by the county, tht~ historic values of these areas should be considered, to avoid the negative social and economic . ~ consequences associated with activities which are located or designed in such a manner so as to negatively impact historic values. B. Public Structures or Buildings: These structures and buildings are in public ownership, ind no activities are existing or anticipated which would conflict with their historic values. However, to the extent that any future activities in these areas are subject to normal zoning ordinance review, such activities should be considered in relation to the historic value of these structures. c. Private Residences and Other Buildings: These are privately owned buildings which have been identified as having historic value. Many are private residences which are currently in use. Others are abandoned or dilapidated and are not currently in use. These buildings are all located in conforming zones and plan categories. They can, under normal review procedures, be structurally repaired, improved or otherwise altered. The consequences of prohibiting these activities include negative social and economic impacts to landowners as ., .... "a:' result" ()"'{"ri"ol'beirfg able"'td maintain their property, as well as potential public costs associated with taking claim. Allowing all of these activities without restriction may result in negative social and economic consequnces associated with irreversible loss of historic resources. To ensure that these values are considered to the maximum practical extent, standards for historic values should be incorporated into the normal county review of these activities. o. Sites with HistoricArtic1es Present": . These are- sites, the historic value of which is due to the presence of specific resources (other than buildings). Examples are pioneer or Indian cemeteries. Such sites can be disturbed and their value destroyed by almost any new land development activities, though it is usually possible to design such developments in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts, if historic values are considered. For this reason, all developments in these areas should be reviewed 'for consideration of historic D-114 values to avoid the adverse social and economic consequences associated with irreversible loss of historic resources. E. Archeological Sites: Comparatively little is known concerning archeological sites in Umatilla County. Based on existing knowledge of regional pre-history, it is apparent that important archaeological sites certainly exist in Umatilla County. However, information on the location, quantity and quality of these sites is not sufficient at this time to allow for inclusion in this report. The Umatilla Tribal Development Office is currently developing a detailed archeological inventory.15 At such time that information does become available, identified sites will be evaluated and addressd in the Comprehensive Plan. However, many archeological sites must be protected from indiscriminant digging and from pilferage. A number of Indian related archaeological sites do exist in Umatilla County outside of the existing reservation boundaries (see Map, page 0-119). Tribal officials are reluctant to disclose specific locations of archaeological sites for obvious reasons. 16 The county should develop policies relating to protection of potential archaeological sites in cooperation with the Umatilla Tribal authorities. (See also the discussion under "Cultural Areas"). [NEW] Activities or uses which may conflict with the conservation or protection of cultural, historical or archeological resources can basically be categorized as: 1. Exterior modifications which would alter the historical, archeological or cultural significance of a site or structure. 2. New construction or development which would alter the historical, archeological or cultural significance of a site or structure. 3. Demolition of a historical structure. D-115 Table O-XVIII Inventory of Umatill a County Hi stori c S-j t£:~s and Buildings (Outside of Incorporated Towns) [Revised] Site Name Albee Battle Mountain Beamer House Bingham Springs (Bar MRanch) Birch Creek/ Grand Ronde Road l3uttercreek Crossing Cold Springs Landing/ Junction Dorion Monument/Park Echo Meadows Emigrant Springs Finnish Little Grease- wood Cemetery Fort Henrietta Frazer Road German Cemetery Hidaway Hot Springs Hudson's Bay Co. Farm Site Klicker·Spring.s Lehman Hot Springs Lewis and Clark Trail Locust Tree Campground Marcus Whitman Trail McCoy Cabin Meacham Hotel Meacham (Townsite) Meacham Cemetery Mumm Ranch Old Log Cabin Olinger Monuments Oregon Trai 1 Oregon Trail Monument Osage Orange Picket Rock Pine Grove Pioneer Lockout Tree Prospect Farm cont1d Locat ion Category* T4S R31 EWM Sec. 13 and 24 A/C T3S R31 EWM Sec. 20 and 29 A T4N R35 EWM Sec. 2 C T3N R37 EWM Sec. 17 and 18 A/C Pilot Rock to LaGrande A T3N R27 EWM Sec. 25 A T5N R 29 EWM Sec. 13 and 14 A T5N R36 EWM Sec. 18 A/B T3N R28 EWM, Sec.20,21,22 A TIN R35 EWM, Sec. 29 A T4N R33 EWM Sec. 34 I) Echo Area A Starkey to Ukiah A T4N R33 EWM Sec. 29 0 T5S R33 EWM Sec. 16 C T6N R34 EWM Sec. 16 A T6N R ~a ~WM 0 T5S R34 EWM Sec. 12 C Columbia- Ri-ver A T3N R 29 EWM Sec. 36 A TIN, 15; R36E, 37 EWM A North of Milton-Freewater C Meacham C Meacham A/C Meacham 0 T3N R32 EWM Sec. 10 C Meacham C Tollgate 0 as mapped A Meacham 0 T6N R34 EWM Sec. 17 0 near Echo A T3S R32 EWM Sec. 9 A Basket Mt. Road 0 Stage Gulch Road C 0-116 Goal 5 Ana lysi s 113 3C 3C 3C 113 113 113 3C 18 3C 3C 18 113 3C 3A 3C 3C 3C 3C 113 18 18 3C 3C 18 3C IB 18 18 3C 18 18 18 18 18 Comments/ Map No. 0-121 State Park/ Monument/0-122 D-123 0-124 Oregon Tr./0-125 0-126 0-127 Oregon Tr./0-128 Oregon Tr./0-129 0-130 0-131 0-132 Monument/0-I33 0-134 0-135 Oregon Trail/0-136 Oregon Trail 0-137 Oregon Trail/0-137 0-137 0-138 0-139 Oregon Trail 0-140 Si te Name Location Category Goal 5 Analysis Comments Ten Mile House Old Hinkle Road Tollgate Road LaGrande to Walla Walla (Walla Walla Trail) Unknown Dead Monument TIS R35 EWM SEc. 3 Upper McKay School TIS R33 EWM Sec. 12 Walla Walla Trail (Umatilla Trail) North County Westland SCh001{1J~'·rl.:.))~.,;;,( T4N R27 EWM Sec. 25 Wi 11 ow Sp ri ngs i· l' f T3S R 31 EWM Sec. 18 Wooden Flume Walla Walla River *Category A Symbolic Sites Category B = Public Structures or Buildings Category C Private Residences and Other Buildings Category 0 = Sites with Historic Articles Present Category E = Archeological Sites o A D A A C o o IB IB 3C IB IB IB IB IB Oregon Trai 1 Oregon Trail Oregon Trail 0-141 0-142 SOURCES: 1. Oregon Federation of Garden Clubs, Blue Mountain District, Historic Trees and Shrubs, 1976. 2. Oregon State Historic Preservation Office, Statewide Inventory of Historic Sites and Buildings, 1976. 3. Swearingen, Mrs. Mervin, lIFinnish Little Greasewood Cemetery," Pendleton, 1974. 4. Swearingen, Mrs. Mervin, "German Cemetery, Warren (Myrick) 1897-1934," Pendleton, 1974. 5. Tucker, G.J., Pilot Rock Emigrant Road, 1861-1862, n.d. 6. Umatilla County Historical Society, Umatilla County: A Backward Glance, 1980. 7. United States nepartment of the Interior, National Park Service, Oregon Trail Comprehensive Management and Use Plan, August 1981, (3 volumes). 8. United States Forest Service correspondence, October 20, 1980. 0-117 [NEW] The economic benefits of conserving historical, archeological and cultural resources are numerous. The opportunity to view sites and structures associated with our past attracts the interest of county residents as well as visitors. Most Umatilla County communities economically benefit from recognition and celebration of the area1s colorful history: ie, the Pendleton Round-Up, Umatilla Landing Days, etc. [NEW] Economically, historic preservation also increases the number of available structures to be used for residential and commercial purposes. Such rehabilitation efforts also provide some employment opportunity for the local building trade. [NEW] The economic consequences of not preserving historic resources can be viewed from two perspectives. In a specific case, pre-emption of a new industrial or commercial venture in favor of the preservf.ltion of a historic resource may prevent establishment of a particular economic venture. However, Umatilla County has and will continue to recognize in its Comprehensive Plan ample land suitable for economic enterprises and, therefore, the possibility of thtsscenario ocurring· is remote. [NEW] Also, the point can be made that restoration as a cost saving measure is not as economically beneficial in the short term to a community as new construction. However, additional jobs associated with restoration and the potential long-term tau ri srn beneffts accrui"ng annlia 11y from hi'st ori·c preservat i on .fa r exceed th.e mi nor short-term concerns. [NEW] Socially, historic and cultural resource preservation is a positive attribute to a community. Historic resources retain a sence of Il pl ace ll for a community as well as provide a wealth of educational opportunities for generations to come. [NEW] Environmental consequences would be negligible overall and oriented to a specific site and issue. 0-118 SOURCE Oregon Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. U S DC'p~n;:1(;r11 0: IilC II1;r:;r~r AurCilii 01 Outdoor Rceredtron o -~ o LEGEND HIGH DENSITY MEDIUM DENSITY LARGELY UNSURVEYED >-f- Cf) ili BO@@S~ W~ r-~ Cf)B c:. --.J~ ': « ~~~- :,~' ~tl ',Ii:.i" f~ :1'S !; [NEW] Energy consequences are minor but positive in that restoration of historic buildings often includes the insulation of non-insulated structures. Also, historic preservation attracts local tourists who might otherwise travel a greater distance to recreate. [NEW] Based on the preceding findings, it is apparent that the overall long and short-term benefits derived from preserving the cultural and historic resources of the county will in most cases far exceed the negative consequences associated with preserving such a resource. [NEW] The historical sites listed on Table D-XVIII have been reviewed according to the Goal 5 process (OAR 660-16-000). Twenty-six of the sites were designated as "1B." These are sites that are recognized in various publications and by the community as important to the preservation of our heritage but need further study to determine what, if any, protection measures are appropriate. The large number of these sites point out the need for the establishment of an historical inventory or register for the county. [NEW] Fifteen sites are designated as 13C." These are established sites in which conflicting uses are limited by existing policies, plans and zoning and that do not require greater protection. However, in the near future, the Meacham Hotel, Bar MRanch and several other notable structures now classified 3C should be further evaluated to see if additional protection measures are needed or desired. [NEW] Hidaway Hot Springs, specifically the dance hall, is an outstanding historical and architectural structure that should be preserved and protected. It has been classified as 1\3A." [Revised] The following is a brief description of each site. Abiqua Trail (lA) Although listed in the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office's Inventory for Umatilla County, 17 the Abiqua Trial is not located in Umatilla County. 0-120 INVEN'IDRY HISTORIC SITES AND BUILDINGS MAP: -..I.l'D-:..Ll...2J - .\\~. . '" !11l2, "'__ " . ._---.." AREA: Albee TCMUsite T/R: T45, R3l EWM, Sections 13 and 24 I ' Map Source: U.S.G.s.Historic Site: CJ Plan Designat ion: _G_ra_z_in--=-g/_F_o_re_s_t _ Zoning Designation: ·_G'--r~3.z--'-in~gL_/F~arm"---'-- _ Possible Land Use Conflicts: Limited but yanda] j sm and destnlCtj on of old buildings a problem GoalS Analysis: lB; Study need to detenmne significance of site Management Program: Do site analysis to'detennine historical significance and necessary presenraj-jon INVENTORY HISTORIC SITES AND BUILDINGS MAP: _Du.=-,,-,-1~22:...-._~ ARE A: ...............B~a....:....tt~"1~e....:....·:.:..;::M(;:;..;)l.:.::..u1::::t;::;.a::;::Ln:.:--~~~~~ ~ T/R: 1'3S, R31 £"lM, Scc~:!:~~~~_.20, 2.~9 _ Historic Site:--L Map Source: U.S.G.S. Plan Des ignation: ~Fo::::.::r::..::::e=s.:::.Jt/c....::G=r=az:=.:;i~n~g _ Zoning Designation: _Gr_a_z_in_g_/F_a_nTl _ Possible Land Use Conflicts: Unlikely since site is a state nark Goal 5 Analysis: 3C; Limit conflicting uses Management Program: State park status and existing zoning is sufficient protectjon INVENroRY HISTORIC SITES AND BUILDINGS MAP: _.:.:..D---=1~23,,--_ AREA: Beamer House T/ R: T4N R 35 EWI'1, Section 2 Historic Site: 0 Map Source: U.S.G.s. Plan Designation: North COill1ty Agricultural Zoning Designatian: _Ex_cl_us_iv_e_F_aTIn__U..;;...se _ Possible Land Use Conflicts: Limited by zoning: ovvners ma:intaining house Goal 5 Analysis: 3C; Limit conflicting uses Management Program: Contact owners reo ,bj storj caJ regj ster INVENTORY HISTORIC SITES AND BUILDINGS MAP: D-12L~ AREA: ,Bingham Springs/Bar H Hanch Map Source: U.S.G.S.Historic Site: 0 Plan Designation: Grazing/Forest; Multiple Use Zoning Designation: Grazing Farm/ Mountain Residential (MR) Possible Land Use Conflicts: Limited by zoning, only existing recreational subdivision is zoned MR Goal 5 Analysis: 3C; Limit conflicting uses Management Program: No protective measures are appropriate or required INVENTORY HISTORIC SITES AND BUILDINGS MAp·. -l..Tb,,---,--,J2,-5 _ AREA: Buttercreek Crossing T/R: T3N R27 EV-JH, Section 25 .1" //, I( ,r-" -' ! / .. I// ..' I . , / ; ,/ . ~," ~-----'---~- + '~---jl ') () Map Source: U.S.G.s.Historic Site: 0 Plan Designation: North County Agriculture Zoning Designation: '_Ex_c_lus_i_v_e_F_a_nn_U_s_e _ Possible Land Use Conflicts: Disruption of site by fann practices GoalS Analysis: lB, Delay Goal 5 process Management Program: Study site to determine if an interpretive marker or other preservation meaS1Jres are warranted INVENTORY HISTORIC SITES AND BUILDINGS MAP: ----..4.D..=-.- ~I2~6~ 61) ) ...---- ....... ----~2~-- -'"' / 76 AREA:,. Cold Springs T;lnd:L~~'_JL_u1~c_t_i_o_n _ 71 ./.,' 32 106 Map Source: U.S.G.5.Historic Site: 0 Plan Designation: North County Agriculture Zoning Designation: -----,=,E=x=c.=.lus=i:...:..v.=..e-=F..;:;::a=nn~U,-=s-=.e _ Possible Land Use ~onflicts:~N~~~e~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Goal 5 Analysis: IB; Delay GoalS process Management Program: Study should be given to an appropriately located interpretive marker INVEN'lDRY HISTORIC SITES AND BUILDINGS MAP: _-=-D-.-:;;1=2..:.-7_ AREA: Dorj an Momnnent!Park T/R: TSN R 36 EWM, Section 18 Historic Site: 0 Map Source: U.S.G.S. Plan Designation: Orchards District Plan Zoning Designation: Exclusive Fann Use - 10 acre Possible Land Use Conflicts: Limited, site is an existing park Goal 5 Analysis: 3C; Limit conflicting uses Management Program: No further protective measures are appropriate 'or requi red MAP: .Dr I, i' I I I [--- I I+_ I !. Historic Site: OREGON TRAIL ------------ Map Source: U.S.G.S. Plan Designation: _Agr.=-i_C_lll_t_ur_e _ Zaning Designation: --=EX!=cl=..:;u=s.=iVi...:...;e::::...-=..F.=arm:::.::.:...-:::U.:::::.;.se:::..- _ Possible Land Use~onflicts:~~_l_t_~_a_t_io_n_o_f~l~~d~~~~~~~~~_ GoaI 5 Analysis: __lB---','---D_el_a......y_Go_a_l_S-----.Io.p_r_oc_e_s_s _ Management Program: Develop protection plan bv working with private, s tate and federal landowners. MAP: IbJ 29 INVENTORY HISTORIC SITES AND BUILDINGS AREA: Emigrant Springs T/R: TIN R35 EW'1, Section 29 Historic Site: _ .., ..... Map Source: U.S.G.5. Pian Designat ion: ~G.o.:...;ra;.;..;;;z=i=ng~/....=.F....=.o.=..;re=s=-=t=- _ Zoning Designation:'__F_or_e_s_t_C_on_s_erv_a_t_i_on _ Possible Land Use Conflicts: Unlikely since site is a state park Goal 5 Analysis: 3C - IJimj t conflictjng uses Management Program: State Park status and existing zoning is sufficient protection. INVENTORY HISTORIC SITES AND BUILDINGS MAP: ............--JD,;-.-.,k;;13~O I ' ·3 I Historic Site: 0 AREA: Finn:Lsb Li ttlc~Greasewooc1Cpmetery T/R: TL~N R33 EWM, Section 3/~ Map Source: U.S.G.S. Plan Designation: North County Agricultural Zoning Designation: _Ex=c::..=l=us~i~Vi-=e--,=F::..::arm==,--,U=s:..;:;::e _ Possible Land Use Conflicts: None; exi sting cemetery Goal 5 Analysis: 3C; Limit conflicting uses Management Program: No protective measures necessary INVENTORY HISTORIC SITES AND BUILDINGS MAP: _D_-_l_3l__ Historic Site: 0 AREA: Gennan Cemetery T/R: T4N R33 Section 29 J\ '''/ ,/ I (( ,) . /~j Map Source: U.S.G.S. Plan Designation: North County Agriculture Zaning Designation: _Ex_c_lus_i_ve_F_a_TID._U_s_e _ Possible Land Use ~onflicts:_N_o_ne~sl~·~~·f~i_c~_t~~~ ~ _ Goal 5 Analysis: 3C' liurit conf]j ctjng 1lses Management Program: _N_on~e.....::.n.:....:.e-=-c...=_:es=-=s:...::.a:..-ryJ-___....----- _ INVENTORY HISTORIC SITES AND BUILDINGS MAP: ~D..._13_'2~________ AREA: Hidnway Flot Springs T/R: TSS, R33 E'WM, Section 16 Historic Site: 0 Map Source: U.S.G.5. Plan Designat ion: _G_r_a_zlli_'....::::g~/F_o_r_es_t _ Zoning Designation: _Fo_r_e_s_t_C_o_il_se_rv_a_tl_'00 _ Possible Land Use Conflicts: Limited; long established recreation facility GoaI 5 Analysis: 3A; Protect the resource Management Program: Preserve historic buildings (dance hall, etc.) with overlay zone INVENIDRY HISTORIC SITES AND BUILDINGS MAP: D~133 AREA: Hudson's Bay Company Farm and Osage Orange Tree T/R: TGN R 3t., mtJl1, Section 16, 17 2276 1/ S£ (LOWDEN) WASHINGTON - - - - T - - - ~.-.-- -.," - - - - - - . .' . _ ,379 : OIU,(JUN.lBO "r .-•....__ .~.- ._--_.-._------ \ Well --f:": --- ""'" 56S ~, \ .; SlJrin(}.q ~ I l " . \ ,1 '\ AL L , I \ i 5'{. ~ lor. : . - - 1./'1'<- -- --- ---- .__ • - - .--- _. -~- - . :-·c_ ---- ..•-- 51...','._' '--, /' . ·i l . '.1 J .> f,-.- '564 -l 1',- 22 Historic Site: 0 "kExis ting Monument Map Source: U.S.G.S. Plan Designation: North Coilllty Agricultural Zoning Designation: ·-Ex~cl=.!lus~iv~e~F..l;d,armola...l.ll..~UW.lse _ Possible Land Use ~onflicts:~I~jm~J~'t~e~d~h~¥~z~~i~ng~ _ Goal 5 Analysis: 3C-Fann Site/1B-Osage Orange Management Program: Exj sting interpreti,ve mOOlDJ)PDt snffi ci ent for farm site b,t historical significance of osage orange tree should be determined. INVENTORY HISTORIC SITES AND BUILDINGS MAP: D-134 AREA: Klicker. Springs T/ R: TGi>I. H38 EWM_.."_.,, . ...~-~----- Map Source: U.S.G.5.Historic Site: o Plan Designat ion: ---...Mu~l""'-l,t.......ip~l~e<.-II.L>.Is.u..e<-- _ Zoning Designation: Forest Residential, FR-S Possible Land Use Conflicts: Use of site as residential pronertyj destruction of mineral spring Goal 5 Analysis: 3C; Limit conflicting USes Management Program: Work with property qwner regardinf, preservation of sjte ~vner intends to establish monument. INVENI'ORY HISTORIC SITES AND BUILDINGS MAP: D-135 AREA: Lehman Hot Sprjngs T/ R: 15S, R 34· EWM, Section 12 Historic Site: 0 Map Source: U.S.G.5. Plan Designation: _M_u_lt_i~p_le_U_s_e _ ZoningDesignation:~F_o_r_~_t_-_R_~_i_d_ffi_t_i_a_l~~~ ~~ Possible Land Use Conflicts: Limited; long established recreation facility GoalS Analysis: 3C; Limit conflicting uses Management Program: Comprehensive Plan, should recognize the importance of recreation facility and its potential to supply future recreational needs. MAP: D~136 INVENTORY HISTORIC SITES AND BUILDINGS ARE A: Locust. Tree CClmpB:.:....:)l_:o_u_n_cl~_~ _ Map Source: U.S.G.S.Historic Site: 0 Plan Designat ion: --=Ex=c=.:lu=s:..:::ic..:...;ve:::::.-..:::.F...::::arrn=..::.:..:...-.:::U:.::::,.s.:::::::..e _ Zoning Designation: _Ex_c_Ius_iVi_e_F_ann__U_se _ Possible Land Use Conflicts: Faun practices could obliterate historic site. Goal 5 Analysis: IBi Delay Goal 5 process Management Program: CQunty should detennine if this site warrants protection to insure preservation INVENTORY HISTORIC SITES AND BUILDINGS MAP: D-137 AREA: Meacham T/R: T1S R35 B.JH, Section 3 H· · S· · TCMnsite, Cemetery, Hotel,Istorle Ite. Oregon Trail, Monunent Plan Designation: Unincorporated Comrunity Map Source: U.S.G.S. ~oning Designation:~_~_-_i_n_co_~ or_a_t_e_d_C_~~~i_~_~~~~~~~~~~~~~_ Possible Land Use Conflicts: Lim; ted; bnt enconrage pr.e~~ru8,tion of hotel Goal 5 Analysis: _lB--!-/3_C _ Management Program: Study ways to encourage interest in historical aspects of conmm; ty MAP: INVENTORY HISTORIC SITES AND BUILDINGS D-138 AREA:~M~l.u~n~n~I~~[J~n'.c':.::.~h ~ ~ T/R: T3N !~~~ ~~.:_~_~~ctio~~~.l9 _ Historic Site: o Map Source: U.S.G.S. Plan Designation: North County Agricultural Zoning Designation: _Ex_c_l_u_sl_.v;_e_F_a_nn_U.::....:s:...;:e:..-.-- _ Possible Land Use~onflicts:_L=~~·t=e=d~b~y~z=~~l~·n~g~~~~~~~~~~_ Goal 5 Analysis: 3C; Limit conflicting uses Management Program: Owner maintaining historic bam; no further protect; ve meas11res necessary~ MAP: D-139 INVENTORY HISTORIC SITES AND BUILDINGS AREA: Olinger Monunents T/R: T4N, R 37 EWM, Section 26 Historic Site: 0 Map Source: U.S.G.S. Pia n Designat ion: _G_r_az_l_'ng_-=--/F_~o_r_e_st_- _ Zoning Designation: _G~--"az~ing..:.L..L!-/F---:~arm~ _ Possible Land Use Conflicts: Limited now; depends on location in future Goal 5 Analysis: IB; Delay Goal 5 process Management Program: Study to determine ,best location per monuments INVENTORY HISTORIC SITES AND BUILDINGS MAP: ~D~-~lL_tO__ AREA:Jinc~~GrmLe ~----- T/R: T 38, R32 EWM,_S_e_c_t~_·o_n_9 _ 4 I "\ .. f ~.. ~, ~. 10 '" 1~) Table Moun Map Source: U.S.G.s.Historic Site: 0 Plan Designat ion: _G_r_az_l_"n-.::::g:.:-/F_o_r_e_st _ Zoning ~esignation:_~~a_z_in_g_/F_a_~ _~__~__~ ~~ Possible Land Use ~onflicts:_L~i~~~·~te~d~;~is~o~J~at~e~d~ar~e~a~ - ~ Goal 5 Analysis: lB, Delay Goal 5 process Management Program: study need to detennine any appropriate historical preservation measures MAP: D-141 INVENTORY HISTORIC SITES AND BUILDINGS AREA:. Westland School T/R: T4N R27 EWM, Section 25 Historic Site: 0 Plan Designation: Agriculture; Future Industrial Map Source: U.S.G.S. Zoning Designation:· E~clusive [ann Use; Future Industrial Possible Land Use ~onflicts:~~~d=u~st~r~i~a_l_u~s~es~~~~~~~~~~~~ Goal 5 Analysis: IB, Delay Goal 5 process Management Program: Detennine historical significance and appropriate protection measures INVENTORY HISTORIC SITES AND BUILDINGS MAP: D-1L~2 AREA: \,J-j 11owSp.L....r.J.lir~)g~SL----.~~~~~~ _ T/R: T3N RJl EWM, Section 18 Historic Site: 0 Map Source: U.S.G.S. Plan Designat ion: _Ex_c_lu_s_i_ve_._F_arm__U_se _ Zoning Designation:_Ex_cl_~_iv_e_F_a~__U_se _ Possible Land Use Conflicts: Unlikely. This is open rangeland. Goal 5 Analysis: lEi Delay GoalS process' Management Program: Site should be studied to detennine if historic preservation measures are necessary or approprtat§~. _ Albee (Category A/C) (IB) [Revised] Albee is the closest thing to a "Ghost Town" in Umatilla County. Settlement occurred in the 1880's and many of the original town buildings remain. Only a few are occupied. The area is platted into small lots and there is some interest in developing the plat as recreational homesites.(18) The area should be inventoried to determine if preservation or restoration is possible or warranted. Battle Mountain (Category A) (3C) Battle Mountain was named for a fight between the white settlers against the Bannock and Paiute Indians in 1878. This was the last such battle in Oregon. There is a 'state park with an interpretive sign on the site. 19 No further protective measures are appropriate or required. Beamer House (Category C) (3C) This beautifully restored Victorian home is located at the site of Downing, south of Milton-Freewater. The house is privately owned and well maintained. 20 No protective measures are appropriate or required. Bingham Springs (Bar MRanch) (Category A/C) (3C) Bingham Springs was a stage stop on the Tollgate Road winding from the upper Umatilla River over the Blue Mountains to the Grande Ronde Valley. Warm springs on the site were sacred to the Indians. A hand hewn log hotel was constructed in 1864, which has been in use ever since. It was a popular resort for many yearso Today the site belongs to the Bar MDude Ranch. 21 No protective measures are appropriate or required. Birch Creek/Grande Ronde Road (Category A) (18) This old emigrant road traveled up East Birch Creek to the headwaters, these along the summit of the Blue Mountains to McCoy and Johnson Creeks and then south and southeast to Starkey.Prairie. 22 This trail route should be further researched to determine its relevent historic value and preservation needs. Buttercreek Crossing (Category A) (IB) This is where the Oregon Trail crossed Buttercreek. A grove of alder trees still exists that the pioneers used for a rest stop. It is the site of an old livery stable and a signpost erected by Ezra Meeker is still there. Trail ruts are still visisble. 23 This site should be reviewed to see if an interpretive marker or other preservation measures are warranted. Cold Springs Landing/Junction (Category A) (IB) An earlier transportation route (since 1811) for fur trappers, emigrants and settlers. 24 Study should be given to an appropriately located interpretive marker. 0-143 Dorion Monument/Park (Category A/B) (3C) I)a rk owned by the Ci ty of Mi 1ton -F reewate r ded i cated to Ma ri e Oori on) the only woman on the Astor Expedition of 1810. It is also the site of an early power plant operated by the city.26 No further protective measures are appropriate or required. Echo Meadows (Category A) (18) [New] Three miles of distinct ruts of the Oregon Trail. Mostly in private owner- ship but part owned by BLM. Oregon Trail Master Plan reco~nended preserva- tion of this section of trail. BLM, County) and private landowners should work together towards this end. Emigrant Springs (Category A) (3C) Emigrant Springs was a favorite water source and camping spot on the Oregon Trail, but was first discovred by Jason Lee in 1834. A state park with an interpretive kiosk is located there. The Oregon Trail master plan recommends no further improvement or protection of the site. 27 Finnish Little Greasewood Cemetery (Category U) (3C) This is a turn-of-the-century cemetery established by the Apostolic Lutherar. Church. 28 No protective measures are appropriate or required. Fort Hen ri etta (01 d Umat ill a Agency) (Category A) (1B) The first Umatilla Indian Agency site called Utilla, was erected in 1851 near Echo, but was burned by the Indians in 1855. Immediately the army constructed Fort Henrietta on the site and occupied it until hostilities ceased. The Agency was moved to Mission in the 1880's.29 The exact location of Fort. Henrietta is not known. If future research locates the site, an interpretive marker would be appropriate. Frazer Road (Category A) (1B) Early emigrant road (1870) from Starkey vicinity to Ukiah. 30 This trail route should be researched further to determine its relevant historic value and preservation needs. German Cemetery (Category 0) (3C) The German Cemetery at Myrick contains graves dated 1897 to 1934.31 No protective measures are appropriate or required. 0-144 Hidaway Hot Springs (Category C) (3A) A popular hot sQrings resort of the early 1900's, the round dance hall (c. 1910) remains. 32 The current owners should be encouraged to insure preser- vation of this unique building. Hudson's Bay Company Farm Site (Category A) (3C) An historical monument exists to commemorate the Hudson's Bay Company Farm, 1821-1856, where 500 head of horses and 100 cattle were pastured. The farm originally was bounded on the north by the Snake River, on the east by the Blue Mountains, on the south by the Umatilla River and on the west hy the Columbia River. 33 The vicinity of the monument is now designated as agri- culture (exclusive farm use). No further protective measures are required. Klicker Springs (Category A) (3C) [New] Klicker springs was a well-known vacation resort around the turn of the century. Facilities included a hotel, livery stable, camp ground and mineral springs for bathing. All that remains is the spring itself. However, the Klicker family intends to improve the site and erect a family memorial plaque and a sign noting the history of the area. Care should be taken by the county to protect the spring because of its proximity to the county road. Lehman Hot Springs (Category C) (3C) These hot springs east of Ukiah were discovered in 1870 and served as a popular resort clear into the 1960's. 34 Although none of the original buildings remain, the hot water pools still exist and are used by the current owner. A number of private cabins located adjacent to the hot springs have hot water piped to them. The hot springs owner is attempting to redevelop the site as a major recreation facility. Umatilla County has granted permits for commercial use of the hot springs and for'tourist facilities, inclucing a major recreation vehicle campground. The new comprehensive plan should recognize the long history of the site as a recreation facility and its potential to supply future recreational needs. Lewis and Clark Trail (Category A) (3C) Lewis and Clark used the Columbia River as their route to the coast and home again in the early 1820's. The State Highway Department has placed Lewis and Clark markers along Highway 730. The State Parks and Recreation Depart- ment should consider an interpretive kiosk at Hat Rock State park, since Hat Rock was noted in the journals of Lewis and Clark. n-14~ Locust Tree Campground (Category A) (IB) Located along the Umatilla River, this campground is at the bottom of the Oregon Trail's descent from Reith Ridge. A grove of locust trees (still standing) provided a shady rest stop for the wagon trains. 35 Ruts of the trail are clearly visible coming down the steep slope to the valley floor o Should the landowner cultivate or otherwise disrupt the hillside, a very clear section of the Oregon Trail would be lost. Or should the locust grove be cleared, much of the historic impact of the site would be lost. Umati'lla County should determine if this site warrants protection to insure preservation. Marcus Whitman Trail (Category A) (lB) Trail used by the Whitman Party who were some of the first emigrants to the Oregon country. Travels through Umatilla National Forest, Umatilla Indian Reservation and privately owned lands. 36 The exact route is not completely known. This trail route should be researched further to determine its relevant historic value and preservation needs. McCoy Cabin (Category C) (IB) The cabin built by Thomas McCoy in 1856 just north of Milton-Freewater is still standing. The title to the tract of land it occupies was the first deed recorded in Umatilla County.37 The county should determine if the site and building warrant protective measures to insure preservation or, if such measures would be appropriate. Meacham (Townsite) (Category A/C) (3C) Meacham was established in 1848 when the U.S. Army camped there following the Whitman Massacre. In 1863 a hotel and toll road were constructed along the Oregon Trail. Several Oregon Trail related sites are located in or near Meacham. The Oregon Trail master plan suggests that revised and additional interpretive markers be placed in Meacham. The plan states: Meacham deserves more. Specifically, Umatilla County should correct the existing interpretive sign, and more interpretation should be added to adequately cover the area's history. Once that is accomplished, the Department of Transportation should provide signs on Interstate 84, indicating that Meacham is a historic site, and encouraging visitors to make a brief exit from the Interstate to app rec i ate its history ..38 Meacham Cemetery (Category D) (IB) Oregon Trail pioneers and early Meacham settlers are buried in this little cemetery. Study should be given to the necessity of protective measures. 0-146 Meacham Hote1 (Category C) (3C) The Meacham Hotel is a large, two story, wood frame building which stands on the east side of the railroad tracks in Meacham, Oregon. This structure has a gable roof which is covered, at present, with sheet metal. The exterior is shiplap. A verandah reaches along the west (front) elevation of the buil di ng. The structu re is ina lit II shape and the verandah thus has two parts. The building is in good condition. The Meacham Hotel was probably erected at the time of the building of the Oregon Railway and Navigation Company line from Umatilla Landing to LaGrande between 1882 and 1884. It is possible, however, that this building may be earlier and may be the one erected by Alfred Meacham who owned the Blue Mountain Toll Road. The sytle and construction materials would, however suggest a date of construction in the late 19th or early 20th centuries. The hotel received additional guests when Highway 30 was dedicated in the 1920's. The hotel was abandoned from 1951 to 1966. In 1966 restoration began on the structure for use as a Quaker summer camp. In 1976 it became known as the Melody Mountain Camp.39 No county action is required, other than encouragement of the owner to maintain the original character of the building. Mumm Ranch (Category C) (3C) The Jurgen Mumm farmstead (c. 1890), located a few miles north of Pendleton, is the site of an architecturally interesting barn and is typical of many well preserved and cherished farmsteads in the county.40 No protective measures are appropriate or required. Old Log Cabin (Category C) (IB) The Pearl Bowman cabin, locally referred to as the "old log cabin," is one of the few remaining original settler1s homes in the Meacham area. 41 Study should be given to determine if the site and building warrant protective measures to insure preservation or if such measures would be appropriate. Olinger Monuments (Category D) (IB) Several concrete monuments are located on a Forest Service road near Tollgate, dedicated to individuals who died during pioneer days. They are located on private property. A study should determine if public access to the monuments should be obtained and protection measures established or if the monuments need to be moved to a more appropriate location. (See recommendations by the Tollgate Citizens' Advisory Committee.) Oregon Trail (Category A) (IB) The Oregon Trail is one of the most important historic elements of our nation. This importance is recognized by the federal and state agencies whose duty it is to preserve our heritage. The State Parks and Recreation Department have done an outstanding job in providing interpretive material in the parks and rest stops along 1-84 which parallels the Oregon Trail. In 1980, the D-147 u.s. Department of Interior, National Parks service~ completed a comprehensiv~ m~nagement and land use plan for the Oregon Trail 4. which recommends specifi r preservation actions along the entire length of the trail. Some of these actions have been referred to herein for specific sites (Meacham, Emigrant Springs, etc.) Awide range of conflicts have resulted in the past and will in the future when Oregon Trail preservation is proposed. Road and utility construction, urban development, and farmi ng and forest ry act i vi ties ha ve dest royed much of the original Oregon Trail throughout Umatilla County. Only in isolated spots can the ruts of the trail now be found. The social consequences of the continued destruction of this remnant of our past must be weighed against the economic and other benefits of land development. The county should consider carefully the purpose of the Oregon Trail master plan, weigh the reco~nenda­ tions for specific sites, and take that action which will be of the most benefit to the public. Oregon Trail Monument (Category D) (3C) The Oregon Trail master plan recommends the State Parks and Recreation Depart- ment correct the errors on the signs and expand its information. No county actions are required. 43 Osage Orange Tree (Category D) (lB) This unique tree is located on the banks of Schwartz Creek where it flows into Pine Creek west of Umapine. The Hudson1s Bay Post and farm were located here, and the original road to the Whitman Mission is still visible in places. 44 It should be determined if the site or road warrants historic preservation measures. Picket Rock (Category A) (IB) This rock outcropping near Echo was used by the army as a lookout during the Indian hostilities of the 1850 1s. 45 It should be determined if the site warrants historic preservation measures. Pine Grove (Category A) (lB) Little remains of this early logging and mlnlng area south of Pilot Rock along Birch Creek. 46 Study of this area may indicate some need for formal historic recognition. Pioneer Lookout Tree (Category D) (18) There still exists the snag of a large yellow pine fifteen miles south of Milton-Freewater along Basket Mountain Road, that the Qioneers used as a lookout point during the years of Indian hostilities. 47 It should be deter- mined if any preservation measures are warranted. 0-148 Prospect Farm (Category C) (lB) This landmark farm along Stage Gulch Road was the IISixteen-Mile House ll from Umatilla Landing (Umatilla) to Pendleton. It once had a post office and was called Morehouse. Some of the locust trees are over 100 years old and some of the rosebushes were brought across country by covered wagon. 48 The site is private property. No resrtictive preservation measures would be appropriate; however, a historical marker might be. Ten-Mile House (Category C) (lB) The IITen-Mile House ll along the road from Umatilla Landing (Umatilla) is one and a half miles from Stanfield on the old Hinkle Road. On the site is the 100 yea r 01 d ~1us II Stan fie 1d B1ack Wa1nut II tree t hat i s qui tea 10calland- mark itself. 4 A historical marker is planned for the site. Tollgate Road (Walla Walla Trail) (Category A) (lB) Tollgate Road was an early emigrant and market toll road that traveled from LaGrande to Walla Walla. A hotel and way station for travelers was located at the summit near the actual tollgate. Later Union and Umatilla Counties purchased the road and eliminated the charges. 50 Perhaps an appropriate historical marker should be placed at the route. Unknown Dead Monument (Category D) (3C) Commonly referred to as the IIUnkown Dead Monument,1I the Old Oregon Trail landmark is a bronze plaque mounted on a shaft of granite that stands on the east side of Old U.S. Highway 30 in Meacham, Oregon. The plaque reads: IIIn Memoriam. Erected 1925 by the Women's Community Club of Meacham, Oregon in honor of those who died blazing the Old Oregon Trail. 1I51 No additional preservation measures are necessary unless it is part of an overall historic area plan for Meacham as recommended by the Oregon Trail master plan. 52 Upper McKay School (Category A/D) (lB) Upper McKay school is just one of many abandoned early-day schools in the County. However, the site is especially interesting because it served for years as a cavalry parade grounds. 53 This site should be studied to determine if historic presrvation measures are appropriate. Walla Walla Trail (Umatilla Trail) (Category A) (lB) This trail, from the Whitman Mission to the Stanfield area, was an early part of the Oregon Trail when wagon trains stopped at the mission for rest and food. Later emigrants did not go to the mssion unless necessary for assistance, in order to avoid an additiona1 week1s travel. Very little of this trail has been identified. 54 Further research may locate portions worthy of historic note. West 1and Schoo'J (Category C) (lB) Westland School is another early day school but its location and architecturL make it a west county landmark. It should be determined if historic preser- vation measures are appropriate. Willow Springs (Category D) (lB) Willow Springs, near Battle Mountain, is the location of several 1878 graves of settlers that wre killed by the Bannock and Paiute Indians. 55 It should be determined if additional historic preservation measures are appropriate. Wooden Flume (Category D) (IB) Only portions of the old wooden flume along the Upper Walla Walla River remain. Additional research is needed into the history of the flume and what appropriate preservation measures are necessary. Additional OSHPO Sites [Revised] A number of other sites are listed in the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office1s, Statewide Inventory of Historic Sites and Buildings for Umatilla County. The following is a l'1st of these sites and why they have not been addressed 'in this report: Deadman1s Pass - On Umatilla Indian Reservation Keyes Cemetery - Within Weston city limits Umatilla River Arch - Within Umatilla city limits Umatilla Landing Site - Within Umatilla city limits St. Andrew's Mission - On Umatilla Indian Reservation Pilot Rock - Within Pilot Rock city limits Oregon-Wyoming Sheep Trail - No information available Old School House - Within Umatilla city limits Jail House - Within Echo city limits Hat Rock - Mentioned in conjunction with Lewis and Clark trail. Also discussed in the "Outstanding Scenic Views and Sites" section of thi s report. Farmhouse - Within Echo city limits Elephant Rock - Discussed in the lIOutstanding Scenic Views and Sites" section of this report. Cayuse Post Office - On Umatilla Indian Res~rvation 0-150 Target Meadows - Within Umatilla National Forest Also a number of historic buildings within incorporated towns are i nventori ed. Century Farms The Century Farm Program, sponsored by the Oregon Historical Society, in which a farm has remianed in the same family ownership over one hundred years, currently has fourteen such farms in Umatilla County.56 Most Century Farm fam; lies have purchased distinctive historical markers for their farms. Management Programs There are undoubtedly many additional sites of historical significance in Umatilla County. Local literature is full of interesting stories of the county's heritage that should be investigated for inclusion in the county's historic inventory. The county's greatest need in regard to historic preservation is to do a detailed historic site inventory. Once that is accomplished, there should be developed a historic preservation plan with appropriate preservation measures. The Umatilla County Historical Society could be instrumental in the preparation of the inventory and plan. In the interim, the county should rely on an appropriate overlay zone to protect currently recognized sites. Cultural Areas A cultural area, according to Statewide Planning Goal #5, refers to "an area character~zed by evidence of an ethnic, religious or social group with dis tinct i vet raits, bel i efsand soc i a1 forms • II In some ways, all of Umatilla County should be considered a 'Icultural area" under the above definition since it is within original territory of the Umatilla Indians. The existing Umatilla Indian Reservation contains about 8% of the total area of the county, but areas throughout the county still have cultural significance to the tribe. 0-151 The following quotations from a CH2MHill planning study~)7 "indicate the nature and scope of the Indian use of the land: Root digging, wild fruit picking, fishing and hunting were the main staples of their food supply. The age-old custom of movin~J to the mounta·ins at the beginning of hot weather was still common for years after the establishment of the Reservation. They lived in tiny shacks or tepees and were more or less nomadic during this season. They returned (to the Reservation) at intervals only to tend their gardens or to get a supply of vegetables •••• Fishing areas for salmon were located along all the major rivers and streams of eastern Oregon and southeastern Washington. Different bands of Indians frequented favorite rivers throughout the region, with the location of the fish determining the sites that were fished in any particular year •••• Hunting for deer, elk, and other wild game also took place throughout the region. Hunting ranged over broader areas than did fishing due to the mobility of game. Hunting patterns were similar to those for fishing, bands of Indians hunted in different areas. The hunting areas were dictated by the location of game ••••• The diet of meat and fish was supplemented by wild roots, such as the camas root. Areas for digging roots were located on lightly timbered or open ridges. Bands and faimlies used regular sites for digging •••• The Indians' diet was also supplemented by wild berries, to a large extent, huckleberries. Huckleberry fields were located in the timbered areas surrounding the high mountain peaks, mostly east of the present Reservation •• While the Indians were foraging for food during the spring, summer, and fall, temporary campgrounds were located near the hunting and fishing areas. Many of these campgrounds were located on sites later settled by non-Indians, such as LaGrande, Cove, Union, and Baker. As a result, traces of these early Indian habitat~ have disappeared. During the winter months campgrounds were established at lower elevations for protection from the cold and snow. Typical sites included Imnaha and Tum-a-Lum before the Treaty of 1855 and along the Umatilla River after the Reservation was eatablished. The annual trips in search of fish and game led bands of Indians to distant points within the region. While on these trips the Indians sought sites for relaxation and bathing. Hot springs located in the far flung reaches of the mountain area provided sites for these restful interludes. Confederated Tribes officials are reluctant to identify any specific areas for traditional cultural and religious practices within the county (off-Reservation). A recent letter from the Tribal Planning Director states: The area of concern to the Umatilla Confederation is known as the Ceded Boundaries and include approximately 6 to 8 million acres in northeast Oregon and southeast Washington. It is within these areas that the Tribes have reserved hunting, fishing, pasture, and root and berry picking rights 0-152 . . .~ As you may know, some of the issues and information are guarded and become very emotional. Sometimes the situation is most delicate. 58 There are indications that livestock grazing (timing and vicinity) may have potential conflicts with the ability of certain roots and herbs gathered now, primarily for religious/cultural reasons (no longer used extensively as food).59 And of course, state hunting and fishing policies are of concern to the tribe. Local land use issues are also of interest, such as protection of deer/elk winter range near the reservation. The Tribe has been monitoring the county's planning program and sumbitted testimony on several occasions. Besides assuring input by and coordination with the Tribe, there is little else the county can do at this time to instigate conflicts with Indian cultural sites. The State Commission on Indian Services is proposing legislation (The Oreogn Archaeological Protection Act) which may alleviate some of the coordination problems. 60 Indian sites and landmarks identified so far by the Tribe are classified as follows: fishing areas, hunting areas, root digging areas, berry picking areas, campgrounds, hot springs, historic sites, historic buildings, corrals, and geo- graphic areas. Specific sites in each category are listed in Table D-XIX. The table indicates the non-Indian and Indian names for each historic site, and comments regarding the significance of the site. Where possible, the comments also indicate the meaning of Indian names and the general location of the site. (See also, Map, page D-154). D-153 '- Cf)Z LLJG~~ ->(J)D: w ---lCf)<{~ OLL _ LL a.: ° o ~B(f)@ Ie~ o(jES§ ..--J <:(c-a:~ ::::JB I- B ..--Je =:J@ u~ z~ «c:::::J -p OES Z ~~~ c::::'_ LEGEND • HISTORIC BUILDING SOURCE Planning for the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Initial Comprehensive Planning Investigation .A. CAMPGROUNDS ••••••..•••••• FISHING AREAS 00 HUNTING AREAS ® ROOT DIGGING AREA @ BERRY PICKING AREAS o PRESENT RESERVATION . R:lCERZ9EA28E I i 1 1 j : -- --'·1'-,--.l---r- ilN i '--I I T:S ! ~ ~ . ~~-. -- ------ ft ~ ; fit;· TABLE O-XIX Off-Reservation Cultural/Historic Sites of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Category Fishing area Hunting areas Root di ggi ng Berry Picking Campgrounds Campground Campground Non-Indian Name North Fork, John Day River Tollgate McKay Reservoir Ukiah Indian Name Moo Lee Shima Nuesh Nuesh Pa Wanaket Ukias Location South County Throughout the area South Fork Walla Walla River Near Umati 11 a Comments Means II rap ids ll Means "nose ll Caves on south end once used as homes. Campground also located near present dam. Camp site and fishing site. Camp, hunting fishing and root digging site. Historic Building Echo SOURCE: CHZM-Hill, Planning for the Umatilla Indian Reservation, 1973. f)-155 Location of Indian Agency prior to Treaty of 1855. POTENTIAL AND APPROVED OREGON RECREATION TRAILS There are no. approved or potential Oregon or national recreation trails in Umatilla County.61 See the IIhistorical ar(~all section of this report for references to the 0'1 d Oregon Trai 1 .. ~ATER AREAS, WETLANDS, WATERSHEDS AND GROUNDWATER RESOURCES In this climate, water is often the limiting factor for agricultural, 'industrial, residential and urban development. Analysis of water suppl ies and use can lead to an approximation of "carrying capacity" and the basic strategies necessary to maintain and expand activities dependent on water. Four sources of water are available to Umatilla County users: runoff in local streams and rivers, the Columbia River, groundwater in alluvial aquifers, and groundwater in basalt. Use of one source eventually affects use of other sources, especially when all sources are approaching full development. Many studies have been conducted concerning the quality, quantity, and availability of water in the county.62 There are four major water areas in Umatilla County. They include the Columbia River, the Walla Walla Drainage, Umatilla Basin Drainage and the John Day Basin Drainage. Average annual runoff for the Walla Walla River near Milton- Freewater is 161,450 acre feet; the Umatilla River at Umatilla is 314,200 acre feet. The only measurement for the John Day Basin is Camas Creek near Ukiah which is 70,730 acre feet. 63 An important supplier of water to these streams is the snowpack in the Blue Mountains. At Meacham, the mean annual snowfall is 157 inches; this is the headwater area of the Umatilla River. 64 There are no major natural lakes in the county, but two man-made water impoundments have been constructed. They are McKay Reservoir located eight miles south of Pendleton on McKay Creek, and cold Springs Reservoir approximately six miles east of Hermiston. McKay has a water surface area of 1,286 acres, and 0-156 o I 234 5 10 15 ewe i SCALE IN MILES DRAINAGES (W~L%u~[1JLL% ©©(W[Kf]uW~ ©[g1~@©[f!] DRAINAGE BASINS 1 UMATILLA BASIN Subbasins: 1a Walla Walla 1b Umatilla 1CWillow 2 JOHN DAY BASIN TABLE o-XX RIVER BASIN DRAINAGE AREAS AND AVERAGE ANNUAL RUNOFF (Selected Streams) [Revised] Drainage Area in Average Annual Runoff Square Miles (approx.) in Acre Feet Umatilla River At Pendleton Near Umatilla McKay Creek at Pilot Rock Birch Creek at Reith Walla Walla River South Fork North Fork JOHN DAY RIVER Camas Creek at Ukiah 2,355 (total) 637 2,290 180 291 396 (total) 63 42 490 (total) 121 355,000 315,000 71,000 34,000 127,000 35,000 71,000 .SOURCE: .. Oregon1s Long-Range Requirements for Water, State Water Resources Board, 1969; Umatilla County Planning Department estimates. 0-158 Cold Springs has a water surface area of 1,500 acres. 65 These two impoundments collect water for release in late summer. McKay Reservoir, on McKay Creek above Pendleton, stores water for three irrigation ditches and down the Umatilla River to diversion points, below which little or no water may flow because water rights have been established for all releases. Cold Springs' Reservoir stores water above its district area and off the main stem, diverting water during high flow months. Including all districts and private irrigators, the Umatilla River below Pendleton has a demand of 933.13 cubic feet/second, while river flow averages 26 cubic feet/second for some August days. Four irrigation districts, several private irrigation companies, and individual landowners divert surface waters for agricultural purposes from both year-round and intermittent rivers and streams. They also serve as fish habitat, wildlife water and recreation. The rivers rise from precipitation over higher elevations in the eastern and southern parts of the county. The waterway most over-used is the Umatilla River, especially the segment below Pendleton. The natural regime of the river has most of the flow from March to May; only 3% of the flow is in August and September, which are heavy irrigation months. Appropriation of water is controlled by the state. Well logs must be submitted and water rights filed with the State Water Resources Board. One potential problem arises concerning the appropriation and use of water, and that is the status of treaty rights which the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation have. The tribe is in the process of adopting a water code which may have far-reaching implications. One of the major sources for wetlands are areas of standing water resulting from high water tables, irrigation runoff, and restrictive soil features. The West County Vector Control District has conducted an inventory of standing water areas for the west portion of the county. I 0-159 Unfortunately, this inventory does not cover the entire county. However, additional wetlands would be probable along streams and reservoirs in the county. Much of the wetland areas are habitat for waterfowl and fur-bearing animals. A map of this habitat appears on page 0-24. These areas could also be described as wetlands. The quantity, quality and location are discussed elsewhere in this chapter. There is one watershed and part of three others located in the county. The Umatilla watershed is the largest and encompasses about 2/3rd 1 s of the county. It includes the drainage from Meacham, McKay, Birch, Wildhorse, and Buttercreeks. Table D-XX shows the areas and average runoff for these areas. The Umatilla Watershed begins just east of the diminished boundaries of the Umatilla Indian Reservation and passes through the reservation from east to west. The entire Indian Reservation is located within this watershed. It is uncertain what impacts the treaty has on the watershed. The Walla Walla River watershed begins in Umatilla County and drains to the northwest before crossing into Washington State. This includes the north and south forks of the Walla Walla River (see Table D-XX). The headwaters of the forks of the Walla Walla begin on National Forest lands. Concerns have been raised recently over the future of logging within this area. Orchardists in the Milton-Freewater area are heavily dependant upon the Walla Walla River for irrigation, especially in July and August. Objectors to logging state that by removing cover from the slopes, the snow pack is melted faster, thus reducing the amount of available water needed during the critical months of July and August. The Mill Creek watershed is partially located in the extreme northeast corner of the county (most is located in Wallowa County, Oregon and in Columbia County, Washington), and is the main domestic water source for the city of Walla Walla, Washington. Much of the area is protected by the U.S. Department of 0-160 Agriculture~ Forest Service. Access into the watershed is restricted. Lower reaches of Mill Creek~ in Oregon~ pass through a rural subdivision area. Development along the stream is limited due to floodplain regulations. No figures are available for the area or average annual runoff for Mill Creek. A portion of the John Day watershed is located in the extreme southern portion of the county. A small segment of the North Fork of the John Day River passes through the county on the southern county line. The major contributer to the John Day watershed located in Umatilla County is Camas Creek (see Table D-XX). Two potential sites for water storage have been identified in this watershed. They are along Camas Creek and Snipe Creek. 66 Both would supply irrigation water for farmers in the Buttercreek area. To date~ these projects are only under consideration by federal agencies. No determination has been made as to whether or not these projects will be undertaken. The Columbia River flows along the northwest corner of Umatilla County. Columbia River water~ presently diverted for irrigation purposes~ is under examination for industrial and municipal supply. Besides cosumptive uses~ the Columbia is a source of electr~cal energy~ a transportation route~ a recreation asset~ and supports a variety of fish species. The waterway most over-used is the Umatilla river~ especially the segment below Pendleton. Tha natural regime of the river has most of the flow from March to May; only 3% of the flow is in August and September~ which are heavy irrigation months. The Bureau of Reclamation is currently conducting a Umatilla River Basin Study which will address this issue as well as fish resource. Two impoundments, McKay Reservoir and Cold Springs Reservoir, collect water for release in late summer. McKay Reservoir~ on McKay Creek above Pendleton, stores water for three irrigation ditches and private irrigators in the west county. This water, when released, flows down the Umatilla River to diversion points, below which little or no water may flow because water rights have been established for all releases. Cold Springs Reservoir stores water above 0-161 its district area and off the main stem, diverting water during high flow months. Including all districts and private irrigators, the Umatilla River below Pendleton has a demand of 933.13 cubic feet/second, while river flow averages 26 cubic feet/ second for some August days. Four irrigation districts, several private irrigation companies, and individual landowners divert surface waters for agricultural purposes from both year-round and intermittent rivers and streams. They also serve as fish habitat, wildlife water and receation. The rivers rise from precipitation over higher elevations in the eastern and southern parts of the county. Irrigation water losses occur in distribution to users, storage, and on the fields through evaporation and perculation into the ground. About 45% of Hermiston Irrigation District (HID) water div~rted from the river is lost before it reaches the field; other districts lose 30-35%. In the case of HID, distribution and inefficient application losses combine to raise the shallow alluvial groundwater table in the Columbia District. This water is then pumped by shallow wells for both domestic and irrigation use. A drop in HID-diverted water during the 1977 drought was reflected in dropping levels in the shallow wells. This shallow water table which results from irrigation practices causes some problems with septic tank installations and may even cause some septic tanks to leak sewage. It also maintains standing water in drainage ditches and pools used by waterfowl, which is good, and mosquitos, which is bad. The ditches return some of the shallow groundwater and runoff to the Umatilla and Columbia Rivers. Discussed above, fish below diversion points suffer from this over- allocation. Both reservoirs, which also serve as wildlife refuges, and the river, do not have established minimum flow or storage standrads, which would require extensive reworking of existing water right priorities if flow were not supple- O-16? mented at the same time. Recent studies indicated that sufficient water is available for storage and late summer release. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is now examining different flow benefits, with study completion expected in 1979. Feasibilty studies for construction of impoundments, insistence by the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation on fish runs could possibly reduce stream flow available for irrigation and impoundment proposal that could irrigate 96,000 acres and provide minimum fish flows. 67 A feasibility study has been completed for the Stanfield-Westland Irrigation Projection, but has run into further funding problems. The project is an attempt to maintain agricultural expansion in western Umatilla and northern Morrow counties without drawing on the three water sources whose problems are discussed above. Its proposal to use Columbia River water comes at the same time that states along the Columbia are beginning to discuss allocation between users. This project has three advantages over upriver irrigation proposals; (1) there is shorter pumping distance to overcome elevation differences; (2) Diversion will be below electricity-producing dams, reducing impact of water diversion on energy production of the Columbia system; and (3) Peak river flow coincides with the irrigation season. There are two major sources of groundwater in Umatilla County: they are ...,..~.~=,,~~--~--..~~_.~-"~---~ _·,-"-,=-_· __ ~",_,~,,,-,-·_,--~=.o-~"""'--""""'_=-"'''L=-<;t·~== ....~.~-_.-...c...."'===..,~-='""- ...."~.=.~ c ••-_'_'~'__-'-_~_= __',,-,".,~_ "_"'~""'-~_~""",,- ~, __ .',_-,-,~., ... _,-,_, __ .~,,~ strou n~~-9._!~_.c ...f9Yn.9 i a11 uvi alaqui fers, andgtg,undwater in basalt. Alluvial aquifers are porous layers of gravel laid down by rivers in previous mellenia. These aquifers are used by industry, rural residences, agricultural and cities. Some alluvial aquaifers show a close correlation between river peak flows and water depth in wells, notably where gravel fans leave steeper mountain slopes (e.g. Walla Walla Valley north of Milton-Freewater). Other alluvial aquifers occur in lenses in which the gravel pinches out between imper- meab1e 1aye rs • Below the alluvial lenses, water lying in the basalt that it tapped by deep 0-163 wells has encountered more serious drawdowns. Developed ifers in the basalt difficult to reach. Groundwateri n basal tJi es betwe§X:L~)llaj()r basalt lilyersc,jlJ fracture zones and rarely flows between Jayers. This water is often of high quality, but is ~~_~_bA!,ge of ~~~~~.l,~_aquifers is not documented. Apparent ly basalt east of the Service Anticline west of Hermiston is recharged from the Blue Mountains some 40 miles to the east. Critical roundwater orders have been issued for Ordnance and Buttercreek areas west of thi s anti,cc.l,_~~~,_ , __,",~~~c,,,,,,,,, " but have been successfully challenged; and presently there is no order in effect. (68) Water that has traveled through the Westland Irrigation District High Line Canal and has pooled at Lost Lake after irrigation use is now pumped into porous soils in an attempt to recharge declining water levels in the Lost Lake- Depot area. Although this practice has sometimes uncertain returns, it is apparently maintaining groundwater levels for irrigation in this instance. Wells in this area ield from below 100 minute indicating "_""'''''''_~_'_''~-_''"~'~·~~_c'~'~'~'_~'''''~'''''''''_"•.•" __ ,c,~_.__',~~ ,_~";._~,_~,._.,_,.,,,,~,, both"PogE~ 099~gdw ~!~I~.yi<: l_ci~~~~~Tb~c~,~~g~,it~I~~a _Y_,~~~~,~,]ojQed, coy!_~ici~ ~~~ly wJ t h~nc,C~~-~.5D_gci 0nle s~_i ~~."Clo_~L.Lrr:lg?ttQD~_~lL~g~~__Jh~_CQJYrn9 tC!,~~j'{_§t_ ,has __Qg~Q. sug_g~.?1~(t_ ~'~-"'~~~='~_'~~~~"-_~'W>~~' __~~'~" __~~ •• ~._._~~.~ _".=.._.~__._~,... of Water Resources does raise a number of ions which will need further stlLdY... ,, ~_~me of the more significant findings and conclusions from ---'__~__=,rtv."",_""..-r._.;,:_.~,U'''_'__'':''__'-' =''''''''''==~=""",,,..,-,-::-_-:;.-c:::-.""'-'--:o"'-~:::_~=':';=::."_""-::'';::._-:_·=.==--:-;''_'==---:';''~~~7:"''-;-::-.c::~_cc.~:~;:=":=:.",=.."~-,.,::",-.·._"o.- __ ~",.,..,,,_·_,,,~·-:~.-_-:·.-.~":"0 ...,'.-,-.. -·.,_· .. -,.,-,:,-::-:::..-:0=,;:.'-'--'-"','",.;;,',".,.':_·..-·,-"'_·,--'----o_-=co.·~~,.-.-_ •.-=-'--:-_...,.._--,-·~ "Hydrologic Studies in the Umatilla Structural Basin ll are as follows: ~=;::-_-~---:::====.'c-.:.;;=..:.:..:..:;·;~-==::.,"",~=-,~...".__-~C'_'_~--=;.='-'.-,'"'.....~_...,=_. :':".:::=0- ' __'_==='''''''''_''''_:-;O~_"C"'''-=_-=C;-_''''''"''",_.",,,,,,,_,,,=,==~,,,,",-=.,.,.....,..,_~_-,..,'"'--'-'~~--'.""""""'.~,::"-,;;.;...:.: :,-:-,-.-.:,o=..,~=--::.:::..-,,,,=-=..:.=.::;=.:> Findings: 1. The rate of recharge under steady state conditions is reflected in the carbon 14 apparent age dates. Groundwater now being withdrawn 0-164 was last exposed to the atmosphere from 2,~70 to 27,290 years ago. Most of the water being withdrawn from the aquifier is in excess of 10,000 years old. A significant proportion of the study area has water greater than 22,000 years old. The long period of time since emplacement of the water indicates that the recharge rate is very slow and is minor when compared to pumpage. 2. Water level declines are clearly evident in the major basalt aquifer. The water level declines from 1965 to 1980 have dewatered 13 cubic miles of basalt aquifer. The average decline rate for areas that have experienced a lowering of water levels equals 5.1 feet per year. 3. Water level decline rates are increasing in portions of Stage Gulch, at the City of Pendleton, and at the City of Milton-Freewater. 4. The basalt aquifer is being overdrafted in over a 600-square mile area as evidenced by water level declines of 50 feet or more in the last 15 years. Conclusions: 1. The amount of water that can be practicably recoverd in aquifer storage to a depth of 500 feet below land surface is calculated to be 18.0 million acre-feet. Assuming that withdrawls remain constant, this represents approximately a 95 year supply of water for the 2,200 square mile region. However, centralized overdrafts of the aquifer are already restricting some appropriator1s ability to withdraw water in intensely developed areas. 2. The water level declines are continuing at the same rate or at an accelerated rate in nearly all of the study area. There is no evidence to suggest that water levels are reaching a point of equilibrium of that in the near future water level declines will cease. In light of this information and realizing it is subject to rev; sion, additi o~a,l analys,i s "willbe,rl.ec~ss(ir'ywh~nthe plan ~YJ!5:!qteci " addr ~s-s lng.'the -cu r' re'n t, grou.na~L~tgL_S_hQ!:t~g.g~-REQJ)l~I}J{~ I~ P?,rti ~ular,these,,,PTgb1e,msas the,yr~late to future water.needs ·(h~is-ed-~-o'~~J,5~~·~~~~i2I.~"~_~I2-p6p~1at fQD}Pr the ar~a?i nv0 lyed and anti.<:jpatedwater use to the year 2000) and proJected Viater avaiJ,- ~~1cl,ci ~Xc~~ll need to be add res sed. Mod ift~~_tJQD~ __Qf_~~~tX~D,,~Jy~_d_2E~~d LaJ1(Lu?~_ pl annj ng deci si ons or th~_est~_I:>Jj?bn,leDt_.9J_?c::g~lntYW_Clt~X resour.~,g~~rj~Qri~tx,,""~'y?,!~~_as_itCe,1~t~st9.t,b~landuseacdt i onsmay beJJ"~~~g~?aryj,Q ._~b.~_~!~~ure. Th i sINi 11_Q~f~_~?jtClt~_ClcJQ?~._y{QIttD9 relatioQ.shi~Q._l?~~J~.~_~DJQ_~~,~ounty and th~ State Water Resources Q~pi1,rtlll~Qt· Conclusions *Water used in Umatilla County comes from five sources--the John Day Basin, the Umatilla Basin, the Columbia River, shallow gravel aquifers, and deep basalt aquifers. 0-165 'kThe Ullla tin a R'j ver is now over-a 11 ocatecl and does not n ow below Th ree Mi 'I e [Jam during some summers. *Water rights as they now stand will not allow for recommended minimum Umatilla River flows until upstream reservoirs are built with their primary water right committed to minimum flows. ~DO~,~~!2C wel ~"~~~-:~.n?~.~.>~~~~~,2ated by the State Water Resources Department, while industrial, community, municipal, and irrigation wells are all regulated. *The Water Resources rtment has declared one critical groundwater area-- Ordnance Critical Groundwater Area. Agricultural and municipal users are regulated by the Water Resources Department. *Minimum stream flows have not been determined for the Umatilla River. *The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation are proposing a water code, and the implications to the county are undeterminable. [New] *Modification of the current !!!~Y,result from future State Water Resources rtment studies and actions~ [New] *The Bureau of Reclamation is preparing a comprehensive Umatilla Bas in Study. 1eve1. The cou wi 11 continue to coordi nate with federal and c~!.~~~~~.~~[~.~£~,~.?, *The resources and the expertise of the county are limited when considering =~·~"-'<===='~="·_="""_C"=====-""'-'-',--",~..:,-,,~.~,~·,..?~,~._~-.,,-,,",-·,,-' ~~"""~~""-"".o~.-,-~",-,,:=_.-.- ~at~i-c~l£t~Q.~J~rob 1ems.! It ,i ? i n .t~,e. be~,,!~~L~~t~.c,~,~t_of. ..th.~._<:Q.~nJy __.j9.~T~l,t up 0 nthe expert i se 0 f stat e and fed era l ~_~~nc~~~~~"_.~_.~~~~~~~_~_~~_~~~_~.~.~~~~~~.~~._~ s_~~~~.: 0-166 MINERAL AND AGGREGATE RESOURCES Mineral Resources Virtually no mineral resources exist in Umatilla County; and certainly none exist of commercial quantity or quality.(69) Minor coal deposits do exist in isolated spots in the county (Pine Grove, etc.) that, in fact, were mined for a brief time in the early 1900's.(70) A USGS report notes, "Although lenses and thin beds of pure, good grade bituminous coal are present locally, they apparently are too thin, intimately mixed with carbonaceous shale, and structurally deformed to be of commercial interest."(71) No other significant mineral deposits exist in the county. Aggregate Resources (Rock Material Resources) [Revised] Unlike mineral resources, Umatilla County enjoys an abundant aggregate resource. Although there is no known estimate of the total rock material (quantity), it can be assumed from the discussion below that it is more than adequate through the year 2000. In 1976, the State Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (OOGAMI) prepared a report entitled Rock Mineral Resources of Umatilla County, Oregon. Much of the information herein comes from that report. Types of Rock Materials Umatilla County has three main types of rock material resources: (1) Columbia River Basalt; (2) stream alluvium and fluvioglacial gravels; (3) and a group of other rock types. Their relative importance, ownership, and sources are discussed here. Columbia River Basalt, a thick series of lava flows covering most of Umatilla County, contains 73 percent of the materials sites (Table O-XXI). Most of these sites represent small, remote quarries producing rock for local use. Chief exceptions are the several large quarries that produced basalt 0-167 rock for construction of 1-84. However, little, if any, of this production was sold commercially. The basalt in the Blue Mountain region is particularly important as a resource for road construction by the Oregon Highway Division, the Umatilla National Forest, and Umatilla County. Quar~ rock (basalt) will become more important for the urban areas in time, as nearby gravel sources become depleted. Stream alluvium and fluvioplacial gravels, collectively covering about 17 percent of Umatilla County, represent important sources of commercial low- cost concrete aggregate (Table D-XXI). About 23 percent of the rock material sites in the county are in this alluvial and placiofluvial materials, and six large gravel pits produced 68 percent of the gravel used in the county. Other rock types overlie about 25 percent of the surface area within the county. Those rock types utilized as materials resources are chiefly quartz diorite, phyolite, and welded tuff occurring in patches in the southern part of the county. Most of the quarries are small, and the rock is used where gravel and Columbia River Basalt are lacking. Only 4.4 percent of the rock sources"listed in Table D-XXII are located in these minor rock types (Table D-XXI).(72) Most of the commercia) aggregate produced in Umatilla County comes from the northwest part, the area where agriculture, industry, and population are predicted to expand at an accelerated rate in the near future. Alluvial gravel from the Umatilla River from Pendleton eastward to about Mission provides most of the commercial concrete aggregate used in the Pendleton area. The gravels are partly replenished by periodic floods; however, as the demand for rock increases in the Pendleton area, the Umatilla River gravel supply may not be sufficient, and additional rock from quarries will be needed. Insofar as possible, river gravel should be reserved for concrete aggregate, and crushed and broken quarry rock should be used for base rock and embankments.(73) 0-168 Table O-XXI Materials Sources in Relation to Geologic Rock Types Rock type Columbia River Basalt Fluvioplacial Gravel A11 uvi um Other Tota1: Percent of Area 68.0 16.2 0.8 25.0 100.0 Number of Sources 197 41 21 12 271 Percent Total Sources 73 15 7.5 4.4 99.9 Source: OOGAMI, Rock Mineral Resources of Umatilla County, Oregon, 1976. Goal 5 Analysis [New Section] ~ock, sand and gravel are crucial resources for nearly all types of structural development. As basic building materials, their relative abundance can exert either a positive or nagative influence on the development of a local economy. Not only does rock, sand and gravel provide the building materials for development, but their removal, transport and use provides jobs upon which a substantial part of the economy depends. To protect rock material, resource sites through the resolution of conflicts between resource extraction and other competing uses (as identified) will certainly help to ensure a strong economic future. The economic consequences of not protecting mineral sites could be costly to the local economy through the loss of jobs and increased costs for basic building materials. The negative economic consequences of applying regulations generally places a burden on individuals or firms who are prevented from undertaking structural development on a specific site. While this may be a short-term financial hardship for some, most individuals or firms eventually resolve their dilemma by building elsewhere. 0-169 The consequences of protecting rock resource sites is to preserve a way of life that all citizens have become accustomed to. Sewer systems, buildings, bridges, streets and highways all require sand and gravel or crushed rock. In order for the construction industry to build our modern society, it is necessary that rock quarries and rock crushers exist. There is no denying the nuisance characteristics of rock, sand and gravel operations. They do contribute to localized noise, dust and visual blight. However, without them, the advance- ment of our society would be quite limited. The negative social consequence of ap1ying regulations is similar to the negative economic consequences above in that some individuals may be inconven- ienced in their building plans. The importance of any rock extraction activity lies within its economic value (affected by its site specific location) and the relative scarcity of the resource activities, and requires that reclamation plans be submitted prior to permit approval. Reclamation plans provide for pro~uctive uses of property following an extraction operation and often include recreational features such as lakes and wildlife habitats. Because the natural environment will, of necessity, be disturbed by rock resource extraction, the protection of resource sites may not result in positive environmental consequences. Extraction is temporary in nature and in most cases affects only the subsurface of the land. Farming, forestry and recreation can and do occur before and after a mining operation. In case of important resource sites, the positive economic and social benefits often outweigh the environmental consequences. Because sand, gravel and crushed rock are bulky and heavy, the deposits nearest to developing areas are, of necessity, the best ones. In order to remain economically viable, only a small increase in hauling costs can be tolerated. Energy costs increase dramatically for every mile that material 0-170 \is transported from a supply source. As a result, the energy consequence of protecting the best mineral resource sites (those close to construction areas) is entirely positive. The consequences of establishing requirements which limit conflicting uses in identified resource sites should proye to be of substantial benefit to the economic, social and energy systems within which we live. As long as a provision for reviewing extenuating circumstances is included, the limitation of conflicting uses within identified resource sites is warranted. Inventory [Revised] Table D-XXI tabulates location and other pertinent information on 283 sources of rock material in Umatilla County. Information sources include: U.S. Bureau of Mines, Umatilla County Road Department, Oregon State Highway Division, DOGAMI, U.s. Forest Services and USGS. The table includes a quality rating for those laboratory tested. Comments regarding suitable uses for the material and general information related to present status or avail- ability and additional location notes are included in the last column. The map on page D-188 shows how these sites are scattered county-wide. Of the 283 rock material sources listed in Table D-XXII, the u.s. Forest Service has title to 25%; the State Highway Division, 10%; Umatilla County, 3%; the U.S. Army Ordnance Depot, 2%; and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 2%. The remaining 58% are on private property. Active sites make up 70% of the total, while 17% were inactive, and 13% were abandoned. 0 ... 171 .~<~:.~. ~;;:.. / Goal 5 ANALYSISREMARKSQUANTITYNAME Table O-XXII INVENTORY OF ROCK ~ATERIAL SOURCES IN UMATILLA COUNTY [REVISED] TYPE OF DEPOSITOWNER LOCATION (SEC. ) T6N~ R38E 22 SW/NW 23 SE/SW USFS USFS Indian Ridge Rd. Indian Ridge Rd. Basalt Q Basalt Q Small Small Located in UNF Located in UNF lA lA T6N, R37E 28 NE 1/4 30 NW/NE Walla Walla County Lynch Site Basalt Q Basalt Q Small Abandoned Inactive lA 2A T6N, R36E 27 NW/NE 34 NE/SE Birch Creek Gravel Gravel Inactive Inactive 3C 3C T6N, R35E 16 NE 1/4 24 SW/SE 25 NE/SW 29 NE/NW 33 SE/NE 34 SW/SE 36 NW/NW 36 NW/NE Ready~Mix Sand &Gravel Spencer and·Son OSHD Ready-Mix Sand &Gravel County Hu rst Pit Gravel Gravel Gravel Gravel Gravel Gra ve1 Gravel Gravel Small Small Sma11· Small Small Small Large Small Active Old commercial source Abandoned/dump Abandoned Abandoned Abandoned Commercial source Walla Walla River 3C lA lA lA 1A 1A 3C 3C T6N, R34E 35 NW/NW Pri vate Cockburn Quarry Basalt Q Small Inactive 1A T6N, R33E 23 NE/SW 33 NE/SE Pri vate County Harri s Quarry Basalt Q Basalt Q Small Small Inactive lA 2A 0-172 /~ "-.-' GOAL 5 ANALYSISREMARKSNAME Table D-XXII (Cont'd) INVENTORY OF ROCK MATERIAL SOURCES IN UMATILLA COUNTY [REVISED] TYPE OF DEPOSIT QUANTITYOWNER LOCATION (SEC.) T6N, R31E Pri vate Pearson Quarry Basalt Q Small Active 2A T5N, R38E 1 NE/NE 1 SE/SW 23 NW 1/4 USFS USFS USFS Upper Tiger Creek Tiger Saddle Tiger Saddle Basalt Q Small Basalt prosp. Basalt prosp. Located in UNF Located in UNF Located in UNF 1A 1A 1A T5N, R36E 5 SEINE 7 SW/SW 7 NW/SW 18 SE/NW 22SE/NW 30 NW/NW Pri vate Pri vate Pri vate Graham Couse Creek Q Gran; te Basalt Q Basalt Q Basalt Q Basalt Q(?) Basalt Q Small Small Small Large Inactive Inactive Abandoned Inactive lA 2A· lA 2A 1A 3A T5N, R35E 4 S\-J/NW 9 SE/SE 13 NW/NE 35 NW/NE 35 NE/SE Pri vate Private Pri vate OSHD OSHD Knosp Site Harder Q Site Basalt Q Basalt Q Basalt Q Basal t Q Basalt Q Small Small Small Small Large Inactive Inactive In M-F UGB Inactive MP 25.0 Hwy. 8 3C 1A 3C 3C 3A T5N, R34E 1 NE/NW 9 SW/SW 17 NW/NE 29 NE/NE 31 SW/SE 35 SE/SE Private Private Private (UCRO) Private Pri vate OSHO Schubert Quarry Rice Quarry Wayland Quarry Walker Quarry Rush Quarry Basalt Q Basalt prosp. Basalt Q Basalt Q Basalt Q Basalt Q Medium Small Small Small Medium Small Inactive Inactive Active Inactive Inactive Inactive 3C 1A 3C 2A 3C 2A 0-173 Table O-XXII (Cont'd) INVENTORY OF ROCK MATERIAL SOURCES IN UMATILLA COUNTY LOCATION TYPE OF GOAL 5 (SEC. ) OWNER NAME DEPOSIT QUANTITY REMARKS ANALYSIS T5N, R33E 6 SEINE Private Van Sickle Q Basalt Q Small Inactive lA 9 SWINE Private Butler lease Basalt .Q(?) Small Inactive lA 15 SW/SE Private Raymond Site Basalt Q Small Inactive 3C T5N, R32E 5 NW/NW County Fu rni sh Basalt Small Active 3C 8 SW/SE Private Gordon Site Basalt Q(?) Small Abandoned -IA 9 NE/NE Private Basalt Q(?) Small Abandoned lA 33 SW/SE County Engdahl Basalt Q Small Inactive 3C T5N, R29E 22 SE/NW OSHD Basalt Q Large 3A 20 SW 1/4 OSHD Gravel Large Unused lA T5N, R28E 16 NW 1/4 UCRD In UGB lA 16 ·SW/NE OSHD Umatilla Gravel Large In UGB 1A 16 NW/SW Jones-Scott Co. Gravel Large In. UGB 1A 16 NE/SW Jones-Scott Co. Gravel Large In UGB lA 16 SE/SW Riverbend Construction Gravel Large In UGB 1A 17 SWINE Umatilla Ready Mix Inc. Gravel Large In UGB lA Rhode Sand &Gravel Columbia Sand &Gravel Jones-Scott Company 17 NE/NE Gra ve1 20 NW/NW Gravel 21 NW/NE Riverbend Quarry Basalt Q Large Commercial lA 0-174 ~. ,-.~,,,, Table O-XXII (Cont'd) INVENTORY OF ROCK MATERIAL SOURCES IN UMATILLA COUNTY LOCATION TYPE OF GOAL 5 (SEC. ) OWNER NAME DEPOSIT QUANTITY REMARKS ANALYSIS 27 NW/NW Snipes Mountain Gravel Large In UGB 3A 28 NE/SE OSHO Umatilla Butte Basal t Q Inacfl 're. 1t· 32 SW/SW Sand Pit Inactive 1A) T5N, R27E., 2S NE Hermiston Ready Mix Active 3C T4N, R37E 28 SW/SW Basalt Q 3C 30 SW/SW OSHO Basalt Q Exhausted 1A 36 NE/NW Basalt Q Large 3C \ -0.\. T4N, R36E 22 NW/SW Big Rayborn Can Basalt Q 2A T4N, R 35E 16 SE/NW OSHO Basalt Q Inactive 3C 23 SE/NW Weston Quarry Basalt Q Inactive 3C 24 SW 1/4 OSHO Basalt Q Medium 3C T4N, R34E 10 NE/SW Basalt Q Large Inactive 3C 22 NEISW OSHO Catron Quarry Basalt Q Large Active 3C 31 NE/NW UCRO McCormmach Pit Basalt Q Small Active 3C 35 SW/SW Basalt Q Small Abandoned 1A T4N, R32E 2 SE/NW OSHO Basalt Q Small Inactive 1A 5 NW/NW Basalt Q Small Inactive 1A 23 NW UCRO Struve Pit Basalt Medium Active 3C 29 SE/NW Simpson Quarry Basalt Q Small Inactive 3C 0-175 '\ Table D-XXII (Cont1d) INVENTORY OF ROCK MATERIAL SOURCES IN UMATILLA COUNTY LOCATION TYPE OF GOAL 5 ~EC. ) OWNER NAME DEPOSIT QUANTITY REMARKS ANALYSIS T4N, R30E 7 SE/NW Basalt Q Small Abandoned lA 36 NW/SE Basalt Q Small Inactive lA T4N, R29E 7 NE/NE County Ch ri st1ey Pi t Gra ve1 Large Active 3C 31 SW/NW Gra ve1 Small Abandoned 1A T4N, R28E 1 NW/SE Gravel 1A 3 NW/NW Gravel Inactive 1A 9 NE/NE City of Hermiston Schell Pit Gravel Large Act i ve, in UGB 1A 11 SWINE Sand Pit Abandoned lA 14 SE/SE OSHD Ai rport Pi t Gravel Large 1A 15 SE/SE Gravel Abandoned, filled lA 16 NE/NW Gravel Abandoned 1A 17 SW 1/4 Westland Pit Gravel Large Active 3C 17 SW/SW UCRD Gravel 3C 20 SW/NW Gravel Abandoned, filled lA 21 NW/SE OSHO Gravel Small 3C 21 SW/SE OSHO Gravel Small 3C 22 SW/NW Baker Redi-Mix Basalt Q Medium 3C 22 NE/NE Gra ve1 Abandoned 1A 29 SW 1/4 Union Pacffic RR Hinkle Pit Active 3A 31 NWjNE Pri vate Gravel Abandoned 1A T4N, R27E 2 SE/SE U.S. Govt. Gra ve1 Ordnance Depot 1A 2 NW/SW U. S. Govt. Gravel Ordnance Depot lA 3 SE/SE U.S. Govt. Gra ve1 Ordnance Depot lA 0-176 i~ \ Table D-XXII (Cont1d) INVENTORY OF ROCK MATERIAL SOURCES IN UMATILLA COUNTY LOCATION TYPE OF GOAL 5 (SEC.) OWNER NAME DEPOSIT QUANTITY REMARKS ANALYSIS T4N, R27E Cont1d 10 NE/SW U.S. Govt. Gravel Ordnance Depot lA 10 SE/SW U.S. Govt. Gravel Ordnance Depot l.A 15 NE/SW u.S. Govt. Gravel Ordnance Depot lA 22 NW/NW U.S. Govt. Gravel Ordnance Depot lA 24 SE 1/4 Gravel Abandoned lA 26 SE 1/4 U. S. Govt. Ordnance Pit Gravel Large 3C 27 NE/SW Gravel Sewage Lagoon lA 27 SW/SW Shockman Bros. Gravel Active 3C T3N, R38E 32 SE/NE USFS Summit Basalt Q Large In UNF lA T3N, R36E 11 NE/NW Brogoitti Quarry Basalt Q Small Inactive 3C 29 NE/NE BIA Basalt Q Small On Reservation lA 29 SE/NW BlA Basalt Q Small On Reservation lA T3N, R35E 3 NW/SE Basalt Q Small Inactive 3C 3 SE/SE Basalt Q Small Inactive 3C 32 NE/SE Thornhollow Basalt Q Small On Reservation lA 33 SW UCRD On Reservation lA 36 SE/NW City of Pendleton Squaw Creek Basalt Q Large On Reservation lA T3N, R34E 11 NE/NE UCRD UCRD Basalt Q Small On Reservation 1A 35 NE/SW BIA Cayuse Pit Basalt Q Large On Reservation lA 0-177 -----"\V~~··:..: ~ .{~ t;; Table D-XXII (Cont'd) INVENTORY OF ROCK MATERIAL SOURCES IN UMATILLA COUNTY LOCATION TYPE OF GOAL 5 (SEC. ) OWNER NAME DEPOSIT QUANTITY REMARKS ANALYSIS T3N, R33E 22 SE 1/4 El gi n Quarry Basalt Q Large Inactive 1A 23 Center OSHD Havana Quarries Basalt Q Medium Active 3C T3N, R32E 15 SW/NW Basalt Q Small Inactive lA 18 NE/NW Basalt Q Small Inactive lA 31 NW/SW Pendl eton Airport Quarry Basalt Large Active -IA T3N, R31E 6 NE/SW Basalt Q Small Abandoned lA 22 NE/SE Private Lorenzen Basalt Q Medium Abandoned 1A 30 SE/NE Roy Rew Rew Prospect Basalt Q Never used 1A T3N, R30E 6 NW/NE County Ransier Quarry Basalt Q Large Active 3C 9 NE/SW Vollendorf Vollendorf Pre Basalt Q Large Never used lA 9 NE/SW OSHD Barth Quarry Basalt Q Water filled lA T3N, R29E 5 NE/SW Gravel Large Inactive 3C 6 NW!NE Basalt Q Reclaimed lA T3N, R28E 3 NW/NE Irwin Mann Emigrant Butte Q Basalt Q lA 5 NE/NE Sand Pit Small lA 5 NW Corner Sand Pit Small 1A 6 NE!SE Sand Pit Small 1A 22 NE!SW OSHD Gravel Small Not used lA 0-178 ,~ ".-~.~-,/ Table D-XXII (Cont'd) INVENTORY OF ROCK MATERIAL SOURCES IN UMATILLA COUNTY Wi 11 i am Du'ff Pendleton Ready Mix Fletcher Cent. Cement Prod. LOCATION (SEC. ) T2N, R37E 24 NE/NE 24 NW/SW 25 NW/NW 25 NE/SW 27 SW/SE 31 SW/SW T2N, R36E 5 SE/NW T2N, R34E 22 SW/NW 31 SE/SW T2N, R33E 3 NW/SW 7 SWINE 7 SW/NW 16 SW/SW 25 NW/SE 25 E 1/2/SW 35 SE T2N, R32E 4 NE/NE 5 SE/SE 8 NW/NW 8 SE/NW OWNER USFS USFS USFS USFS USFS USFS County County Eucon Eucon OSHD P.E. Jellum OSHD UCRO NAME Prospect Ruckel Jct. Ruckel Spring Shimmiehorn Q Bl ack Mt. Q Sampson Quarry Jellum Quarry TYPE OF DEPOSIT Basalt Q Basalt Q Rasalt Q Basalt Q Basalt Q Basalt Q Basal t Basalt Q Basalt Q Basalt Q Gravel Gravel Gravel Basalt Q Basalt Q Basalt Q Basalt Q Gravel 0-179 QUANTITY Large Medium Large Large Large Large Small Medium Large REMARKS In NF In NF In NF In NF In NF In NF On Reservation On Reservation On Reservation On Reservation On Reservation On Reservation On Reservation On Reservation On Reservation On Reservation In City In City Act i ve, in UGB In UGB GOAL 5 ANALYSIS 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A lA lA lA lA lA lA lA 1A 1A lA 1A 1A ",(~, r,"'.·_ ... --../" /~- Table D-XXII (Cont'd) INVENTORY OF ROCK MATERIAL SOURCES IN UMATILLA COUNTY LOCATION TYPE OF GOAL 5 (SEC. ) OWNER NAME DEPOSIT QUANTITY REMARKS ANALYSI~ 2N, R32E Cont'd 12 NE/NE Gravel Abandoned, in UGB lA 16 NE/SW Basalt Q Exhausted, in City lA 27 SE/NW Basal t Q' Abandoned lA 28 SEINE Gravel Small Abandoned lA -- T2N, R31E 12 SE 1/4 Lewis Company Pendleton Ready-Mix Gravel Small Inactive 3A 9,10,15-17 Morrison-Knudsen Barnhart Basalt Q Large Act i ve; comm 11 3A 15 SE/NW M.-K. &County Barnhart Basalt Q Large Active; comm'l 3A 16 SW/NW Morrison-Knudsen Basalt Q Large Active; comm'l 3A 17 NE 1/4 Lewis Company Pendleton Ready-Mix Gravel Small Inactive 3A T2N, R30E 1 SE/SE Filler Pit Basalt Q Small Inactive 3C 7 NE/SE, Cunningham Alkali Basalt Q Medium Active 2A T2N, R29E 18 NW/SW Roseamond-Monese Basalt Q Inactive lA T2N, R27E 34 NW/SE OSHO Buttercreek Jet. Basalt Q Medium Unused 1A TIN, R37E 7 SE/NW USFS Basalt Q In UNF IA 0-180 ,~\ .....--"'"'. Table D-XXII (Contrd) INVENTORY OF ROCK MATERIAL SOURCES IN UMATILLA COUNTY LOCATION TYPE OF GOAL 5 (SEC. ) OWNER NAME DEPOSIT QUANTITY REMARKS ANALYSIS TIN, R36E 12 NE/SW USFS Junction Quarry Basal t Q In UNF lA 16 NE/NW Prospect Gra vel 21 SE/NW Prospect Gravel T1N, R35E 6 SE/SE Arthur Parr Indian Quarry Basalt Q Large On Reservation lA 20 NE/SW OSHD Emigrant Park Q Basalt Q, Small 3C 27 SW/SE Pri vate Horse Q Basalt Q 3C 29 SE/NE OSHD Borrow Pit Basalt Q Roadcut 3C 34 SE 1/4 OSHD Meacham Quarry Basalt Q Large Active . 3C 34-35 Steelman-Duff Basalt Large Active 3C TIN, R34E 6 Orval McCormmach Q Basalt Large On Reservation lA TIN, R33E 2 SE/NE BIA Basalt Q On Reservation lA 2 NWjSE OSHD Basalt Q Medium On Reservation lA 12 SW/SE Orval McCormmach Q Basalt Q Large Inactive lA TIN, R32E 17 SE/SW Pri vate Schuening Q Basalt Q Inactive 3C 23 SWINE OSHD Basalt Q Inactive 3C TIN, R31E 18 SE/SW Pri vate Basalt Q Inactive 3C 0-181 r----. Table O-XXII (Cont'd) INVENTORY OF ROCK MATERIAL SOURCES IN UMATILLA COUNTY LOCATION (SEC.) TIN, R30E 8 SWINE 12 SWINE TIS, R37E 8 NE/SW 10 NE/SW 15 NW/SE 20 SEINE 20 NE/SW 30 NW/SW TIS, R36E 22 SE/SW 34 SW/SW TIS, R35E 14 SE/NW 24 SE/SW TIS, R33E 5 NE 1/4 OWNER Pri vate County USFS USFS USFS USFS USFS USFS USFS USFS OSHD OSHD UCRO· NAME Alkali Canyon Q Four Corners Q Hoskin Springs Q Summit 110 11 Green Mt. Drumhill Ridge Prospect Sp ri ng Mt. Bou nda ry Pi t TYPE OF DEPOSIT Basalt Q Basalt Q Basalt Q Basalt Q Basalt Q Basalt P BasaltP Basalt Q Basalt Q Basalt Q Basalt Q Basalt Q QUANTITY Large Large Small REMARKS Inactive Act i ve In UNF In UNF In UNF In UNF In UNF In UNF In UNF In UNF In UNF In UNF GOAL 5 ANALYSIS 2A 3C lA lA .J.A lA lA lA lA lA lA lA TIS, R32E 5 NW/NE 8 NE 13 NW/NE 17 SE/SW 19 NW/SW 30 NE/NW OSHD Louisiana Pacific County Hoeft Pit OSHO OSHD OSHD West Birch Creek Basalt Q Basalt Q Basalt Q Basalt Q Basalt Q 0-182 Large Medium Inactive Active Active Inactive Inactive 3C 3C 3C lA 3C 3C ~ '\ Table D-XXII (Cont'd) INVENTORY OF ROCK MATERIAL SOURCES IN UMATILLA COUNTY LOCATION TYPE OF GOAL 5 (SEC. ) OWNER NAME DEPOSIT QUANTITY REMARKS ANALYSIS TIS, R31E 19 SE/SW OSHD Nye Quarry Basalt Q Small 2A 22 SWINE OSHD Jack Canyon Q Basalt Q Medium 2A 225E/NE OSHD Basalt Q 2A 24 NE/SW OSHD Basalt Q Medium 2A T15, R30E 2 NE/NE Roumagoux Victor Basalt Q Inactive 3C 22 S.E/SE OSHD Basalt Q 3C 26 NW/NE OSHD Basalt Q 2A 31 NW/SW OSHD Burl Stua rt Q Basalt Q 2A T2S, R35E 29 SWINE USFS Basalt Q In UNF lA T25, R33E 18 NW/NE Private Hunter Quarry Basalt Q Inactive 2A T25, R32E 10 NW/NE Private East Birch Creek Basalt Q Inactive 3C T25, R31E 7 5E/NW Whittaker Flats Basalt Q Small Inactive lA T3S, R33E 4 NW/SE USFS Low'r Pearson Cr. Basalt Q In UNF lA 7 SW/NW USFS Prospect Basalt Q In UNF lA D-183 I~'" //'..... ' ',- Table D-XXII (Cont1d) INVENTORY OF ROCK MATERIAL SOURCES IN UMATILLA COUNTY LOCATION TYPE OF GOAL 5 (SEC.) OWNER NAME DEPOSIT QUANTITY REMARKS ANALYSIS T3S, R33E Cont1d 9 NW/NE USFS Qt s. Di 0 ri t e Q In UNF 1A 31 NE/NE USFS Basalt Q In UNF 1A 32 SW/NW USFS Bear Wallow Basalt Q In UNF 1A T3S, R32E 23 NE/SE USFS Pearson Creek Basalt Q Large In UNF 1A 36 NE/NE USFS Basalt Q In UNF 1A T3S, R31E 20 NW/NW OSHD Granite Q Small Borrow lA 29 SE/NW Battle Mt. Q Basalt Q Borrow lA T3S, R30 1/2E 1 NE/NW OSHD Basalt Q Inactive 3C 12 SW/SE OSHD Basalt Q Medium Inactive 3C T3S, R30E 27 NE/NE County Gu rdane Basalt Q Inactive 3C T45, R34E 31 NW/SW USFS Basalt Q In UNF 1A 32 SW/SE USFS Basalt Q In UNF lA T4S, R33 1/2E 35 SWINE USFS Basalt Q In UNF lA 36 SE 1/4 USFS Basalt Q Medium In UNF 1A 0-184 (~ . \ -- Table D-XXII (Cont1d) INVENTORY OF ROCK MATERIAL SOURCES IN UMATILLA COUNTY LOCATION TYPE OF GOAL 5 (SEC.) OWNER NAME DEPOSIT QUANTITY REMARKS ANALYSIS T4S, R33E 6 SE/SE USFS Basalt Q In UNF lA T4S, R31E 34 NW/NE OSHD Basalt Q Small Inactive 3C 34 m~/NE OSHD Basalt Q Small Inactive 3C T4S, R30E 5 NW/SE Gurdane Quarry Basal t Q Active 2A 16 NW/SW Basalt Trench 2A 27 NE/SW USFS Basalt Trench In UNF lA 31 SW/SE USFS Five Mile Cr. Q Basalt Q Large In UNF lA 33 NE/SW USFS Prospect Basalt In UNF lA T5S, R33E 3 NW/NW USFS Basalt Q In UNF lA 10 SW/NW USFS Butcherknife Sp. Basalt Q Small In UNF lA 10 SE/NE USFS Basalt Q In UNF lA 28 SE/NW USFS Basalt Q In UNF lA 34 NW/SW USFS Cable Creek Basalt Q Small In UNF lA T5S, R32E 4 NE/SE OSHD Basalt Q Large In UNF lA T5S, R31E 14 NW/NW Pri vate Ukiah Gravel Pit Gravel Small Inactive 3C 14 SE/SW Pri vate Gra ve1 Exhausted lA 16 NE/SW Basalt Q 3C 21 NE/NW Basalt Q 3C 0.. 185 Table D-XXII (Cont'd) INVENTORY OF ROCK MATERIAL SOURCES IN UMATILLA COUNTY LOCATION TYPE OF GOAL 5 (SEC .• ) OWNER NAME DEPOSIT QUANTITY REMARKS ANALYSI~ T5S~ R31E Cont1d 21 NW /NE OSHD Basalt Q Small 3C 21 NW/SE OSHD Basalt Q Talus slope 3C 28 NE/NW OSHD Basalt Q Large Active 3C I5S, R30E 2 NE/NE USFS Basalt Q In UNF 1A 3 SE/NE USFS Basalt Q In UNF -lA 4 NE/NW USFS Basalt Q Small In UNF lA 5 SW/SE USFS Basalt Q Small In UNF lA 7 SE/NW USFS Gillman Ranch Basalt Q Small In UNF lA 9 NW/SE USFS Sugar Bowl Basalt Q In UNF lA 11 SW/SW USFS Wol f Spri ngs Basalt Q In UNF lA 18 SE/NE USFS Basalt Q In UNF lA 21 SE/SW USFS Dry 5-Mile Cr.#1 Basalt Q In UNF lA 31 NW/NW USFS Divide Well Basalt Q In UNF lA T6S~ R35E 19 NW/NE USFS Big Creek Welded Tuff Q In UNF lA T6S, R34E 28 SW/SW USFS Winom Meadows Rhyodacite Q In UNF lA T6S, R33E 17 NE/SW USFS Basalt Q Large In UNF lA 25 NW/SE USFS Oriental Q In UNF lA 28 NE/SE USFS Oriental Rhyolite Q In UNF 1A 30 NE/NE USFS Texas Rar Welded Tuff Q In UNF lA 35 NW/NW USFS Oriental Granitic Q In UNF lA 35 NW/NW USFS Granitic Q In UNF lA 36 SW/SW USFS Granitic Q In UNF lA 0-186 (-- Table D-XXII (Cont'd) INVENTORY OF ROCK MATERIAL SOURCES IN UMATILLA COUNTY LOCATION (SEC. ) T6S., R32E 4 NW/SW 24 SE/SE 27 SW/NW 30 NE/SE TYPE OF GOAL 5 OWNER NAME DEPOSIT QUANTITY REMARKS ANALYSIS USFS Ross Sp r; ngs Basalt Q In UNF lA USFS Prospect Basalt Q In UNF lA Pri vate N. Fk • John Day Welded Tuff Q Sma 11 . In UNF lA USFS Basalt Q In UNF lA T6S., R31E 15 NE/NW OSHD Basalt Q Ri p-rap 1A Sources: DOGAMI, Rock Material Resources in Umatilla County, 1976; Umatilla County Road Department files, 1983; DOGAMI files, 1983. 0-187 Cf) t:5B o:@ ::)~ 0(5 Cf)@ W C'.: cr: ~ -.Jp «~ a:B W@ ZE:5 ~~ ~~p U~ O ::--~:L._ a:~ • BASALT QUAR RY • SAND PIT 4 GRAVEL QUARRY LEGEND e QUARTZ/DIORITE/GRANITE/ RHYOLlTE/WELDEDTUFF QUARRY • CITY SOURCE Rock Mineral Resources of Umatilla County. Oeparlmenl of Geoloqy and MineraI IndusITI~S 1~,'6 • •• .. • -jZj ~ :1 AL.LCr""l ·l·~;~"~~~·: ----)~l _e__ J,__.L • • • I • ·~1 ___ J u I. ~ " I~ II • r...[":r-• _-._J'VI"I'"" ... ---.. / "'1. I. '-1"'-~ ..L1 I • .....~--~ • • I TiN II ,-- ·F:' ;',1i :V't~ [NEW] Using the Goal 5 analysis process described at the beginning of this chapter, each rock material source was individually analyzed to determined its significance or relative importance~ One hundred fifty-eight sites were eliminated from the inventory (designated lilA" on Table D-XXII). The major reasons were as follows: Within the Umatilla National Forest (UNF) Within the Umatilla Indian Reservation Within city limits or UGBs Within Umatilla Ordnance Depot Abandoned or unused sites Small "borrow pits" used only by property owner 68 sites 21 7 ( 18 27 17 [NEW] Seventeen sites were identified as having or causing no conflicting uses (shown as 112A" on Table D-XXII). These sites are characteristically located on scab land bluffs far from any residential and intensive farming (cultivated) areas. All are small sites of two acres or less and all are inactive; ie, not currently bei'ng used. [NEW] The other 108 sites were determined to be important enough to warrant ESEE analysis. Several sites are so significant that they should be protected from conflicting uses ("3A" on Table O-XXII). These sites are existing major rock material sources that provide much of the current and will provide much of the future commercial ~nd transportation aggregate needs of Umatilla County. Some of these sites are already industrially zoned. However, it is recommended that for these sites that a protective aggregate resource overlay zone be established. The following is a description of the resource sites. recommended for "3A II protecti on: (~- ,I 1. Location: Acreage: Owner/ Operator: Resource: T5N R35 Sec. 35, TL 6200, 5900; approximately four miles south of Milton-Freewater adjacent to State Highway 11 (Map 0-191). Approximately 30,acres. Oregon State Highway Department Basalt rock quarry 0-189 Quality: Significance: Good Major Highway Department quarry used for highway maintenance. 2. Location: Acreage: Owner/ Operator: Resource: Quality: Significance: T5N R29E Sec. 22, TL 800 ("Sharps Corner"); i nter- section of Highways 730 and 204; approximately 8 miles east of the City of Umatilla (Map 0-192). Approximately 19 acres Land: Lewis &Clark College; Mineral rights: OOOT. Basalt rock quarry Good Major Highway Department quarry used for highway maintenance. 3. Locati"on: Acreage: Owner/ Operator: Resource: Quality: Significance: T5N R28E Sec. 27, TL 1100; south of City of Umatilla Urban Growth Boundary (Map 0-193). 40 acres Snipes Mountain Sand and Gravel, Inc. Sand and gravel Good Major commercial source 4. Location: Acreage: Owner/ Operator: Resource: Quality: Significance: T4N R28E Sec. 28, 29, TL 4000 (Map 0-194) 227 .53. ac res Union Pacific Railroad Gravel Good Used by Railroad at Hinkle Rail Classification Yards. T2N R31E Sec. 15, 16, 17, TL 400, 800, 3100 (Map D-195) 100+ acres Location: Acreage: Owner/ Operator: Resource: Quality: Significance: 5. Dean Forth, Morris and Knuetson, Umatilla County (several quarries) Basalt rock quarries Good Major commercial rock source for central Umatilla County. [NEW] The remaining sites (labeled 1I3CII on Table O-XXII) are sites where use of the rock material resource may conflict with other adjacent uses. However, the sites are important enough to try to limit the conflicting uses so that use may still be made of the rock resource. The most common "conflicting use" is agriculture, where rock quarries and gravel pits have been established in farming areas. Usually these sites are small and designed to take advantage of unfarmed scab rock. However, their very presence can cause problems of dust, 0-190 INVENrORY SIGNIFICANT AGGREGATE RESOURCES MAP: D-19J 1" = 2000' AREA: Highway Department Quarry T/R: T5N R35 EWM ,.. ,.. co. RD. NO. 626 MAP SOURCE: Umatilla County, \ ) RESOURCE AREA CIb Plan Designat ion: --=Ag.==..:rl=..:"c:...=u=..;ltu::...:...:::...re.=....- _ Zon ing Designation: _Ex....~cc..ILlw!odi.sl..*iv_X_>e~Fa!do!:nn~U"'""'s'_=e _ Possible Land Use Conflicts: None significant; Jong-1LSed pit in area ~exteIL?ive agriculture. C~i GoalS Analysis:_.~3A~;_h~o~~~c~t~t~h~e~~~so~ur~c~e ----~ Management Program: Aggregate Resource Overlay Zone I INVENTORY SIGNIFICANT AGGREGATE RESOURCES MAP: D-192 Scale 1" = 1000' AREA: Diagonal Road ({\Jarry T/ R: T5U R2~E) Sp.ction 22 -- --- --- -- ---- -- ---- --- --- --- -==- -- --;"5tMt.t H ----- ----- -- ---- 'MAP SOURCE: Umatilla CountyRESOURCE AREA.(0 Pian 0 e signat ion: _Agr.J..L-i-..:.c...:-ul...:..::tur~e:...-- ~ ~_----,--"---,-~ _ Zoning Designation: -..L.Ex.loU.w..c1.1ooJ"l:doUUS~iv.3Ue--......Fj;"l"arrn.L.JJ.. .~-..l.LU..,;;/.lise~ _ Possible Land Use Conflicts: None significant; rock source for Highway DepartJ:nent in grazing land area. Goal 5 Analysis: 3A; Protect the Resource Management Program: Aggregate ResQurce Overlay Zone . INVENTORY SIGNIFICANT AGGREGATE RESOURCES \ " MAP: D-193· Scale 1" ;::: 600' AREA: Bensel Road Quarry T/R: TSN R28E, Section 27-------- ~.~---~~.. __.._ .._--_._. -·\l:~-···-- -... \ \ '\ \ . \ \ .---- --- MAP SOURCE: Umatilla County,RESOURCE AREA e1 Plan Designat ion: --=I~n:=cdu=s"-,,,te.=..rl==.!o·a:!:..=l _ ZoningDesignation:_L~~~h_t_I_~_~__tr_l_·a_l ~ Possible Land Use Conflicts:_O_t_h_~_'_i_~_~__tr_i_a_l_~_es ~ Goa I 5 Analysis: 3A; Protect the Resource Management Program: Aggregate Resource Overlay Zone, INVENTORY SIGNIFICANT AGGREGATE RESOURCES MAP: ...wD~-JI-.;;I9~4__ Scale 1" = 2000' AREA: Union Pacific RR Ballast Pit T/ R: TL~N R28E, Sections 28 and 29 MAP SOURCE: Umatilla CountyRESOURCE AREA @ Pian 0 esignation: --::.;.:.In.::.=..d=..::u.:=.s~tr..:..:...i.:...:..:a~l --,--~-----,- ~ _ ~oning Designation:~H_ea_~~I_n_d_~_t_r_i_al_. ~ ~__~ Possible Land Use Conflicts: None sjgnifjcant; part of railroad switching yard GoalS Analysis: 3A: Protect the Resource Management Program: Aggregate Resource Overlay Zone; stream setback: part of railroad's development plan. INVENTORY SIGNIFICANT AGGREGATE RESOURCES MAP: D-195 Scale 1" = 2000' AREA: Barnhart Pits T/R: T2N R31E, SectjODS ] 5, ]6, 17 ~ o a: MAP SOURCE: Umatilla County, / RESOURCE AREA (1b Plan Designat ion: ~I==n:=.:dus=t:=..ry!--- -.,--_ Zoning Designation:_H_~_~_·_~_~_t_rl_·a_1 ~ Possible Land Use Conflicts: None significant, resource extraction has occurred for years Goal 5 Analysis: 3A; Protect the Resource Management Program: L.;ggrBgate Regourcepverlay Zone encroachment on cultivated lands, disturbance of ground water tables, etc. But these sites provide an important local source of material for farm use, road and highway maintenance and construction and small commercial activities. [NEW] Conflicting uses can be limited or mitigated by allowing rock material mining and associated activities via the conditional use permit process. These activities are allowed only by conditional use permit in Umatilla County (except where an aggregate resource zone is established). Criteria for rock and gravel operations is found in Section 7.060(17) in the Development Ordinance. It should be noted here that a conditional use permit would be required even for those sites determined not to have conflicting uses ("2A II ). Note also that a conditional use permit may not be required if the material to be removed is below a certain amount (see ordinance). [NEW] About 30 13C" and 12A" resource sites are owned by operated by the Oregon State Highway Department and County Road Department. Most of these sites are small (under four acres) and are used as material resources for road repair and construction. Costs and energy are saved by having scattered material sources available through the county. [NEW] Most of the small gravel pits owned and/or operated by the county are used only periodically for road maintenance or construction. Therefore, the county should establish a simplified permit system for selected, specific gravel pit sites in resource areas to allow for rapid availability. Conditions for qualification for this system should include: 1. Sites are owned and/or operated by the county and used specifically for county road projects only. 2. Sites are located in isolated agricultural or forest zones on non-productive land. 3. Sites are long-established pits. 0-196 (4. Crushing operations would be for limited periods only. 5. Sites may be used to stockpile rock materials. 6. The physical scale or extent of operation would be limited. 7. The operation would still require a zoning permit and would be subject to standards and criteria of the Development Ordinance. 0-197 Rock Material Requirements Part of the rock material in Umatilla County is used for the construction of new homes, streets, sewers, churches, business and municipal buildings, and many other facilities and can be directly related to population growth. Another portion of the rock used in Umatilla County is related to large federal and state construction projects bearing little relation to local population. Since 1950, the Oregon Highway Department has been building the 1-84 freeway, which traverses Umatilla County east-west, and 1-204 which will link 1-84 with the Tri-Cities. During certain periods, the construction of this major freeway involved mainly earthwork and preparation of the roadbed, requiring very little rock from outside of the highway right-of-way. During other periods, much quarry rock--sometimes seven or eight times the amount used locally in the county in a specific year--was taken for fill, subbase, base, and paving rock. Between 1950 and 1975, construction of the McNary Dam requi red enormous amounts of gravel and rock. For these reasons the total annual gravel and rock production in Umatilla County has fluctuated enormously (Table O-XXIII). Analysis of materials used in the county is complicated by the fact that there are two separate products: (1) rock which is quarried from in-place lavas; and (2) gravel which is dug from alluvial deposits. To give a clearer picture of long-term county needs, production statistics for both materials were combined on Table D-XXII. Another complication is that each product is produced both commercially for the private sector and non-commercially for county, state and federal agencies. In addition, some of the commercial gravel and stone is produced for the non-commercial sector.(74) In order to determine the normal rock consumption of the county, a DOGA~11 study de-emphasized the rock used for construction of special projects not dependent upon local population growth. The study found that during the 0-198 cperiod 1960-69, per capita use averaged 19.5 tons, of which quarry rock accounted for 11.22 tons and gravel 8.28 tons. The total annual per capita use of commercial rock material was 7.18 tons and of non-commercial, 12.32 tons. From 1970 to 1974, the total annual per capita use of rock materials (commercial and non-commercial combined) dropped from 19.5 to 16.04 tons, probably as a result of winding down or completion of the large state and federal construction projects.(75) From the foregoing information, it appears that the state and federal construction projects dominated the rock-materials industry from the early 1950's to the present. It is logical, therefore, to assume that in the future, commercial production will continue at the present rate, whereas non-commercial production will be reduced by at least 50 percent. Using the figures for the period 1970-1974, 5.9 tons per capita annual commercial consumption plus 5.07 (half of 10.14) tons per capita annual non-commercial consumption gives about 11.0 tons of aggregate used per person per year, a figure which corres- ponds with that of Josephine County at 11.3 tons per capita per year, and that of Jackson County at 10.2 tons per capita per year (for gravel only). At the rate of 11 tons per capita, the county should consume a total of 15 million tons of rock materials between 1975 and 2000 if the projected population is reached. The assumed II-ton per capita figure is reasonable or slightly conservative because the per capita use of aggregate is greater for a growing population than for one that is stable.(76) In addition to fulfilling the need for rock in Umatilla County, sand and gravel may be exported in large amounts to communities down river from Umatilla. The Portland-Vancouver metropolitan area has a scarcity of future reserves. Most of the areas containing gravel and stone in the Portland area have been built over, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to get zone changes which would allow the development of outlying sites. Therefore, as the present gravel sources in the Portland area are mined out"a greater amount will have to be imported. 0-199 Because of the availability of gravel adjacent to the Columbia River in Umatilla County, together with economical barge transportation to Portland, up to 5 million tons per year could conceivably be exported annually. By the year 2000, about 120 million tons could have been exported, 7.7 times more than the 15 million tons which will be used locally. The combination of export and local usage of rock could total as much as 136 million tons by the year 2000.(77) 0-200 Table D-XXIII Annual Production of Sand and Gravel and Quarry Rock in Umatilla County Year Commercial Production Non-Commercial Production Total 1950 152,981 28,000 180,981 51 ,585,556 5,077 590,633 52 385,313 0 385,313 53 289,865 17,550 307,415 54 341,010 99,943 440,953 55 237,332 343,222 580,554 56 112,488 656,941 769,429 57 123,909 518,809 642,718 58 94,913 971,645 1,066,558 59 419,783 542,542 962,325 60 285,769 640,110 925,879 61 269,330 220,859 490,189 62 518,345 521,276 1,039,621 63 346,591 698,114 1,044,705 64 309,699 74,205 383,904 65 351,901 115,848 467,749 66 255,465 659,175 914,640 67 412,254 2,182,650 2,594,904 68 110,000 258,249 368,249 69 81,000 268,947 349,947 70 126,752 217,683 344,435 - ... cont1d-- Table D-XXIII/contid Year 71 72 73 74 Commercial Production 266,352 167,977 244,557 484,900 Non-Commercial Production 457,431 288,482 420,001 832,762 Total 723,783 456,459 644,558 1,317,662 (Statistics not available for 1975-1984) Source: [same as D-XXI] Potential Rock Material Sites Due to the widespread availability of rock resources, there has been no comprehensive search for potential rock material extraction sites. A recent NASA/DOGAMI research project attempted to determine if potential mining sites could be determined by Lansat and U-2 imagery. The results were incon- clusive.(78) However, DOGAMI notes that in order to meet the future construction needs of Umatilla County as well as any export opportunities, care should be taken to preserve some of the fluvioglacial deposits of the west county area for the gravel industry. This highly desirable sand and gravel resource is threatened by agricultural, industrial and residential uses. OOGAMI also feels quarries in Columbia River Basalt are needed to supplement commercial gravel used in urban areas and for road construction in rural mountainous areas lacking in large gravel deposits. In urban areas gravel is needed and should be reserved for concrete aggregate, but available quarry rock can be used for fill, base rock, and rip-rap.(79) 0-202 ( Potential for Conflict and Management Programs The following discussion from the DOGAMI report outlines the conflict potential of rock mining activities and the State's position in the conflict resolution process: When the planner or the land use decision maker tries to accommodate surface mining to a comprehensive land use plan, he has conflicts with other objectives of the plan. If the mineral resource is in a residential area, the planner must protect the area from noise, dust, vibration, traffic, and unsightliness of pits and quarries. At the same time, he must ensure that the mineral resource can be mined in order to supply the area with low-cost construction materials. Because transportation is a major cost factor, the surface mine needs to be near the market, even though it lies in or near the residential area. The two extreme answers to the conflict are: (1) prohibit mining, or (2) exempt mining from regulations. The State 1971 Legislative Assembly provided a compromise by passing a mined-land reclamation law having two purposes: c ) (1) To provide that the usefulness, productivity, andscenic values of all lands and water resources affected by surface mining operations within this state shall receive the greatest practical degree of protection and reclamation necessary for their intended subse- quent use. (2) To provide for cooperation between private and governmental entities in carrying out the purposes of the Mined Land Reclamation Law. Judicious planning can result in wise land use and conservation of our mineral resources. The diverse use of land for agriculture, recreation, residential and commercial-industrial development, and mining can be integrated with foresight and determination to serve everyone's purpose ••• The trend for the future should be for governmental agencies at various levels to pre-plan sequential land use in cooperation with the mining operator, whether the operator is a governmental agency or a private party ••• Although not directly charged by state law, Umatilla County, through its zoning laws, also is involved with carrying out the purposes of the Mined Land Reclamation Law. Within their respective roles both agencies have the right to modify or veto a reclamation plan submitted by a mining operator (an operator can be a private party, a corporation entity, or a city, county, state, or federal agency that operates a stone quarry or a gravel pit). The two roles are complementary: The Department has a large range of expertise in mining geology, m; ni ng techni ques, and recl amat i on- processes; the county has the knowledge of the local needs. 1l-?03 The Department's role should include acquainting planning bodies with the idea of preserving mineral lands. The need for preserving other natural resources, such as farmland, is recognized by the progressive planners, but the idea of preserving mineral land is relatively new. The land should be zoned for open~space uses which would allow it to be maintained as recreation or wildlife preserves or used for other purposes such as farming, timber, or grazing until the need for the underlying minerals becomes more pressing. Urban expansion can kill mineral resources or add to the operation costs ••• Reclaimed use should be a major consideration in zoning resource areas. For example, a gravel resource area could be kept for open space use, such as farming, and urban development allowed to encircle it. After the resource has been mined, a secondary use might be for sanitary landfill, and a tertiary use might be for residential development or for a community park. The County Planning Department must set guidelines which take into account these secondary and tertiary uses. The guideline plans should be firm enough to ensure that an area reserved for rock-material extraction could be mined when the need arises even though surrounded by urban development. The operator's role should not be as adversary to the two agencies. The operator has as much stake in carrying out the purposes of the Reclamation Law as any agency. Reclamation is not something added to a mining operation to increase the operator's cost but rather a process that allows the operator to maximize his tot~l profits through optimal utilization of the mined-out land.(80) The County's role, as suggested in the above discussion, is to develop and administer a land use plan that will provide the best possible living and working environment for the citizens of Umatilla C~unty. This involves compromise, mitigation, and regulation in order for all needed and desired land use activities to co-exist. The county, in the past, has placed mitiga- tive provisions upon zoning approvals for mining activities and shall develop an overlay zone for protection ~nd regulation of mining activities. Many of Umatilla County's rock mining activities are small and remotely located on lands planned and zoned for forest uses. As noted earlier, 25% are on Forest Service land. The use of these small deposits is generally intermittent, usually as a source of crushed rock for forest roads. Aggre- gate extraction of this nature is a normal activity in forest areas and is compatible with other uses which are present or a~ticipated in the county's 0-204 "forested areas. Other uses of forest lands which are permitted or reviewed on a conditional basis will not conflict with or pre-empt the use of these forest quarries. Approximately another third of the county's rock quarries are located in agricultural areas. Usually quarries are located on sites not usable for agriculture, such as steep bluffs, river beds and scab land. Many are gravel pits for county road maintenance; however, several of the major commercial pits are located -in agricultural areas. However, occasionally serious conflicts do arise. As an example, several years ago a major gravel extraction site north of Milton-Freewater in the Orchards District was the center of a major- community conflict. Farmers and orchardists charged that dust from gravel pit activities affected crops by coating the leaves of plants, interfering with photosynthesis, and promoting IIdust mites. 1I Groundwater quantity and quality were also alleged to be affected. Some of the major commercial rock material sites of Umatilla County are located in urban or rural residential settings, especially in the west part of the county. Those very problems mentioned in the OOGAMI quotation earl ier (noise, dust, vibration, traffic and unsightliness) are the reasons quarrie~ are often unacceptable in developed areas. [REVISED] A review of conditional use permit requests for rock material extraction and related activities from 1975 through 1983 reveals the number of conditional use permits issued per year were as follows: 1975 :::: 1 1979 :::: 2 1976 :::: 1 1980 :::: 4 1977 :::: 3 1981 :::: 13 1978 :::: 2 1982 = 4 1983 = 1 0-205 [REVISED] All of these requests were approved by the Hearings Officer (however, several were appealed)~ Most were approved with conditions attached which would help mitigate any adverse effects of the mining activity. At least thirteen of the thirty-one requests were to reopen existing pits or to continue activity at existing pits (eight of the thirteen in 1981). Several others were temporary activity to take advantage of existing rock resource at con- struction sites, such as the railroad1s request when realigning some trackage. Thirteen applica~ts were private operators; seven requests were from the Umatilla County Road Department, six were from the State Highway Department (OOOT), three were railroad requests, and two were other public agencies. Eight sites were located on the Umatilla Indian Reservation. All were located on land zoned F-l exclusive agriculture except one, which was in a forest zone. Creation of an lIaggregate resource subdistrict ll is recommenrJed that would protect known and potential rock resources from conflicting uses and activities, and bolster the current conditional use method of potential conflict resolution. If fifteen million tons of rock material are extracted by the year 2,000 as DOGAMI predicts, protective measures will be required to insure the rock resource is available when needed, and its mining activity can occur without substantial conflict with neighboring land uses. ENERGY SOURCES Of the three major components of Oregon1s energy picture--electricity, petroleum, and natural gas, only electricity is commercially generated in Umatilla County. And as low-cost hydroelectric sites have neared complete development, the Pacific Northwest has turned to imported fuel to run expen- sively constructed and maintained thermal power plants. Experimental energy sources--solar, wind, and others--may also provide part of future Pacific Northwest power needs. 0-206 Land use is a consideration in the expansion of power facilities: Nuclear thermal plants are incompatible with dense populations; coal thermal plants need access to rail; the cost of reservoirs is partially tied to the removal of existing land uses; and nearby electrical distrubition lines lower the public cost of tying a new facility into the regional network. Energy generation in Umatilla County is by the Army Corps of Engineers at McNary Dam on the Columbia River. Fourteen generators have produced some 3.5 to 7 million 'watt hours per year in this run-of-river project.(81) The Corps has scheduled the addition of ten generators to the McNary Second Powerhouse for construction during the 1980's. The project will add an additional 1,050 megawatts of peaking capacity to the system.(82) Land use requirements for other generation facilities are only specula- tive at this time. Wind-power sites could most likely be located along \ Wallula Gap, near the funneling effect of the steep river walls. Such facilities, associated noise, substations, and powerlines would conflict with the gap's scenic values. Solar-power sites could possibly be located in Umatilla County. Hanford meterological station (30 miles north of the west county cities) averages 200 sunny days per year, making commercial solar energy facilities in this area a definite possibility. Further consideration of land use conflicts must await research into large-scale solar collecti~n facilities and their needs. Individual solar collectors are already feasible as a heating alternative when combined with adequate i~sulation and back-up heat units. Higher building cost can be defrayed by energy savings during the life of the structure. Assurance of solar exposure has been made an element of some zoning ordinances. Location of facilities would be incorporated into individual buildings. A study of the potential for low-head hydroelectric power in Oregon determined that the Umatilla River basin (fourteen reaches along ninety-five river miles) did not pass preliminary feasibility screening.(83) However, preliminary engineering is underway on a privately developed "run-of ... the-river 'l system that would divert a portion of the Umatilla River near Hermiston into a canal. The canal, which would act as a forebay, would be about 5300 feet long. It would lend to a penstock that would drop the water about twenty-five feet through two low-head turbines back into the Umatilla River. The turbines would be located at the site of an abandoned powerhouse. The maximum output would be approximately 9.2 kilowatts. Some initial opposition to the project due to concern f6r preservation of the pristine nature of the shoreline seems to have been overcome by careful design and community education. A conditional use permit for the project has been granted by the county. Although the State's Geotherma1 Task Force Report indicates some low temperature geothermal resource areas in Umatilla, there are no areas suggested for exploration.(84) There are currently several oil companies negotiating oil and gas leases in Umatilla County. Much of the wheatland north of Pendleton and the National Forest land has been or soon will be tied up with such leases. However, the potential for discovery of oil and gas resources is questionable. However, to avoid potential problems with exploratory drilling or future extraction, the county should develop relevant land use policies and regulations. The advent of other alternate energy sources such as alcohol fuels and biomass of "back yard" energy like "microhydro," wind generators and passive and active solar, and of the popularity and necessity of energy conservation, may create land use conflicts not yet experienced in the county. Noise, visual impacts, solar orientation, etc. may create community problems that the county may have to mediate or regulate. The county should be prepared with policies and zoning criteria. [NEW] Adequate information on wind, oil, gas and other such alternate energy resources at the level of detail necessary to fulfill OAR 660-16-000 (Goal 5 analysis) is not available (1I1B II ). ( LAND AND RESOURCE PROTECTION PROGRAMS Inventories of resource lands are not enough to insure their continued availability and use over the periods embraced in the comprehensive plan. Once identified, specific programs need to be employed for land and resource protection. This section described techniques now available for protecting resource areas, open spa~es, and scenic and historic areas. These resources and sites can be fully protected only through the use of the wide variety'of preservation techniques by, and cooperative actions of, private organizations, individuals and local, state and federal agencies. Techniques range from the broadly applicable approach of advising landowners of the value of their land and securing their cooperation to'the effective but limited method of land acquisition and legal dedication. All of the varied methods have validity, but the best program for protection of resource lands \ will use a range Of techniques which matches the level of protection to the significance of the resource. Landowner Notification This involves simply alerting the landowner, private or public, to the value of the lands. It may include a formal ceremony with the presentation of a certificate, such as the National Natural Landmarks Program of the National Parks Service, or it may be informal. A high degree of protection iS,of course, not provided, but it is more than may usually be expected. Voluntary Agreement with Landowner An agreement may be signed between a landowner and a public agency or private group to' preserve some quality of ,the lands. It may include a provision for notification of the agency in case of a planned land use change, or it may involve an option to buy. This is obviously a very flexible protection device and may be used effectively with large corporate landowners. Land Character of Value Pheasant Cover Program Placement Watering Stations Administering Agency State Department of Fish and Wildlife Registration Lands may be given formal recognition of their values through a registra- tion procedure~ The State Natural Area Preserves Advisory Committee maintains the Oregon Registry of Natural Areas which includes potential natural area preserves. Another program utilizing this technique is the National Register of Historic Places. Registration does not normally involve legal restrictions on use, but may include a signed agreement. Land Character Program Administering Ownership Compensation of Value Agency Qualifying Ecologically National National Public or Regi strat ion, significant Natura1 Park private i nforma1 1ands Landmarks Service (except NSP), agreement not otherwise protected Historic, National National Pub"lic or Federal funds archeologic Register of Park pri vate available buildings, Historic . Servi ce (with strings) sites, Places districts Historic, National Advi sory Public or Bronze Plaque cultural Historic Board on private grants in aid Landmarks national parks, historic sites, buil di ngs and monuments, Department of Interior, NPS Historic Centu ry Oregon Depart- Same family Regi st rat ion farm Farms ment of Agri- for 100 as long as operation culture and years remaining in Oregon Histor- same family i cal Society 0-210 Tax Incentives [NEW] In some cases the state provides tax incentives to encourage conservation. An example is the Riparian Land Tax Incentive Program. Private landowners can receive a complete property tax exception for lands adjoining a stream if they are included in a cooperative management plan worked out with the Oregon State Department of Fish and Wildlife. Private lands that are zoned for agriculture, forest or range are eligible for inclusion in the program. In addition to the property tax exemption allowed under the program, an income tax credit for up to 25% of private expenditures is available for instream improvement projects (gabions, bank stabilization, etc.).(85) Other tax programs, such as exclusive farm use, farm tax deferral and forest tax deferral are also important for Goal 5 issues because they help promote resource land uses. Land Character of Value Riparian Corridors Resource Uses, Open Spaces, Wildlife Habitat Resource Uses, Open Spaces, Wildlife Habitat Program Riparian Land Tax Incentive Program Special Assessment Provisions for farmland Special Assessment Provisions for forest lands 0-211 Administering Agency State Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Assessor, Department of Revenue Assessor, Department of Revenue Easement This is a technique for an organization to acquire certain interests in lands while basic ownership is retained in private hands. The specific restric- tions of the easement can be flexible but usually involve a forfeiting of rights to destroy a particular quality of the land. The restrictions are legally binding and pass to future landownerso Since the sale value and potential use of the land may be altered, taxes may sometimes be diminished. In Oregon both private and publ~c organizations can enter into easement agreements. Feature "Natural or existing state of recreational, cultural, scenic, historic or other appropriate places of public significance." DRS 271.710 Road access limitation to transportation highways Program Conservation Easements Access Permits Agency State, county, city, recreation di stri ct; non- profit conserva- tion organization ODOT Highway Department Fee Acquisition Organizatfons or agencies committed to certain values often acquire and set aside lands for those uses and values. Occasionally restrictions on use of the land may be placed in the deed by the seller. Land Character of Value Wild/scenic view Natural values Program State Scenic Waterways Program Preserves D-212 Administering Agency State Parks and Recreat-i on The Nature Conservancy Comments None yet in Umatilla County None yet here; some transferred to government ownership Designation Most public agencies may formally designate a unit of land for preservation by internal procedures. State Parks, for instance, designates lands in parks for IlResource Protection" through the Park Master Plan. Both the designation and undesignation of the lands may be accomplished by the agency without answering to an outside authority. Certain internal agency procedures may, by law or agency rules, involve citizen involvement or coordination with the comprehensive land use plan. Land Character of Value Natu ra1 area "Protect and ••• foster public use and enjoyment of scenic, geological, historical, botanical, zoological, paleontological or other special charac- teristics. 1I Natu ra1 Scenic, wildlife habitat, historic, archeological, ecological Ecological monitoring 'Sceni c val ues Easily damaged lands, fish and wildlife habitat Hunting, fishing, crop minipulation, water control for wildlife management purposes Program Available for Protection Resea rch Natu ra1 Area Special Interest Areas Outstanding Natural Area Pri ma ry Resou rce Protection Areas Scientific and Educational Preserves Scenic Conser- vancy Program Protective Conser- vancyProgram Wildlife Management- Areas D-213 Administering Agency u.S. Forest Service Committee on USFS, BLM, . FWS, NES 1ands u.S. Forest Service on USFS lands BLM on BLM 1and ODor Parks and Recreation Branch on State Park land Board of Higher Education (thei r land) Oregon Dept. of State Forestry Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife Federal Federal Federal State State State State State Dedication Agency lands may also be dedicated for preservation by a public body out- side the agency. The Congress, for instance, dedicates Wilderness Areas on National Forest lands. Likewise, it requires an act of Congress to declassify them. The Oregon State Natural Area Preserve Program, through the State Land Board, is similarly structured in that Land Board members represent the public. This is the highest level of protection for natural areas which is normally used. Dedicating Body Congress State Land Board Legislature State Legislature Land Use Control Local Comprehensive Land Use Plans and Zoning Ordinances may utilize techniques for protecting resource areas which restrict the owner's rights to change the use of his/her land. The technique is worthy of further exploration since it may be an effective tool, but a high level of protection may require compensation for lost land use rights. 0-214 Land Character of Value Space for industrial or energy production development Mineral and aggregate resources Farmland Airport clear area Flood overflow area Program Available for Protection Plan designation Open Space Lands Exclusive Farm Use Assessment Airport Clear Zone Flood Hazard Zoning Ordinance Agency Planning Commission Private individual applies to County Assessor and to Planning Commission County/State City and County Zoning County Zoning; federal insurance HUD Federal Insurance Adminis- tration Compensation Interim agri- cultural or recreational use, eventual sale for development Reduced taxes, assurance of farm use continuation Reduced taxes, assurance of farm use continuation Environmental Laws [NEW] Finally, there is a myriad of local, state and federal laws designed to protect air, water and land environmental degradation. A comprehensive list would cover pages and pages. However, some of the more far-reaching are the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)~ Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531), National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC 661), Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 USC 1251), Clean Air Act (42 USC 1857), Reclamation of Mining Lands (ORS Chapter 517), Forest Practices Act (DRS Chapter 527), Appropriation of Water (ORS Chapter 537), Minimum Stream Flow (Senate Bill 225). All of these laws contribute to the overall conservation of resources in Umat ill a Cou nty • 0-215 SOURCES 1. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Plan for Umatilla, June, 1978, 59 pages. 2. Chris Carter, Letter from Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, June 16, 1982, to Brian Little, Umatilla County Planning Department. 3. The Nature Conservancy, Oregon Natural Areas, Umatilla County Data Summary, Oregon Natural Heritage Program, April 1978. 4. Curt Soper, Letter from The Nature Conservancy, June 1, 1982, to Dennis Olson, Umatilla County Planning Department. 5. The Nature Conservancy, op.cit. 6. Eastern Oregon State College, A Management Plan for Harris'Park and Adjacent BLM Land on the South Fork of the Walla Walla River, Umatilla County, Oregon, March, 1982. The Nature Conservancy, op.cit. The National Park Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, The Nationwide River Inventory, January, 1982, p. "2, Oregon." United States Forest Service, USDA. U.S. Corps of Engineers, Final Environmental Impact Statement, McNary Project, Columbia River, Washington and Oregon, 1976, p 2-42. u.S. Corps of Engineers, McNary Master Plan, 1983, pp SD39-43. Ibid ., P1at 8. 1. Oregon State Parks and Recreation Branch, Department of Transportation, Oregon State Parks System Plan, Amendment, 1977-1983, Fall, 1976, p. 57. The National Park Service, op.cit. i bi d. U.S. Forest Service, USDA, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Land Management Plan, Desolation Planning Unit, December 26, 1979, p. 145. Oregon State Parks and Recreation Branch, Department of Transportation, Oregon Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, 1978, p. A 19 •. Michael J. Farrow, Letter from Tribal Development Office, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, July 16, 1982, to Dennis Olson, Umatilla County Planning Department. 16. ibid. 17. Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (OSHPO), Statewide Inventory of Historic Sites and Buildings, Umatilla County, 1976. 18. Umatilla County Historical Society (UCHS), Umatilla County, A Backward Glanc~, Pendleton, 1980, pp. 249-252. 19. ibid., p. 248 OSHPO, op .ci t. 20. UCHS, op.cit., p. 64 21. ibid, pp. 144~145 OSHPO,op.cit. 22. Tucker, G.J., Pilot Rock Emigrant Road, 1861-1862, Pendleton, n.d. 23. Oregon State Federation of Garden Clubs (OSFGC), Blue Mountain District Number 10,'Historic Trees and Shrubs, 1976. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Comprehensive Management and Use Plan, Oregon National Historic Trail, August 1981, Appendix II, Sheet 303; Appendix III, pp. 360-361. 24. OSHPO, op.cit. 25. U.S. Dept. of Interior, op.cit., Appendix II, sheet 296; Appendix III, pg. 351. 26. UCHS, op.cit., p. 71 27. OSHPO, op.cit. U.S. Dept. of Interior, op.cit., Appendix II, sheet 295; Appendix III, p. ·349. 28. Swearingen, Mrs. Mervin, "Finnish Little Greasewood Cemetery," Pendleton, n.d. 29. UCHS, op.cit., p. 31, 135 OSHPO, op .cit. 30. OSHPO,op.cit. 31. Swearingen, Mrs. Mervin, "German Cemetery, Warren (Myrick), 1897-1934," Pendleton, 1974. 32. UCHS, op.cit., pp. 257-258. 33. i bi d, p. 94 OSHPO, op .ci t. 34. UCHS, op.cit., pp. 259-262 35. OSFGC, op.cit. 36. United States Forest Service, communication of October 20, 1980, to Umatilla County Planning Department. 37. UCHS, op.cit., p. 72 38. U.S. Dept. of Interior, op.cit., Appendix II, sheet 295; Appendix III, p. 347. 11r~, ()n-r:it.._ 00. 131-133 i bi d. UCHS, op.cit., p. 70 OSHPO,op.cit. OSHPO, op .cit. i bi d. OSHPO, op.cit. U.S. Dept. of Interior, op.cit., Appendix III, p. 347. UCHS, op.cit., p. 245 OSHPO, op.cit. ibid, p. 247 u.s. Dept. of Interior, op.cit., three volumes. UCHS, op.cit., p. 43 ibid, p. 347 OSFGC, op.cit. UCHS, op.cit., p. 30 OSHPO, op.cit. OSFGC, op.cit. ibid, p. 128 Information on the Century Farm Program is available from the Oregon Historical Society in Portland. The Umatilla County Planning Department maintains a list of county participants. (~ 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53~ 54. 55. 56. 57. CH2M Hill, Planning for the Umatilla Indian Reservation, December, 1973, pp. 48-50. 58. Michael J. Farrow, op.cit. 59. U.S. Forest Service, op.cit., p. 130 60. Michael J. Farrow, op.cit. 61. Oregon State Parks and Recreation Branch, Department of Transportation, Trails for Oregon, A Plan for a Recreation Trails System, 1979. 62. Umatilla River Basin Survey of Literature, Oregon State Water Resources Board, January 1962 - Addendum, September, 1968; and Bibliography of Available Groundwater Information in Oregon, H.R. Sweet, 1974. 63. Oregon's Long-Range Requirements for Water, State Water Resources Board, 1969, p. 115 and p. 133. 64. ibid, p. 132 65. ibid, p. 134 66. USDA Report on Water and Related Land Resources, John Day River Basin, Oregon; Economic Research Service, Forest Service, Soil Conservation Service, 1961. 67. Umatilla Basin Project, Bureau of Reclamation, Region 1, U.S. Department of the Interior; May 1970. 68. Discussion with State Watermaster's Office, Pendleton, Oregon. 68(a) H drolic Studies in the Umatilla Structural Basin, Water Resources Department, May, 1981 Preliminary. 69. United States Geological survey, Mineral and Water Resources at Oregon, 1969, p. 65. 70. UCHS, op.cit., p. 264 71. Uni ted States Geo1ogi ca1 su rvey, llReconna is sance Geo1ogi c Map of the Pendleton Quadrangle, Oregon and Washington,1I 1973. 72. Department of Geology and Mi nera1 Indust ri es (DOGAtH), Rock Materi a1 Resources of Umatilla County, Oregon, 1976, p. 4. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. i bi d. i bi d, p. 8 ibid, pp. 9-10 i bi d, p. 12 i bi d, p. 12 78. National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Umatilla County, Oregon Surface Mining Inventory Demonstration Project, May, 1980. 79. DOGAMI, op.cit., pp. 19, 25 80. ibid, pp. 20-22 81. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, McNary Dam and Lake Project, Final EIS, 1976. 82. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, McNary Second Powerhouse, Final EIS, 1976, p. 4-13. 83. Water Resources Research Institute, Oregon State University, A Resource Survey of River Energy and Low-Head Hydroelectric Power Potential in Oregon, April 1979. pp. 57-61; Appendix 7. 84. Geothermal Task Force, Final Report, June, 1980. 85. IIRx for Riparian Zones," Oregon Wildlife, July, 1983, pp. 3-4. These documents are on file and available for ins~ection at the Umatilla County Planning Department. \ AIR, LAND AND WATER QUALITY Recently, there has been a community awakening to environmental quality concerns. Citizens are recognizing that clean air, land and water, once considered limitless, are now finite resources demanding protection. Also, people are realizing that land development may adversely affect the natural envi ronment if improperly designed or constructed. Consequently, local air, land and water quality limitations and capacities are increasingly analyzed and the results measured against proposed development. Oregon's planning laws require all jurisdictions' comprehenisve pians to maintain their quality of air, land and water resources (eg. Goal #6). This ;s no easy task, with pollution sources not always within an area's jurisdiction and.authority for maintenance under state and/or federal control. Nevertheless, the following examines the air, land and water quality of unincorporated Umatilla County. A discussion of noise is also included. Air Quality Umatilla County's air quality is considered good by the Department of Environmental Quality, who is responsible for protecting Oregon's public health and welfare from known adverse effects of air pollution. State studies, along with federal guidelines, give the County an air quality status of Class II PSD (Prevention of Significant Deterioration) •. Class II areas have air quality cleaner than minimum national ambient air standards, and are permitted moderate air pollution incr~ases.l In other words, air quality standards are not a major constraint on where development may locate. Interviews with local DEQ officials also confirm the healthy air quality status in Umatilla County.2 While present air quality is sufficient, how will growth plans affect this area's future clean air status? Predictions are possible when existing and potential pollution sources are known. Unfortunately, such data is not available for Eastern Oregon areas. For example, automobiles emit carbon monoxide (CO), a known air pollutant. DEQ has set standards for future acceptable CO levels based on traffic volumes and speeds occurring over an eight hour period. If the projected volumes and speeds exceed the (CO) standard, appropriate measures can be applied; however, the lack of future traffic volume figures for Eastern Oregon does not allow this analysis. Predicting future pollution problems is also not possible for sulfur dioxide and suspended particulate pollutants generally associated wi~h industrial emissions. Various industries emit different types of pollutants and predictability of specific industrial activity locating in an area is nearly impossible. Future industrial pollution ;s therefore controlled through a preconstruction and premodificat;on permit process whereby potential industrial source emissions are not to exceed the numerical "increments" for the air shed's classification, and that the best available control technology be employed. OEQ administers the controlling permit program. Both site and non-site pollution activities require state approval before construction. These activities are associated with land use development and interrelate both the OEQ permit process and local comprehensive land use plans. A cooperative effort is necessary to achieve the continued clean air environment by reducing local impacts associated with air emission activities. This effort should include a statement of compatibility by the governing body before DEQ Air Contaminant Discharge Permits are issued. Environmental laws and rules are altered as situations change. In accordance with State and Federal laws, the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) is given legal authority in Oregon to adopt new administrative rules or changes to existing regulations (includes other quality law and rule changes in addition to air). Such changes, especially impacting land use, need local input before adoption. Currently, this county is notified of most rule-making proposals and should continue to be notified of all applicable actions of EQC and its administrative body, DEQ. Discussed earlier, under state and federal standards, pollution is permitted in the air shed within controlled guidelines. This practice partially ignores local compatibility and liveability. Most pollutants have associated odors or other irritating characteristics. In Umatilla County these air quality problems are generally in two forms-- (1) odor from commercial feedlots; and (2) dust particles caused by strong winds transporting exposed soil off fallow fields. The feedlot odor problem is compounded by downwind locations of expanding urban and suburban development. This is especially true in the West County where prevailing southwesterly winds carry the odor into suburban and urban Hermiston for short periods of time. Persistent winds scour out the stagnant air, 50 th i s problem i 5 fortunately not an everyday occu rrence. Feedlots are difficult to move and relocate. Because of their importance, protection should be afforded them. Various strategies may need to be added to existing zoning laws (eg. buffering, low density developments) providing necessary protection and minimizing local air quality unpleasantnesses. More importantly, proper location of new feedlots upwind of incompatible develop- ments will help ensure against additional air quality problems of this type. These land-use considerations are made more important by the fact that no other agency monitors dust or smell. There is a common misconception that DEQ regulates these two by-produ,cts of feedlot activities, but at present this is not so.' The second localized air quality problem is the seasonal problem of wind generated dust during cultivation or harvest, and from the large fallow acreage in the county. Several times during the year, dust clouds over highways and roads, creating hazardous driving conditions. Several deaths have been attri buted to these vi si on impair; ng dus't storms. Agai n, the sporatic winds and alternate rotation practices of farmers make this air quality problem a regional one and one difficult to mitigate. The "208" water quality committee investigated this non-point problem, but did not give it a high priority because it does not significantly contribute to water quality degredation. 3 Cooperation by local farmers to employ mitigating soil erosion measures, both in adjacent Morrow County and Umatilla County, appears to be the only solution (see National Hazards Tecbnical Report for map of severe wind erosion areas). Concluding, the air mass over the county represents a positive \ natural resource. Except for the few localized problems earlier mentioned, the generally high air quality has attracted many residents, tourists, clean industries and energy facilities here. 4 State and federal air pollution standards, properly administered, will help maintain the present good air quality. Local input and coordination with these agencies will help strengthen air quality standards and programs. Local plans and implemen- tation ordinances can also help mitigate some local air quality problems. Noise Quality Noise can be defined as unwanted sound. Its impact is related to the magnitude and pitch of sounds, the frequency of occurrence at various noise levels, and the compatibility of new sounds with existing noise levels. 'Most noise is then a iombination of many individual sounds and intensities. Research has shown that a variety of adverse effects on human health and welfare can be caused by noise. For example, noise can cause or aggre- vate headache, muscle tension, fatigue and other reactions. Feelings of annoyance, such as irritability, distractibility and frustration are also caused by noise and affect communication, rest, study and sleep. These adverse ~ffects on humans illustrate why excessive noise is recognized as a serious threat to public health and welfare. What does noise have to do with comprehensive planning? Development, especially land development, is usually a major source of noise. Depending on its desigh and function, future development can either be a source or noise, or its design can reduce the impact of some noise levels. Therefore, noise control is significant in the planning process. Oregon land use laws also recognize potential noise impacts from future development by requiring local plans to keep this development within noise quality standards. However, the major objective of a required noise element wihtin a comprehensive plan is to ensure noise compatible land use planning. Because of the relatively small, dispersed population found in the planning area, noise is not currently a threat to the environment. 5 However, if the expected population increases locate associated housing and other land use activities near noise sensitive areas, noise "pollution" complaints are likely. Examples of noise generating land uses locally are Pendleton and Hermiston Airports and the Hinkle Classification Yard. These are extremely important facilities which emit noise and need protection from nearby incompatible, noise sensitive, development. Established crushing sites are also noise emitting activities and require similar protection. An effective implementation tool that can substantially reduce potential noise incompatibilities is the zoning ordinance. Besides separating land activities in areas or zones of compatibility, these ordinances can also specify construction practices or site design details tending to mitigate noise problems. For example, buffer strips can be required between proposed residential areas and existing noise emitting activities. This is practical where residential lot sizes are relatively large so that backyards can be incorporated as part of the buffer area without any unusual hardship. Since county'residential lots are large and rural in nature, buffering noise in this manner could be quite practical. Plantings or ground cover within the E-3 buffer will also enhance its sound deflecting purpose. Noise barriers (eg. earth barns, fencing) without gaps and strategic height restrictions are additional sound proofing mechanisms easily incorporable within zoning ordinances. In addition to protecting noise sensitive uses from existing noise sources, zoning can be used to ensure that new noise sources are built on compatible sites. Industrial noise sources could be grouped within industrial parks having locations where the necessary transportation and utility services are available. Adequate buffers and other recreational uses serving as buffers could be planned as a part of these parks. Noise abatement should also be considered for mineral extraction and processing operations, motor vehicle racing facilities and off-the-road vehicle use areas. Zoning in and around commercial uses should also address adjacent noise compatibility situations. Some commercial operations may be appropriate as buffers between arterial streets and residential uses. However, those commer- cial uses attracting large volumes of vehicles must be carefully planned to direct traffic away from surrounding sound-sensitive land uses. The existing Umatilla County Zoning Ordinance does not have any of the above noise abatement regulations. As more of the county is inventoried for noise problems, a comprehensive approach will become practical. In the meantime, DEQ regulates noise emissions and sets standards for new noise source uses. Continuation of this permit process is recommended with coordination between the planning and OEQ staffs to assess the cummulative impacts of noise. This is important because although individual developments may meet DEQ standards, at what time in the future will the total magnitude of noise adversely affect human health and welfare? Such a task is not easy and; wi 11 require on-gon; g study •. Only recently has noise been considered as a significant force that can affect the environment. Thus, most noise programs are just now being developed with more definitive program activities anticipated in the future. Various noise programs that DEQ is presently developing should be mentioned. The first program is proposed noise control regulations on motor vehicles racing facilities. Several of these facilities exist in the West County with the possibility of additional facilities in the future. Other noise impact programs pertaining to airports, public road design and residential heat pumps point to the continued need of cooperation when regulating land use development with state permit programs. Local participation is vital if any noise program is to work effectively. Land Quality It is difficult to separate land quality problems and situations from air and water quality issues because land development affects all environmental quality types. To assist the reader, discussion of those activities most nearly relating to the use of land are categorized under the land quality section. Land resource quality must address solid waste disposal. These waste materials, if not properly disposed, can be a detriment to public health and safety. Generally disposed collectively and under federal, state and local regulations, solid waste sites become vital public facilities to land and water quality and the safety and social needs of the people. C II (\ The State Solid Waste Control Act provides authority for counties ofOregon to establish a coordinated plan that will include all aspects of solid waste management. Umatilla County initiated this authority by developing the Umatilla County Solid Waste Management Plan under the supervision and approval of the Department of Environmental QualitYt who has state responsibility for solid waste management. This plant adopted February 15 t 1974 t regulates solid waste disposal for all of Umatilla County. Considering its comprehensiveness, the plan is referenced as an integral part of this area's land use plan. Specific refuse problems particular to Umatilla County are scattered dumping of waste t and in particular, old car bodies. The Solid Waste Plan suggests that if a properly designed and constructed automobile storage area were developed by a private operator or by Umatilla County, perhaps enough cars could be accumulated to justify a mobile auto crusher and some of the abandoned autos would be removed from unauthorized dumping areas. In the meantime, a joint county-state program preventing further illegal dumping appears to be a logical approach. ' Storage of environmentally harmful materials is deserving of brief discussion. Although no storage sites for hazardous materials presently exist or are contemplated, future sites planned for storing environmentally hazardous wastes will require strict supervision and location. Storage of "environmentallyll hazardous waste defined in ORS 459.410(6) (eg. radioactive materials) are now restricted to state-owned land and subject to strict specifications. (-) ,_, Water Qual i ty Water resources quality is extremely important to future growth po~sibi­ lities in Umatilla County. Should the present water supply drastically deteriorate in quality, domestic consumption could be restricted and population growth cultailed. Natural vegetation, fish and wildlife habitations would also be endangered if water quality declined beyond life sustaining levels. Directly related to water quality is the functional relationship of water quantity. Water supplies or quantities can either cause quality degradation (eg. storm water runoff of agricultural chemicals into streams) or they can abate polluting activities leading to water q~ality deteriora- tion reg. diluting discharge sewage into streams and rivers from community treatment plants). Adequate water supplies are similarly important to the economic health of the area, which is heavily dependent upon irrigated agri- culture and related industries. The above observations indicate that water supply (quantity) and quality are critical limiting factors to most growth potentials. Federal regulations could plan a strategic role in these growth capabilities by requiring water supplies to meet stringent quality standards for certain uses. Stricter federal laws have been proposed that make water treatment more difficult and expensive. Significant here is the fact that some local municipal water supplies are now declining and their transport systems are deteriorating. New qu~lity standards could require necessary improvements at considerable expense to local communities. Specific county water quality regulations have also been proposed to prevent rural activities contributing to water quality degradation t and entail similar financial responsibilities (eg. (1) controlling the sediments t chemicals, pesticides t animal wastes washing off agricultural land into streams; (2) runoff from road building; (3) industrial discharges; (4) septic tank effluent discharge). E-5 These federal programs proposing new water quality standards have centered around the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. Having the most impact is Section 208 of this act, a program attempting to alleviate non-point sources of water pollution. Under it, the federal government is supposed to distribute grant money to agencies to develop Water Quality Management Plans. These plans are required to investigate the different categories of non-point pollution sources, develop plans outlining solutions or management practices, and establish an implementation program addressing the problems identified. Statewide, a portion of the federally given funds have gone into a study of Columbia Basin counties on the Oregon side. It pertains mostly to agri- cultural non~point source problems and solutions. Included in the study titled "Sediment Reduction Project - 208 Non-Point Source Pollution Control Program," are preliminary findings of non-point pollution activities (mostly agriculture related) for Umatilla County, developed by a local water quality committee. Listed below are those findings relating to Umatilla County: - Non-irrigated cropland practices (eg. summer fallow rotation) creates a serious wind erosion problem around Hermiston and Stanfield. The local committee is concerned about this erosion problem but did not give it a high priority because of its non-significant contribution to water quality degradation. (See Wind Erosion Map, in the Natural Technical Report following page F-9). - Surface water activities create a variety of water quality problems, streambank erosion being the most critical. The Umatilla River is subject to most of the severe instream problems including excessive withdrawal associated questions (eg. algae aquatic plan growth and elevated water temperatures). This river also experiences severe streambank erosion and excessive withdrawal associated questions (eg. algae aquatic plant growth and elevated water temperatures). This river also experiences severe streambank erosion and excessive debris problems from human activities (eg. logs; slash). - The only other stream in the county reported to have an instream water quality problem is Butter Creek, with severe water withdrawal during the summer months, mostly due to irrigation farming. - Other activities creating local water quality problems are construction site development causing wind erosion, county road/drainage problems of sedimentation and erosion, and several localized septic tank pro- blem areas north of Milton-Freewater in the the Westland and Diagonal Road vicinities. - Irrigated cropland, ranging activities and livestock feedyard operations are not serious contributors of non-point water pollution. Several prelimina~ base maps showing the approximate areas or locations of each type of Instream Water Quality problem for Umatilla County streams are available at the SCS offices in Pendleton. The status of further funding, and for that matter the 208 program itself, is not known. Federal monies have dried up considerably. For the present, it appears that existing federal and state rules, status, and programs relating to water quality will have to be relied upon to protect Umatilla County water sources. E-6 SOURCES 1. Handbook for Environmental Quality Elements of Land Use Plans, Department of,Environmental Quality, July 1978, pg. C-21. 2. Interview, Steven Gardels, Director of the Department of Environmental Quality, Eastern Region, Feburary, 1979. 3. Sediment Reduction Project - 208 Non-Point Source Pollution Control Program for Wasco, Sherman, Gilliam, Morrow, and Umatilla Counties, Oregon, Draft, State Soil and Water Conservation Commission, August, 1978, pg. 44. 4. "Overall Economic Development Program Committee, Economic Element: Technical Report," East Central Oregon Association of Counties for Umatilla County Planning Department, January 25, 1979, pg. G-12. 5. Interview, Steven Gardels, DEQ, February, 1979. E-7 ----- ----------------------------- -------------------- -------- --- - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~--- --------------------- --- NATURAL HAZARDS AND DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS Introduction [Revised] Historically, man has not recognized the inherent dangers and limitations of the natural environment. The annual loss of life and property through flooding in many parts of the United States attests to the fact that man's development habits, inconsistent with physical land constraints, can be costly in both financial and human terms. Particularly susceptible to misuse, mismanagement and unnecessary danger to life are natural hazard areas and lands prossessing developmental constraints. They can be defined as areas which due to unique physical characteristics are subject to events that can result in the death and/or costly damage or endanger~ ment to the works of man. The following sections analyze, describe and define the nature and extent of the problems of natural hazard in areas of Umatilla County. Several additional development limitations and hazards are discussed to comply with inventory requirements of State Planning Goal #1. However, upon examination, natural hazards are not considered serious in terms of special regulation, either because they are 1imited in area, not conclusively mapped, or are al ready controlled by other agencies' programs and regulations. flooding and Floodplain Management Two different weather conditions cause floods in the county~-snowmelt and convection storms. The most routine flooding is caused by winter and spring runoff combined with rain. The most serious floods of this type usually occur when the ground is frozen. Convection storms, or cloudbursts are frequent during spring and summer, but affect only a limited area. Nearly all water courses in the county are susceptible to flash flooding caused by these intense storms. F~l Of all the rivers in the county, the Umatilla River floods most frequently, impacts the most people, and inflicts the most damage. But other waterways are also susceptible to flooding, including the Walla Walla River, Mill Creek, Birch Creek, McKay Creek, Tutuilla Creek, Butter Creek, and the John Day River. In addition, irrigation projects constructed during the 1920's and 1930's, with extensive feeder and drainage canals, occasionally flood, especially where impediments exist. The Columbia River, by far the largest river in the region, is not now as susceptible to flooding as in the past. Due to an extensive network of dams, built primarily for the purpose of generating electricity, water levels are better controlled. Floodplains are integral parts of most natural water courses. They are formed from sediment deposits removed from the intermittent overflow of the stream above its ordinary channel.. The degree of overflow and hazard within an area flooded will vary considerable from place to place. Some areas in a flood are subject to large volumes and high velocities of water; other areas are only subject to storage of relatively shallow, slow-moving waters. For explanation purposes, the nature of these two areas are defined below: A "floodway " is the stream channel and adjacent floodplain which is needed to discharge water from a flood. It is within this area that the major volume of floodwater is discharged. Water depth, velocity and the degree of hazard are relatively hi gh. A "floodway fringe" is that portion of the flood- plain lying outside of the floodway but within the flood limits. Water depth, velocity, and degree of hazard is generally less than in the floodway (see figure on following page). Floodplains involve two of the most important and basic natural resources, land and water. Unfortunately, floodplains are seldom appreciated or recognized as being of value. F-2 cA primary function of floodplains is the obvious one of carrying greater than normal quantities of water. While this function is natural, the physical attributes and qualities of floodplains as they relate to man and his survival constitute the major uses of floodplains. Probably the most extensive county use of floodplains is for the growing of crops. Inherent with most floodplains are fertile soils, level land, and available water, all essential to the economic production of crops. Floodplains also provide habitat for fish and wildlife, which in turn create recreational opportunities in-the form of fishing and hunting. In 1976, recreational hunting in Umatilla County accounted for over $7 million in expenditures. l Another recreational benefit of a floodplain is open space-aesthetic scene~, not measurable in dollar amounts but very important to the recreation industry and the basis needs of man. (f) w - ..... Z :J 0 () ~ en M W Q) -0) I-co(jc. 1\1 ~ ZOO < 0"'" a: (!JO> (!J w,,": « CCc:Z Oco0 ..., - a:or- < « Oci u. w -I LL .~a: Q. I > Q) « I-to. .... W ZCl> :J Wen 0> Z ::i~ -- 0u. 0: W.c 0.. eJO 0 «~ ZCl> 0 C «en0 :E~ ...J 0 LL 0 Z--co ....I «+0' ...JC - LL a.CI>- E oS:: ....0(1) 0> ...Jo u. eJ .... w 0 () :::::J a: CO :::> CI>to.O::s ena1 * (' \" .. Water retention is another important use of floodplains. In regions where water is not constantly available, or where flooding is a problem, these broad flat regions along rivers have been used in retaining water behind dams for water supplies during needed demand times, for flood control purposes, or a combina- tion of the two. McKay Reservoir near Pendleton is a case in point using a floodplain for irrigation storage. Urban development has traditionally been attracted to floodplain areas because of their' desirable physical qualities, such as level buildable land, trans~ortation capabilities due to the ease of construction of roads and rail- roads, and availability of water for municipal and agricultural uses. Man and man-related activities, however, have created conflicts in flood- plain areas. Because of the low population density in early settlemeni days and the respect for the potential hazards of these lands, man and the floodplain (~ ~-) co-existed in relative harmony. But due to demands for more residential, industrial, and commercial development, man has increasingly appropriated and unwisely used floodplain areas. Increased floodplain development has resulted in higher property damages, which in turn has ~esulted in a number of attempts to control floodwaters. Since the 1920's, attempts have been made nationwide to reduce flood damage through structural control of floodwaters (ie. dikes, drainage systems, and rip-rapping). More than $450 million has been spent in the last 30 years by the Corps of Engineers alone on flood control works in Oregon. 2 While these efforts have been of unquestionable value in reducing flood losses, the fact remains that flood damage continues to rise because of increased intrusion and development within floodplains. Annual flood damage in Oregon is estimated to be about $17 million based on 1965 price and development levels.3 Without further flood control or regulation of floodplain development, flood damages are expected to average over $60 million annually py the year 2020. 4 F-5 For flood management purposes, the Federal Emergency Management Adminis- tration usually defines future flood areas into two categories, the "Base Flood ll and the IIStandard Project Flood. 1I The Base Flood is defined as one that could occur in 100 years, or is a flood having a one percent chance of occurring in a single year. The Standard Project Flood is the most severe flood (500 year flood) that could occur resulting from a severe combination of weather and water conditions that are reasonably characateristic of a drainage area. It should be pointed out that major floods of an infrequent nature may occur in two or more consecutive years and more than one major flood within anyone year. In addition, floodplains are subject to constant change due to disturbances of topography and drainage patterns, and the construction of urban uses which often cause added runoff. Consequently, it is not possible to predict the exact limits of flood waters of future floods. Location of areas having flooding potentials, and the levels that they may attain, is based upon the relationship between the frequency and magnitude of floods in a given area. Records showing the highest flood levels inundated by recent floods (more complete records are available), and the frequency of past floods of various levels, make it possible to estimate the extent of flood prone areas in the future. Upon request by local government agencies, flood studies are available from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. On flood insurance rate maps and studies issued by the administration, flood profiles are compiled delineating the floodway and floodway fringe areas and identifying the depth of the floodwaters to be expected. Such detailed flood studies have been completed for some areas in Umatilla County. Preliminary studies, showing probably 100 and 500 year floodplains, have also been prepared for some additional stream sections. Maps are on file with the Umatilla County Planning Oepartment showing designated F-6 floodplains and areas thought to be floodplains but which have not yet been analyzed. Previous county land use regulations stipulated buildings and other restrictions only where detailed base flood studies were completed. However, recent amendments in the National Flood Insurance Program necessitated additional regulations be adopted locally to include other areas susceptible to flooding as a condition to remain eligible for subsidized flood insurance under the National Flood Insurance Program. Earthquakes Earthquakes are the shaking of the earth in response to the breaking of rock formations along faults. They are by far nature1s most catastrophic and devastating event, destroying large cities and taking thousands of lives in only a few seconds.' Damage val ues to property and transportati on systems are astronomical after such events occur. 9 Although uncommon in the county, several small earthquakes have been reported as far back as the 1890 1s, one of which caused slight property damage. Based upon previous information, land formations, and present data gathering techniques, Seismic Risk Zones have been established assessing possible future earthquake occurrences and their potential devastating effects. A generalized map prepared by the Emergency Services Division of the State of Oregon classifies the county into two Seismic Risk Zones. The boundary between these two zones has an east-west orientation that runs through Pendleton (see map on next page). High Water Tables [Revised] High water table areas often present annoying building site limitations. Building foundations are subject to water damage, cracking due to settling, and F...7 SEISMIC RISK ZONES FOR OREGON ZON.E o 1 2 3 INTENSITY (MMJ INTENSITY I-VI INTENSITY VI-VIII IN TENSITY VIII-IX INTENSITY IX-X UMATILLA COUNTY DEGREE OF DAMAGE NO DAMAGE MINOR DAMAGE MODERATE DAMAGE MAJOR DAMAGE SOURCE: Earthquake Hazard Study-Draft, Emergency Services Division State of Oregon, 1978. flooding, if basements are present. Also, septic tanks will not properly function due to insufficient filtration of sewage effluent. Another example--utilities are subject to infiltration, creating costly repairs and interrupting service. The degree of hazard a high water table area presents is usually limited to local property damage or increased building costs. No known problems of damage to buildings from standing water nor extensive problems with septic tank function due to high water table can be documented. Alt~ough seasonal water tables exist in several areas of the county (eg. irrigation districts in east and west Umatilla County), most all develop- ment has been directed away from suspected areas. Weak Foundation Soils [Revised] Weak foundation soils are those soils which do not possess the necessary qualities to support, or are restrictive to, building foundations. Several physical factors determine the construction suitability of a soil such as shear strength (the ability to bear the loads of buildings) and composition (physical make-up of the soil determining its stability). Soils possessing a low shear strength or poor stability qualities present special problems in providing adequate building foundations. Also, utility and road siting is restrictive on weak foundation soils due to the potential damage from cracking, slumping, or settling of these soils. According to soil scientists from SCS and based upon recent preliminary soil surveys, the limited areas having weak foundation soil characteristics are located away from development areas designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Severe Slopes/Landslides [Revised] Severe slopes are topographic features which tend to prohibit or severely limit development. Development is restricted on severe slopes in several ways. F-9 First, as steepness of a slope increases (usually between 12% and 20%), the cost of building also increases because of the expense of constructing foundations, streets, and locating utilities.12 Second, severe slopes are associated with landslide topography, which usually is unsuitable for development because of the potential hazards to human life and property from earth movement. In talking with soil scientists, recent soil surveys show that only the footslopes of the Blue Mountains contain soil qualities, weather and slope conditions, where landslide/slope combinations are possible. Development has been directed away from this grazing/resource area. Erosion Areas [Revised] Erosion is the displacement of soil by force of moving water, wind, or gravity. Soil erosion has been referred to dS a silent thief that robs topsoil from farms, leaves gaping scars in landscapes, undermines houses, roads, and bridges, and contributes to flooding. Sedimentation, erosion's counterpart, is another problem. Sedimentation is the process by which mineral or organic matter is detached, transported, or deposited by moving water, wind, or gravity. The detachment process is erosion, and the detached particles being transported or deposited become sediment. Erosion and sedimentation occurs naturally. However, man's use of land has often led to an increase in soil erosion. In the United States billions of tons of soil are lost each year because of man-related activities. Moreover, evidence shows that erosion and sedimentation is five to 500 times greater in suburbanizing areas than rural areas. 13 Erosion is a problem in the county. However, it is limited to agricultural problems. Wind erosion is especially damaging in West Umatilla County because of the low rainfall, sandy soils and occasionally gusty winds. The West County is in one of the windiest areas of Oregon, having high and many prolonged periods of strong winds (see map on following page). F-10 ~@!m 0:DdJ r..:.":-': [? ~/~~ 2) © ~ Z~ o J1 _ l:.._J en cd} Q. ~:-:_:J~CCc:g LU ..···1 ::--:-;~.)Ca Z ro-&~~=~:~ ::>,...J W ~~~ .. ,..,. ---v-; u- (JC jUJ ;[l~J > .... ~....., ..:(_.::W.~.; , ".., ';;"...1\4',1 I. .• LEGENC ---,_._._._._,._'_._,._- I I I I I I I I 1--- I .-1 I I I ,_...J I I I I I I I [ [ ___1 I ____ .J SOURCES: U.S. Department of Agriculture,S.C.S., July,1978 for Mid·Columbia Sediment Reduction Project, Morrow and Umatilla Counties. "Pendleton Weather Bureau 0'.' . WEST UMATILLA COUNTPLANNING UNIT • SEVERE WIND EROSION r- I I ._.__.__ -1 .- __ .1 I 1 I 1.- .. I I 1__ - .... I I I I l .. I I I -------- 1 I I t" I I I I r I I I I I I I I I I IL . I I I 1--__ '1 I / PREVAI.L1NG WIND'" II I '. I _I .J I I I I ' I I --------------~------ o r) -1)....: .;i$# ~J I, :~ r .i 0~'. ,~ ~. t '§;~.~. .~. ..,i '{ ft. .! . J .'; :'·.1 "1 i., ~ Most areas of the county have minimal water erosion hazards, but certain places do have problems. Of significance, they are situated away from existing or planned development. The rural areas around Pendleton, Athena, and Helix are rated by the State Soil and Water Conservation Commission as having a moderate water erosion problem. The only extensive severe water erosion hazard area lies along the Blue Mountain foothills, where livestock grazing and similar resource activities occur.12 Conclusions [Ne~J The above discussion fulfills the inventory responsibility of all known types of hazards and development limitations having potential impacts upon life and property in Umatilla County. An overall examination of each of the hazard/ development limitations in this chapter leJds to several findings: (1) That flooding is the only hazard in the county which possesses a frequent threat to life and property; (2) The county has developed pertinent policies, regulations and standards in the plan for flooding hazard situations, the purpose being to help protect people in the county from natural hazards and disasters. F-12 ( SOURCES 1. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Plan for Umatilla County, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, June 1978, pp. 3. 2. Oregon1s Flood Plains, State Water Resources Board, State of Oregon, December 1972, pp. 2. 3. Ibid, pp.2 4. Ibid, pp.2. 5. Water and Related Land Resources - Umatilla Drainage Basin, Oregon, Economic Research Service - Soil Conservation Service, December 1962, pp. 78. 6. Flood Plain Information - Umatilla River, Echo-Stanfield, Oregon and Vicinity, Department'of\the" Arl"hy, "Walla Walla, Corps of Engineers, June 1974, PP. 7. 7. Water and Related Land Resources, pp. 79. 8. Phone conversation with Bud Skeen, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, interviewer Bob Perry, County Planning Staff, June 1978. 9. Keller, Edward A., Environmental Geology, Charles E. Merril Publishing Company, Columbus, Ohio, 1976, pp. 127. 10. Keller, Edward, Environmental Geology, pp. 101. 11. Ibid, pp. 207. 12. Interview with Alan Makinson, Soil Scientist, USDA, with Bob Perry, County Planner, January 198~. RECREATIONAL NEEDS Int roduct ion A basic human need is to pursue activities that refresh mental and physical condition. From children learning to socialize through play, to elderly people pleasure-walking or sitting in the sun, recreation is important to the whole life cycle. Implementation of a recreational system is considered a public responsibility, although many agencies and private parties provide system components. What to provide is based on "need,1I that is, an examination of population character- istics and that population's activities. Need changes as the population changes in age, income, technology, or degree of urbanization. Portions of Umatilla County, especially in the West End, are growing rapidly. Many existing facilities cannot serve the demand and entirely new types are requested. By inventorying present facilities and estimating future needs, recreational facilities and sites can be planned for. Information on Umatilla County recreation has been collected from several sources, no one of \~hi ch inc1uded all aspects. IIDemand' i came from the State Comprehensive Outdqor Recreation Plan (SCORP), with revision of statistical tables to correct minor computation errors and to substitute more accurate population projections. Voiced demand lists also from SCORP were supplemented by recreation needs cited during the tomprehensive planning process. Existing supply of recreational facilities was collected from several sources. A generalized summary was included in SCORP. Computer print-outs of some specific background information were collected with help form interested county residents and from a land-use survey. Information about facilities not included in SCORP is limited. G-1 Potential recreational sites were obtained from State Fish and Wildlife inventories, State Highway Department budgets, State and National inventories of historic sites, and from citizens during public involvement meetings. Meeting Recreational Needs Recreational needs can be dealt with in several ways. In developing or expanding industrial, residential, or historic sites, recreational areas can be included. Costs may be assumed by a private party, such as a required park dedication for a proposed subdivision; by a community group, such as a picnic area at a historic site; or by a government agency, such as a campground by a reservoir or highway. Historical features occuring in Umatilla County are attracting increasing interest. Recreational development can be an appropriate accessory use to the primary use of historical preservation. Accessory recreational development may range form a wayside sign describing an historical landscape feature, to picnic tables and play area next to a site, to an explanatory trail, to a highly developed tourist attraction. Recreation may also be an accessory use for open lands that are required around a potentially offensive industrial use. Opportunities of this sort will arise as companies apply for permits and develop their grounds. A good example of local, state, and federal agencies working together in providing public recreational opportunities is found west of the Umatilla River on a site referred tc as the South Shore River Area. Here the Army Corps of Engineers has leased shoreline to the State Department of Fish and Wildlife, who in turn has agreed to cooperate with the County in supplying public access to the eastern half of the site. Tentative plans call for maintaining the site in a relatively unimproved, natural setting. G-2 (""-- Development of recreational areas often carry public costs. For example, individual lots of a subdivision may sell for more; industrial products may carry the cost of a recreational facility in their purchase price; and a highway's cost is spread over everyone's gasoline taxes. This must be balanced against the cost that would eventually be required to build the facility else- where, at a later time~ or after demand increases. Occasionally, public and private funds are availoble to assist local governments to improve or p~rchase recreational sites. In Umatilla County, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation funds are allocated yearly by a distribution priority committee. The cities and the county will prepare programs competing for these monies. Local governments provide all recreation fields and swimming pools. Support of school district facilities comes from each land owner within the districts themselves. These facilities have been used for community recreatioal activities while school is not in session, and maintained by the district. Community groups in the county have in the past aided in the provision and maintenance of city recreational facilities by soliciting paint and other materials, and organizing work crews. Future supply of fields, courts and most developed parks will probably continue to locate where people can get to them most easily, in cities and with schools. Both schools and cities need help, in provision and maintenance of facility and in organization of uses, to continue to provide adequate service. Determining Future Needs Umatilla County recreational needs are growing and changing along with the population. The Parks and Recreation branch of Oregon's Department of Trans- portation has prepared over the past three years documents on demand, supply and needs, as part of a State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). The two following tables (Table G-I, G-II) have been taken from the "Needs G-3 Bulletin. 11 For those needs, expressed per thousand people, population data adopted by the Comprehensive Plan are used. Because Umatilla County activity information collected by the State was statistically unreliable (too few county residents were contacted), Umatilla County activity occasions are in proportion to State occasions as county population is to the State's. This makes the first table unreliable in that an activity very popular in Umatilla County may not enjoy the same popularity statewide. Therefore, the second table includes local citizen preferences in addition to the statistical table. Examining both tables, it becomes apparent that both locally improved recreational facilities (i .e. neighborhood parks, ball fields) and dispersed unimproved recreation area (i.e. campsites, stream access) are experiencing increased demand. Only golf courses, regional parks and swimming pools are in enough supply across the county to avoid both the table of voiced demand and statisical demand computed for 1990. Some trends identifiable today will affect recreational demand, although in what ways and to what degree is uncertain. The trend with possibly the most visable affect is the rising costs of deisel and gasoline. What may occur from higher fuel costs is that many people will recreate closer the their homes and may shift from sports that consume large amounts of fuel to more primitive but less costly pastimes, such as bicycling or sailing. Urbanization of an area cha~ges its population's recreation preferences as well. As more people live in towns, recreation activities that took place on one's own or a freind's land (such as hunting or fishing) lose their relative popularity to activities occuring on community-maintained parks. The growing portion of the population between the ages of 25 and 44 implies new G-4 {~ , I / TABLE G-I UMATILLA COUNTY NEEDS (RECREATIONAL) Facility Unit Supply Campsites Site 273 Picnic Table Table 662 Swimming Pools Pool 8 Boat Launch Lanes Lane 14 Swim Beach Feet 1,300 Walking Trails Mil e 3 Hiking Trails Mile 0 Biking Trail s Mile 5 Bri d1e Trail s Mile 0 Ba11 fi e1ds Fi el d 30 Tennis Courts Court 20 All Purpose Courts Court 11 ORV Trails Mi 1e 0 Gol f Holes 45 Neighborhood Parks Acres 65 Community Parks Acres 92 Di st ri ct Parks Acres 211 Regional Parks Acres 3,721 SOURCE: SCORP Technical Docuemnt III Updated Population Figures: East Central 1Numbers in parentheses are surpluses Gross Needs 1975 389 116 267 (395)1 5 (3) 5 (9) 1,154 (146) 18 14 21 21 10 5 49 49 40 10 19 (1) 19 8 25 25 36 (9) 241 176 482 390 723 512 1,205 (2,516) Oregon Association of Counties (ECOAC) G-5 Net Need 1980 156 (376) (2) (8) (83) 16 22 6 52 17 3 12 26 (9) 217.5 473 636.5 (2,308.5) 1990 . 257 (337) (2) (8) 49 22 25 7 58 21 5 14 29 o 243 524 713 (2,181) TABLE G-II HIGH PRIORITY NEEDS ASSESSMENTS FOR UMATILLA COUNTY* Boat launch lanes Hiking trails Bike trails Multiple Use Trails Ballfields Access to streams and rivers ORV trails and areas Picnic tables Bridle trails Tennis courts All-purpose courts Historic site survey Neighborhood parks Community parks Di stri ct parks Waysides *Source: SCORP Technical Document III, p. 126. WEST COUNTY HIGH PRIORTY NEEDS** Fairgrounds (new site) Gun club (new site) **Source: Citizen Involveme~t Meetings. G-6 recreation needs. These people take a more active part in community field sports, and their children increase the use of neighborhood parks. Ball games are increasing in organization and number, creating heavy pressure on existing fields. Recreational considerations may' be approached from the direction of supply as well. Certain features occur in the West County that may not occur elsewhere. Development of these features may exceed recommended standards as set for the population of the County, yet may be inadequate for the use they receive. This may be best exemplified by a ski resort in an unpopulated mountai no'us county that must expand to serve out-of-county users. Pres€nt and Potential Recreational Sites A variety of existing and potential recreational sites and facilities are available in Umatilla County (see Table G-III, G-VI and Recreational Facilities Maps). The Columbia River is a major resource that attracts many recreationaiists to the western part of the county. Hat Rock State park and McNary Beach are improved and maintained parks with access to the Columbia River. Hat Rock State park also has a fishing pond and hiking trails in its 30 acres of development. Both have additional unimproved acres, with potential for further development. The Corps of Engineers is preparing a master plan for the McNary pool behind McNary Dam. Several improvements to recreational areas along the shoreline are proposed. The Corps and the Port of Umatilla Are negotiating to move McNary Beach further east to allow for industrial expansion along the river frontage. The proposed relocation and expansion of McNary Beach would provide for additional recreational opportunity along the Columbia River. The Parks and Recreation branch of the,State Highway deparment stated in their six year (1979-1985) Parks System Plan that three-fourths of the funds assigned for Umatilla county are intended for construction projects at Hat G-7 Rock State Park. According to the plan, the boating/swimming lagoon would receive the greatest share of money. Other projects planned for include a new play area, picnic shelter, restroom, boat dock, floating foot bridge and installation of a sprinkler system. Three federally owned refuges are located in the county. Being close to urban centers, they offer recreational activities for many residents. Facilities include parking areas, trail signs and some picnic tables. Fishing and hunting are allowed, but. controlled by special regulations. Management plans for these areas are being drafted and recreational areas are being included. The county has reviewed the draft plans for both Mckay National Wildlife Refuge and Cold Springs National Wildlfie Refuge. Both draft plans call for additional boat access, increased day use facilities such as toilets and picnic tables, and management of hunting areas for nature study and hiking. The county's mountains attract many people because of the variety of recreational opportunities that occur there. The best data available are for the National Forests. Table G-VII shows the breakdown of visitors' activities for the Oregon portion of the Umatilla National Forest in 1977. The Umatilla National Forest is currently preparing a management plan for the National Forest. The management plant will address recreational opportunities in the forest along with several other issues. The county has maintained a close working relationship with the Regional Office of the Forest Service and will continue to do so. Data on the economic value of these activities to Umatilla County is available for only the largest category, IIFising and Hunting ll • Approximately 80,000 days of fishing are taken in Umatilla County each year by recreational anglers, based on 1975 data. Associated with these anlging days G-8 (00 \ are expenditures of about $3.4 million annually. Again, the proportion of these expenditures made in Umatilla County is unknown. Net benefits of around $1.2 million annually are associated with this recreational activity. The hunting of big game, upland game and waterfowl provided 226,000 days of recreation in Umatilla County in 1981. Associated with these recreational days are hunter expenditures of around $8.8 million. Some unknown proporion of these expenditures were made in Umatilla County. Also associated with the days of hu nt i ng are net 'benef; ts (hypothet i cal access cha rge) to hu nters of about $5 million. Although not as important as recreational hUhting, trapping and furbearer hunting provide some 1500 days of activity and yielded a harvest of pelts worth approximately $27,600 at first sale. Private recreational areas have existed in Umatilla County for several years C at varying levels of intensity. Two of the large developments are currently closed to public use. They are lehman Hot Springs and Hidaway Hot Springs. Both were developed areas with swimming pools, overnight activities, lodges, a dance hall and other outdoor recreational activities. lehman Hot Springs is in the process of reopening to the public, while Hidaway is being upgraded by private individuals for private use. The Tollgate area has three existing recreational commercial areas. These include the Tollgate Chalet (restaurant and bar), Tamarack Inn (restaurant with a liquor license) and the Tollgate Shopping Center (store facilities, gas, trailer spaces). Citizen and property owner comments for the area indicate that no new commercial areas are necessarily needed or desired along the Tollgate Highway Corridor at present and if new commercial uses are proposed, they should be the expansion of existing commercial centers and allowed under special conditions or requirements. Similar coments were made by residents in other recreational areas of the county. G-9 The county's only major park, Harris Park, southeast of Milton-Freewater, has run into finacial problems due to budget cuts in the recent years. The county has tried to maintain the park on a very limited basis. Approximately 1000 acres of lands owned by the Bureau of Land Management lies adjacent to Harris park. A study was conducted by a graduate student for the Bureau of Land Management and Umatilla County. The BLM would like to turn the land over to the county for expansion of the park. The result of the study was a proposed management plan for the area, but again the manageement plan called for capital improvements to be made and the likelihood of that money will be available to implement the plan appear bleak. Conclusion Although Umatilla County residents presently enjoy an assortment of recreational sites, facilities and opportunities, shortages do exist. The "Oregon Outdoor Recreation Needs Bulletin", U.S. Department of the Interior, 1977, analyzes recreational needs within each Oregon county. The analysis portrays a continuing need in Umatilla County for more campsites, walking trails, hiking trails, biking trails, bridle trials, all-purpose courts, off-road vehicle trails, neighborhood parks, community parks, and district parks. Plans underway by the Oregon Deptartment of Transportation call for the improvement and addition of many such facilities to exiting state parks ("0regon State Parks System Plan, 1979-1985",000T). G-IO \ •. ) iil~ r 5 b 1 . - . {I '1)" ~ SITE SITE PATH LEGEND • DEVELOPED o POTENTIAL ••••• POTENT IAL "- ------- "" RECREATION FACILITIES r J Does not include West Umatilla County o POTENTIAL SITES en w -I- - ...J -0.7 -2 ~@ ~ ~3§) u.~ ~ -I@ ..",.~~ e:-- Z~ 0 ::::::..::.::c-.:=:=' L:?: r-2,; -j NATIONAL ... FO,REST -J~~ ot.:.7' . ~1-,r lou, I -i- .d fl= r'! J' 11 l'0~.~I • ~~l~~_ ___-'+..: lJI '~zL41" ~. 9• . J z~ ::"~.~:--~J~ 1',.'--J -,~:~~~~~ IIlj&o,:;' l-f IJ=- f __ -,--_ _ __ o o /~ .~~.~~ ~. .t ----------------------:---.---------------- .~ ~'... -~ -t J'~~.: ~ ~~ ? l~tI' TABLE G-III DEVELOPED RECREATION SITES IN WEST COUNTY NAME AGENCY -- -- Steel head Park County Umatilla Sage Riders Private (non-profit) Sage Runners Private (non-profit) Westland Bridge Hole. Pri vate Hat Rock State Park State JURISDICTION (Fac i 1it i es ) Community Organiztion Horse arena Community Organization Sand drag track Easement only Fishing Park and Recreation Branch 179 picnic sites, fishing swimming, boating, scenic views hiking DESCRIPTION NE1/4NEl/4 of Sec. 17 T.4N R. 28 E.W.M. River Access, restroom, 7.40 acres NE1/4NW1/4 of Sec. 22 T.5N R. 28 E.W.M. Developed Rodea Grounds, 27.58 acres NW1/4SW1!4 of Sec. 27 T.5N R. 29 E.W.M. Four Wheel Drive, 22.40 acres SE1/4SE1/4 of Sec. 8 T. 4N R. 20 E.W.M. Fishing Easment Sec. 15, 16 T. 5N R. 29 E.W.M. Boat Lanes, 725.23 acres Buttercreek Wayside Cold Springs National Wildlife Refuge State Federal Dept. of Transportation Rest Area Picnic Facilities u.S. Fish and Wildlife Fishing, Hunting, swimming, boating, nature study, hiking SE1j4NE1/4 of Sec. 1T. 3N R. 28 E.W.M. Rest Stop, 15 acres Sec. 1,2,3,12, T. 4N R. 29 E.W.M. Sec. 34,35,36 T. 5N R. 29 E~W.M. Sec. 31, T. 5N R. 30 E.W.M. Reservo1r, Fishing, 3,117 acres Mcnary Wildlife Refuge Federal' Corps of Engineers nature study SW1j4 Sec. 10, SE1/4 Sec. 9, T 5N R 29 E.W.M., 425 acres McNary Beach Hat Rock Campground '-.-/ Federal Pri vate Profi t Corps of Engineers hiking, swimming, boating Picnicing, store facilities G-13 ~) River frontaage Sec. 11, 12, T 5N R 28 E.W.M., Boat Lanes, 57 acres SW1/4SE1/4 of Sec. 15 T. 5N R. 29 E.W.M., 25 campsites, store, 15 acres NAME AGENCY -- McNary Yacht Club Private Profit Umatilla Speedway Pri vate Profi t Triangle Raceway Private Profit Diagonal Road Bike State Path Barth's Quarry Pond State TABLt G-III cont1d JURISDICTION (Facilities) Boating Racing Racing Dept. of Transportation Bicycle Path Dept. of Transportation Detp. of Fish and Wildlife G-14 DESCRIPTION NWl/4NE1/3 of Sec. 15 T. 5N R. 29 E.W.M. Membership docking facility NEl/4NWlj4 of Sec. 17~ T. 5V R. 29 E.W.M. Spectator Racetrack 21.26 acres SWl/4SWlj4 of Sec. 27, R. 5N R. 29 E.W.M. Auto racetrack, 22 acres Highway 207 from Hermiston City limits to junction with U.S. Highway 730 SEl/4SWl/4 of Sec. 9 T. 3N R. 30 E.W.M. Fishing Access TABLE G-IV POTENTIAL RECREATION SITES IN WEST COUNTY NAME West Hermiston Site Westland Dam Site Dodd Ponds Ordnance Pond Site Wink Pond Site Hat Rock Access South Shore Beach Cold Springs Public Access Corps Wayside Juniper Canyon Wayside Lease Oregon Trail West 1and School Fort Henrietta Emi grant Gra ves Three Mile Dam ~ AGENCY JURISDICTION City Hermiston Private Easement Private and State Easement Private Easement Private Easement Private State Parks Federal Agency Lease Federal Corps of Engineers Federal Dept. of Transportation Lease Federal Corps of Engineers Federal Dept. of Transportatinn Lease Private Unknown Private Unknown Private Unknown County Unknown Federal Bureau of Land Management G-15 !\ ' \. / --.../ DESCRIPTION NW1/4NEl/4 Sec. 9T 4N R 28 EWM, Fishing Access SE1/4NElj4 Sec. 27T 3N R29 EWM, Fishi ng Access SE1/4NElj4 Sec. 14T 5N R 29EWM, Fishing A~cess SEl/4NWl/4 Sec. 17 T 4N R 27 EWM, Fishing Pond NW1/4NEI/4 Sec. 31 T 4N R 28 EWM, Fishing Pond NW1/4NW.l/4 Sec.23 T 5N R 29 EWM, Entry Corridor River Frontage Sec. 13,14,15 T 5N R 27 EWM, Sec. 18 T 5N R 29 EWM, Public Access NWlj4NW1/4 Sec. 13 T 5N R 29 EWM Fishing and Boating Access Nt~l/ 4SW1/4 Sec. 35 T 6N R 20 EWM, Scen i c Ways ide NWl/4SW1/4 Sec. 35 T 6N R 30 EWM Fishing and Boating Access Scenic Wayside Historic Wayside, Interpretive Trail NE1/4SE1/4 Sec. 25T 4N R 29 EWM, Museum SE1/4NW1/4 Sec.16T 3N R 29 EWM,Historic Wayside NElj4NWl/4 Sec. 361 3N R 27 EWM, Historic Site SW1/4SW1/4 Sec. 28 T 4N R 28 EWM,Fishing Access NAME Harris Park Umatilla Forks Forest Campgrounds Woodward Campground Emigrant Springs Picnic and Campground Ukiah - Dale Wayside Battle Mountain State Park and Wayside Indian Lake Campground JURISDICTION County U.S.F.S. U.S.F.S. State State State Confederated Tr; bes TABLE G-V RECREATION SITES IN UMATILLA COUNTY* FACILITIES 4 Picnic sites, fishing hiking, motorcycle, ORV 7 Trailer sites, 30 picnic sites, camping, picnicking and fishing, hiking, pit toilets and water 20 Tent sites, 18 picnic sites, camping, picnicking, hunting, hiking, pit toilets and water 18 Trailer sites, flush toilets, 33 tent sites, 124 picnic sites, camping, hunting, theater, picnicking, nature study, scenic view 25 Trailer or tent sites, camping, fishing, hunting, scenic view, flush toilets 66 picnic sites, hiking, nature study, scenic view, flush toilets and water 59 campsites, day use area fishing, boating, swimming, pit toilets and water LOCATION NE1/4NWl/4 of Sec. 10 T 4N R 37 South Fork of Walla Walla River NW1/4NWl/4 of Sec. 22 T 3N R 37 North Fork of Umatilla River NE1/4SWl/4 of Sec. 31 T 4N R 38 Langdon Lake NWl/4NEl/4 of Sec. 29 T IN R 35 Near Meacham SE1/4SE1/4 of Sec. 21 T 5S R 31 South of Ukiah SEl/4SWI/4 of Sec. 29 T 3S R 321 North of Ukiah (also Sec. 20 and 32) Sec. 21,22,27,28, T 2S R 28 Indian Lake Bear - Wallow Campground U.S.F.S. 16 trailer sites, 9 tent sites, camping, fishing, hunting, pit toilets and water NEl/4NWl/4 of Sec. 32 T 4S R 33 McKay Reservoir U.S. Bu reau of Reclamation Picnicking, fishing, nature study, boati ng G-16 Sec. 2,3,19,11,14 T IN R 32 South of Pendleton ....:.> NAME Mc Kay Nat i ana1 Wildlife Refuge Pond Loree Bar MRanch Resort Echo Golf Course Pendleton Country Club McNary Golf Club Target Meadows Campground Deadman's Pass Frazier Campground Lone Creek Campground JURISDICITON u.s. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Pri vate Private City Pri vate Pri vate U.S.F.S. State U.S.F.S·. U.S.F.S. TABl-E. G-V contld FACILITIES Hunting~ nature study Camping, fishing, hiking Overnight facilities, swimming, fishing, horse- back riding, scenic view 9 hole golf course, club house facilities 9 hole golf course, swimming, tennis, club house facilities (eating and dri nki ng) 18 hole golf course, club house facilities 10 trailer sites, 4 tent sites, 14 picnic sites, camping, picnicking, hunting, berry pi cki ng 20 picnic sites, rest stop facilities 30 trailer or tent sites, 11 picnic sites, camping, picnicking, hunting, fishing 10 tent sites, camping, hunting, fishing LOCATION Sec. 1,2,3,10,11,12,13,14,15,2 T IN R 32, Sec. 34,35 T 2N R NW1/4 of Sec. 22 T IN R 35 South of Meacham NEI/4 of Sec. 18 T 3N R 37 Thornhollow Road NEl/4NEl/4 & Nl/2SEl/4NEI/4 T 3N R 29 Lexington-Echo Highway , Nl/2NE1/4SW1j4 of SEc. 15 T 5N R 32 Highway 395 South of Pendleton NEl/4NEl/4 of Sec. 14 T 5N R 28 SEl/4SWl/4 of Sec. 21 T 4N R 37 T IN R 34 Sec. 1 Indian Reservation SEl/4SEl/4 of Sec. 2 T 5S R 33 1/2 SW1/4SW1/4 of Sec. 29 T 4S R 33 *Does not include West County "-- G-17 \ "---/ TABLE G-VI POTENTIAL RECREATION SITES IN UMATILLA COUNTY* NAME Hideaway Springs Lehman Springs Squaw Creek Overlook Earnest J. Haney Vista Bureau of Land Management adjacent to Harris Park *Does not include West County JURISDICTION Private Pri vate State State and Private Bureau of Land Management G-18 LOCATION T 5S R 33E, Section 16 T 5S R 33£, Section 12 T -IN R 35E, Section 9 T 4N R 38E, US Highway 204 T 4N R 37, Section 10 SW1/4 Sec. 11, Nl/2 Sec. 14 r':\BL(--~VI I ~ ............. BREAKDOWN OF 1~,/ VISITOR DAYS - UMATILLA NATIONAL FOREST Activity Rec reat i ana1 Camping Pi cni cki ng Motorized Water Sport, Winter Fishing, Riding, Vi sits Tra vel ~oating Sports Hunting Hi ki ng Visitor Days (in 1,000'5) 299.6 318.4 42.6 226.6 16.6 15.3 326.5 75.6 % of Total -- 29 4 20 1 1 30 7 Activity Resort Use Organized Recreational Gathering Natu re Viewing Visitor TOTAL DAYS Camping Residence Study Informati on Visitor Days (in 1,000 1 5) 2.8 9.7 11.0 22.4 3.6 10.5 16.7 1098.3 %of Total .2 .8 .1 2 .3 1 1 G-19 SOURCES 1. "Columbia River (Bonneville to Washington Border); "Master Plan for Angler Access and Associated Recreational Uses; Lands Section, Oregon State Game Commission; May 1969. 2. Fish and Wildlife Sites of the Mid-Columbia Waterfront area; Oregon State Game Commission for the Division of Planning and Development, Department of Commerce, State of Oregon; July 1965. 3. "Gilliam, Morrow, Umatilla Counties Lakes and Reservoirs;lI Master Plan for Angler Access and Associated Recreational Uses; Lands Section, Oregon State Game Commission; November 1967. 4. McNary Second Powerhouse, Final Environmental Imapct Statement; Office of the Chief of Engineers., Department of the Navy, Washington, D.C., April 1976. 5. Oregon Outdoor Recreation Demand Bulletin 1975 Technical Document I of the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan; Parks and Recreation Branch, Department of Transportation, State of Oregon; September 1976. 6•. Oregon Outdoor Recreation Supply Bulletin 1976 Techcnial Document I of the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan; Parks and Recreation Branch, Department of Transportation, State of Oregon; January 1977. 7. Oregon Outdoor Recreation Needs Bulletin 1977 Technical Document III of the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan: Parks and Recreatinn Branch, Department of Transportation, State of Oregon; September 1977. 8. Oregon State Parks System Plan 1979-1985; Parks and Recreation Branch, Department of Transportation, State of Oregon, Spring 1978. 9. "Umatilla River Basin;1I Master Plan for Angler Access and Associated Recreational Uses; Land Section, Oregon State Game Commission; June 1967. 10. IIWalla Walla River Basin;" Master Plan for Angler Access and Associated Recreational Uses; Lands Section, Oregon State Game Commission; July 1967. G-20 \\ ECONOMY The econOlll'ic data within this section is excerpted from the Umatilla County Economic Statell1ent, (F,:::bruary 1979)~ East Central Oregon Association of Counties. It represents concerted efforts of a citizen task force to analyze present conditions (findings) and suggest the direction for future County actions (recommended policies). Detailed information used to formulate findings and policies can be found in the technical reports Clr th'jo.; puhliciition. Also in this section at tho end js the coordinated ('ounty populat.jun prujc\cLiom·, with jUHtifjcatiol1. This infor- ma L j on was rc'qu j rc-:d by LCDC and is irnportant in deve19ping , plnJ1s for various lund use nCH.?ds. H-1 I I . SUMMARY STATEMENT UMATILLA COUNTY ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 1. I ntroduct ion The economic analysis of Umatilla County was prepared in two stages. First, through the help of a specially formed citizen advisory group (the Overall Economic Development Committee - OEDC), public officials and other local residents, information about various aspects of the economy was collected, discussed, and analyzed. The citizen advisory group then helped to summarize this data (see Technical Reports) and to formulate 9uidelines for imple- menting their co'nclusions about each aspect of the economy (see Findin9s and Policies). For purposes of the analysis, Umatilla County's economy was divided into eleven sectors - Aqriculture, Construction, Finance, Government and Services, Manpower, Manufacturing, Natural Resources, Recreation and Tourism, Trade, Transportation, and Utilities. Second, this Summary Statement was prepared as a means for discussing the county's total economy - the relationships between various sectors, the present and future status of the economy, specific problems and opportunities facing Umatilla County, and the identification of certain economic goals to be achieved through the planning process or other means. The available economic data together with the largp. amount of citizen involvement in pre- paring this document allowed the analysis to reflect a fairly accurate picture of the Umatilla County economy. General Discussion of the Economy Economic data about the various sectors is usually b?sed on different economic indicators, or benchmarks, and is not directly comparable between the sectors. In other words, there is no way of determining and comparing the actual dollar value contributed by each sector to the county's economy_ Also, the recent growth of county populations and the development of irrigated cropland, agri- business and diversificction of other industries in Umatilla County have in- validated much of the available data. The consequences of these chanpes have not yet been quantified into measurable data so they are not reflected in existing projections of county growth. For these reasons, county employment and payroll data present some of the most accurate economic indicators avail- able for Umatilla Countv at this time. But this factual information can be tempered vJith information obtained from interviews with local Government and business leaders and from the perceptions of the citizen advisory group (the OEDC). A. Resource Base, Historical Development, and Local Perceptions Agriculture has been, is, and probably will remain the mainstay of the UffiJtilla County economy. Annual estimates released by the Oregon Extension Service indicate that Umatilla County consi'stently ranks amon~ the top three Oregon Counti es ; n annua1 agri cul tura1 producti'on", In recent years, the county has annually produced about $100 mill10n in gross sales of farm products. Althouqh this figure cannot be dtrectly compared to gross sales or cont:ibutions from other sectors (because of (H-2) different benchmarks), it can be said that Agricul ture makes a substantial contribution to the economy. Many of the other sectors originally develop- ed in response to the needs of Agriculture. For example, the main purpose of local transportation route development was to carry farm products to local, state or regional markets. Financial institutions in the county generally show healthy investment records largely due to Agricultural investments and money management practices. Several government agencies, industries, jobs, services and retai'l trade outlets exist in Umatilla County mainly because of the demand created by the agriculture sector. Recent agri- business development and population growth htve increased available manpower and have affected the entire Umatilla County economy, especially the agriculture, manufacturing and trade sectors. The Umat'illa County Agricul ture sector has experienced a certain degree of diversification although wheat production continues to be the primary farm crop. The diversification has resulted from the increase in irrigated crop land and the associated shift to intensive cropping patterns involving potato, alfalfa and other crops. Food processors have located in the county as a result, and now provide a substantial portion of total manufacturing employment. These developments have led to growth throughout the agri- culture sector and have provided the county with revenue from several different crops new to the county such as potatoes and sweet corn. In addition, surplus potatoes grown in the west county area can now be used by local starch processing plants and by cattle feedlots. Other sectors of the Umatilla County economy, though contributing much less than agriculture, are important sources of employment and most have realized significant growth in response to increased county population. The largest sectors include trade, government, and manufacturing (both lumber and wood products and food processing industries). Forest lands in the county and the timber industry also contribute to county revenues through payments in lieu of taxes (federal payments on the basis of timber sales) and Eastern Oregon Severance Tax Receipts (a tax from private timber harvest). Transportation, trade, finance and service employment have all increased in recent years and improved service in each of these support sectors has in turn benefitted Umatilla County's basic industries. B. Employment and Payrolls Table I sumarizes 1972 and 1976 employment and income data for Umatilla County obta i ned from the Oregon Depa rtment :of Economi c Development, Bureau of Economic Analysis. This type of data represents the most recent information available for analysis of the relative contributions made by each category to the Umatilla County economy. The full impact of agricultural employment and personal income under Table can be realized only by combining certain categories such as "Farm Pro- prietors", "Farm" employment and personal income, at least a portion of the "Agri cul ture Servi ces, Fores try, Fi sh, Other ll , and liMa nufacturi ng- Nondurable goods" (mostly food processing). The agriculture totals under Table I then equal: For 1972 27% of Total Employment, At least 18% of Total Income by type (Farm Proprietors), 29% of Total Income by Industry. (H-3j For 1976 24~; of Total Employment, at least 8% of Total Income by Type (Farm Proprietors), 23% of Total Income by Industry. . With these adjustments, Agriculture, with its closely related food indus- tries, becomes the largest employer of county residents. Government, especially state and local government, ranks a close second to agriculture. Trade, Services and Manufacturing (partiallY included in Agriculture) are the other major employers of county residents. Graph I uses 1950 to 1976 historical employment data and 1980-1995 employment pr.ojections to show graphically the substantial amount of growth occurring in the county. Any substantial changes in future employment, such as the presence of major construction projects in the area, will affect the projected employment figures. The Bonneville Power Administration projected 1980-1995 employment figures for various sectors of the Umatilla County economy. These projections are shovm under the "Low" projections in Table II. The llHigh" projections in Table II represent an attempt to account for certain construction projects proposed for Umatilla County. Although the employment projections in Graph I and Table II give some indication of t~e county's expected growth, several factors must be considered when applying these figures to the total econonw. First, several projects have been proposed for the Umatilla County area including construction of a second powerhouse atMcNary Dam, expa ns i on of fac i1i ti es at the Port of Umatilla, construction of highway I-82N, construction of energy facilities in Gillia.m County, development of industrial parks near the Pendleton Airport, Mission and Rieth. These projects, in any com- bination, would first affect construction employment in the county pro- vided that county residents have the necessary skills to do the work. The· extent of the affect on local construction employment depends upon how many employees are imported into th,=area by the general contractors for the jobs. Secondary effects from these proposed projects i ncl ude increased demand for local aggregate mining production, addition of new residents and businesses to the county, and increasing the attraction of Umatilla County as a good location for certain types of industries. Second, the projected changes in employment for various sectors may not reflect the changes in economic growth that will occur in each sector. For instance, employment in wood products manufacturing is expected to decrease through 1995. Decreasing timber supplies could be responsible for the expected decrease in employment and a corresponding decrease in the wood products manufacturing industry. But, the expected decrease in employment could also be due to increased mechanization in wood products industries. In this case, decreased employment would not necessarily correspond to decreases in the size of the industry. At any rate, one of the ways in wood products manufacturing can continue to contribute its proportionate share to the county's economy is to promote diversification of the local industry so that more processing of final wood products can be done in Umatilla County. The same concept can be applied to other sectors - manu- facturing, agriculture, food products. H-4 -- . -_. --.. -._- ---- -- --- - - -- ( ( TABLE I Employment by Type and Broad Industrial Sources 1972 1 1976 2 Employment %Total EmpToyment %Total (Numbers) Employment (Numbers) Employment ( Tota1 Employment 19,976 100 23,421 100 Number of Proprietors 3,195 16 3,312 14 Farm Proprietors 1,.586 8 1,595 7 Non-Farm Proprietors 1,609 8 1,717 7 Total Wage and Salary Employment 16,781 84 20,109 86 Farm 1,618 8 2,038 9 Non-farm 15,163 76 18,071 77 Private 10,700 54 13,184 56 Ag. Servi·ces) Fores try, Fi sh, Other (D) (0) 123 0.5 Mining (D) (D) 49 0.2 :r: Construction 513 3 575 2 I Manufacturing 2,948 15 3,748 16Ul Nondurable goods 1;314 7 1,953 8 Durable goods 1,634 8 1,795 8 Transportation &Public Utilities 1,085 5 1,189 5 Wholesale Trade 631 3 1,056 5 Retail Trade 2,673 13 3,167 14 Finance, Insurance~ Real Estate 335 2 459 2 Services 2,379 12 2.818 12 Government & Govt. Enterprises 4,463 22 4,887 21 Federal Civilian 993 5 702 3 Federal Military 297 1 295 1 State & Local 3,173 15 3,890 17 (0) Not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information. Data are included in totals. * See Table 0-9 on page 0-20 for breakdown of services included in this category. 1 1972 Estimates based on 1967 Standard Industrial Code (SIC). 2 1976 Estimates based on 1972 SIC. SOURCE: Regional Economics Information System, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Economic Development, Tables 5.00 and 25.00,1978. /- \ ) ,.----'\ ....1 I i._- TABLEI (continued ) Personal Income by Major Sources 1972 1 Income %Total $ 1000 Income 1976 2 Income %Total $ 1000 Income ) ::r: 1 O"l Income by Type (total) 158,789 100 219,290 100 Wage &Salary 108,090 68 171,034 78 Other Labor 6,194 4 13,127 6 Propri~torls Income 44,505 28 35,129 16 Farm 29,198 18 16,615 8 Non.;.Farm 15,307 10 18,514 8 Income by Industry (total) 158,789 100 219,290 100 Farm 36,172 23 29,599 13 Non-Fa rm 122,617 77 189,691 87 Private 87,568 55 142,731 65 Ag. Services, Forestry, Fish, Other (D) (D) 1,416 1 Mining (D) (D) 777 0.3 Cons tr~uction 8,047 5 10,421 5 Manufacturing 24,168 15 41,570 19 Nondurabl e goods 10,445 6 20,284 9 Durable goods 13,723 9 21,286 10 Transportation & Public Utilities 12,917 8 19,344 9 Who1esa1e Trade 5,710 4 13,200 6 Reta i1 Trade 17,693 11 26,452 12 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 3,206 2 5,080 2 Services 14,754 9 24,471 11 Government &Govt. Enterprises 35,049 22 46,960 21 Federal Civilian 12,069 8 10,529 5 Federal Military 621 0.4 783 0.4 State &Local 22,359 14 35,648 16 For Source and Footnotes, see first page of Table I ( ( GRAPH I Ur~ATIL LAC 0UNTY 1950-1976 Employment Statistics and 1980-1995 Employment Projections ~ ~ __-- ~-- (31,600) ~__--" ~ \.29 900) • -"- ., >t~ J ~~ ",' - ) TABLE II Employment Forecasts for Umatilla County, 1980-1995, by Industry 1980 1985 1990 1995 High l Low2 Hi 9h Low Hi9h Low Hi~h Low TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 24,260 24,100 28,670 26,900 32,400 29,200 35,355 31,600 Agricultural 4,143 4,150 5,120 4,750 6,650 4,900 6,860 4,950 Non-Agricultural 20,117 19,950 23,550 22,150 25,750 24,300 28,495 26,650 Mining 50 25 25 25 30 25 50 50 Construction 1,410 1,400 1,120 1,050 1,000 1,050 Manufacturi ng 4,682 4,650 5,420 5,075 5,995 5,400 6,430 5,750 Foo d & Ki ndred Products 1,600 1 3 600 1.,860 1,750 2,040 1,825 2,085 1,875 Lumber &Wood Products 610 600 570 550 520 475 460 425 Transportation & Public Utilities 1,165 1,150 1,290 1,200 1,360 1,225 1,380 1,250 Trade 4,780 4,750 5,965 5,600 7,095 6,400 8,090 7,225 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 560 550 690 650 810 725 885 800 Services 3,200 3,175 4,040 3,800 4,830 4,375 5,550 4,975 Government 4,270 4,250 5,000 4,750 5,630 5,150 6,110 5,550 :r: I co 1 The "High" forecasts for nonfarm employment are based on modifying the "Low tl forecasts by assuming all of the proposed projects and new firms in the next five to seven years located in the District, e.g., Alumax, Pebble Springs, and McNary Dam. The implicit compound annual growth rates are 4.0% for 1975-1980, 2.6% for 1980-1985, 2.2% for 1985-1990, and 1.9% for 1990-1995. 2 The. "Low" forecasts for nonfarm employment do not include any of the proposed projects and new firms for the District, e.g., Pebble Springs and Alumax. The implicit compound annual growth rates are about 3.4% for 1975-1980, 2.0% for 1980-1985, 1.6% for 1985-1990 and 1.3% for 1990-1995. SOURCE: Bonneville Power Administration, Requirements section, OREGON: POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT &HOUSING UNITS PROJECTED TO 1995, Portland, Oregon: Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Department of Interior, December 1976. (TABLE ItI UMATILLA COUNTY MAJOR INDUSTRIAL SITES TRANSPORTATION ,AREA ACRES TYPE PHYSICAL PROBLEt-IS SERVlcrS ACCESS SPECIAL NOTES I iii i E U"' C """S < ro l.< o ~ Oi rec t Acces s to Hi ghway 11 (to Pendleton and ,. Wa11 a \ola 11 a) • Adams Athena :r: I 1..0 Approx. 12 acres betw8Gn Hwy 11 and abandoned railroad right-of- way (Union Pacific) Approx. 75 acres designated in comprehensive plan. Light or heavy industry Preference for Light Industry of "clean/l small-scale heavy industry. None Small flood hazard areas along Waterman Gulch and Wildhorse Creek currently being mapped by Army Corps of Engineers. 8 acres located on sloping land. rlo city wa ter or sewer to site at present. Water lines could be extended if city's Water Supply ;s increased. Adams has no sewer system. Septic tanks (domestic waste) - easily developable. Limited supply of city water and sewer services because of strained capacity of city I s we 11 sand sewage plant. May not be able to handle metallic or chernical- rich industrial wastes. Over half of site developed for grain storage. Mostly owned by Union Pacific Railroad. Site separated from town by Hwy. 11 and ~ mile wide farmland strip. Only 8 acres could not Industrial facilities be provided with rail occupy 25 acres but access. Other areas many are vacant or have direct rail access underutilized. Remaining (Union Pacific s Burling 50 acres contained ton Northern). High- within large tracts. way access to Hwy 11, Over half of the sites and Hwy 204. currently owned by two railroads. "3: CJ c....... -0 -s _J ~ c VI r+- -s Q.> v: c-- rv Vl Echo Approx. 219 acres set aside for Industrial use with- in Urban Growth Boundary. 43 acre area partially inside city 1imits planned Light Industrial. 176 acre area near In te rs ta te 80N planned 80% light Industrial, 20% COll1Tlercial. North end of 43 acre area lies at the beginning of a steep bluff. Other areas- relatively flat. 43 acre area: city 43 acre area: Rail IEChO present1y has little sewer line runs by service (Union Pacific) interest in heavy property. City water highway service to i~dustry develop~ent. lines could be extended Interstate BON access. 176 acre area: No city 176 acre area: Only sewer or water to Industrial site in property at present. County adjacent to free Echo will have capacity way - near access to to handle both services freeway. after new water system completed. Helix Approx. 20 acres along Burlington Northern Railroad. City would accept mos t types of industries suited to the sita. Some portions subject to shallow flooding. Area currently being mapp~d by Army Corps of Engineers. City water mains serve site but can only pro- vide domestic water use City well does not have present capacity Rail access (Burling- ton Northern) Hwy access to Hwy 11. Over half of site is developed and occupied by grain storage, Agri- chern. Brogoitti Farm Supply, Burlington r\ Table III Page 2 AREA Helix contd. Hermiston ) ACRES Approx. 1.455 acres within Urban Growth Boundary. 900 acres lie within the present city 1imits. TYPE Both Heavy and Light Industries - zoned as Planned Unit Develop- ment Industrial Zone. //"-----\ "--' PHYSICAL'PROI3LEMS None ) SERVICES to provide large volumes of water. City has no sewer system. Septic tanks easily developable. City sewer and water can be extended to those sites within corporate city limits. TRANSPORTATION ACCESS Access to Hwy. 395 connecting to Inter- state BON and Washing- ton State, Rail service air service through Hermiston Airport, barge service through Port of Umatilla (5 miles north). ) "';, SPECIAL NOTES Northern owns most of site. City Council has adopted policy of not extending city sewer/water 1ines beyond city·s corporate limits. Industrial development outside city limits need to develop own sewer/water systems or seek annexation to city to obtain city services Milton- ::r: Freewater I ~ a 310 acres within Urban ILi9ht or Heavy Industr.'.' GrQwth BoundarY on Preference for "clean" "Comprehensive Plan (to industries (relatively) year 2000.) None City sewer and water avail abl e to or adjacent to most sites. One 45 acre tract is some distance from sewer/water but it could be extended. City owned power very competitive. Industrial sites on main thoroughfares with access to Hwy 11(to Pendleton and to Walla Walla.) Areas served by railroad fad 1iti es . City encourages diversified industries and would like indus- tries that provide year-round employment. Pilot Rock 1374 acres within Urban Growth Boundaries shown on Comprehensive Plan Map. 89 acres, presently undeveloped, set aside for Light Industrial use. 285 acres,'half devel- oped, set aside for Heavy Industrial use. All areas less than 12 %slope. 89 acre site less than 6% slope. Flood plain between two areas - not on either ar~a. Water and sewer can be supplied by city upon annexation. Main sewer line presently pass es through Industrial area to sewage ponds north of growth boundary .. Also have potential \'later tank site on plan map for additional well. Rail service through area on west side of Birch Creek. Hwy 395 runs on east side of Birch Creek (connects to Pendleton). Need road and bridge over Birch Creek to connect industrial area with Hwy 395. City wants heavy or light industry and encourages location of diverse industries (wood products only industry at present). City presently seeking technical assistance grants to make feasi- bi 1ity study for Industrial Park. o (,TAGLE In 'Page 3 ~ 1:''' er- -C:-VS:et,lPROBI EMS I~~~~~~' 2,600 acres Within city limits- Some steep slopes P dl t Iwithin city limits plus 1,950 acres designated lor hills. en e on another 1.000 - 1.300 Light-Industrial use ucres outs~de city and 650 acres desigr.a- limits but within ted Heavy Industrial urban area. use. Goth uses allowed in other areas. About 1,500 industrial acres within the city limits are presently vacant. SERVTCES :Sites within city limits served by city water and sewer. Sites outside city limits provide own facilities or muSt obtain extension of city services (annexation). TRANSPORTATION UCESS Most sites served by gravel or paved roads or have right of way. Transportation facili- ties include major airline service at Pendleton Airport, good highway access to State and Interstate (BON) highways) rail transportation (Union Pacific). SPEcrAl NOTES ~~jor areas outside city limits include area around the airport, Rieth and Mission areas. :::r:::: I ........ ........ Sta nfi el d 588 acres within Urban Grol'/th Bounda ry. 138 acres for Light Industrial use (2 areas). 450 acres for Heavy Industrial use - mostly owned by Union Pacific Railroad. None City water and sewer presently services one of the light industrial areas. Extension of city services to other areas relatively easy. Areas have access to About 2/3 of the Heavy State highways and Industrial area will be Interstate 80N. used by Union Pacific Located near Union as a permanent buffer Pacific's Hinkle for the Hinkle Switch- switchyard. Rail yard. lines serves Stanfield. Hermiston Airport within 5 miles t Port of .Umatilla (barges) within 10 miles. Ukiah Uma till a 21 acres within Urban Growth Boundary plus potential expunsion arcu if nccded. Approx. 210 acres within Urban Growth Boundary. Also close to Port of Umatilla industrial property. Light or Heavy Industrial Use. Preference for Light Industry, at present. May be subject to change if heavy industry compatible. Harsh winter climate. Some Flood Plain area near existing developmcnts. Most areas under 12% slope. Some small portions in 12% to 24% slope. Sewer and water avail- able from city. Water supply excellent. Telephone service fair. City water and sewer available to some present industrial sites. Can be extend- ed to others upon annexation. Ne\oJ water and sewer system can support about 11,000 people plus industries. Highway access to U.S. Hwy. 395 (to Pcndleton)and to U.S. Hwy 244 (to La Grande and I-80N). Roads in fair to good condition. Access to U.S. anc - State highways) in- cluding I-82N when constructed; Hermiston Airport about 7 miles south; rail lines serve industrial sites; water traffic avail- able through Port of Uifl,a til 1a. Shingle mill only existing development at present. New water storage facilities will serve locations above 491 ft. elevation (with pumping). ,TF$LE 1t1 ?a9C: 4 l\REA ACRES ·TYPE PrWSICAL PROBLEMS SERVICES 1RANSPOR1P\1ION ACCESS SPECIAL NOTES Jones-Normel controls over half the site (major vegetable canning and freezing facility). Site also has Lamb- Weston (frozen food processor), grain elevator, PP&L power substation. Union-Pacific Rail- road spur serves existing industries on west side of site. Site borders Hwy 204, ha,s access to Hwy 11. Existing industrial plants share well wi th Ci ty. \4a ter lines coul d be extended to sites. City is upgrading water system. Indus- trial sewage disposal arranged by each indus try. Large factori es currently on site are built on steep hill- side. Some portion may lie in floodplai~ area. Other parts on sma 11 slope. 'ties ton ~,.! I... t I ...• IAp~roximately 110 acres.1 Caul d accofi,~odate Light or Heavy Industry. Area near Hinkle Switchyards Rough Estimate - 500 acres. But lxact area undetermined at this time. General industrial use. Some flo~d plain in small area - can be filled. Undeveloped at present, Need wells and septic tanks. Railroad, Highway. Owned by Union Pacific Railroad, develop- ment plans i ndefi nite ::c I 1-' N Mission 20 acres planned as industrial sites, on Umatilla Indian Reservation. Preference for light industry. On drainage basin but not flood plain area. Mainline water and sewer connections from Pendleton could be made avai1able. Railroad access. Access to main high- ways and to Inter- state 80N. Area~ presently in grain production. CMned by tribal members in trust. Tribe would negotiate on proposed develop- ments. I PORT Olr I U;'\ATILlA- L Uma ti 11a City Site 16 Acres, mostly vacant, owned by Port. Light Industry Partially filled to Flood Plain. City wa ter on site. City sewer adjacent. In Rural Fire District. Highway access to U.S. 730 and U. S. 395, Rail service (Union Pacific), Water traffic - Port of Umatilla, Air Service- Hermiston and Pendleton (7 miles and 30 miles.) One acre has soils laboratory at present. 2. 0kNary Industrial Park Approximately 1,310 acres near Umatilla. Either Light or He~vy Industrial Use Some slopes on North end (going toward North end ,) Umatilla city water and sewer, 2,000 gpm Wi.1ter storage and ! Access to Port of Umatilla, railroad, Highways (730, 395 983 acres under option to Alumax. (TABLE OJ Page 5 AREA ACRES TYPE PHYSICAL PROBLEMS SERVICES TRA1iSPORTATION ACCESS ( SPECIAL NOTES McNary continued distribution on part .I-BON) and airport. of site. In UIT'.a till a Fi re Protecti on District. SOURCES: City COIlI[)rchensive Plans from Umatilla County. January 1978; Information compiled by ECGAC from local officials and county residents. Table ll1 represents a sumnary of major industrial sites located in Umatilla County on city or county comprehensive plans. Several other sites do exist in small areas scattered throughout the county. More information about the industrial sites listed on Table Dr or other sites may be found by contacting the county or from specific comprehensive plans. :r: I I--' W IV. Problems and Opportunities The economic data and citizen output compiled for this analysis underlined severa1 overa11 problems and opportuni ti es in the Uma ti 11 a County economy. Many of these will be discussed below and will be addressed again in the county l s Economic Goals (see Part V). Additional information on the county's plans for implementing solutions to the problems and for promoting the oppor- tunities may be found in the most recent Umatilla County Economic Development Plan (OEDP) or Comprehensive Economic Development Strategies (CEDS). A. The continued availability of adequate water and power sources may be the greatest problem facing all sectors of the Umatilla County economy. Several factors have threatened the county's present water sources. The potential designation of a large part of the county's farmland as a critical groundwater area may force the shutdown of many groundwater wells cur- rently used for agricultural irrigation. Loss of this water for irriga- tion could seriously damage agricultural production in the county. This damage would have serious repercussions on the rest of the county's econ- omy. Also, other water sources presently used by municipalities, indus- tries and wildlife would be threatened as irrigators try to find replace- ment water sources, Commodity-oriented forest management practices may degrade many natural watershed areas in the county. This would affect fish and wildlife populations as well as domestic users of water. The use of water conservation techniques by all county residents would alleviate the problem somewhat. Protection of adequate water sources (groundwater, surface water, watersheds) may be so important to the county that decisions concerning management protection and availability of these sources should take prime consideration in county decisions. Hydro-electric power sources from Columbia River Power Pool have provided competitive energy sources to Umatilla County in the past. This may change as competition increases for Columbia River water and power supplies at state, regional and national levels. Encouraging the use of power conservation methods by county residents, promoting the development of alternative energy sources (wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear) in the county and continuing, active participation in the Columbia River Power Pool are necessary goals for the county to achieve. B. Greater diversification of Umatilla County industries would help stabilize the general economy. In the past, the focus of economic development in Umatilla County fell mainly on resource based industries, and particu- larly on agriculture and forest products. Other segments of the county, such as transportation, manpower, business and services, developed in response to the needs of these resource based industries. This character- istic caused the county l s economy to fluctuate with changing agricul- tural markets and commercial timber supplies. A':. the county grew, some horizontal and vertical diversification of indus- tries, such as food and wood processors, transportation equipment and electrical equipment, occurred in the county. This diversification helped change some of the dependence of the economy on resource based industries. Although agriculture continues to be the largest contributor H-14 D. to the Umatilla County economy, diversification within agriculture itself (new crops, local processing of local products) would help the industry. For this reason the county should actively promote the location of diverse industries inside Umatilla County. However, the county should also encourage local producters and industries to fully investigate the actual market demand for new products before they undergo diversification. Diversification stabilizes the economy only if the products it produces can be profitably marketed. C. Along with the need to diversify county industries there follows a need to provide for adequate industrial sites throughout the county. Major problems facing industrial site development include the need for zoning changes in certain communities or areas, the lack of sufficient utility supplies to these areas, and the need to develop better transportation facilities within these sites. Because the competition for use of land will continue to intensify as populations grow, industrial sites need to be set aside now in proper, compatible areas or the county will lose some of the potential to attract new industries. Competition for use of county lands emphasizes another growing problem in Umatilla County. As communities expand and different types of interests move into adjacent land areas, the chance of incompatible uses of land developing close together greatly increases. For example, residential areas that expand around an existing airport encounter many safety conflicts. The residential areas may interfere with the airport's clear zones and the airport may interfere with residential peace and 1uiet. Another example is the strip development that often oc~urs along majorhighways, interfering with the original intent to provide a transpo:rtation corridor for through traffic. Umatilla County already has begun to experience 'the problems associated with incompatible land use development, particularly with the displacement of agricultural lands by other uses. Again, proper land use planning at this point presents a start toward handling the problem. Unless the planning is followed by the necessary zoning changes and enforcement measures, the county will continue to have the problem. E. One concern expressed by many employers involved in the economic analysis process concerned the lack of an adequately trained labor force in Umatilla County. The number of workers ava i 1ab1e in the county attracts certa in types of industries based on mass production or unskilled labor. But the lack of trained labor discourages some types of skilled industries from entering the county or require these industries to import workers from outside the county. Improvement of job skills among employees would help existi~g ihdustries and provide potential employees for new industrial and commercial development. Several training programs already available to county residents do help the situation. These programs include on-the-job training by employers, classes at Blue Mountain Community College and opportunities through the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act, Oregon Rural Opportunities or the Blue Mountain Economic Development Council. However, these programs may not meet their intended goals unless fully supported by county employers through employer input concerning train- ing needs and by job placement of trainees. H-15 ( ," ..... (,I On the positive side, employers indicated that the attitude of workers in the Umatilla County area compares most favorably with attitudes found elsewhere in Oregon and in the nation. Umatilla County workers gener~lly are willing to obtain the training necessary to improve job skills, and have a low rate of "unaccounted for ll time off from \"1ork. In other words, most UmatilJa County employees work hard at their jobs and have relatively low absenteeism. F. Basic characteristics of different local industries attract large numbers of tempora ry popul a ti ons and war kers to the county for va ri ous peri ods. The cyclical nature of county agriculture and food processing attracts many migrant-type workers during the busy harvest and processing season. Construction of major projects (Highway 1-82 , second powerhouse at McNary Dam, Carty coal plant) attract longer term temporary populations who remain for the duration of the project. The temporary nature of these populations creates distinct problems for county planning and the supply of services and housing. Unless the county can design special, cost-effective methods for meeting the needs of these temporary popu- lations, county residents will continue to carry the full cost of pro- viding services to these people. For example, the county could investi- gate the feasibility of providing temporary classrooms (i.e. trailers) for school-age-children in areas where temporary populations con- centrate. This would avoid the higher cost of providing permanent school structures. G. Adequate and affordable housing, utilities and associated services (e.~., education, medical care) must also be provided for permanent Umatilla County residents. Recent debate over property tax relief, the curtailment of excessive government spending at all levels and rising inflation costs place much strain on the ability of all sectors to provide affordable housing and services to county residents. Although the county's educational system and other amenities have been of relatively high standards in the past, continued support of these items will be necessary to sustain the county's present populations and to attract new residents and industries. H. Another problem that appeared to be common to several sectors concerned the need for better communication between county residents, local officials and government agencies when identifying and solving county problems. Along with this problem, much concern was expressed about the enormous amount of government regulation and involvement in private sectors. Although no immediate solution exists to these problems, local residents should try to better utilize existing lines of communi- cation and encourage local initiative in evaluating and implementing state and federal programs. On the other hand, government agencies should try to simplify their regulations and avoid duplication of services whether through the agency·s own initiative or through external presures such a.., the "Sunset Laws". I. Regardless of the problems or potentials facing the Umatilla County economy, two overriding issues must be considered. The first issue involves the irrevocable commitment of resources that occurs when certain types of economic decisions are made. The second issue in- volves the capacity of the county, or any other single entity, to fully H-16 implement all of the recommendations set forth by the citizen advisory groups. (See Technical Reports, Findings and Policies for each sector and the Goals at the end of the Summary Statement.) During the process of developing this project, the citizen advisory groups handled the irrevocable commitment of resources. The discussion and analysis of these issues led to formulation of specific Findings and Policies (see individual sectors). One ex~mple occurred during a dis- cussion of recreational developments for residential use on commercial forest lands. The advisory groups felt that while such developments may promote certain economic activities (construction, recreation), other factors must also be considered when making the decision to permanently commit fore~t land resources to particular uses. Depending on the location of the proposed development, the other factors to be considered include potential interference with wildlife migration routes,decrease of the county's timber base which reduces revenues received by the county from state and federal tax laws, degradation of natural watersheds located in county forest lands, and alternative locations more suitable for such developments. As a result of this discussion, the advisory group recommended that the county adopt a set procedure for handling proposed developments of this type (see Natural Resources, Finding and Policy #12). This recommended procedure requires several factors to be considered before the county makes a land use decision that will commit county resources to an irrevocable use. A more difficult issue of this type that confronted the citizen advisory groups involved the use and allocation of county water supplies. Because water is a scarce resource, one that will be exhausted by overuse, the advisory groups recognized that commitment of water and other naturalresource·s (forest lands) to certain uses could irrevocably change the availability of good water supplies to the county. For instance, certain types of construction qctivities .(road building) near natural watershed areas can degrade water quality making it unusable for domestic use. Commitment of water to certain types of uses (certain ind'tstrial uses) usually results in an irretrievable loss of that water. Commitment of water to other uses (certain agricultural uses) may allow some water resources to be recycled for use in generating hydro-electric power or in industry. The advisory groups mad~ an attempt to assess. the relative mer,its of com- mitting. water and other natural resourCes that affect water to 'particular uses. But the complexity of the 'problem and the fact that much of the decision,making falls beyorid local control to state and federal authority, forced the advisory groups to make few decisions on the actual allocation and commitment of water resources. Instead, the advisory groups recommend- ed , that the county become actively involved in water decisions at the state and federal level. This is particularly necessary in light of the possible designation of"aIarge critical groundwater area in Umatilla County and the recent decision by Washington State to appropriate vast amount of Columbia River waters for its own use. H-17 /~) These two examples merely highlight the process used by the citizen advisory groups when they handled questions involving an irrevocable commitment of county resources. The analysis and parameters of certain complex issues, such as water allocation policies, fell beyond the technical ability of the advisory groups or support staff. If specific issues are identified, if quantifiable parameters are obtained, if the desire for a technical analysis exists, and if technical assistance is available, then the county could imple- ment Cost/Benefit Analysis or Opportunity Cost Analysis. These types of processes would provide an objective indication of the direction to be taken. Members of the citizen advisory groups also expressed much concern over the ability of ,any one entity to act upon the guidelines set forth in the Find- ;ngs, Policies and Goals of this economic analysis. Recognizing that certain issues fall outside local authority (formulation of Columbia River water al- location policies, changing Interstate Commerce Commission railroad freight rates or encouraging busi~essmen to invest in local enterprises), the advisory groups recommended that the county work through its state or Congressional rep- resentatives to affect changes or at least adopt a particular attitude toward supporting or not supporting certain issues. Another suggestion made by ad- visory groups was that the county delegate its authority to act upon some of the suggested guidelines to other local groups, commissions or boards. At any rate full, beneficial use of this economic analysis can be achieved only by active promotion and review of the recommendations. J. Although the above list of problems facing the Umatilla County economy appears to be almost overwhelming at first glance, a general mood of optimism pervaded the several meetings of the citizen advisory group (the OEDC). Most of this optimism centered around the generally high quality of life enjoyed by the county residents and around the attitudes and quality of people who seem to be attracted to Umatilla County. Despite the large amount of growth that has occurred in Umatilla County in the last ten years, the residents have been able to maintain a certain level of economic stability and high standards of services for permanent residents. One of the main forces contributing to this stahi1ity is the fact that a large, stable agricultural sector supports the economy. v. Economic Goals The County supports the follov-Jing economic goals for Umatilla County: 1. 2. 3. 4. To ensure that the county receives adequate water sUQQ' ies for all users - domestic, agricultural, industrial, power, and natural resource needs. To encourage the deve1Qpment of competitively-priced power su~pl~es from all sources that maintain high environmental standards wlthln Uma ti 11 a County. To diversify local business, industries and commercial activities and to promote the economic grovJth and stability of the county. To increase the income level of county residents by providing good job tra'ining and educational programs in response to employer needs and by encouraging the location of industries in the county which will hire local residents. To encourage business and educational organizations to work together in providing cirriculums which will produce a suitably trained and qualified work force from within the county. 5. To develop adequate) affordable services and utilities to communities and industrial sites in the county. The county encourages the continued cooperation between those public and private sources who provide funding assistance for such services and utilities. 6. To better coordinate the development of transportation corridors through the county and to improve transportation facilities of all types inside the county· and to markets outside of the county. 7. To encourage the development of compatible land uses throughout the County. 8. To encourage local producers to identify new markets for local products and to seek out new products that are in demand in the marketplace and that can be produced locally. 9. To provide adequate, economical, housing facilities, utilities, and general services that satisfy the needs of permanent residents and the special needs of temporary populations present in Umatil~a County during major construction projects or during seasonal peaks in local industries.- 10. To encourage the continued support of those educational and cultural ameni t; es in the county tha t add to the qua 1; ty of 1; fe in Uma ti 11 a County. The county believes that pursuit of the above economic goals will maintain the integrity of liveability in Umatilla County for years to come~ H-19 I Findings and Policies Findings 1. Agriculture is the mainstay of the Umati lla County economy, producing about $100 million in direct income annually and supporting local food processing, transport, construction, trade, service and government employ- ment and payrolls. 2. Umatilla County has always been im- portant to the agricultural economy of Oregon, consistently ranking first or second and rarely third in total productivity among Oregon counties. Policies 1. The needs of the farm communi ty s ha 11 be considered in evaluating all county policies and future development projects in other sectors of the economy, and should be given high priority over the requirements of all other sectors, where conflicts arise. 2. The County shall ensure that the State of Oregon encourages the maintenance and expansion of agricultural productivity in Umatilla County, especially in light of continuing conversion of Western Oregon farmland to other uses. 3. Partly responsible for Umatilla County's continuingly large share of state farm income has been the recent expansion into previously under - or unused land of potato, alfalfa and grain production, made possible by private investment in sprinkler irrigation technology re- lying on deep well groundwater and diverted or impounded surface water sources. 3. In order to protect the agricultural capital investment of local companies and resident inrlividuals, county and state government shall promote the preservation of access to cheap, reliable power and adequate hater supplies through participation in ongoing Bonneville Power Administration and Columbia River Compact resource allocation processes. 4. ~t present, conflicting statutory and water law rights to use and manage river resources exist among federal and state agencies and wete~ right holders, as well as between states, so that no clear allocation or use-priority system has been agreed upon. 5. Sur'face water from new impoundments and the Columbia River will be requlred both to maintain present levels of agricultural productivity and to bring more presently unused land into production. H-20 4. The county shall develop its own wat~r resource priorities and allocatlon preferences, and shall urge the State of Oregon and Federal Government to do the same, through promoting testimony of local water users at public hearings, through its own policy statements and memorializing higher authorities, and through cooperation wlth the Columbla- Blue Mountain Resource Conservation and pevelopment Project and the Economic Develop~ent District. 5. The county shall cooperate with state officials in formulating surface and ground water resource allocation policy both between Oregon irrigators and instream users and among the four Columbia drainage basin states for all uses. 6. Agt'icultut'al la'1ds in the county COLI 1d produce a wi der vari ety of crops than at the present, given sufficient irrigation development u11 d cap ita 1 i nvest ment . 7. The Water Re~o_~trces Department has laentlfled the Ordnance critical gTOlmdwa·fer=a~r~ . and has lmposedrestrictions on eumping for'frri9.ation in those areas,_ Asimilar situation maY.. be develol1in,g.",ln the Milton-Freewater, and Stage Gu1.£,h at:',ea.s near Pendleton. 8. :.-~ 1.L,__'_9.9~9__ use, i s .currentlL~j ng~ Jnade of Ulllatil~a River water for irrigati9~ Other clal!}lS do ?2 exp(Jnsion of irrigaiJ~d fcH'mlands, development of cold-=resistenf'"fclrage-c:rops) availability (Jf stock byproducts from local potato proce~sors and C1va-ilabi""ity of SU9fJr beet tors, corn and other silage crops \'Ii 11 increase the potential for development of the beef packing industry> includin~l lI1(n~e and IClrger feedlots. A northwest firm has already announced th(jt they \'Jill locate a major sheep processing plant in the area. This firm \"Ii11 employ about 120 individuals when on-line., The location of a beef processing plant in the west-end of the County is a definite possibility) with the number of cattle and calves increasing since 1975. Hansell Brothers Farms, major producers of hogs and pork products,. re- cently announced the, e.xpans i on of the; r opera t.i on) addi ng facil it i es t(l produce and process 33% more hogs. Fruits are also rebounding fro~ the low sales years experienced in 1974-/S. Experimentation in orchards in the west-end of Umatilla County could \';ell lead to an important new break through for agriculturists. Whether or not this growth in agriculture \'Ii11 OCelli" is dependent upon sever'a 1 maj or fac tors. Fi rs tis the ava il abi l"i ty of \Va tel" for con t i nlJ(~d irrigatio~ development. Much pressure is being placed upon the Colun;bi~ River, both from competing uses and competing users. Sasa"lt aquafers hav~ become suspect over the past several years as (l long term water Suprj·ly. However, recent reports indicate that some of the deep aquafers ~re r0- cha rgi ng, and tha t the cri t i ca 1 na tu re of the ~"j rounclwa tel" j1r'ob', em nlCly 1:-:: abating. This new evidenc~ is purely sU~JSJ(~stive) Mid a full rr.por"t o'f the groundwater situation by the vJater' Resources Ijcp.jl~tfllen'L is due: in ubout eighteen llIonths. Wells drav/ing frCJrn till' mOI'(' ~.IIJllc)'"" sandy iiqlJdt'«; arrear to be consistent producers. (~- \ .. ./.~ Page Eight Population Indicators Uma till a County The Corps of Engineers has undertaken an environmental impact review of the Columbia River, and its conclusions will be extremely important in further water-use decisions relating to the river. Second, the cost of energy tb pump and distribute water to crops is critical in determining the overall economic feasibility of irrigated farmland. The Northwest Energy Bill holds a key to this factor, but its ultimate form is yet unknown. Energy production from hydro-electric dams mayor may not be competitive with irrigation depending on where the water is removed from the river, alternate energy production possibilities, and final electricity pricing policies contained in the new legislation. Third, market conditions will determine the benefit side of the irrigal~d farmland potential. Because agriculture remains as the United States single best export, it is reasonable to assume foreign market developiilLnt will continue at all levels. For the northwest, the far and middle east hold the greatest potential for export. Also to be considered is that th2 Water Resources Board study used 1977 prices in determining ~conomic fea- sibility for their return to land and \\later investments. This WlJr·· vey of food-processing workers in Boardman in 1976 reported that 70% listed their place of residence as the Greater Hermiston Area. This percentage would have decreased signi ficantly from i976 because 0': increased housi ng opportuni ti es in the Northern Morrov/ County area. However, expansion at the Port of Morrow Industrial Park will continu~ to imp~ct Umatilla County, but at a decreasing rate. There are currently over 30,000 acres available to come under irrigat.ion in Morrow County. Using the same formulas for on- and off~farm employ~ ment~ 1,885 new jobs would be generated in Morrow County. Assuming 40:~ of those individuals so employed would live in Umatilla County, 754 job~ would impact directly upon Umatilla County's population. The development of the Carty Reservoir coal fired energy plant is also having an effect on Umatilla County cities. In their latest update on Housing andCorrrnunity Facility Requirements (1979), Skidmore~ 0\-,;n95, and Merrill, estimate that for three energY.plants (one coal and two nuclear) that the impact on Hermiston, Umatilla, and Stanfield will be 595 new residents during the next ten years. It is important to note that this analysis includes the Pebble Springs nuclear plants which are another twenty miles from Umatilla County. The possibility is very great that additional coal units \vill be built at Carty Reservoir before the Pebble Springs development occurs, further in~ creasing the impact on Umatilla County. /1 1-/0 RURAL RESIDENTIAL* Buildable lands for residential use are construed to be primarily those urban and urbanizing lands of those cities within the County Rural housing is not intended to meet the needs of all household income levels. Inventory of existing rural housing in the more rapidly developing West County is found in the following Technical Staff Report No.4. Also included is the East Central Oregon Association of Counties 1979 population projections to year 2000 for Umatilla cities and county. The basic calculations establishing future rural residential lands needs and the identification of specific lands to accommodate needs are presented in the Plan Map section of the Comprehensive Plan. o ,* The format for this Section of the Technical Report varies slightly. 1-1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A land use survey of the unincorporated area of the West Umatilla County Planning Un"it, conducted in January, 1977, identified 2,664 dwellihg un"its. Of these, 1,671 were single family dwellings, 760 were mobile homes on lots, 183 were mobile homes in mobile home parks, and 50 were apartment or multi- family units. The Housing Survey contacted 1,089 (40.9 percent) of these dwelling units. Three thousand, three hundred and fifty-six persons lived in the units contacted, giving a persons per household average of 3.08. Recognizing the qualifications below, this gives an estimate of 8,258 person living in unincorporated West Umatilla County. Since this survey was conducted door- to-door during the daytime, it may have found no one at home at households in which all adult members worked. Also, the survey started at denser areas nearer cities, and time ran out before more remote, more rural houses could be approached. Approximately 14 percent of the housing stock was evaluated to need either minor or major structurJ.l repair. Between 3.7 and 7.9 percent of the population were living in crowded conditions (more than two per bedroom). At the time of the survey, unincorporated areas of the West County Planning Unit needed from 174 to 254 units to compensate for substandard and over-crowded units, and to maintain an adequate vacancy rate (the range in units reflects assumptions about current vacancy rates). To more closely define ~eed and distribution of types of new housing units will require more information and analysis than the following survey. Unincorporated West County housing is part of a market that includes West County cities. Ideally, decisions on housing policy will integrate cities and county information. 1-2 HOUSING DEMAND This section describes the social and economic characteristics of the persons who live in Western Umatilla County. The analysis includes a description of the total population, household incomes, and special types of households. Since this housing survey is the first delineation of the "Western Umatilla County" planning unit, there is no information from the 1970 census directly comparible to this area which can be used to determine any changes or trends. Although some comparisons are made with Umatilla County as a whole, it should be remembered that these two areas are not directly comparable. Total Population Based on the results of the survey, some general population characteristics can be determined. The population seems to be distributed about equally between I males (49.4 percent) and females (50.6 percent), which is almost identical to the 1970 figures for Umatilla County as a whole. Approximately 85 percent of the household heads are married while the remaining 15 percent are single. The age distribution of the population of the western portion of the county approximately parallels the 1970 distribution for both the state and Umatilla County as a whole. As can be seen by Table I and Chart I, slightly more than one third of the population is under 19, what is often considered the dependent age group, and slightly less than one third of the population is between 19 and 44, or the "working age" population. TABLE I Age Distribution of Unincorporated West Umatilla County Residents CHART I Age Distribution by Sex of Unincorporated West Umatilla County 1-1j-.G-----6-,s!ll-O-ve-r---1 u.....,·OI 151\ 621 164 nu f Gii----2:1--------4-sf@OC==1===------:I:.-l,\1 L:..!! ::..:82__--:=::========3~1]-1;:::44======;- :IO--J·lJ 1L-~(1_,9 2_21- § 191 1 [;;3 191- 121 55} ------------_=.:::=::::===----------- [1'\'\ 51f\1 81,---13_~ _OJ E )101 I MALE FEMALE Stability of Population The population of unincorporated West Umatilla County seems to be of fairly recent origin. Approximately one third of the residents have lived in their current area of residence for five years or less. Equal percentages of approximately one third of the population have also been is thei r current area of residence between six and 20 years, and over 20 years. TABLE II Length of Residence in Area of Current Residence Length of Residence Less than one year 2 to 5 years 6 to 10 years 11 to 20 years 21 to 30 years over 30 years TOTAL Number 138 231 175 175 152 152 1,083 Percent 12.7 21.3 16.2 16.2 14.0 14.0 100.0 This recent influx of population is probably due to the increased agri- cultural productivity and agriculture-related businesses in the area. The increase in these industries has resulted in similar increases in secondary businesses and industries necessary to support the growth in the population. The major reasons cited by the resonpdents for remaining in their current dwelling are: satisfied with the dwelling (32.3 percent); the conveniecne of 1-4 (location (24.3 percent); desired housing too expensive (9.9 percent); and some other, unspecified reason (26.8 percent). Household Income The total household income directly affects a household's ability to purchase housing. The total amount of money available to a household often determines the quality, site, type and location of the housing. The amount of money remaining for other necessities such as medical expenses, food, clothing, and so forth is often dependent upon the amount of money spent 6n housing. Table III shows the distribution of household incomes in Western Umatilla County. It should be noted that this is household income, which includes one person households and unrelated individuals living with a family, as opposed to family income. Generally, family income is higher than houshold income. Tha categories which were used to obtain "household income ll tended to be quite broad. This, along with the fact that the information regarding income was not obtained by exact income figures which would have allowed groupin9 of the data into obvious categories, makes it impossible to obtain a mean or a median income level for this report. TABLE III Household Income Income Number Relative Adjusted Percent1 Percent2 $0-$5,999 273 25.1 28.5 $6,000-$11,999 257 23.6 26.8 $12,000-15,600 169 15.5 17.6 Over $15,600 260 23.9 27.1 No Response 130 11.9 Missing TOTAL 1,089 100.0 100.0 1 IlRelative percent" has the "no response" included in the percentage. 2 "Adjusted percent ll has the "no response" excluded from the percentage. 1-5 As can be seen, the distribution of responses among the categories is approximately equal, with the exception of the $12,000~15,600 category which covers a shorter income range than the other. Although the income breakdowns of this survey are not comparible to those used by the 1970 census, the category of those earning over $15,000, which is roughly comparible to those earning "over $15,600" of the survey, shows a large increase of from 13.3 percent For Umatilla County as a whole in 1970 to 27.1 percent in the West County in 1977. This increase is probably due mainly to wages and salaries rising to keep pace with inflationary trends, and an increase in the number of families with two major wage earners. The allocation of this income can be significantly affected by the size of the household, which will be discussed in a later section. Occupational Status Approximately two thrids of the West County households receive their income form employment, with slightly over 11 percent dependent upon Social Security and an equal percentage relying on Social Security, pension, or disability and some other form of income. (See Table IV, following page.) Of the 1,089 household s su rveyed, 135 responded that there wa s more than one major wage earner (defined as contributing to the payment of household expenses) in the household. This accounts for 12.4 percent of the total house- holds surveyed. However, 17.8 percent of those who indicated that at least a portion of the household income came from employment, indicated that two major wage earners resided in the household. This indicates that approximately One eigth of the total households, and one sixth of those households receiving at least a portion of the household income from employment, have two major wage earners. 1-6 ( \ TABLE IV Source of Income Residents Source of Income Employment Social Security Social Security, pension or disability; and other Pension Social Security and employment Oisability Public assistance Investments or land sales Unemployment TOTAL Number Percent 715 66.9 126 11.8 119 11.1 42 3.9 35 3.3 15 1.4 7 0.7 5 0.5 4 0.4 -- 1,068 100.0 The employment of the Western County residents tends to be concentrated in government (17.3 percent), agriculture (15.1 percent), food processing (12.6 percent), contract construction (11.0 percent), retail trade (8.6 percent), and the raiTroad (7.7 percent) 0 The majority of these persons tend to be involved in production and maintenance (63.5 percent), as manager or officers (15.2 percent), or as professionals (10~0 percent), with between three and four precent each in servi~es, sales, and clerical occupations. 17.8 percent of these households (or 12.4 percent of the households surveyed) have two major wage earners. As can be seen by Table V, most of those employed work in the Hermiston area. Nearly 20 percent of the population travel outside of the West County area for their employment, with the majority of those traveling to Boardman, other points in the county, and outside of the county to points not as \ frequently specificed. 1-7 TABLE V Location of Employment of the Employed Location of Employment Number Precent Hermiston 523 58.6 Umatilla 67 7.5 Boardman l 62 6.9 Hinkle 60 6.7 Outside of area*l 37 4.1 McNary Dam 29 3.3 Pendleton l 25 2.8 County Areal 21 2.4 Echo 18 2.0 Ordnance 16 1.8 Tri-Cities 1 11 1.2 Stanfield 8 0.9 Wallula l 6 0.7 Walla Walla l 4 0.5 Weston l 3 0.3 Pi"! ot Rock l 1 0.1 .Athena 1 1 0.1 TOTAL 893 100.0 In evaluating the effects of education on income, the only general statement which can be made is that the largest percentage of households in which at least one of those over 25 years of age had only an elementary education had incomes under $6,000. TAI3LE VI Level, of Education and Household Income of Males over 25 (in percent) Household Incomo $0-$5,999 $6,000-$11,999 $12,000-$15,600 Over $15,GOO TOTAL Elem~ T\\'o Years Not Completed Elementary lIip;h School Collec:e Collep;e TOTAL 3.0 11.8 7.2 O.G 1.8 2-1. <1 1.2 7.7 13.2 0.'1 3.6 2G.l 0.4 2.9 11. 3 l.G 3.6 19.8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , i 4.6 25.'3 49.'3 5.2 15.4 100.3· . , *Does not add to 100.0 because of rounding. *1I0utside of Area ll includes all places of employment besides Umatilla County, Boardman, Wallula, Walla Walla and Tri-Cities. 1These areas are located outside of Western Umatilla County Planning Unit. 1-8 TABLE VII Level of Education and Household Income of Females over 25 (in percent) Household Income $0-$5,999 $6. OQO-$ll, 999 $12,000-$15,600 Over $15,600 TOTAL ElemL'ntarv 1'1\'0 Years Not Compl(~ted Elementarv lli~h School Col lege Coller,e TOT/\L 1.5 11.2 11.2 0.8 2.6 37.3 1.1 5.7 14 .2 1,2 3.5 25.7 0.0 2.5 13.4 1.2 2.5 18.6 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2.6 22.1 56.2 5. 1 14.0 100.0 As can be seen, most of the population over 25 has completed high school. The next largest group for both men and women is of those who only completed elementary school, followed by those completing college. 1970 census data for Umatilla County as a whole may not be comparabl'e to the 1977 housing survey of the Western County due to the West County's unique industrial developments, and the diversification and stability of the agricultural economy with the expansion of the irrigation systems. However, it is interesting to note that while 57.2 percent of the 1970 Umatilla County adult population had completed high school, 72.6 percent of the West County popul ation over 25 in 1977 had completed high school. Special Households For the purpose of this survey, two types of households were classified as llspecial households. 1I They are (1) large family households (those with five or more persons); and (2) elderly households (households with members 62 years of age and over). Although households with handicapped or disabled members are often included as "special households" in housing studies due to their probable lower earning capacity and the need for specific architectural features, since only 8.7 percent of the households surveyed had handicapped persons, it was 1-9 felt that this was not a large enough number from which to draw significant information. Large family households, which are often lower income households, also tend to have the unique problem of a more limited choice of housing units available to them to accommodate the size of their households. This also limits where they may live, as the availability of housing with more than three bed- rooms is not as large as smaller sized dwellings. Elderly households often are on low, fixed incomes; live in older houses which characteristically need an ever increasing amount of maintenance and repair, and are often too large for their needs. These household types will be analyzed in greater detail in the section of Housing Problems. The percentage representation of these house- holds in the total population is: Large families (5 or more members) El derly Over 62 Over 65 Other 15.8 25.6 18.4 58.6 There may be some overlapping in these percentages as large families may also have elderly members. The following tables show the incomes of large families and those households which have persons 62 years of age and over and 65 years of age and over. As can be seen, the largest portion of large families have incomes of over $15,600, followed closely by the earning between $6,000 and $11,000 and also between $12,000 and $15,600. Of those over 62 and over 65 years of age, nearly two-thirds earn below $6,000, followed by approximately one quarter earning between $6,000 and $12,000. This is probably due to the lower, fixed incomes of these households. 1-10 TABLE \'11 r F:lr.li 1 \' -~;~1"~~~ . 5' Ii '7 H !J TOTAL \ 11 G,·l ::!(\ 15.1 :Jf) 1-1.:, ·to 2:1. :1 102 flf-!. :1 :1 1.7 1·1 8.1 12 7.0 1-1 8.1 ·]3 2·1 . !~ 1 :!.:l :l 1 .7 1 0.(1 7 ·t.1 15 8.7 I a.G ] O.G 1 O.G 2 1.2 5 3.0 I n.n , n.r> 1 O.G '1 2.:-1 7 '1.1 :.to ,r:-O ;rS ZG.l :To "23--'-3 G7 39.9 172 100:0- Tfdu,E I Y Income' Ln\'el~ of Eldf'rly IlrHIS"I:olds I ;:('O'IE $\i. ()I)()-~'·Il • ~l()n .?1_2_L(~~1.'~-_1.-:~LQ..0.(~ ·!'\IIo~,';"r-0~0~!.I ~~~ ),.'rcl'~-!:. 0"., I"~ I;, 'ina ,__" ..L._.. N\Il~,I"'l' 1'1'r(~('nt .__ .-.,-- ---- 1"/1 01,:1 07.7 7'1 46 ?G,5 11 f,.7 0.5 27n ::!OI lon;o JOO.O Due to the income categories which were used in obtaining the date, it was difficult to determine the proportion of each group below the poverty level. However, using the Community Services Administration's poverty level guidelines (below), some very general conclusions were made. TABLE X Poverty Level GUldelines Community Services Administration, 1977 Size of Fami ly Non-Farm Family Farm Fami ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 Each additional member $2,970 3,930 4,890 5,850 6,810 7,770 960 $2,550 3,360 4,170 4,980 5,790 6,600 810 This survey did not make a distinction between farm and non-farm families. Although a large portion of the employed West County households are dependent upon farm income, most of the househol ds are "non -farm ll fami 1i es. Thus, the "non -farm familyll poverty level guidelines will be used. 1-11 The only guideline which generally corresponds to the income catergories used, is the family of four which earns less then $5,850 per year. All families with four or more persons which are earning below $6,000 per year will be considered below the poverty level. Of those families, 15.0 percent, or 3.5 percent of the total households, would be considered below the poverty level. However, this does not allow for the determination of those families with five or more persons earning over $6,000, or those families with fewer than four persons earning below $6,000, which are below the poverty level. Because of this, the figures of those below the poverty level are a gross underestimation. Summary The 1977 population profile of unincorporated West Umatilla County is similar to the 1970 profile for the county as a whole as reported in the 1970 census. There are approximately the same number of males and females; 85 percent of the heads of households are married; and approximately one-third of the population is below 19 years of age, between 19 and 44, and over 44, with 14 percent 62 years of age or over. Nearly one third of the residents of this area, however, have arrived within the last five years. Slightly less then one third of the population falls into each of the income categories of below $6,000, $6,000 to $11,999, and over $15,600 with approximately 15 percent earning between $12,000 and $15,600. There seems to have been a significant increase in those earning over $15,600 when current West County incomes are compared to Umatilla County in 1970. If these two areas area assumed to be comp3rable, this income group has increased from approximately 13 percent to 27.1 percent. 1-12 EXISTING HOUSING SUPPLY This section deals with the supply of housing in the unincorporated areas of Western Umatilla County. Generally, two main topics will be discussed; first, a description of the characteristics of the housing stock including structure-type, age of housing stock, and the cost of existing housing; and secondly, the condition of existing housing. General Characteristics 1. Current Housing Stock The land use survey completed in unincorporated West Umatilla County in January, 1977, found 2,664 housing units. Table XI inidicates the distribution, by housing type, of the 1,089 dwellings contacted through the 1977 housing survey: TABLE XI Structure Type Housing Type House, single family Mobile Home Apartment Camp trailer Duplex 3 of 4 plex No response TOTALS Number Surveyed 721 348 9 4 1 1 5 1,089 Relative Percen"tage1 66.2 32.0 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.5 100.0 Adjusted Percent 2 66.6 32.1 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.1 Missing 100.0 Not su rveyed: 1,575 Total unincorporated dwellings: 2,664 1 "Realative Percentage" ... has the "no responses" included in the percentage. 2 IIAdjusted Percent" - has the "no responses" excluded from the percentage. It is not surprising that the greatest concentration of housing units are in single family, ~etached houses. However, it is interesting to note that nearly one third of all of the housing units are mobile homes. Comparing the current number of housing units in this area with ~he IIUmatilla County Housing 1-13 Survey of 1972 11 , single family houses have increased by almost 33.0 percent, while mobile homes have increased by 55 percent. Thus, it seems that the increase in the percentage representation of mobile homes in the overall housing stock which has been evident since 1961 (Umatilla County Housing Survey of 1972), housing stock has continued since 1972, and will probably continue due to the lower cost and ready availability of mobile homes as opposed to most single family, detached houses, the construction of which appears unable to accommodate the unflux of population. 2. Age of Housing Stock The age of the housing stock is often indicative of potential housing problems, especially of structural condition. Nearly two thirds of the dwellings in this area were constructed within the last 20 years. Of these, 43.8 percent (or 28.9 percent of the total housing stock have been constructed within the last five years, with nearly 60 percent being mobile homes. Thus, it seems that the age of the housing stock in this area tends to be quite new with less than one fifth over 30 years old. The IIUmatilla County Housing Survey of 1972 11 , in its use of the County Tax Assessor records, discovered a sharp increase in the number of units constructed between 1946 and 1960 which it attributed to the construction of the McNary Dam on the Columbia, and the influx of workers with it which led to new houisng construction. Another increase in the period from 1961 to 1972, was attributed to the rapid population and economic growth of the area in the later part of th~t period. This trend has continued since the 1972 housing survey, resulting in the large concentration of dwellings constructed in the last five years. 3. Tenure Tenure refers to whether a dwelling is owner or renter occupied. There 1-14 (~ is a very low rental rate in this ares of the county with only 11.0 percent of the dwellings renter occupied, while 87.5 percent are owner occupied and approximately 1.5 percent of the dwellings coming with the job of the resident. These units which II come with the job ll are generally dwellings owned by the local farmers or ranchers who provide them, rent free, to thei r farm or ranch he1p. 4. Vacancy Rates The number and location of housing vacancies are important analytical tools for determining the current state of the housing market. Vacant houses and apartments are necessary to provide a choice of location and price ranges to housing consumers since prices tend to rise if there are few vacancies. No information was available on the number of vacancies in the unincor- porated West County. Results from thsi door-to-door survey would be inaccurate because dwellings which might be classified as vacant may actually be abandoned or summer homes, the residents may simply not have been home to answer the questionaire, or some vacant residences may have been overlooked. Utility figures aggregate West County residential vacancies with all accounts from the entire service area, and compile only month-long inactive accounts. The Post Office does not compile vacancy information of the West County either. However, in response to a question asking residents to indicate what they felt were major problems in the West County area, the greatest repsonse was that housing was too expensive and that not enough was available. Similarly, a' representative of the Umatilla County Housing Authority indicated that through the Housing Authority1s dealings with people, it was generally felt that there was a lack of vacant units. Thus, it seems that the number of vacant C. units available is probably far below the rate recommended for proper market functioning (approxmately 1~5 percent for owner-occupied units and 6.0 percent for renter-occupied units.). 1-15 5. Cost of Existing Housing Table XII shows the montly housing costs for dwelling units in West Umatilla County. Housing costs were defined as mortgage payment or rent; utilities such as electricity, gas, oil and water, but not telephone or cable televison; and property taxes. In obtaining the information regarding housing costs, several categories were used. However, at the conclusion of the survey the highest category, "over $175", was determined to be extremely low in light of present day housing costs. As can be seen, nearly 50.0 percent of those who responded indicated that their monthly housing costs were "over $175". However, it is unknown how much over $175 such respondent's housing costs were. Thus, an accurate estimation of the upper ranges of housing costs is impossible. TABLE XII Monthly Housing Costs Housing Costs Number Relative Adjusted Percent 1 Percent 2 $-$60 185 17 .0 19.1 $60-$70 41 3.8 4.2 $70-$80 30 2.8 3.1 $80-$90 21 1.9 2.2 $90-$110 53 4.9 5.5 $110-$130 63 5.8 6.5 $130-$150 42 3.9 4.3 $150-$175 62 5.7 6.4 Over $175 473 43.4 48.8 No Response 119 10.9 Missing TOTAL 1,089 100.0 100.0 1 "Relative Percent" has the "no response" included in the percentages. 2 "Adjusted Percent" has the "no response" excluded from the per.centages. Since information on housing costs of unincorporated West Umatilla County residents is not available from the 1970 census or any other source, the housing cost data gathered from this survey is the only source for such information, making any type of camparison impossible 1-16 ( , Condition of Housing The goal of the 1949 Housing Act was to "provide a decent home and a suitable living environment" for each American. An essential element of such a home or environment was the physical condition of the structure. The dwellings in the West County Planning Unit were evaluted by each surveyor prior to, during, or following each interview. Three different aspects were evaluated with the "overall housing condition ll being a sum of these various parts. The foundation condition; walls, roof, and trim; and porch, fence, and yards were all evalutaed as to whether the condition of each of these were adequate, in need of minor repair, or in need of major repair. A decision was then made, after having considered these areas, as to whether the overall housing condition was adequate or in need of minor or major repairs. The criteria which were used in evaluation of these three areas tended to be quite subjective, not only in the definition of terms, but also in terms of the prejudices and perspective of the individual surveyors. 1 Nevertheless, terms of the overall housing condition, the majority of the dwellings were evaluated as lI adequate ll (85.6 percent), with 12.2 percent in need of II minor repair ll and 2.2 perent in need of II ma jor repair ll • The 1972 IIUmatilla County Housing Survey" used the percent of deprecia- tion of each dwelling as an indication of its structural condition. Based on the Assessor's records, if a dwelling had depreciated by 0-25 percent it was in lI good ll condition, 26 to 50 percent was considered lIaverage", 51 to 75 percent was "fair ll , and 76 to 100 percent depreciation was II poor" condition. Thus, according to this system, a dwelling could be considered IIfair ll even though its value was only 25 percent of its replacement cost. In 1972, 25 percent of the housing units were more than 50 percent depreciated, with 45 percent of dwellings classified as lIaveragell, having depreciated between 25 1 See Appendix 0 for criteria used in the evaluation of housing conditions. 1-17 and 50 percent. Thus, even with the new construction that has occured in the last ten years, it seems that the evaluation of the structural deterioration in the 1977 housing survey has resulted in under-estimations of such conditions by classifying 85.6 percent of the dwellings as lI adequate ll • TABLE XIII Age and Physical Condition of Housing Structures Adequate Minor Repair Major Repair Age of Structure Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 0-5 Years 217 33.4 5 5.4 1 5.9 6-10 Years 121 18.6 4 4.3 1 5.9 11-20 Years 138 21.3 14 15.2 2 11.8 21-30 Years 93 14.3 27 29.4 2 11.8 31-50 Years 55 8.5 24 26.1 4 23.5 51-75 Years 20 3.1 12 13.1 4 23.5 Over 75 Years 5 0.8 6 6.5 3 17.6 TOTAL 649 100.0 92 100.0 17 100.0 In comparing the physical condition of the year the structure was built, it can be seen that he older the dwelling, the more likely it was to be in need of repair. Summary From the sample of the 2,664 housing untis in this area, it was found that two thrids of the dwellings were single family houses, with mobile homes representing one third, showing a substantial proportional increase since 1972. Nearly two thirds of the dwellings had been constructed in the last 20 years with almost 20 percent constructed in the last five years probably due to the large influx of population in recent years. Owner-occupied dwellings pre- dominated with only 11.0 percent renter-occupied. The cost of these units appeared to be quite high as nearly one half of the households were paying over $175 per month in housing costs, while the second greatest concentration of housing costs were the 20 percent of households paying below $60 per month. Although the structural deterioration of the dwellings was probably under-estimated, 85.6 percent of the dwellings were classified as adequate, 12.2 percent in neerl of minor repair, and only 2.2 percent in need of major repair. 1-18 ( RELATED HOUSING PREFERENCES One of the unique aspects of the survey was its emphasis on attempting to determine the desires of unincorporated West Umatilla County residents concerning housing related issues. Questions were asked regarding tenure, housing type, and number of bedroom preferences: the type of housing the respondents would like to see built in the area; and the reason why, if their present housing wasn1t satisfactory. In comparing the responses of these questions with less value-ridden questions, some interesting relationships were brought to light. As previously noted, nearly 90.0 percent of the households own their dwellings while approximately 11.0 percent rent. When asked if they would prefer to own or rent 94.1 percent responded that they would prefer to own while slightly less than five percent indicated that they would prefer to rent. In comparing these two responses, it was found that at 96.2 percent of those who presently own would prefer to own; while nearly 80.0 percent of those who currently rent would also prefer to own. Of the five percent who 1ndicated that they would prefer to rent, sli9htly more than half currently own. Thus it seems that whether a household currently owns or rents, it would prefer to own. When looking at the responses to questions pertaining to the type of housing which is currently occupied, and that type which households would prefer to occupy, it can be seen that while two thirds of the households live in houses and one third in mobile homes, nearly 80.0 perc~nt would prefer to live in houses while only 15 percent would prefer to live in mobile homes. Of those who currently live in mobile homes, nearly half would prefer to live in houses, approximately 42 percent in mobile homes; with the other ten percent dispersed among other housing types. Focusing -exclusively on those who would prefer to live in mobile homes over 85 percent cu~rentlY live in mobile homes 1-19 with slightly over 11 percent currently live in mobile homes, with slightly over 11 percent living in housing. It seems equally true that of those who would prefer to live in houses, the largest percntage, 79.2 currently live in houses. Although the largest number of responses within each housing type would prefer to live in houses, the largest number of responses of those who would prefer to live in either mobile homes or houses currently live in their respective type of housing. Slightly o~er half (53.9 percent) of the respondents would prefer to see houses built in their area. As can be seen by Table XIV, when the ten percent indicating "house and other" are combined with those preferring "houses", nearly two thirds of the households would prefer to see houses built. What is inter- esting to note is that the second most frequent response was that the households would prefer not to see any type of housing built in thier area. In fact, most of those who responded in this manner were quite adament. TABLE XIV Desired Housing Type Des ired Housing Type Number Percent House 572 53.9 None* 120 11.3 House and other* 116 10.9 No Preference* 98 9.2 Lower cost* 60 5.7 Mobile Homes 44 4.2 Apartments 21 2.0 Whatever the owners want* 18 1.7 Duplex 12 1.1 TOTAL 1,061 100.0 * Did not appear as a choice on the questionaire; that is, people insisted on the~e answ~rs. It is also interesting to note that although 32.1 percent of the population live in mobile homes, approximately 15.4 percent would live in mobile homes if they had a choice and 15.1 percent of the households would like to see mobile homes brought into the area, when "house and othe~" are combined with mobile home preference. Of neighborhoods, North Highway 395 residents approve most Iof mobile home development in their area, (19.6 percent), while Umatilla/Echo Meadows, (5.9 percent), South Hermiston, (8.4 percent), and Stanfield Loop (10.5 percent), approve least. (See Neighborhood Map, page 41). Table XV illustrates that most of the dwellings in this area have three bedrooms (46.4 percent) followed by two bedroom dwellings (37.4 percent). In looking at the number of bedrooms that the population would prefer to have, dwellings with four or more bedrooms increase from their current representation of approximately ten percent to slightly over 20 percent, while the desired number of two bedroom dwellings decreases slightly (8.9 percent) from its current situation. TABLE XV Current and Preferred Number of Bedrooms (in percent) Number of Bedrooms None (studio) One Two Three Four or more Current Number of Bedrooms 0.3 5.8 37.4 46.4 10.1 Preferred Number of Bedrooms 0.5 3.3 28.5 47.4 20.3 When the responses from these two questions are compared, it is seen that for households having two or more bedrooms, a larger percentage prefer the number of bedrooms that they currently have, with the next largest group preferring dwellings with one additional bedroom. Of those households which have one bedroom dwellings, the largest percentage would prefer two bedroom dwellings, with the next largest group preferring one bedroom units. In looking more closely at those who would perfer "four or more" bedroom dwellings, it is seen that slightly over 50 percent of those households currently have three bedroom dwellings. However, any conclusions which might be made regarding the construction of larger units should be made in light of the concern over rising housing costs, of which size of the dwelling play~ a role, and with regard to the energy consumption and expense in larger dwell~ngs. 1-21 The majority of respondents (85.4 percent) were satisfied with their present housing. Of those who were not satisfied, 50.6 percent indicated that their housing was too small, followed by 6.8 percent, indicating that it was IItoo small and too old", with 22.8 percent specifying an answer not offered as an alternative. However, IItoo small" and "too old" were the first two possible responses in a lengthy list of alternatives. Thus, it could have been that the alternatives towards the end of the list were not chosen because the surveyor was not able to offer them as possible choices since one of the first alternatives was chosen. Summary In looking at the preference of the residents of the West County area, it is seen that most persons own their dwelling, and an even larger number would prefer to own. Similarly, while nearly two thirds of the respondents live in houses, and one third in mobile homes, nearly 80 percent would prefer to live in single family detached dwellings while only 15 percent would prefer to live in mobile homes. Of those who would prefer to live in one of these housing types, the greater precentage of people currently live in their respective type of housing. Single family houses are the type of dwelling most persons, (53.9 percent) would like to see built, with the next largest group (11.0 percent), indicating that they would prefer to see no housil1g built in their area. While 32.0 percent of the households live in mobile homes, 15.0 percent would like to live in them and 15.1 percent would like to see them developed in their area. Most persons have two or three bedroom dwellings and would prefer to have that many bedrooms, followed by the next largest percentage preferring one additional bedroom. 1-22 ( \ HOUSING PROBLEMS The realization that many American families are in need of housing assistance was first acknowledged by the United States Congress in the 1949 Housing Act when the goal of a IIdecent home and a suitable living environment for every American familyll was established. However, as is evident by the housing situation of many Americans, this noble goal has not been met. Although many types of housing problems exist, three major types have been defined: households living in crowded conditions; households paying an excessive amount· of their income on housing costs; and, as indicated in an earlier section, households living in phyiscally inadequate housing. A IIdecent home ll should, at a minimum, be a dwelling with sufficient space for the occupants, in good condition, and not placing an undue financial burden on the household. How these criteria are defined and how they relate to the unincorporated areas of West Umatilla County will be the subject of this chapter. Crowding Crowding occurs when an appropriate relationshsip between the size of a household and the size of a housing unit has been exceeded. This relationship can be measured in terms of persons per bedroom or in terms of persons per room, with 1.01 persons per major room (Bureau of the Census definition) or more than two persons per bedroom considered crowded. The housing survey uses the measurement of II num ber of bedrooms" to denote crowding. It should be noted that this definition of crowding will result in a fewer number of units being classified as IIcrowdedli than under the Bureau of Census· defninition. Under the IItwo persons per bedroom ll definition of crowding, a family of eight could be accommodated in a six-room house, assuming that the housing unit has two rooms for living purposes (kitchen and living room) C' in addition to bedrooms. Under the 111.01 person per room" definition, an eight room house would be required. 2 2 Karin MSeidel, lIDevelopment of a Housing Information Base", (Bureau of Governmental Research, Univeristy of Oregon, 1971) p. 19. Under the "two persons per bedroom" definition, crowding in the western portion of the county does not seem to be a major problem. As can be seen in Table XVI, only 3.7 percent of the households have more than two persons per bedroom wtih the possibility that those households having nine persons in IIfour or more" bedrooms might also be crowded. Thus as is shown by those responses to the right of th solid line, 3.7 percent of the houses are crowded with the possibility that 4.2 percent might be crowded. TABLE XVI Persons Per Bedroom (in percent) PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD Number of n(~(: rooms 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOTAL None 0.2 1 0.1 L0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.o 0.3 One 1 .5 :1.5 O.G 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 Two 5.G 20.9 5.4 il . 1 I 1 .0 O. ~I 0.0 0.0 0.1 37.5 Three 1.7 13.6 8.1 10.G 8.0 2.9 Ll. 1 0.1 0.2 16.3 Four or n!C)["C' 0.1 0.8 '1.1 2.3 2.3 ] .6 () . () 0.,1 I 0.5 ] (). 1 TOTAL 9.~ 39.9 15.6 17.1 11.3 4.8 1.7 0.5 0.7 100.0 1 Each cell percentage is the percentage of the total responses to these questions Of ~hose households which are crowded, most of them fall under the definition of 1I1 arge households ll with five or more persons. Thus, at least 15.0 percent (or 17.4 percent if the nine person households with "four or more bedrooms ll is considered crowded) of the large family households are considered crowded as compared to 3.7 percent of all of the households. Spending an Excessive Amount of Income on Housing 1. avera 11 Popu 1at ion It is usually acknowledged that households which are paying more than 25 percent of their income on housing have excessive housing costs (Housng Division, State of Oregon). Housing costs of 25 percent or more of the income are likely to create significant financial problems for the household as an inadequate amount would be left for medical expenses, food, clothing, and other necessities. 1-24 Table XVII shows the percentage of households in each income bracket by the housing costs which they pay. Due to the categories which are used in obtaining the income and monthly housing cost information, a precise determi- nation of the number of persons spending in excess of 25 percent of their income on housing is impossible. For instance, housing costs of $125 or more per month would be 25 percent' of the incomes of those eai'ning $6,000 per year. Although all of the persons in that income bracket earn below $6,000, the exact income is { unknown, which makes comparisons with housing costs below $125 per month inaccurate. Although the exact amount of household incomes and housing costs is unknown, making a determination of those spending in excess of 25 percent of their income on housing impossible, it would be unfair and inaccurate to simply ignore all of the households spending less than $125 per month on housing costs. Thus, in Table XVII, all of those to the right of the heavy black line are certainly paying in excess of 25 percent of their income on housing, while those falling to the left of the heavy black line and to the right of the dotted line may possibly be spending more than 25 percent of their income on housing. TABLE XVII Income and Housing Cost ,now p(lr~n.tugol Housing Costs $0- $GO- $70- $80- S90- ~110- $130- $150- Over Perccnt:l~eINCmlE GO 70 80 90 110 130 150 175 $175 of Total , 7.5 7.5 4.3 5.5 25.2 28,2$0-$5,099 I 3G.G 7.9 2. ,1 3.1 1- _ - - - - - - - - - ~- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , $6,000-$11,999 15.6 3.7 5.3 1.2 G.G 6,6 '. I 5.3 7.0 48.8 27.1L.:.. ______ ---.., $12,000-$15,600 11. 1 2,5 1.9 2.5 3.7 9,3 4.9 10.5 I 53,7 18.0 4.2 2.9 3.3 I 72,9 26,7\ Over S15,GOO ~ ~l. 2.1 0.8 3.3 I Percent of TOTAL 13----2. 4.2 ~ 1.9 ~ 6.7 i.:.1. G.2 40.4 100,0 1 Each perccntnr,c, exclusive or the "!Ierccnt of total" is the percent of households within th:tl income bracket spending that specific amou.1t on housin~ costs. Of those earning below $6,000, at least 35.0 percent of the households (or 9.9 percent of the total households) are paying in excess of 25 percent bf their incomes on housing. It is also possible, although not at all probable, that up to 100 percent of those households have excessive housing costs. Of those earning between $6,000 and $11,999, it is possible that up to 61.1 percent 1-25 of those households are paying ?~:~ ,·,ts of their income on housing. 53.7 percent of those earning ~:~~ '.": ,.~ and $15,600 and 72.9 percent of those earning over $15,600 mig~t ~. " '~~ing in excess of 25 percent of their income on housing. Howeve""', " :dering these upper income levels, it is assumed that these househo~ds ~CI~ - ~~ the decision to spend a higher portion of their income on housi"?~ T~~ "a~~e of housing choices for higher income households is also much mo~e 2x~~r3:V9 than for lower income households. Because of this, the possibility of s~c~ } ~arge percentage of these households spendin gin excess 0 f 25 percent () f" t '.~e; ""' i t1 cOIneson h0 usin g sh0 U1d be viewerl with less concern than those earn~~0 :~-ow S~2,000 per year. 2. Elderly Households It was found that no househol~ 1a~ ~~-? than two members who were 62 years of age or over. Tables XVIII and X!V ~~~W :~~ incomes and housing costs of households which have members ove""' 52 ~~d c ~~ 55 respectively. These to the right of the solid line are certa':n1.y ·-::.")2f"'(-·"; in excess of 25 percent of their incomes on housing while t~~c- "~~ Jf the solid line ard the right Of the dashed line may be spendin~ ~nCQme and Housing Cost / I[low Perc(·nta~~._:-" _ ::>0- :3,:')- ;;7')- SL- GO 70 ~O -------------- ~":.C'- ~:;in- Ov,]r Pt~rc'·:ltaf:e '. ~.f' 17;-' ~ ~ 75 () f To ( :\ 1 ;).·1 ~J. G. :, 5.7 (i1 .3 1(1'').0 2J.7 :1:-1.9~.O 11.1 I i :;. ~~ ._-------, .2 -' . .3 ... ~ G ~ f' 0\.J 5 () ~ G ·1 3 -: ~ ---- 32 ..\ 1 sO.n G " :-,.0 0.0 ·i-!.1 G.H $6. ::OO-S: 1 . :'!'0 SlZ,OOO-$l::',noo lOver ~15.COO ?erce:l t 0 f Tota 1 Each IJI~I·c('nta~e. ,'xclusivl' of thp "'~('':"'C'.'~':. 0: :0':"'" is ·:~c ~)I.'I·ce~lt of 11OUS('holds \dtllin th~lt inCO!~H! brackc"t s:,'''ndinr that . ,_....:? .' ·'.""'~P-- nn ~nu~;in~~ costs. 1-26 TABLE XIX Income and Housing Costs of Elderly 65 Years of Age and Over Row Percentage] I NCmlE llousinB Costs $0- $GO- $70- $80- $90- $110- $130- $150- Over Perccnta~e 60 70 80 90 110 130 150 175 $175 of Total $0-$5,999 $6 I 000-$11 ,999 $12,000-$15,600 Over $15,600 Percent of Total I L~~.'..z__ ~._6 ~.:2 ~.~ ~'2 8...: ~ _ 1.5 11.1 9.6 37.0 2.2 8.7.,2.2 10.9 10.9: 0.0 4.3 23.9 5'1 .5 O. 0 9. 1 O. 0 IL 1 18. 2 - - '0 ~0- - - '0 ~0- - -: 9. 1 ~ Q..:-Q ~ 12.5 25.0 ~ Q..:-9. 25.0: 37.5 46.8 L..Q ~ ~ ~ ~ !.-.:..Q ~ 13.9 67.7 ?2.9 5.4 ~ 100.0 1 Each percentage, exclusive of the "percent of total" is the percent of households within that income bracket spending that specific amount on housin~ costs. As is noted previously, the categorization of income and housing costs makes it difficult to determine the exact percentage of the West County populatipn which is spending an excessive amount of their income on housing costs. A similar situation exists in looking at the element of the population 62 and over. However, it is certain that at least 17.5 percent of those 62 and over and 15.5 percent of those 65 and over who are earning below $6,000, are spending over 25 percent of their income on housing. It is also possible that approximately 30.0 percent of those 62 and over and of those 65 and over, earning between $6,000 and $11,999 are spending an excessive amount of their income on housing. Twelve and a half percent of those 62 and over and 9.1 percent of those 65 and over earning between $12,000 and $15,600, may also be ~p~nding over 25 percent of their income on housing costs. Of those earning over $15,600, slightly less than 40.0 percent of those both 62 and over and 65 and over may possibly be spending an excessive amount of their income on housing. Thus, it appears that an inordinate number of persons both 62 and over and 65 and over may be spending an excessive amount of their income on housing. 1-27 Housing Conditions As was indicated in the previous discussion of the housing conditions of dwellings in unincorporated West Umatilla Couhty, 12.2 percent were in need of minor repair, while 2.2 perce~t were in need of major repair with the remaining 85.6 percent in adequate condition. Of those dwellings which were over 30 years old, there seemed to be a greater percentage of those in need of both major and minor repair than of those in adequate condition. Both the elderly and large households tend to have approximately the same distribution according to condition and age of the structure as the total population. The elderly tend to have slightly older dwellings while the large households tend to have s'lightly new dwellings than the total population, but the differences are not significant. Summary Crowding more than two persons per bedroom, for the population as a whole, is not serious, with only five percent of the households in that condition. However, if "large" households or those with more than four persons are considered, th~ degree of crowding increases to 15 percent of these house- holds. Thus, it appears that "large" households have need of assistance in thi s area. Households spending an excessive amount of their income on housing appear to be a major problem in this area. Although the categories used for obtaining income and housing cost data were only applicable to a small portion of the population, it appears that, at the minimum, 9.9 percent of the households are spending in excess of 25 percent of their income on housing. Of those earning below $6,000, at least 35 percent of the population have excessive housing costs. In asking the residents of this area what they view as major problems, the largest group, 13.4 percent, indicated that "housing" is a problem in that it is too expensive and not enough is available. Thus, not only do the 1- 28 residents view housing costs as a problem, but the results of the comparison of housing costs and income show that many households are paying an excessive amount of their income on housing. The housing inventory did not enumerate enough dwellings in need of repair for the condition of housing to appear a major problem. It is suspected, however, that the evaluation of the dwellings in the 1977 Housing Survey resulted in an under-estimation of the deteriorated housing units, especially when it is realized that the Umatilla County Housing Survey of 1972 found the condition of housing to be major problem. Forecasting Housing Needs There appears to be a need at the present time for additional housing units in the western portion of the county. As shown by the following table, ( there are at least 174 units, with the possibility of up to 254 units, needed ,- at this time to compensate for substandard and over-crowded units. The range in units needed exists because the current number of vacant units is unknown. If it is assumed that there are an adequate number of vacant units in this area, then only 174 units are needed. However, if it is assumed that no vacant units exist, then 254 units (an additional 80 units needed for vacancies) are needed to provide enough flexibility in the market to allow for immi gration and movement of the current residents. The vacancy rates used are· calculated to provide an adequate supply of housing units so as not to create unnaturally high housing costs, yet avoid an excess of units which would deflate the price of housing and depress the construction industry in the area. It is hoped that a wide variety of housing units would be bUilt~ ( util izing a variety of structural types, unit size, etc. Although multi- family units capture only 1.9 percent of the housing stock and may thus be in need in the unincorporated areas of the West County~ their construction 1-29 should probably be limited to those areas having or planned for water and sewer system--the urbanized areas. Realizing that mobile homs have become a popular form of housing, provisions should continue to accommodate this type of housing as an alternative to the single family detached house. The following table calculates the total housing needs in the summer of 1977 in unincorporated West Umatilla County through a system recommended by the Oregon State Housing Division. Actual need should include urban area characteristics, which were unavailable when this report was compiled. Tl\nLF. xx Calculatinf:{ lIollsin~ Need Housing Stock 1 Subtract SUbstandard Units Usable Housin~ Stock Total Households 2 Adjust for Overcrowding Adjust Total Households DeficIencies (1127 less 1089) Add Units for Reasonable . Vacancy Rate3 Total Needed (1127 + 0) (1127 + 29) Total Deficiency (1127 - 1052) ~ (1156 - 1052) Applicability to Total Housing Stock4 Owner OCCUPIed 947 947 19 R~nter Occupied 119 119 8 Other 23 1,089 37 1,052 23 1,039 + 38 1,1?7 33 0 29 1 ,'127 1,156 75 104 174 254 1 2 3 4 Only those units in need of "major repair" were used as sub-stanrlard units. Those units which had more than two persons per bedroom were considered "over crowded." Since the vacancy rate for the area is unknown, two possible vacancy rates are utilized. First, it is assumed that there are adequate vacancies and no units are needed for a reasonable vacancy rate. Second, it is assumed that no vacancies exist and two percent for owner-occupied units and 8 percent fo;~ renter-occupied units are added. These rates are recommended for rapidly growing areas such as the West County. Thus, a range is created, based on these two assumptions. This operation 1089 x 75 and 1089 x 104 takes the ratio of the number of 2664 Y 2664 -Y- housing units in the West County (2664) and applies it to the number of units in deficiency in the sample (75 or 104 depending on the assumed vacancy rate) to obtain the number of units in deficiency for the entire housing stock in the West County. T ')f'\ PUBLIC FACILITIES [Revised] In an isolated setting, one provides for most of his or her own needs. In an urban setting, the individual often handles only specific duties for many people, while agencies, companies and governments provide services for the general public. Different levels of development are accompanied by demands for appropriate types and levels ,of service. To remain within the limits of available resources, fiscal and physical planning must match public services with the demands. The costs of providing services may be assumed by individuals, as in a single-family dwelling using a septic tank and well on a large lot, or by corporations and tax dollars in densities high enough to support ce~tralized services. Total cost, including both individual and tax costs together, is generally higher for lower density development. (13) Some services guide change, while others are expected to cope with the results of change. Planning can coordinate those services guiding change to implement local development goals, while continuing to forecast the results of change to phase the introduction and expansion of facilities to serve the general public as inexpensively and efficiently as possible. (9) Water and Sewer Water and sewer availabilities tend to g~id~ land development. Dense d~velopment is required to support centralized water and sewer, or their extension. In Umatilla County, only cities presently provide both services~ The community water systems outside cities serve residential and commercial subdivisions whose average lot sizes range from one acre to 10,000 square feet--more dense than surrounding lots. Community water systems have had problems with variation in water pressures, depletion of groundwater t or increasingly strict hea]th standards and water development limitations. A regional water system that would draw water J-l from the Columbia for municipal and industrial use is currently under examination. These areas of community water systems represent small areas, though as a majority of the systems, they are within urban growth boundaries of the various cities in the county. These community water systems represent small clusters of development. By definition, a community water systern is a facility that serves more than three users. The areas served by community water systems that remain outside of urban growth boundaries are small and inconsequential when compared to water districts that are present in western and southern Oregon counties. The 1ack of any coordi nated water systems out.s!_~~~u rb.an growth bo.~~~.~.~i es_ is one of th~_ re~sons why_.~_h~ coun!x__ ~h<.?se_a _r:'.!!.~aJ=~~ousi ng de~.~",~.!.y_ ..g.!_.,!_~~", ..,,~.~.~~~._four acres. The shallow water bearing aquifers throughout the county have historically ~~_._~.._-pP~.-.· _'~"~.'_ ._~~~"",. __P~_._~ ... provi ded.. d~!TI~~s~.~ ~_~ r:~.~,~_~~=!E!,_~~:.a ~,. _d~~,,~_l_o.~!!1~_~_~_."j~_J:_~~. "c0 unty • The5 e aqui fer s , unlike the more publicized deepwater a'lui~ are rec.~~rged annuaJ!"y_b~ the wi nter' s prec i pitat ion. By spa~ ~n.g dwe 11 i ngs _q_~~ e"ye~:y !~~"=~~~f~~l!=~~~,~~!.:~~~! groundwater supplies are protected and adequate water remains available from the ------------~=----...;.....= .... -. ...=..=~,==:=..- =--~..., aquifer to supply domestic needs. Duri~~~.-.the formula~_ion of the comprehenisve.pl.an, the citizens' input received favored maintaining a two to four acre density as as to protect the groundwater supplies. In 1980 the county conducted a survey of the water systems in the county, both municipal and private. There are 59 systems in the county, with 12 municipal, 26 private systems within urban growth boundaries, five systems on the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and 16 systems in the rural areas of the county. Five systems are in the western portion of Umatilla County serving 96 customers, and represent three small subdivisions and the Union Pacific rail facilities at Hinkle. Six systems serve 118 customers in the central portion of the county all around the Pendleton area. The largest is the Reith Water District, which has 68 customers in the unincorporated community of Reith. Many of the lots in Reith are 5,000 to 10,000 sq.ft. The remaining five sy~tems are located south of Pendleton in developed subdivisions ranging in size from 1/2 to five acres. The unincorporated community of Umapine, located northwest of Milton-Freewater, also has a water system that serves 49 customers. Umapine is very much like Reith, with small lots compacted in a small area. A mobile home park north of Milton- Freewater also has its own water system that serves 75 customers. There are three recreational subdivisions in the mountain areas of the county. Mill Creek Glen is located near the Oregon-Washington border, has 30 customers, and receives water that is being transported to the City of Walla Walla from the Mill Creek Water ·Shed, which provides the domestic water for the City of Walla Walla, Washington. 59 customers are served at the Langdon Lake development in the Tollgate area, and 13 customers are served at the Papoose Woodlands Subdivision near the unincorporated town of Meacham. Table I gives the results from the survey conducted by the county. The survey indicates that there are few problems with the existing systems, the quality of the water, or the monitoring that is conducted. Since the areas covered by community water systems are small compared to the amount of rural residential land identified in the county, a majority of the rural residential land in the county is served by individual wells. A large groundwater aquifer exists in the west county area where a majority of the county·s development has occurred and is likely to continue to occur. Smaller groundwater aquifers exist north of Milton-Freewater and in the Pendleton-Pilot Rock area where other residential development has occurred and is expected to continue. Accurate data on the amount of water available is unavailable at this time; however, state agencies (namely, Water Resources Dept. and Dept. of Environmental Quality) are beginning to study the groundwater aguifers at all levels because QX~j:_b_e cC?_ncern ..Q.~e..c~..!hed~_~.~~.=-~_?~_~~of ~~.e deepwa-.!~t. ..?.g.~.i.f.~ r by la rge ag ri cultu ra 1 (- ) we11 s • Inthe mea ntime, proj ect s requi r i ng 1arge am 0 un t s 0 f watera re be i ng ~.. / reviewed on a case by case basis by the county. J-3 ................_, J IL__ ~ I I I J I II 395 I I I I I f I I I .J I I I IL _ r----J"...........- I \....., , i I I ~-----__.J I -~ ....~- LEGEND tTH~]GROUND WATER AQUIFERS l~\~j\~\\\1~1tI] NON RESOURCE DESIGNATED LANDS SOURCE: Sweet, Edwards and Associates, Inc. IDENTIFIED GROUND ATER AQUIFERS FOR UMATILLA COUNTY The Port of Umatilla serves as a land use attraction. Its most extensive land holdings are immediately east of the City of Umatilla; other property holdings are in Umatilla and Pendleton. The Port has assisted in arranging for sewer and water services and zoning designations. The Port may also back bonds for buildings and extension of services to industries. The Port is presently working on a master plan for future development of Port lands. The master plan will give direction to the Port's commission. Wate r Cont ro1 There are four major water control districts in the county. The Umatilla River Water Control District #1 (425 acres), Umatilla River Water Control District #2 (8,142 acres), and the Birch Creek Water Control District (12,000 acres) were established in 1958, 1966, and 1958, respectively, to conduct drainage, irrigation, flood or surface water control work. These districts' major activities have been to remove stream debris, bank trees and minor repairs to levees and other water containment devices, while the Army Corps of Engineers construct major physical control projects. The Milton-Freewater Water Control District (7,500 acres) was formed in 1950 to take over maintenance and minor repairs of the levee constructed by the Army Corps of Engineers along the Walla Walla River from just below the forks of the river to McCoy Bridge. The main emphasis of this district is to provide flood control along the river. Levees and stream channelization may conflict with public values for fish and wildlife by blocking wildlife access to the river, regularizing the stream bottom, and raising water temperatures. But such control measures also attract development to the level, relatively undeveloped areas protected from flood hazard, thereby theoretically paying for the cost of flood control improvements. J-5 >- I- Z ::> o u .::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :;b:,~ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : .: : : : : : : :: ~ ~~~ ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 11. •••••••••••••••.•••••.••••••••••••••••••.• ·1· •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••, ., '1' ......... too ••••••••••••••••••••••••• t •••••••• R 30 ER 29 E ......... II ••••••• " II •• II •• It' ••• I ••• )00 •••••••••• I- Z ::> o u ......._._._........!oooI.,.....J.....,.....~.~._••....,.,-.+-.._._.~.·_·_·...·+---............~:-:~.;...;...:;..;;.;...;..;~~~~~~'*~*~*~~~.~.-7.7.:-: ..:-:.-:-.4. R 28 E •• , ••••••• It •• It It •••••••••••• ", ..... II' •••••••••••••••••••• It II • It It ., •• •••• II II It " ••••• II RUE _...~.R~.~~1.:..~_._..T".-._..:.::R~:.~;.~_.....r.-._.~~1.3:.:~~~-:-..-:,.,~:":"::"_r~~;;.:I~l:":':'·"I·t..:.I":"::~;':"~I:"-I-";~';":3:.;..1R(":;'f._r'_·;l~~ ............................. 11 Ij \\'~l . : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : UMAPIN':: I .r •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• :.' '.' ••••••• ---1..Ir --,.:-M-Il-T-O-N-I.-_~'-.-:{:.=+,.T-!-.LJ t, J:::~~~p;::s::~.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :. FREEWATER 11M : : : : : : : :: ::::::: I ~.J \ ',t, '.' •••••••. '..' ••••• J t .,.J-----l------..~----1f--. •••• II ••• It ••••• tt ::J:\:r:f:i~~~: :::.:::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::: .. :: ... W):;$:r:9:~: :::::::: TIS T25 TIN r 6 N TJS ~ T 4 S 0 a: a: z 0 0 ::!: - z T55 r n5 GRANT COUNTY LEGEND[JIJ PORT OF UMATILLA PORT OF UMATI LLA (ill~&\1J ~ ~~l~~®[illmuYL~ __@00 ~ [~wrn o 3 6 12 ..~ SCALE IN MILES TABLE I WATER SYSTEMS ASSESSMENT COUNTY SUMMARY OF SURVEYS A. DESCRIPTION OF WATER SYSTEMS 1. How many systems responded to survey? *2 respondents reported only 1 hookup 2. How many hookups are there in the county? 3. How many customers? 4. How many systems 'have surface sources? 5. How many systems have ground- water sources? *1 receives water from City of Pendleton 4-15 Hookups 9* 69 70 o 8* % 21 1 o 20 15+ Hookups 34 13,938 25,822 3 32* % 79 99 100 80 Total 43 14,007 25,892 3 40 6. How many systems have reservoirs? 5 14 32 86 37 99 16,644,670 7. What is the total storage capa- city in gallons? 45,500 How many systems treat with chlorine only? 2 1 16,599,170 12 14 88 16 9. How many use other treatments? 10. How many systems do not treat water? B. WATER QUALITY 1. Determinations of water quality are made by: federal government state governments county government self other 2. This determination is made: weekly monthly every six months yearly other 1 6 o 4 o 3 1 o 1 2 1 3 J.-7 50 23 o 29 o 37 20 o 4 66 50 75 1 20 21 10 1 5 4 4 27 1 1 1 50 77 100 71 100 63 80 100 96 34 50 25 2 26 21 14 1 8 5 4 28 3 2 4 Table I - cont1d 4-15 15+ Hookups % Hookups % Tota"J 3. The means for determining is: on-site 3 100 0 a 3 rev; ev.J 1ab test 4 11 33 89 37 other 1 100 0 a 1 4. How many systems feel water quality review is sufficient? 4 14 24 86 28 5. How many systems feel water quality review is not sufficient? 0 0 1 100 1 6. How many systems don1t know whether water quality review is sufficient? 3 28 8 72 11 7. How many water systems feel that determinations on whether they meet water quality standards should be made by the: federal government? 0 0 11 100 11 state government? 3 19 13 81 16 county government? a 0 6 100 6 self? 2 50 2 50 4 other? 1 50 1 50 2 8. How many feel the determination on meeting water quality stan- dards should be made: weekly? a a 3 100 3 month 1y? a 0 17 100 17 every six months? 1 14 6 86 7 yearly? 2 40 3 60 5 other? 3 100 0 a 3 9. How many systems have met water quality standards.at all times in the past year? 5 16 26 84 31 10. How many have not? a 0 5 100 5 11. How many do not know? 2 40 3 60 5 12. How many had problems with: bacteria? 0 a 4 100 4 chemicals? 0 0 0 0 0 turbidity? 0 0 1 100 1 other? 0 0 0 0 0 Table I - cont'd 4-15 Hookups 13. How many water systems would improve water quality by improving: % 15+ Hookups % Total 1 $9,318,000 99 $9,333,000 source? treatment? storage? distribution? other? 14. Total estimated cost: C. SUPPLY, GROWTH &SERVICE AREAS 1 1 1 o 1 $15,000 17 17 8 o 50 5 5 12 12 1 83 83 92 100 50 6 6 13 12 2 1. 2. \ 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. ( (L, \ How many systems have a water supply adequate for present demands? How many systems do not have a water supply adequate for present demands? How many do not know? How many water systems have a possibility of conflict with another water system if they expand? How many do not know if they have a possibility of conflict? How many systems feel that their water quality could be improved by expansion, m~rger, or other combined management function (with another system)? How many do not feel quality could be improved in this manner? How many do not know? How many water systems are within an urban growth boundary? How many feel that coordination of services is a problem in urban or rapidly growing areas? 6 o 1 1 4 3 2 3 2 o J-9 18 o 100 50 80 75 7 50 10 o 28 6 o 1 1 1 26 3 18 6 82 100 o 50 20 25 93 50 90 100 34 6 1 2 5 4 28 6 20 6 Table I - cont'd 4-15 15+ Hookups % Hookups % Total 11. How many water systems know of a plan or intergovernmental agreement which spells out future service area responsi- bility for their area? 0 0 7 100 7 12. How many do not know whether there is a plan or agreement? 6 29 15 71 21 13. How many have no plan or inter- governmental agreement on service areas? 1 9 10 91 11 14. How many water systems believe their water supply will be adequate in 20 years? 1 8 11 92 12 15. How many water systems believe their water supply will not be adequate in 20 years? 0 0 6 100 6 16. What is the total estimate for improving present source/ supply? $5,000 1 16,786,000 99 16,791 17. What is the total estimate for imRroving source/supply for the 20-year future? 0 0 36,327,000 100 36,327 J-IO Eventual development may raise potential flood damage costs to a point that exceeds the standards the improvements were built to meet. The reason for district formation still remains--protection of property and life in the flood area. Permits for any construction below the mean high water line are required from Oregon's Division of State Lands and from the Corps of Engineers. J-ll use of overhead sprinklers have increased, the water table to the north and west has dropped. This could potentially alter farming practices in the area. The Orchards District and the West County District are faced with additional problems as areas within the districts or near diversion ditches develop into residences. Ditchbanks become places to play, increasing chances of drowning and vandalism. Those fencing a ditch right-of-way assume some liability for failure of the fence to restrict access, while fencing across a right-of-way delays ditch riders and maintenance projects. Nearby activity requiring earth moving or crossing of pipes has the distinct possibility of destroying the over 50 year old concrete. Schools Public schools in Umatilla County are divided into thirteen school districts (see map). The districts support twenty-five (25) elementary schools, five junior highs and eleven senior highes. 1980-81 enrollment for these schools totals 10,952 students. Some private schools also operate in the county, including three schools affiliated with the Seventh Day Adventist Church. In addition, Blue Mountain Community College in Pendleton offers college level class work and night classes for area residents. (14) Districts must cope with growing student populations and inadequate facilities. Compounding growth problems is the unequal distribution of capital improvements and consequent property valuation and tax inequities between districts. Districts have had difficult times recently passing tax levies to support increased levels of services. Inadequate tax bases adopted many years ago coupled with high inflation during the late 1970's and early 1980's have out- stripped the 6% automatic increases in the tax bases. Also, state basic school support has dropped, thus transferring additional tax burden to district taxpayers. nN ~~"'TIS 31 LEGEND 1-R HELIX 2-R PILOT ROCK 5-R ECHO 6-R UMATI LLA 8-R HERMISTON 10 FERNDALE 13-R UMAPINE 16-R PENDLETON 29-R ATHENA-WESTON 31 MILTON-FREEWATER 61-R STANFIELD 80-R UKIAH TZ5 R311E TIlS T65 R34f R34E T45 T 35 R33E R33E R32f 2-R 1 - R R1l0E T 35 T!l5 T25 T45 T65 5 R T2N -I RzeE ! TIN TIN Wp.<,HINC,1 0N H?OE SQURC E: Umatilla Education Service District, Pendleton, Oregon, June, 1982 MILES o 2 4 6 _.- 12 .1 SCHOOL DISTRICT Cl!u·fj r, ;'!Al (11\ (I : J Pi.1 :" f};.• I .' I, "I ""~_' lJ A.I 1(, \ .1 I;., .,.::J r '.1 BOUNDARIES (o)~[~Q~©~~ A school district will often attract families to establish households within the district, while the parents work outside the district. For instance, many who work at Morrow County processing plants live in Umatilla County. Districts frequently own undeveloped property outside city limits. Some districts have small parcels far from the cities, with one Umatilla District parcel located six miles inside the Hermiston School District boundary. The Stanfield School District encompasses 80 acres of the City of Hermiston, presenting a potential problem for the County Elections Department. Houses in city areas that lie across school district boundaries must have new precincts unless the boundary is adjusted--and recent referenda in the county have gone against even minor adjustments.(6) Mergers of districts, both for trial purposes and permanent consolidation, have occurred during the past few years. The Athena and Weston school districts tried a merger and ended up consolidating into one district. Echo and Stanfield had a two-yea r t ri a1 merger, but voters rej ected a consoli dat i on move. The Tum-a-Lum and Ferndale elementary school districts north of Milton-Freewater are the county's most recently merged districts. One of the advantages of a merger is the increased valuation of the district and the elimination of duplicate services. Much of the growth expected to occur during the next 20 years will be directed towards urban growth boundaries. The total percentage of population living outside urban growth boundaries is expected to go from 35% at present to 23% by the year 2000. The demands on school facilities will be less than that caused by urban development. Nevertheless, the rural population will have an impact on the ability to provide for an adequate education without overcrowding the present school facilities. All thirteen school districts were contacted by the county to seek their input on the coordinated population projections for the county and what impact this proposed growth would have on their facilities. J-14 Of the districts that responded, concern was expressed that their existing faci lities would not meet the demands placed on them by the increased population. Unfortunately, the county's review of the acknowledged city plans, where most of the population will be located, shows a lack of coordination between the cities and school districts. Many of the school districts were not even aware of the comprehensive plans of the cities. Based on this information, the county believes that its best course of action would be as a coordinator between the school districts and appropriate cities. Through its coordination function, the county will work with the cities and school districts in insure that the school districts maintain their ability to accommodate projected growth increases. Utilities Four electric utilities and one natural gas company serve Umatilla County /~- ~ residents. (14) Pacific Power and Light serves the largest portion of Umatilla County. Their service area covers primarily the communities of Umatilla, Hermiston, Stanfield, Echo, Umapine, Weston, Helix, Reith, Pendleton, Pilot Rock, and much of the rural area north and south of Pendleton. The Columbia Basin Electric Co-op's primary service area is in Morrow, Wheeler, and Gilliam Counties. However, they serve a part of southwestern Umatilla County near the town of Vinson. Milton-Freewater Light and Power serves a 60 square mile area in and around the City of Milton-Freewater. They have an adequate power supply to serve most loads. The Umatilla Electric Cooperative Association's service area in Umatilla begins on the western county line and runs to a point approximately seven miles west of Pendleton. On the east side of Pendleton, the Umatilla Electric Cooperative Association's service is in a triangular shape to the towns of Meacham and Tollgate. Cascade Natural Gas Company is the only utility company providing natural gas to Umatilla County and presently serves the following communities: Pendleton, Hermiston, Milton-Freewater, Pilot Rock, Stanfiela, Athena, Umatilla, and Weston. ,1-1 J:) Three telephone companies operate in Umatilla County. Pacific Northwest Bell serves the majority of north county users. Helix Telephone Company, a small company around and north of Helix, also provides service to the north county area and the Meacham area. Telephone Utilities of Eastern Oregon supplies 14 telephone service to the southern portion of Umatilla County. Utilities have experienced a large increase in demand during the late lQ70's as was visible at the local level because of delays in'hook-up and replacement of trunk 1i nes • Because these ut i 1it i es serve each and every request and because so many activities use electricity and rely on telephone, recent growth has impacted these utilities. The power companies had been served with a lQ83 shortage of power notice by BPA. However, demand for electrical power has slumped greatly in recent years and an actual surplus is predicted. Part of this trend could be attributed to the recession of the early 1980's and to the Northwest Power Act. Recent correspondence with local utility companies indicates that they have sufficient capacity to serve the projected increases in population. Police Protection Unincorporated areas are patrolled by the Umatilla County Sheriff's Department. The department has 31 employees, nine of which are road deputies. There are resident deputies stationed in Hermiston and Milton-Freewater and are assisted by officers from Pendleton. There are also 11 reserve deputies who must put in 16 hours a month. Umatilla County's crime rate is higher than most counties, and may be expected to grow with continued population growth and only current levels of law enforcement programs. The clearance rate for index offenses was 13.4 percent 1 in 1977 compared with the 1976 state average of 19.6 percent. The Board on Police Standards and Training advised (in 1978) the addition of personnel to relieve demands on patrolmen's time and to supplement the 11 resident deputies. Since 1980 much has been done to improve this situation. J-16 / ) () ) A major addition and total remodeling of the county jail was completed in 1983. Additional staff was hired to relieve the pressure placed upon the road deputies to fill in at times for jail staff. Additional deputies were assigned to rural areas as resident deputies to equal out the distribution of deputies throughout the county. Currently the statewide average for police officers is .34 per 1,000 people. Umatilla County, at the present time, exceeds that minimum and desires not to fall below that level." The coordinated population projections for the year 2000 would not exceed this ratio provided that the county maintains the current level of 'staffing in the department. Fire Protection Many of the cities in Umatilla County house a combination city-rural fire protection district. For example, Hermiston RFPD employs professional fire- fighters and emergency medical technicians in addition to its volunteers. Other rural districts depend totally on volunteers. Umatilla, Echo, Stanfield, Helix, Pilot Rock, Athena, and Weston all have volunteer fire departments that cover the rural area. Two small fire protection districts exist to the south of Pendleton and in the past have contracted with the Pendleton Fire Department which is staffed by a full-time fire fighting unit. The districts have been successful in obtaining funds to purchase a tanker truck for needed water supply. The City Fire Chief has indicated that this addition is a very valuable asset to protecting the rural homeowners. Recently interest in joining into these rural fire districts has been expressed by adjoining rural residents. In 1982 a private fire company received county approval to provide services on a contract bases to rural property owners in the Milton-Freewater/Orchards District Area. Many of the fire districts located in the rural residentially settled areas of the county have expressed concerns over increased development. The Hermiston Rural Fire District is seriously considering adding satelite J-17 T1N NjW~{fjNJI RURAL FIRE DISTRICTS 1 UMATILLA RFD 2 HERMISTON RFD 3 STANFIELD RFD 4 ECHO RFD LEGEND 5 6 7 8 9 PILOT ROCK RFD MCKAY DAM RFD LOWER MCKAY CREEK RFD HELIX RFD MILTON·FREEWATER RFD (CONTRACT PROTECTION) RURAL FIRE DISTRICTS UMATILLA COUNTY /( stations to put them closer to the rural areas they serve as all the rural equipment is currently housed with the City of Hermiston's equipment near the downtown area. The Fire Chief believes that the consolidation of both entities into a Fire Protection District would greatly enhance the district's ability to protect both urban and rural development. This would also enhance the district's ability to protect property and life in the rural areas. Rural fire-fighting has its own equipment requirements. Pumper trucks provide water for rural protection. Volunteers are notified by siren or plectron and provide their own transportation to the fire. Investment in equipment has the direct effect of improving insurance ratings, thus lowering rural homeowners' insurance costs. Because of the lack of an adequate water source, fires in densely built-up areas have the potential to run tankers dry before fires are brought under control. This is another reason that the county chose a two and four acre rural housing density. Fire is less likely to spread from structure to structure on larger sized lots, thus limiting the qu~ntity of water needed. None of the fire districts responding said that they would not be able to serv{ce projected population increase in Umatilla County, but that measures were needed to insure that delivery of services could be provided in an efficient and timely manner. Delivery of ambulance and fire protection services has been complicated by house location and access problems. Road names are repeated on several roads, may be one of several names for the same road, or may be missing altogether. In addition, easements are often unimproved, too narrow for fire vehicles, or difficult to determine to which houses they belong. To help remedy this situation, the county believes that a rural addressing system needs to be implemented. Funding through the 911 System is being looked at as a possible funding source to implement an accurate locational guide for dispatching emergency services. Unprotected lands include much of the south and central area of the county and the mountain lands. Some landowners can buy fire patrol protection for their J-19 land in the mountain lands. Otherwise, the Oregon Deaprtment of Forestry is responsible for fire suppression on private forest and rangeland, and the U.S. Forest Service is responsible for National Forest Lands. Neither is in the business of protecting residential structures; rather, the land resources. Haphazard patterns of subdivision and partitioning development have caused concern among fire authorities. The problem of homes within forested areas (Tollgate, Mill Creek, Meacham) is producing difficult patterns of fire-fighting. Fire protection for forest lands are designed to control wildland fires. In many cases, this ~an no longer be done. All protection agencies are concerned because many developments lack proper controls or consideration for fire safety measures, resulting in a design for disaster. Protection agencies and planners must work together in the planning and plat or partitioning approval processes to determine the level of fire protection required for the proposed development. One useful guide that the county believes will be helpful, especially in mountain areas where fire protection is at a minimum, is the Oregon Department of Forestry's publication, IIFire Safety Considerations for Developments in Forested Areas. 1I These safety considerations, administered through the county's implementing ordi- nances, will help mitigate potential fire safety related problems. All of Umatilla County is served by Lifeguard III, an air ambulance service stationed in Pendleton. T~e City of Pendleton and the Hermiston Rural/City of Hermiston Fire Department provide ambulance service for a wide area of south, central and western Umatilla County. These ambulances are manned by full-time emergency medical technicians. Weston and Athena provide a volunteer ambulance service in the east portion of the county. Vector Cont ro1 The West Umatilla Vector Control District and the East Umatilla County Chemical Control District were organized in an effort to control mosquitos. The special districts lower the cost to cattle ranchers resulting from disease and enhance outdoor recreation opportunities. >- t- Z ::> o u TOLLGATE R :rl ER 35 ER 34 E PILOT ROCK R32 E R 33 E ,h,· .. ,,' l,ft I I 395 ,.--. r R 31 ER30 E .fJ:lB E -. Hr[1'1, c;.r· ~::::";+':"":"':~':"":"':+---+----t----T-_"_-~,-r---~I----+-=I--r----r4IMILTON· r\FREEWATI ER Ir.JI ----t----- HELIX ....+-----i"----11 +----+-----TI-,J-I----~ 74 R 29 E >- t- Z ;::l o () R 28 ER 27 E T2S TIS TIN T3S / ) T4S T5S TfiS 5: _....'""---"-r-0 395 a: ~--I a: "L .- 0 r- ::.'!E UMATILLA NATIONAL I FOREST I r r J r- __I r.J , I UMATIlI A~"'--" GRANT COUNTY Cd······ .. ···. , ~ ~ ..,••• ".! •.. ,.t t ••• t •• •• LEGEND WEST UMATILLA VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT (I , 'lVECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT lj Lill~mu~~~ffi ©®[ill~1JW ®OO~~®~ ',,. ...-----....-.- 2.~~·-_.... o 3 6 12 ~ SCALE IN MILES Land use can affect the operations and costs required to relieve mosquito problems. Conversion to sprinkler irrigation has lessened mosquito production in areas that were flood irrigated, while increasing production from previously d~ ground. Small acreage homesites in flood irrigation areas make less efficient use of water and disturb or do not improve distribution and drainage systems, consequently worsening vector control problems. Irrigation also leaves pools in roadside ditches and in the Umatilla River channel that become mosquito sources. Some wildlife management techniques conflict with chemical control of mosquitos, allowing breeding upwind of cities and ranches. Control may be approached by the physical means of improving drainage, lowering the water table, removing cattle, or by biological means. Health Services Three hospitals, with about 225 liscensed beds, are located in Umatilla County; one in Hermiston, and two in Pendleton. The Eastern Oregon Hospital and Training Center, also located in Pendleton, provides inpatient care for the retarded and mentally ill in Eastern Oregon. Approximately 50 physicians reside in Umatilla County. Additional physicians and hospitals in Walla Walla and the Tri-Cities area (Richland, Pasco, and Kennewick) of Washington also serve many county residents. (14) The Umatilla County Mental Health Clinic conducts mental and emotional disability problems, alcohol and drug abuse treatment programs, and mental retardation and developmental disability services. Their Hermiston office brings all three major programs to the West County. (7) The West County and northern Morrow County have a developing population of highly mobile construction workers and their families who are particularly in risk of mental health problems. It is anticipated that more workers will come seeking employment than jobs are available, compounding the problems usually accompanying this group of people. (2) Human Service Human service has been predominately an activity of the State of Oregon. The Adult and Family Services Division, Employment Division, Children's Services Division, Corrections Division, and Vocational Rehabilitation have offices in Hermiston. Other state offices are located in Pendleton, including Workmen's Compensation Department, Department of Veteran's Affairs, Health Division, and Food Stamp Certification. Umatilla County Housing Authority is located in Hermiston, while the Veteran's Service Office and Community Action are in Pendleton. Federal offices for the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service are also in Pendleton. Some private organizations also provide services, notably the Hermiston Day Care Center and the Seventh Day Adventist Community Center. These services are located in or near cities to serve residents more efficiently. Access for rural residents is restricted if they do not drive. Day care services are now limited to daytime operation, presenting problems to the increasing number of families whose employment is at night in the new agri- cultural processing plants. Solid Waste The county is divided into five areas (Milton-Freewater, Athena-Weston, Pendleton, Pilot Rock, and Hermiston) for delivery of services. (14) The Hermiston solid waste landfill serves the North Morrow County area of Boardman- Irrigon. The county has adopted a solid waste management ordinance. (12) Recently the county secured for expansion a lease on an additional 120 acres of land adjacent to the existing landfill near Hermiston. The land is owned by the U.S. Government (Bureau of Land Management) and is ideally suited for landfill activities. In addition, the county proposes to develop a landfill overlay zone to protect identified landfill sites from frivolous appeals by adjacent and sometimes not so adjacent landowners. The county believes that landfill sites should be protected from encroaching non-resource related development. In discussion with the Eastern Regional Office of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, it was found that solid waste sites throughout the county were sufficient to meet the area's needs well into the next centu~, especially with the additional land obtained for the Hermiston site, where a majority of the county's growth is expected to occur (50%). The Milton-Freewater, Athena- Weston, and Pilot Rock landfills are all located in agricultural areas where expansion poses little problem, although these sites are not in areas expected to experience large population increases. The landfill site near Pendleton has leased options from the City of Pendleton on land through the year 2012. With the addition of new equipment and changes in operating procedures, the landfill's capacity, according to a recent City of Pendleton study, can be expanded to provide service for approximately the next 50 years. Much of the site for expansion of the landfill site lies outside the City's Urban Growth Boundary; and the county, through the planning process, can incorporate further findings from a proposed city study to be conducted in late 1984 as a plan update matter. Library The county's library system is best described as a cooperative system. That is because each city in the county suppor~s their specific library and the county budget augments total expenditures. The county's library director has no direct authority over each city's library--only advisory, with the exception of the library in Pendleton which is almost entirely maintained through county support. Athena, Echo, Helix, Hermiston, Milton-Freewater, Pilot Rock, Pendleton, Stanfield, Weston, and Umatilla all have library facilities, with the Hermiston and Milton- Freewater libraries originally being Carnagie funded libraries. Drop stations in outlying areas are located at Adams, Ukiah, Meacham and the Woons Camp (south of Ukiah), and plans are to add one in Umapine. J-24 A seven-member lay committee called the Umatilla County Library Board consists of seven members representing all the county. The ~oard is charged with making recommendations for operating libraries and developing a formula for dispensing county funds to each library. As of May 1982. the county library system had 108,604 books. Circulation figures for fiscal year 1981 are the most recent figures available and show that 247,845 items were circulated. Other Facilities' One major type of facility which no public agency is directly involved with is day care. Day care is very important, especially to the shift workers in the processing plants in the west and east county agricultural areas. Day care centers are provided in the county's three major cities; however, hours of operation usually cover only early mornings through late afternoons. The county does not provide any senior citizen rest homes or convalescent homes. This is left entirely to private enterprise. Federal programs for seniors are handled through the East Central Oregon Association of Counties and in activity programs and senior meals programs. Several seniors groups have been active lately and have resulted in new or improved senior centers being constructed or improved in Hermiston, Stanfield and Milton-Freewater. Rural and Urban Service Levels In evaluating the services available for rural development, it becomes evident that the level of services needed and desired by rural development is less than that provided and expected in an urban setting. The following table is designed to indicate what level of services are needed for different service levels. J-25 LEVELS OF SERVICE REQUIRED IN URBAN AND RURAL AREAS Density Urban Per adopted Compre- hensive Plan and Joint Management Agreements for UGB Areas Rural Residential 2 and 4 acres per dwelling unit Multiple Use 1 and 10 acres per dwelling unit Rural Ind./Commercial 1 acre unless DEQ can approve a system on a sma 11 er lot Resource The size that continues the existing resource use Service Level 1. Sewer Yes No No No No (1 ) (1 ) 2. Water Yes Limited No Limited No (2) (2 ) 3. Fire Protection Yes Parti a1 No Part i a1 Limited (4) 4. Police Protection Yes Yes Pa rt i a1 Yes Limited 5. Surface Water (3) (3) Drainage Yes Pa rt i a1 Yes Part i a1 No 6. Road Standards Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (1) A few small water districts exist in rural areas; however, most water comes from individual wells. (2) Area around Pendleton is not within a fire district at this time. (3) Surface water drainage in the west county area is not always needed because of low rainfall and porous soils. (4) Sheriff1s patrols are infrequent in mountain areas where multiple use areas occur. State Police Department also provides protection in multiple use areas. J-26 (SERVICE LEVEL DEFINITIONS 1. Density A. Urban - As determined appropriate by Joint Management Agreements. B. Rural Residential - For new lots of two and four acres as determined through the Comprehensive Plan process. Pre-existing sub-standard lots that fall below these minimums may be occupied, provided that the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) can permit a sub-surface disposal system on the lot in accordance with Oregon law. c. Multiple Use - Generally a minimum of five acres, except for developed areas where a one acre minimum is allowed, and big game corridors where a 10 acre minimum is required. As in Rural Residential areas, develop- ment on pre-existing substandard lots is allowed. D. Rural Industrial and Commercial - One acre, unless DEQ can approve a system on a smaller lot. Generally it takes at least an acre to place a septic tank and drainfield on a lot and meet the setback requirements from wells and water sources and leave enough room for a replacement drainfield. E. Resource - Resource-related dwellings are only allowed on lots that have been found to meet the test of continuing the existing commercial agricultural enterprises within the area. New non-farm residences will be limited to non-productive agricultural land and be limited to a maximum of five acres. 2. Sewer Sewage is only found within urban areas and is not appropriate for rural, multiple use, or resource development unless a closed system is proposed in a cluster development in a rural or multiple use area. In any case, sewage for resource areas is unappropriate. 3. Water A. Urban - Water is provided in an urban setting. B. Rural Residential, Rural Industrial/Commercial, Resource - Water in limited areas is provided by a community water system, but generally is provided by an ind;vidual·s own well. 4. Fire Protection A. Urban - Full protection. B. Rural Residential, Rural Industrial/Commercial - Protection from rural fire districts in most cases. The Pendleton area lacks rural fire protection for all developed areas. Effor~s to expand the districts and protections provided is encouraged. . ,1-/7 C. Multiple Use - None. D. Resource ... Limited in most cases to volunteer efforts by local farmers, ranchers and farm cooperatives. A few rural districts cover farmland within their districts. 5. Surface Water Drainage A. Urban ... Curbs and gutters required. B. Rural Residential, Rural Industrial/Commercial, Multiple Use - Ditching along roads is required for access permits. Development in multiple use areas must have a plan for surface water drainage. 6. Roads_._- A. Urban - Full road standards required per city requirements. B. Rural Residential, Rural Commercial/Industrial, Multiple Use - Minimum requi rement of a IiD iI road standard as set forth in county road manua1 (1011 of compacted gravel). J-28 SOURCES 1. Administrative Services Section; "Annual Personnel and Budget Study of Oregon Law Enforcement Agencies, Fiscal Year 1976-77"; Board on Police Standards and Training; Salem, Oregon. 2. American Hospital Association Guide to the Health Care Field, 1976 Edition; American Hospital Association; 1976. 3. Beck, R.W., and Associates; Solid Waste Management Plan Final Draft; Umatilla County Board of Commissioners; February 14, 1984. 4. Castade Natural Gas Company; Operating Maps; May 1978. 5. "Emergency Medical Services ll ; Oregon State Health Division; 1978. 6. Environmental Concerns, Inc.: IIHermiston School District #8R, Senior High School, Evaluation of Facility and Development Alternatives", Preliminary Draft; Hermiston School District; May 22, 1978. Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company; Fundamental Maps; November 1977. Plan for Development, A: Part II of the Comprehensive Plan for Umatilla County, Oregon; Umatilla County Planning Commission; April 6, 1972. Planning for Land Use: Part I of the Comprehensive Plan; Umatilla County Planning Commission; 1970. 1I0regon Community Mental Health Program Plan, Fiscal Year 1976-77 11 ; Umatilla County Mental Health Program; 1976. Research and Management Services Section; "Staffing Assessment: Umatilla County Sheriff's Department, 1978 11 ; Board on Police Standards and Training; Salem, Oregon. 7. , 8. \ 9. 10. 11. 12. "Solid Waste Ordinance,1I Umatilla County Court, August 1970. 13. Real Estate Research Corporation, The Costs of Sprawl; sponsored by CEQ, HUD, EPA; Washington, D.C.; April 1974. 14. Two Year Work Program, Overall Economic Development Program Revision, April 1977, East Central Oregon Association of Counties. INTERVIEWS UMATILLA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Bruce H. Barnes, Program Director; Umatilla County Mental Health Program; 1977. Jimmmie Bevans, Director; Hermiston Irrigation District; September 29, 1977. Barbara Bishop, Librarian; Umatilla County Library; 1983. Jim Carey; Umatilla County Sheriff; 1983. Terry Cave, Cascade Natural Gas Company; 1977. Charles A. Dougherty, Area Engineer; Pacific Gas Transmission Company; October 10, 1977. Steve Eldridge, Engineer; Umatilla Electric Cooperative Association; September 14, 1976. Steve Gardels, Manager; Eastern Regional Office, DEO; January 1984. Bill Gilbert, Director; Stanfield, Westland, and West Extension Irrigation Districts; January 1977. Gil Hargreaves, Waste Management Specialist; Department of Environ.nental Qual ity, Apri 1 1984. Dave Hickock, Umatilla County Health Officer; by telephone; March 1978. Richard Hopper, Fire Chief; City of Pendleton; January 1984. Mike Kincaid, District Engineer; Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company, 1977. Bill Kopacz, Service Representative; Umatilla Electric Coop Assn.; February 1984. Pete Langner, Umatilla Engineer; Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company; 1977. Hugh Little, Chief; Umatilla Rural Fire Protection District; 1977. Ed Lynch, Assistant Chief; Hermiston Rural Fire Protection District; 1976. Dennis McFarland, District Manager; Pacific Power and Light Company, January 1984. Dan McFarling, Emergency Services Coordinator; East Central Oregon Association of Counties; August 1978. Marsh Myers, Di rector; West Umat ill a County Vector Cant ro1 Di st ri ct; 1977. Larry Nunn, State Watermaster, District 5; December 1983. John Schull, Fire Chief; Hermiston Rural Fire District, January 1984. Dick Snow, Board Member; Umatilla River Water Control District #2; February 4, 1977 (telephone). Philip A. Stanley, Superintendent; Echo Public Schools; May 1978. Wes Stone, Manager; ABEL Cable Television Company; 1977. Bernice Warren, COMEO; August 1978. Erv Williams, Purchasing Agent; Umatilla Ordnance Depot; February 17, 1978. Robert Witherall~ Secretary/Treasurer, Rural Fire Protection District #7-409 and #7-410; January 1984. Pat Wright, Customer Representative; Pacific Power and Light, September 1976. Skip Zimmerman, Hermiston Engineer; Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company; 1977. TRANSPORTATION Of today's municipal, suburban, and rural problems, none has more effect on people than transportation. The two or three car family, demand for greater mobility, and suburban living have caused a circle of problems, all of which create, or are affected by, transportation problems. Transportation systems get us, or do not get us, from home to jobs, to shopping, to recreation areas. Special considerations in land use planning must then be devoted to providing a transportation system that moves people in a safe and convenient manner and also promotes the movement of goods and services to and from major distribution centers. Within Umatilla County there is not presently a unified plan encompassing all modes of transportation. Such considerations as the effects of cities' plans, impacts of 1-82, and the needs of various population segments (eg. transportation disadvantages) have yet to be integrated into a master plan. State and Federal Highway Plans A classification system developed by the State of Oregon grouped major roads and highways according to the character of service they are intended to provide. Those roads that predominately proyide access to adjacent property are classified at the lowest priority level. The higher level priority roads provide more service to the mobility function such as intra and interstate traffic. Principal Arterial - Interstate The highest priority level road in the state highway classification system is the Principal Arterial - Interstate which serves long haul traffic, provides maximum mobility with high speeds and continued movement, carries high volumes of traffic, and is part of an integrated and continuous system. Interstate 1-84 is classified as a Principal Arterial - Interstate Highway. It appears arlequate to handle additional growth in the county area for. some time into the future. K-l 1-82 Interstate Freeway There is one proposed Principal Arterial - Interstate Freeway to be con- structed in the West County Planning Unit. The demand for a freeway connecting 1-84 and 1-90 on the east side of the Cascades resulted in this route approval by the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways in 1957. Of the nine proposed corridors in Oregon, the "J" Route COi"'ridor was considered the most likely route to be constructed. "Corridor J" originates at a junction with 1-84 about 3/4 mile west of the Westland Interchange. The route then proceeds northerly just inside the east boundary of the Umatilla Ordnance Depot and bends northeasterly to the Columbia River. Southbound traffic will use the present Umatilla Bridge as its crossing. 2 A new bridge will be constructed just upstream from the present bridge for north- bound traffic. What effects this freeway will have on existing land uses in the area should be considered and examined during the plan update. Residential, commercial and industrial developmental pressures will certainly occur when construction is completed. Also, the proposed freeway will affect traffic patterns on existing roads and highways, thus requiring additional considerations in the transportation master plan. Principal Arterials These highways are intended to serve through traffic with limited service to adjacent lands. High to moderate operating speeds are characteristic. Highways in Umatilla County meeting this classification include State Highways 11, 204, 207, and U.S. Highway 395 and 730. In areas where these highways traverse urbani ru ra1 deve1opment, the th rough t ra ffi c ca rryi ng capaci ty is hi ndered by frequ ent accesses directly to adjacent properties. Both Highway 11 and Highway 395 have been improved to four-lane roads with a continuous left-turn refuge. State Highway 204, the Weston-Elgin Highway, passes through the Tollgate area which K-2 has a history of recreational use. Forest Service land offers a wide range of recreational opportunity less than an hour away from Pendleton. A ski area is just across the county line (in Union County), making the area attractive for year-round recreation. One problem that the Highway Division has is the removal of snow from the road. There a~e times when the Highway Division must use a snowblower. This removes snow and blows it with quite a force for a considerable distance. Problems occur when cabins or homesites are put close to the road and vegetation is removed. Encroachment into the snowblowing zone creates potential problems and the county should require additional setbacks along this highway. Another problem along this highway is the lack of off-highway parking during winter months. Often cars and trucks pull off wherever the snow has been plowed out a little more than for two lanes. This presents potential problems for other passing cars and usually means that someone has trespassed to get to their favorite winter sporting area. Additional off-highway parki'ng is needed along Highway 204 near pUblic lands. County Roads There is no functional road system plan for county roads in Umatilla County. Data is scattered and not compiled in any meaningful form. There are increasing pressures on the county road system, especially in the West County area. Wit~ the recognition of a great need for a road plan, the County Road Department has started a road map index system to integrate all existing county roads and their corresponding numbers in one book. Once adopted, road naming projects and carrying capacity studies can then be accomplished to head in the direction of a desperately needed road plan. County Road improvement plans are even more tentative than the State Highway's. As needs arise, funding is sought and if available is implemented where the greatest pressure exists. There is a serious money problem in Umatilla County to finance all the needed road improvements. With this in mind, only general K-3 indications of needed improvements are available with ve~ little idea of when or if the improvements will be made. Maintenance programs, however, should be a major consideration in development of the Transportation Master Plan. Improvements for non-federally designated county roads are paid for entirely out of local funds. For Umatilla County, these funds come from the state tax on gasoline and revenues from federal timber sales. These revenues have declined over the past few years while road improvement co~ts have skyrocketed, thus putting a squeeze on road improvements. Another form of roads in the county is public roads. These are roads which may be used by the public, but which have no governing agency funding their maintenance. Public ways are under the jurisdiction of the Umatilla County Board of Commissioners; however, the Board of Commissioners are not required to spend any money on these roads. If the property owners pay to have a public way improved to a paved road, the Board of Commissioners will accept the road into the county maintained road system. This is usually done through a local improvement district. A proliferation of access points to a street, road or highway can: destroy the traffic function of the street, road or highway; create safety hazards; and result in costly highway improvements at the expense of the public and individual property owner. Access control along highways can often provide the most cost- effective means of maintaining manageable highway capacity and should be implemented wherever feasible. Strips of residential or commercial development along rural highways are not only hazardous, they also unnecessarily waste land resources. A number of problems arise from inadequate transportation planning. It should be remembered that a major cause of scatteration of development is the extension of streets, roads, and highways in rural areas. And, vehicular noise is usually the principal source of community noise. K-4 One attempt to cope with the proliferation of roads in the west portion of the county is the Master Road Plan for the Diagonal Road Study Area. This is the first attempt by the county to guide road dedication and requirements in the heavily developed rural residential area around Hermiston. Basically it sets minimum road widths at 50 ft. and placement of roads along government survey lines (section lines, 1/4 sections, 1/16 sections, etc.). The following issues and concerns were expressed at various citizen involve- ment meetings by Jocal citizens: 1. Efforts should be made to help alleviate traffic congestion problems on Highway 395 north of Hermiston. 2. Concerns raised about traffic safety measures to be taken on Highway 730 when construction begins on the Second Powerhouse at McNary Dam and if Alumax (large aluminum reduction plant) is /-" ~, constructed. 3. Citizens recognized a need for more north-south through roads to' allow shorter routes to developing areas. Several suggestions were to extend and improve Craig and Sagebrush Roads through to Highway 730. 4. A need exists for limited mass transit, especially for commuting workers, but not at this time because of no local support and lack of funds to operate these systems. 5. Extreme need for a coordinated road naming system to facilitate emergency services delivery. K-5 oriented flying activities (pesticides and fertilizers), private use, aircraft rental and maintenance, and private business use will remain the dominant activi- ties of the airport. No commercial flight improvements are anticipated for the Hermiston Airport for at least twenty years. Pendleton Municipal Airport is a Class V "Continental ," all-weather airport located 3.5 miles west of the center of Pendleton, with facilities which include a city-owned terminal building and a restaurant with lounge. The airport is situated at the junction point of nine federal airways systems and has five runways, the longest being 6,300 feet. Instrument landing systems, approach lighting, FAA Air Traffic Control Tower, communication stations, and weather bureau are provided. Services include charter, engine repair, fuel sales and instruction. Two studies presently underway provide for financing and development of the Pendleton Airport's facilities and of the area adjacent to the airport. The Master Plan - Pendleton Municipal Airport, prepared by Wadell Engineering Corporation and adopted by the city, calls for extensive reconstruction improve- ments to the airport's present air carrier operating system. The Feasibility Study, Pendleton Air Industrial Park, Draft Final Report, prepared by Parametrix, Inc., plans for development of an air-industrial park around the Pendleton Municipal Airport. Recommendations include infrastructure improvements along existing roads, road improvements, development of office and industrial sites, construction of a lower access road, development of an all-cargo facility at the airport, and general improvements in access transportation to the airport. IO Marine Transportation The Port of Umatilla is the only water port transportation terminal in Umatilla County. Grain, woodchips, logs and containerized agricultural commodities account for the major part of the export tonnage. Oil and other petroleum products are major imports that use the Port's facilities. There is potential for increased containerized cargo facilities. 6 K-6 The Port of Umatilla is an economic asset to the county. The Port generates the fourth largest payroll within the Port district system in Oregon. Expansion of facilities are anticipated to increase economic growth. Some of these projects are increased docking sizes, additional water frontage, light industrial park facilities at old north Umatilla townsite, and more grain storage, liquid fertilizer, petroleum tank facilities and additional future industrial sites east of Hat Rock. 7 Rai 1roads Three railroad cOlnpanies serve Umatilla County over two major tracks and numerous branch lines in the county's north end. Union Pacific operates a main- line through the Columbia River Gorge, Pendleton, Baker, and Ontario"connecting the county with the Midwest and the East Coast. A new switchyard facility at ,r') Hinkle provides additional connections with Union Pacific's north-south lines \" J in eastern Washington. Burlington Northern lines connect the county's north end with the railroad's major track in southern Washington. Amtrak passenger service from Salt Lake City to Portland runs over Union Pacific's mainline to the north end. Bicycles Facilities for bicycles in the county have not existed until recently. Entirely within the city limits of Hermiston, Highland Avenue widening between Highway 395 and Buttercreek Highway included a bicycle lane. Recent projects for the widening and overlay of Highway 395 south from Pendleton to McKay Reservoir and Diagonal Road from Hermiston to Highway 730 included a bicycle lane. The county has agreed to divide its portion of the bicycle fund equally between the west, central and eastern cities in the county, providing the city requesting the funds has a plan. K-7 Pipelines Three major pipelines lie within the Umatilla County borders. The Pacific Gas Transmission line begins in Washington state, crosses the Columbia River near Umatilla, and continues through Oregon to its California destinations. This pipeline transports natural gas through Oregon hut has no distribution outlets in Umatilla county. The Pacific Northwest Pipeline carried natural gas from Canada through Oregon and Umatilla County, and to southern markets. Natural gas users in Umatilla County generally obtain their gas supplies from this pipeline. The third pipeline (Standard Oil) carries oil from Salt Lake City to Spokane. It runs through eastern Umatilla County but has no distribution outlets in the county. A fourth pipeline has been constructed by Union Pacific Railroad (UP) to carry diesel fuel from Columbia River barges to UP's engines at the Hinkle switchyards. 10 An additional Alberta-California pipeline system paralleling the existing Pacific Gas Transmission line was completed in 1981. Electrical Transmission Lines BPA maintains two lines: (1) 500 KV running NE/W; and (2) 230 KV running SE/NW with proposed addition of another 500 KV line in conjunction with existing capacity.9 K-8 .... I R27E ,T 6 N T3N T 1 N T1S T2S R 28 E >- f- Z ::l o U R 29 E R 30 E R33 E ·',rw ~ww .,. ~1 .....I-R_3_1~EoI---r-_R_32_E~.,... --r_R_3_4_E_1_R_35_E,:r~.;o..;...:'--I--'-'"""-"-'---T_.I\~lj E .Ii :j\' L '! ; ~ fi,~ 11 7j~J'" 1 ~ I.. ~lI ~ I >- f- Z ::l o U PILOT ROCK " l ; T 3 S T45 T5 S I fi S 3= _rc- __...-f- 0 iI: ~..J II: ~--r- z0 0 :E UMATILLA I _.I z ::l NATIONAL , FOREST I GRANT COUN.TY LEGEND MAJOR HIGHWAYS MAJOR RAILROADS MAJOR AIRPORTS MAJOR TRANSPORTATION 00~ illlY ~ ~ ~fA1 ®®(lfJ ~~Yl~® 00~@®~ o 3 6 12 MUZ 14 I 11ij SCALE IN MILES ~ -, I I >- ... Z ::J o U z o Z ::J , --' ..--J._ .---•.. - ..--t-----f--,,:....,..~-I-".j"~ '1!W11lr-!I....----Io-I.-..... ,h,' &. ~:I I I , .., 1.._ NATIONAL , FOREST I i------,f'--A--t---r-r-. "il,.' ;'----1" I----H---M----r!~-r r-l j r J ( rJ, I :- J , >- ... Z ::l o U r !is T55 r IS TJS T6N T4 5 11 N ....._ ... wmw,~~q.."I'.•'4i!"!Ii!'l'M~••n..-F1811i(/>MH.dllllllll...IlPlll·IIIilU·...a--."'IIIWlU1IlIlItI1__DlIIlMl2'JmillilURl__.....,..Q!...toIQlJ(~l R27E R2BE Ft29E RJOE R31 E HJH: _.I_:I~_)I_·.of...._IIJ6E n3/[_fllll{ ... tl:I~'1 1 ,-,.,----- " T . i I I! ~,} ~ \ .J-~ II ~ "--'T-:-t 1\1:4 : 1~ ~g r' ! I ~! r.J I GRANT COUNTY _... LEGEND BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISr8ATION TRANSMISSION LINES PACIFIC GAS TRANSMISSION LINE STANDARD OIL PIPELINE NORTHWEST GAS PIPEl'H:S MAJOR UTILITY LINES OO~illu~~~~ ©(IDOO~uW~.ill@_~J~®~ o 3 6 12 qm~1 SCALE iN M1lES SOURCES East Central Oregon Association of Counties, Overall Economic Development Program Phase I, 1970. Oregon Department of Transportation, 1-82 Corridor Study, October 1972. Oregon State Highway Division, Traffic Volume Tables, 1975. Oregon Department of Transportation, Six Year Highway Improvement Program 1979-1984, 1978. Umatilla County Road Department, Road Maps, March 1977. East Central Oregon Association of Counties, Overall Economic Development Program Phase II, 1977. Industrial Land Location Study, Cornell, Howland, Hayes and Merryfield, January 1965. Meyers, Joseph D., Plan for Development of the Mid-Columbia Waterfront, State Department of Commerce, 1966. Proposed Fiscal Year 1979 Program Facility Planning Supplement Southwest Oregon Area Service, Final EIS, U.S. Department of Energy, January 1979 DOEjEIS-0005-DS-2. 10. Umatilla County Economic Analysis, East Central Oregon Association of Counties, January 1979. 11. The Alberta-California Pipeline System Environmental Report, Pacific Gas Transmission Company and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 1972. K-11 ENERGY CONSERVAT10N The era of inexpensive and unlimited energy has come to an end. 1 As world and United States supplies of heavily depended upon fossil fuels dwindle, prices have and will continue to rise. Electrical energy, which is predicted to become increasingly depended upon in the next 20 years in the United States, is likely to follow a similar fate. Rising energy costs affect everyone. Energy experts say energy consumption cannot continue at the present wasteful rate without considerable ramifications to basic lifestyles. A United States Department of the Interior report postulated that in 1975, Americans wasted more fuel than was used by two-thirds of the world's population. 2 It. is clear that Oregonians and other Americans must come to grips with problems of energy availability and usage. Are there solutions to today's energy problem? Fortunately, there are numerous methods available to better utilize energy supplies and improve the overall energy picture. In total, these methods can be termed energy conservation. Energy conservation has many benefits. It has been estimated that the United States could meet all its needs for the next 25 years by improving the efficiency of existing uses. In addition, conservation programs could save billions of dollars yearly.3 It creates jobs especially benefitting unskilled labor. Energy /---) conservation reduces pollution and conserves scarce resources. Finally, producing energy through conservation is six times less expensive than building new power plants. 4 Knowing that conservation is important will not conserve energy. Some say national policies are necessary to initiate effective conservation actions. It is inter- esting, however, that many energy experts believe local governments have better techniques for dealing with energy problems than the federal government. Through the exercise of legislative, regulatory, administrative, and political power, local energy conservation planning can result in immediate and significant energy savings far greater than national energy programs. 5 Energy Conservation Conservation measures applicable to Umatilla County can be divided into three categories: (1) use of renewable energy sources supplemental to existing supply types, (eg, solar heating in summer-electric or gas heating in winter); (2) other conservation programs and projects, (eg, recycling metallic/non-metallic wastes and utilization of regional pump storage facilities); (3) use of applicable land use planning measures reducing energy requirements, (eg, building codes regulations reducing material costs to solar built home). Supplemental Renewable Energy Resources Eastern Oregon sun and wind are two renewable energy sources which can play important future roles in conserving traditional and depleting resources. An analysis of each follows: L-l - ------- -----_._--- - ----------- A. Sun. Use of the sun for energy is practical in many parts of the Pacific Northwest according to an Environmental Protection Agency Report dated May 1978. The report concluded that the abundant amount of sunshine days (200 in some parts of Eastern Oregon and Washington) and other favorable weather considerations (eg. small heating require- ments when comparing daytime and nightime temperature differences) were major assets for economical solar energy application. Surprisingly, Oregon receives more useful solar radiation for heating than many southern states.7 This is primarily due to the length of the heating season. Solar heating is also becoming less expensive. For many years using the sun for heat sources was too expensive--more costly than heating with conventional fuels. Now, however, the price of oil isn't far behind. With future OPEC price hikes on eetroleum and new federal energy taxes, these trends will continue. Heat from the sun, which costs nothing, and with technology improving solar equipment efficiency and costs, the use of the sun's energy will probably become a future reality in the planning area. Another reason solar energy can be a practical energy source is that minor potential air, land, water, solid waste, and health impacts result from its wide spread use. This is especially true when comparing environmental risks involved with nuclear power development. Finally, solar energy has a practical use today--providing an alternative energy supply to oil, gas and electricity. This not only helps lower overall consumption of these conventional sources, but also provides local residents with a more flexible and reliable supply system. 7 For example, . depending on geographical location, about 65 percent of the energy needs to operate a home will be used for space heating and about 20 percent for hot water. If some of the non-renewable fossil· fuel~ used trr generate that energy could be put to othe.r uses, oil·and gas supplies will last longer and provide more time to develop other energy sources.8 It is important that this technical report outline some of the current practical uses of solar energy in Eastern Oregon. Although detailed analysis of both the resource potential and development cost of solar energy (for that matter most other renewable resources except hydro- electric developme~t) has not been made for this area of Oregon. Preliminary studies indicate the following potential solar energy uses: swimming pool heating; residential space heating; residential water hearing; agricultural crop drying; and process heating for industries. For brevity, swimming pool heating will not be analyzed other than to mention that active solar swimming pool heating (active meaning solar energy collected and distributed by mechanical means) in the Pacific Northwest is the most cost effective application of solar energy. Typical years-to-peak even periods are less than ten years. 9 Solar use for agricultural crop drying or for industrial process heating will also not be analyzed because virtually no data, especially economic, exists for such applications. There is significant solar use potential for these two activities, however. L-2 Solar space and water heating for residential purposes are worth discussing. Oregonians on the average use 31 percent of their personal energy supply for space heating and six percent for water heating. Moreover, space heating is the single greatest user of energy in the home, often using as much as 80 percent of the household energy budget. 10 With such a significant portion of energy used and budgeted for space heating, solar energy has tremendous potential for supplementing other energy sources used for residential space heating. Locally, as well as regionally, solar space heating can include both active and passive systems. Active systems, as earlier defined, are those where solar energy is collected and distributed by mechanical means. Passive systems use solar energy naturally, contain little mechanical hardware and require little or no energy to distribute the heat in the building. Residential space heating in Eastern Oregon is more effective and economical when passive systems are used. These systems are generally limited to new construction which can be integrated into architectural plans at little additional cost. According to a University of Oregon study, some passive systems can meet 60 to 70 percent of a residence's space heating needs in the Northwest. Passive solar space heating systems are the most cost effective application of solar heating to date. I ! Active solar space heating for residential home use is less cost' effective than other solar applications. Typical payback periods are longer than ten years. 12 A solar/heat pump combined cycle studied by the Northwest Energy Pol icy Project group has typical lIyears-to- break-even" periods longer than 15 years in the Northwest and Eastern Oregon. Water heating by solar radiation appears to be attractive in Eastern Oregon. Such heating requires an average amount of sunlight and is not usually affected by outside air temperatures. Again, passive water heating systems are most cost effective. B~ Wind. The largest potential use of wind in Eastern Oregon is for pumping or moving irrigation water. Used successfully in the past, economics and technology are again stimulating the possible use of wind for pumping water. Estimations of energy savings using wind compared with electricity to move water are not presently available nor will likely be in the near future. Potential sites are being examined, however, and many sites in the Columbia Gorge are promising. With the tremendous development of irrigated agricultural pumping water from the Columbia and escalating electricity costs, wind energy to pump water here seems a distant possibility. Generation of electricity is another potential use of wind. Currently, the economics of electric wind generation as a viable energy source or even a supplemental source,is speculative. The unpredictability of wind is the major problem. Normally, adequate storage areas also undermine the economical operations of a wind generating plant. This is not true in the Pacific Northwest where large water reservoirs can be utilized as the storage system for captured wind energy. L-3 Concluding, detailed studies are needed to evaluate the most appropriate and efficient uses of wind power. Initially, the future appears bright. Opportunities such as preserving sites for future wind generation and economical incentives to stimulate the development and operation of wind machines should be pursued. Should wind power prove to become economically feasible in the future, millions of dollars will he saved by not using other depleting non-renewable energy sources. Energy Conservation Opportunities from Metallic/Non-Metallic Waste Reuse and Recycli n[ Utilization of waste material for its energy content and supplemental energy source now plays a significant role in Oregon's energy picture. It is estimated that about 15 percent of Oregon's total energy supply is from woodwaste alone. Studies indicate ·that by the year 2000, the use of woodwastes as an energy source will increase by one and one-half to two times its present use. 13 There is a potential for much greater use of other waste materials to produce usable energy. Crop residues, municipal wastes, and wood by-products are available in or adjacent to the planning area. These materials and other wastes which have often been di scarded may well become important sources of ene rgy. Local analysis of recyc'ling waste or discarded materials for reuse and energy are nearly non-existent. Existing and future energy saving contributions are also unknown. Area businessmen, industrial concerns and the Umatilla County Solid Waste Committee have, however, indicated that recycling presently has problems. The chief obstables are economic--mainly the cost of separating out the waste, transporting it to a center for processing and competition from virgin materials. 14 Other local problems with recycling are insufficient quantities of materials and difficulty in locating a sustained, profitable market for the waste materials. I5 Some attempts to reuse and recycle the waste mat~rials ar~ meeting with limited success. One method is the voluntary separation of materials such as paper, glass and metal from normal household garbage so that it can be kept separate for recycling purposes. Individuals have viewed this procedure as inconvenient. Another method consists of setting up centers where individuals can bring recyclable materials. By and large, the above activities have met with only limited success because of the effort that is required on the part of the individual or business to operate or deliver materials to a collection point. Limited quantities and markets, as earlier noted, are added negative factors. Even though economic recycling to date is not efficient, the tremendous potential use of waste material as an energy form and the savings involved in recycling valuable depleting resources, warrant~ future encouragement and opportunities. A less obvious opportunity to conserve energy locally has come about through studies by the Corps of Engineers suggesting a regional pumped-storage facility. The pump storage concept offers additional peaking supplies of hydroelectric generating potential. Water is pumped from a lower el~vation during lesser electricity demand periods, to a reservoir above the generating facilities for use during high demand periods. This enhances the hydroelectric characteristic which enables steam generated plants to operate at constant, more efficient levels with daily peaking demands met by stored, easily activated hydro power. L-4 The proposed Juniper Canyon site has the necessary qualities for storing water to provide some future power peaking needs in the region. For example, the site affords relatively low development cost, is near a load center, and initially appears to be the most environmentally and socially acceptable of the numerous sites studied. 16 Potential irrigation benefits are possible should the site prove useful when advanced reconnaissance studies are finished. Energy Conservation Through Regulatory Techniques Pre-planning and well thought out policy application can significantly reduce future energy requirements. There are numerous conservation opportunities available if local regulatory ordinances and rules (eg. comprehensive plans, zoning and subdivision ordinances) are modified to recognize the benefits of conserving energy.• If each of these energy conservation oriented laws is applied in a systematic way, significant savings can result. Following are analysis and recommendations most effectively facilitating conservation opportunities. Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive land use plans are an effective way to encourage wide-spread energy conservation measures. They encompass all recommendations which guide land use decisions of a county, city, or special district. A conservation conscious plan can require that local land use controls such as zoning and sub- division ordinances and building permits consider energy saving techniques. Controlling urban sprawl is one area in which comprehensive planning policies can have a great impact upon reducing energy consumption. Sprawl development spreads land uses over a large area, thus both increasing the public's bondage to private auto use and city and county costs for additional road and utility extensions. So important is the aspect of controlling urban sprawl that the Oregon Legislature proposed and adopted an Urbanization Goal (Goal #14). Each city is required to jointly establish with their respective county an urban growth boundary where city services including streets, water and sewer service, street lights, etc. can be logically and economically provided. This has the effect of permitting new development in areas around a city where lower energy costs for services and transportation can be realized. Joint management agreements are essentially "management plans" allowing the county to administer a city plan for the urban growth area. These agreements are necessary because complete city control over these lIcountyli lands are not presently statutorily possible. The Urban Growth Boundary and Joint Management Agreement, along with coordinated and consistent county land use actions outside these boundaries, will conserve enormous amounts of energy. Periodic review and updating of urban growth boundary areas will continue to facilitate energy conservation. Transportation policies in the plan can also be instrumental in conserving energy. Possibly the most pertinent policies for county consideration are those which shift some traffic to more fuel efficient modes. For example, railroads are the most fuel efficient means for overland transportation of freight, using only one quarter as much energy to carry cargo as a truck. I ? Their operation for this purpose should be encouraged whenever possible. Since rail transportation in the planning unit is used heavily for transporting agricultural products, and offers farmers favorable rate schedules for the diversified crops grown, planning policies encouraging increased rail use are appropriate and energy conserving. L-5 Use of mass transit systems can also save many gallons of fuel daily. Although more economically efficient within urban concentrations where people, jobs and shopping places are located) several experimental and rural-oriented mass transit programs may prove to be energy saving. The Umatilla-Morrow Demonstration Trans- portation Project (UMOTRA) is one example. UMOTRA is a commuter service in northern Morrow and western Umatilla County funded by the Federal Highway and Urban Mass Transportation Administration. Passenger vehicles purchased with grant monies provide daily commuter transit to and from industries and agricultural processing facilities. Operating costs are borne by the local participants. Currently this pilot project has not developed for lack of needed matching funds. The effectiveness of UMOTRA cannot be assessed until realization and advancement of the program. More study needs to be done on this and other rural mass transit projects. In the meantime) the county should encourage successful programs and provide technical' assistance to participants. Energy saving land use policies are also applicable to commercial and industrial designated lands. Properly situated uses (eg. small rural commercial facilities located near rural residential concentrations to conserve transportation fuel and building orientation to the sun offer energy alternatives and savings) and appro- priate weatherization) insulation, and landscaping requirements can produce energy savings. Some industries offer opportunities for cogeneration of electricity or generating electrical energy and using associated waste heat for additional processing. Industries also offer another energy conservation alternative--community waste energy systems. They would use waste heat from industrial processes as heat for a district or local r~sidential heating network. This type of system is currently being used in other locati~ns quite successfully. Loc~lly, the feasi- bi lity o"f such systems is unknown. F'ut~re cons.i derat ion ts recommended in 1i ght of the agri -related and other' i ndustri a1 development occurring i nthe county. Although Oregon's statewide planning Jaw encoqrages provisions for solar energy, the act stops short of requi ring local governments to adopt solar energy prov; si ons in their ordinances. Since initial studies show local advantages of solar energy use, this plan will encourage such use and will recommend appropriate modifications to existing ordinances. The reader should examine each of the following manage- ment systems for speclfic solar energy recommendations as well as other energy conservation techniques. Zoning Ordinance Solar energy use and future protection to that source would profit most from altering zoning ordinances to include energy conservation measures. Zoning prescribes setback and height limitations both influencing how sunlight may reach solar equipment for space heating purposes. Several new setback arrangements permit greater use of the sun. Termed zero lot-line and clustering (see figures 1 and 2), both allow necessary flexibility to the traditional rigid setback requirements which often poorly utilized outdoor space. These two setback types are now incorporated into the existing zoning ordinance, but are seldom used by developers and builders and not correlated with solar energy use. In other words, the benefits of flexible site planning need to be impressed upon developers, builders, re~idents and decision makers. Future improvements that may cast shadows on neighboring homes will require height and non-obstruction regulations. Some cities have adopted ordinances, or amended their zoning ordinances to permit acquisition of "air space easements" or Il so1ar skyspace easements" so adjacent property owners can protect their right to use the sun for heating. Private parties would be allowed to enter into agreements (eg. easements, covenants) in deed or other instrument forms which will legally protect the solar skyspace of an existing or proposed solar energy system •. The easement would forbid or limit activities or land uses interfering with access to solar energy. County residents would benefit if similar provisions were incorporated into the county zoning ordinance and other applicable implementing plans. Care must be taken, however, in drafting a zoning ordinance that protects sunlight because in certain instances the resulting reduction in property rights of adjacent landowners may be so great as to constitute a taking. This is especially true in cities where structures are clustered closer together. Scrupulous examination should precede the above recommendation. Landscaping can provide valuable contributions to energy conservation. If required in a zoning ordinance, all uses (eg. residential, commercial, industrial) could collectively be required to shade their buildings. Especially beneficial is the thermal performance of landscaping. During winter, shrubs, bushes, and particularly trees can act as wind breaks and reduce heat loss from buildings. In the summer their surfaces (ie. leaves) absorb radiation, provide shade, and create cooling by evaporation processes. 18 Here in Umatilla County, landscaping could playa particularly useful energy saving role with our hot summers and windy weather. To achieve efficient shading, trees need to be placed strategically on lots, especially those aligned with solar use in mind. For example, morning and late afternnon sunshine is at a low altitude. Trees or landscaping would have their best performance if located on the southeast, southwest, or west sides of a home, business or industry. While shade is valuable in summer, sunlight is more welcome in winter. Therefore, trees located on the south, southeast or southwest sides of a building should be the type that shed their leaves in winter. An additional note about landscaping is its wind breaking benefits and corres- ponding reduction of heating requirements. Calculations indicate that the heating load on a house with a 20 mph wind is about 2.4 times as great as with a 5 mph wi nd .19 Encompassing a variety of energy conservation techniques,is the Planning Unit Development concept. Often located within zoning ordinances, PUD's offer a more creative approach to the development of land than possible through the strict application of both zoning and subdivision requirements. Traditional lot design and rectangular street patterns can be varied--taking advantage of aesthetic open space qualities, natural landscaping capabilities and interesting building schemes. When considering solar energy use, if lots, streets and buildings can be planned together, maximum protection and use is afforded. PUD's best facilitate this coordination. Other incentives include increasing densities and lessening street standards if open space amenities are provided. Neighborhood streets, if properly planned, can be considerably reduced and standards lessened without impeding either the flow of traffi~ or the safe operation of fire equipment. This means that the total paved area is less, reducing both the energy and resources involved in installation. Similarly, commercial and industrial developments may also take advantage of the Planning Unit Development. L-7 Figure 1 Zero Lot Line Layouts .....t.~......................i...t - Seperate Idenity Corrroon Wall " : J ... .. , .... .... .... ~ ""- I ~ 1Il I I I I I I Planned Unit Development With Reduced Front Setback "--------------------------------------------------T I I I I I I I I •I I I I ....................... .................... . .. ' . .................. . :-:-:.:.>:-:-:-:.:-: :-:-:-:-:.:-:-:-:-:-:.:-: .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. ,.----1:<:....:-:.:..<-: -: -: .. :-: -: -: -: :-: -: -:.: -: -: -: -: -: .. :-:-: --:-:.:.:.:.:.:--:-:.:-:.:-:-:.:-:-:-:-:. .......................................... .............. . .................................. ............. . ................................... . ............ io . .................................... . ................................... ................................... . ............ . ............ .. .............. Back to Back 4--Unit Cluster Figure 2 CLUSTERING L-8 Triplex Or Townhouse Cluster I L I I I II I /l ( ~. At present, Umatilla County has a PUD procedure in the county zoning ordinance. This is being eliminated in favor of a cluster development approach. In appropriate areas, cluster developments should be encouraged, especially where energy conser- vation and solar energy use is advocated and the development can be integrated successfully into the surrounding community. Subdivision Ordinance Subdivision laws can also produce energy conservation savings. For example, landscaping considerations are equally effective included here as in the zoning ordinance earlier examined. When subdivisions and partitions are proposed, landscaping plans could be imposed as one prerequisite for approval. More importantly, however, is the aspect of optimum solar orientation that can be achieved through.pre-planned subdivision designs. Streets laid out in easterly and westerly directions along with lots designed to capture maximum north and south exposures, will help insure future opportunities for solar energy utili- zation. Existing subdivisions should be encouraged to seek solar sky space easements and other protective programs included within the zoning ordinance. Subdivision laws regulate street standards. The significance here is that often jurisdictions require excessive street standards or improvements. If properly planned to meet safety and circulation needs of the community, pavement widths and required rights-of-way could be relaxed. This action can save valuable land and conserve natural resources (eg. sand and gravel). Although not particularly the case in the planning area where road standards have often been too lax, future partitions and subdivisions should still be reviewed with land and other natural . resource depletions in mind, yet still allowing safety and circulation. Please note that flexible road standards and designs are allowed in Planning Unit Developments discussed earlier in the Zoning Ordinance section above. Building Codes Building code regulations greatly affect space heating efficiency. Since space heating consumes nearly 80% of the household energy budget and the low energy rates once enjoyed by area residents are rising, there is now economic incentive to encourage space heating efficiency. Installation of insulation is effective in this regard. Umatilla County is subject to the Statewide Uniform Building Code. The code is administered by the State Department of Commerce. Regulations stipulate that new housing have insulation, but these requirements are minimals. With escalating energy costs, homeowners will likely be forced to weatherize beyond current state requirements. 20 Also, Eastern Oregon sustains longer and more severe cold periods further necessitating increased insulation standards. Design features such as less glass area, double glazing of windows, and building methods reducing outside air infiltration are additional approaches to conserve fuel by minimizing heat loss. A logical approach helping to insure local energy savings is the initiation of a county administered building code. This program would recognize local peculiarities and situations relating to energy needs and conservation oppor- tunities. It must he made clear that these local energy conservation measures will be most cost effective during new construction. Loaning institutions need also be stimulated to recognize insulation and other heat retention benefits when computing construction loans. Perhaps loan rates and/or amounts could be reduced L-9 if effective conservation measures are incorporated into building blueprints. It is important then, s soon as practical, to investigate the feasibility of establishing a county building department with required energy conservation standards. Existing homes, especially older residences, present different energy conserva- tion problems than newly constructed ones. Some communities are applying conser- vation performance standards when a home is offered for sale. The house has to meet certain standards improving heat loss amounts before it is allowed to be sold. Locally, it would be more practical to provide public education and consulting programs for homeowners who wish to weatherize their homes. Also, Oregon home- owners now can take advantage of certain tax relief measures available when weatherizing existing dwellings. Local residents would benefit if made aware the program exists. Similar tax measures might also be supported. A locally managed" building code Should also encourage solar-designed construction. Often building codes are prohibitive in this area, either allowing special designs and materials with a costly review procedure or having no latitude for solar construction at all. Oregon·s statewide building code is a minimum code, adopted prior to development of today·s solar technology. To remove the above impedi- ments a local designed building code becomes an advantage. L-IO SOURCES 1. Oregon Energy Conservation and Resource Development Plan, Oregon Department of Energy, February 1977, p. 3. 2. IIRelationships of Energy to Land Use," Yamhill County Planning Department - Energy Office, November 1977, p. 1. 3. Ibid, p. 1. 4. Ibid, p. 41. 5. Ibid, p. 1. 6. National Wildlife Federation Magazine, "How Solar Energy Can Work For YOU," Volume 16, No.3, April-May 1978, p. 40. 7. Oregon's Energy Future, Oregon Department of Energy, January 1, 1978, pp. 57, 58. 8. "Solar Energy and Your Home," U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, information pamphlet, no date, p. 4. 9. Solar Energy for Pacific Northwest Residential Heating, U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region XOffice, May 1978, p. 1-15. 10. "Rel at i onshi ps of Energy to Land Use, II p. 7. 11. Solar Energy for Pacific Northwest Heating, p. III-58. 12. Ibid, p. 1-5. 13. Oregon's Energy Future, p. 60. 14. Solid Waste Management Plan - Umatilla Region; R.W. Beck and Associates, Seattle, Washington, February 15, 1974, p. IV-20. 15. Ibid, p. IV-2. 16. "Studygram,ll U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Pacific Division Issue 78-01, February 27, 1978, p. 2. 17. IIRelationships of Energy to Land Use, II p. 35. 18. Ibid, p. 16. 19. Ibid, p. 17. 20. Ibi d, p. 8. L-11 APPENDIX A. Cultivation Parcel Size Review, C. Reeder B. Homesite Number and Location Summary, Rural Areas, Umatilla County, C. Reeder C. Helen Timmerman Testimony D. Resolutions E. Grazing/Forest Land Assessment Sheets F. Steven Corey.Letter G. Boise Cascade Letter H. Tollgate Committee Report I. South County Mountain Report J. Cunningham Sheep Company Letter CLINTON B. REEDER 1 PhD l~J.gricultural Economist Star Roo} Box 42 1 Pendleton) Oregon 97 eJ 01 ;,0.3-276-92 7 '~J Umatilla county- Planning Depa.rtment Umatilla County Court House Pendleton} Oregon CULTIVATION PARCEL SIZE REVIEVi! General Comments As indicated in our previous discussions} the bac1cground data base in the technical report section of the Umatilla Cou.nty Comprehensive Plan} relative to the appropriate parcel size for the county did not.. in my opinion} adequately consider the "natural" parcel sizes caused by phJ'I'sical terrain features) plus roads.. railroads.. etc. so comtnon throughout the area.. nor does the current data base in the proposed Plan for the county adequately consider "cultivation units" (parcels farmed separately from one another due to various farm management goals} as '."lell as due to the terrain and other natural features). The emphasis on "ovvnership units" considers only the configuration of deed lines and does not reflect the manner in which farm land is cultivated. It seems reasonable ro Ine that "continuing the ~xisting conlmercia.1 resource use" criteria vvill require that the likely manner of continued cu.1tivation ta.ke precedence over deed lines in ~valu.ating the appropriateness of land parcels. These "cultiva.tion units" are each formally identified and measu.red as separate parcels on the AgricUltural Stabiliza.tion and Conservation Service Maps (ASCS/USDA). These maps are one of the primary tools by Vv11ich the government farm programs are managed in the local counties. They ~onstitu.te a primary basis for reviemng proper program compliance by land ovmersloperatorsJ and for making or denying payments to farmers and lando'w'llers participating in the gOT'lernment programs. These maps are made from aerial.photos} aJe regularly u.pdated) are definitiv'e enou.gh to show the pattern of cultiva.tion and harvest in the fields} and are readily available for periodic review. I have revie',',led and summarized each such CUltivation u.nit a total of 1}2 }:. measured lJ.nit.s.. in over eight complete to"vnships in Umatilla County'. If one considers that many measured units on the ASCS maps are farmed in mu.ltiple cultivation unit.s) a,s indicated in the ata.ched summaries} the number of cu.1t.ivatioll u.nits reVie"iNed was 1.. &11. Th~ tovvnships revieTNed V,lere s€'l~cted to fa.irly reflect the overall land llS~ patterns for the various p8.rts of the cou.nty that are actively farmed.. I / ")1,. .1. .•.. A Page 2 ext.ending up into tile foothills areas 'Where the transition frorn field cultivation to grazing occurs. The a.reas r€'vh1~NtS'd are: 1. North ~Nest Countv, 2. North East County 3. South County 4. East County Foothills 5. Sou.th county Foothill The data \"laS sumnlarized to do~~um€'nt (jiHer~t1c~s in basic land use patoornsJ with resp€'(~t to cultivation unit SiZ€'1 anlC)ng th€' various areas of the county. Areas 1}2}3 each reflect both irrig{"1t·I'·d and dryland practices; areas 4 and 5 are presented both separately and aggregated into a single "foothills area". The data is presented in the foUo\Aling forrflats: 1. TO"W!lshiR sunlmaries-- frequency distributions sllc)wing the distribution of cultivation units among various acre size categories and among various boundary configurationsJ indicating both tht7 numb~r of parcels in each category and the percent of parcels in €tach category. This summary also indicates the tota.1 acrtS's in parcels measured on th~ ASCS maps that are fartned in tllultiple cultivation units and the number of cultivation units therein for each. T'\hlO such to"vnship areas constitute the sample- from which a Major Area sumrnary was developed, .2. Ma.jor Ar~a sutnmaries-- each includes t,A,lO tovvnship areas) showing the p~rcent distribution of cultivation units among various acre size catJf1gorlesJ foreachto'\hinsl1iPJ'and°t1iesanie typ~ disttibu.tion for tlle aggr~gate of the"t,'-'lo townshfpsl to reflect th~ overa,1l1and use'pattern for the Major Area. 3. Major brea graRhs--graphic presentation of the distribution of cultivation unit sizes in each Major AreaJ compared to overall distribution pattern anlong all Major Areas of the county GOtnbined, 4. Count}.T-"\lide summarY.:,--the distribution of oJ.1tivatlon units for all til€' Maior Areas of the county cOfnbined. 5. Cou!1ty-vvid€' graRh--graphicpres~ntr3.tionof the distribution of cultivationunitsatnong tile various acre size- cat.egories for each Major Area plusth(t grapH of the cornbined distribution thereof for the ov~rall county. General Finding§. The aerial phOt.o nlaps indicate farnl land in Umatilla Count)' is subdivided into various parcel sizes based on the folh'),tV'ing factors: 1. Nat.u.ral1andform features 2. Transportion featu.res 3. Ivlan-rnade features} for conservation purposes 4. Irrigation . 5. Estate settletnents e H·)m,,,hl'-i1.r tl·+-.!, '":1+-, ·-t f·-·rt-n'......A·~d E=;rc't-:.bl1·"'1-1!"rlp.ntJ• .1 '" .1~Iv' _U.1\.... .1l5 Q •.ui,.-l- o. .1 .;)l,.Aj"C,. .·oJ .<.,) ':;.1 "" .. / - Page 3 A. Natural Landfornl Features: For the most pa.rt, it becolnes obvious from the review of the aerial photos of the county farmland that the cultiva.tion units a.re defined primarily by the natu.ral features of the landscape--rock outcroppings, shallow soils, drainages, rivers and strea.ms, bluffs, and steep slopes. It is for this primary reason, that the distribu.tion of cultiva.tion units alnong the various size categories among the various Major Areas of the county is almost identical. (See illustration maps No. ) RECOMMENDATION. No Conlprehensive Plan requirements are likely to cause an}1 major alteration in the configu.ration of these parcel sizes, for Nature, not 1Ylan has been the predominant force in determining the size of land unit that vv.i11 be independently cultivated. The comprehensive pla.n should rea.1istically accou.nt for these permanent cultivation parcel sizes and not place parcel size requirements upon land use that cannot be satisfied due to natural landform features. B. TransRorta.tion fea.tures: The apparent second major factor in determining the (~onfigurat:ion of cultivation units is the various nlodifications to the landforms that are tnan -ITl8,de, especially roads and railroads, for the primary pu.rpose of moving farm prodUCts to nlarket and bringing farm produ.ction supplies to the farms. These features create permanentl}1 isolated independently cultivated units that, depending upon the nature of the boundaries other than the road or railroad, tnay remain isolated. Often a road or railroad mll isolate a triangular piece of land V\Tith corners that are difficult fo farm into efficiently, or V\1hich is difficu.lt to move machinery into across the road or railroad, that could be efficiently combined into a parcel on the !,')ther side of the road or railroad. (See illustration map No. ) RECOMMENDATION. The comprehensive plan should likel}l provide a. convenient avenue to create (deed separately) relatively small parcels for various fann management purposes} so that land trades and financing can be arranged to facilitate recombining land that has been isolated by man-made "barriers", C. Man-1nade featu.res l dire~t1x for farmingJ~urRoses: It is very obvious frotn the aeria.l phOtos that. ~A1b.en farmers undertake more int.ensive agricultu.ral practices, su.ch as the terra.cing and strip-cropping, the size cf clJltivat..i()o uoits is decreased. These conservation pra.ctices areo increasingly encoura.ged by public policy and are becoming rnore mandatory under the government farm progratns. (See illu.stration ma.p 1'1'o.--J As terraces, especially} are bu.ilt on a zero grade, follovving contour lines} the configu.ration of cultivation u.nitsb€'!'~omes 1nore complex} and vvill no dOUbt influence changes in farming practices and .in siz€' and nature of :rnachinery developed in coming years, as fa.rmers attetnpt to develop lueans of effich:ntly moving 8.mong smaller culbvation u.nits Page 4 in a way that maintains or ilnproves fanning efficiency r(11ativ~ to the efficiency of fartning la.rger cultivation u.nits. Often, existing practices on larger field sizes cannot be contlnued in a manner that sufficiently provides for longtenYl conservation of the land. RECOMMENDATION. Every at~!npt shou.ld be made to develop provisions in the Comprehensiv6' Plan which both a110"<"\1 for and encourage the developmE3'nt and implimentation of general fanlling and land nlanagement practices that conserve the soil for future generations, even though the ne-w practic~s involv<3- significant diversion from current practice. If the plan is too restrictive in pernlittJng deviations from current practice, tlle continued dev€rlopment and conservatlon of t1l~ la.nd 'Will be hindered rather than enhanced by the plan, thereby depriving rather than prOViding f()! future generations. D. Irrigation: The maps clearly indicate that the average size of cultivation unit decreases 'When tile land is changed frora dry land tnanagement practic~s to irrigation. The cultivation pattern is esp€i-~ially compHcawd by th~ use of th~ nlor~ effficient "circle" technology, '\Al11ich leaves significant acreage in the "diamonds" in among the circles, and the "triangles" on the outer boundaries of the Circles. T1H~ increased in~nsity of SUCll farming leads to the use of a cOfn.pletely different cotYlplemen t of rnachinery, different tirning of planting and harvest, and a tnucl1 'VVider variety of crops, many of V\1hich fequir~ haVing marketing contracts. RECOMMENDATION. ¥lith the increased cOf(.lpetition frofnother areas of the country and the world for !parkets for ~l€' inwnsivecropsgro~ in UmatillaC91Jnty,plus increases'in energy costs, plus d~v(:ther government fann programs.The larger the number of u.ndivided int&rests, the more difficult it can be to get agreement. T#hile at times there is one or more owner in such a situation that is simply ·'difficu.lt", there can be legitinlat.e rea.sons such as inadequate personal financial stat.us at a point in time to be able to participate, or differences in financial-tax status among ov.,ners that make participation att.:ractive to sotne o~....m.ers but not tj") all. RECOMMENDATION. The Comprehensive Plan can like11' best provide for ~fficient and economic continued cOlnmercial u.se of the land by prOViding flexibility in partitioning undivided ov·mership interests, so that land recombinations are enhanced follo\"Ting estate settlements and so that conservation and other land use practices can proceed on that share of the land vvbere tiiere are no objections, thus best maintaining-improving the ~conomics of land use and accelerating tile process of conserving the land for fu.ture generations. Ther€' should likely be a careful review of the pattern of cultivation unit size in any given area to deternline the likely minimum size that is ~conotnic to manage for continued fartn/resource use.. so that even in ~state sett1ern~nts the Cornprehensive Plan protects the land against too small a pa.rtiUon. While partitioning undiVided ovvnersllipinterests is desirable in general, the overall pu.blic interest nlust becorne lirniting 'N'hen the partitions create parcels too stnall to be of interest to commercial users \)f the resource lands. I also recommend that the Plan, if it can legally do so.' requ.ire that land ca.nnot be partiUoned in a ",Till or gift in 8. manner not allowed other'N1se in the Plan. F. Homebu.ilding: The maps indicate that. for the nlost part there are not ~. lot of homes in t11e rural ar€-8.s, and the 110mes tend tj") be loca.ted so as to Page 6 not too adversely interfere \hlith farming good land. The nlajority of rural homesights have a long history, and were located '400 TVPE OF PARCEL BOUNDAR IES ALL SECT ION THREE SECT. TWO SECT. ONE SECT. ALL LINE LINES, ONE LINES, TWO LINE J THREE IRREGULAR BOUNDARIES NATURAL NATURAL NATURAL BOUNDARI~S o 0 0 0 11 o 0 2 0 29 o 0 1 2 15 o a 0 1 22 o 0 23 8 o 1 1 0 16 1 1 2 1 35 1 1 3 0 25 4 1 2 2 10 a 1 000 1 0 0 1 0 1 a 2 0 0 o 3 2 2 0 TOTAL PARCELS 11 31 18 23 13 18 40 30 19 1 2 3 7 PERCENT OF PARCELS 5.09X 14.35~ 8.33% 10.65% 6.02% 8.33'"1. 18.52% 13.89~ 8.80% 0.46% 0.93% 1• 39~ 3.24i. NUMBER OF TRIANGLE UNITS* o 2 2 o o o o o 1 o o o o Totals Percent 8 3.70-": 8 3. 7a·/. 17 7.87"1. 12 5.56·1. 171 216 100.00% 5 79.17% 100.00% 2.31"1. * Included in the numbers to the left--NOT additional parcels **ASC5 measured management unite farmed in more than one cultivation un'i1: 1st number is acres, 2nd number is no. of cul tivation units. 577/3 166/2 346/3 622/4 604/4 407/5 135/3 196/2 829/4 150/2 102/15 (5) 418/3 181/2 168/3 106/3 309/2 147/2 433/4 for a total of 5,896 acres farmed in 66 cultivotion units for an average of 90 acres per unit Source: ASCS/USDA (Umotill a County) mops F8-1 0, G9- 10, H8-10 '\ CULTIVA TION PARCEL SIZE SUMMARV, NORTHWEST COUNTY AREA (T4N, R32E), UMA11LLA COUNTY TYPE OF PARCEL BOUNDARIES FARM ALL SECTIONTHREE SECT. TWO SECT. ONE SECT. ALL PARCEL LINE LINES, ONE LINES, TWO LINE, THREE IRREGULAR TOTAL SIZE (ACRES) BOUNDARIES NATURAL NATURAL NATURAL BOUNDARIES PARCELS <5 0 0 1 2 9- 12 5-9 .• 9 0 0 3 1 5 9 10-19. 9 0 0 1 2 3 6 20-39.9 0 0 ' 3 6 5 14 40-59.9 02 ? 3 0 12 60-79. 9 0 2 3 0 0 5 80-99.9 5 4 1 1 1 12 100-159.9 a 12 " 2 3 29 160-1 99. 9 12 6 1 0 0 19 200-239.9 0 2 3 1 0 6 240-299. 9 1 5 0 0 0 6 300-399.9 4 2 3 0 1 10 >400 2 2 3 0 3 10 PERCENT NUMBER OF OF TRIANGLE PARCELS UNITS* 5.581.. 74 4. 191.. total 2.79it for 6. 51 ~ all 5.58'1. maps 2. 33% reviewed 5.58% 13.49i: 8.84'1- 2.79'1. 2. 79-1. 4.65% 4.65'1. 74 49.331.. 100.00'1.30 150 20. 00'(. 100. OO~ Totals 32 37 33 18 Percent 21 • 33'(. 24.671.. 22.00'(. 12. 00% * Incl uded in the numbers to the 1eft--NOT additional parce1s **ASCS mea8ured management units farmed in more than one cul tivation unit: 1at number is acres, 2nd number is no. of cultivation uni'ts. 161/2 156/2 157/2 ~18/3 221/3 469/4 178/3 338/2 347/2 6212 362/3 524/3 887/8 2212 109/2 357/6 156/4 360/4 159/5 485/4 130/5 123/2 139/4 172/3 100/2 470/4 291/3 167/3 132/4 402/5 215/4 ~28/7 493/6 550/4 246/3 4512 163/4 2912 152/2 160/3 41/2 366/4 177/3 159/2 164/2 164/2 327/3 152/3 98/2 193/2 158/3 2312 239/3 81/2 40/2 551/8 732/6 732/6 630/7 360/3 322/3 298/4 273/4 421/3, for a total of 16, 777 acres farmed in 213 cul tivation units = 78. 8 average acres per cul tiYotion unit Source: ASCS/USDA (Ufr"lotilla County) maps F13-15, G13-15, H13-15 NORTHWEST COUNTY CULTIVATION PARCEL SIZE SUMMARV, UMATILLA COUNTY FARM T4N, R30E* T4N, R32E* AREA PARCEL PARCEL PARCEL COUNT SIZE (ACRES) COUNT percent COUNT percent TOTAL percent <5 11 5.09% 12 8.00i.. 23 6.28% 5-9.9 31 14.35~ 9 6.00i: 40 10.93~ 10-19.9 18 8.33~ 6 4.00i: 24 6.56% 20-39.9 23 10.65% 14 9.33% 37 10. 11 % 40-59.9 13 6.02~ 12 8.00% 25 6.83~ 60-79.9 18 8.33% 5 3.33% 23 6.281.. 80-99.9 40 18.52% 12 8.00~ 52 14.21% 100-159.9 30 13.89% 29 19.33% 59 16. 12~ 160-199.9 19 8.80% 19 12.67% 38 10.38~ 200-239.9 1 0.46% 6 4.00:1. 7 1.911.. 240-299.9 2 0.93% 6 4.00'1. 8 2.19:t. 300-399.9 3 1.39% 10 6.67% 13 3.55% >400 7 3.24% 10 6.67% 17 4.64% --------~---~~---~~~------------~-----~--- -------- Totals 216 100.00i.. 150 100.00% 366 100.00% * Number of cul tiva1ion units in respective size cate90rie~,EXCEPT A5CS measured management units farmed in more than one cul tiYQtion unit are counted onl yonce, as if they ",ere cultivation units the size of the meosured units (See illustration "Cultivation Unit Definition") Source: ASCS/USDA (Pendl eton, Ore. ) 01r;01 photo maps SIZE DISTRIBUTION, CULTIVATION PARCELS.. NORTH WEST UMATILLA COUNTY 18 .... NW COUNTY .0- COUNTY AVERAGE -/ /\~- " 4 2 6 14 12 10 16 ~ OF PARCELS o I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3 7 15 30 50 70 90 130 180 220 270 350 450 SIZE CATEGORV .. ACRES CULTIVATION PARCEL SIZE SUMMARY, NORTHEAST COUNTY AREA (T4N, R34E), UMATILLA COUNTY TYPE OF PARCEL BOUNDARIES FARM ALL SECTION THREE SECT. TWO SECT. ONE SECT. ALL PARCEL LINE LINES, ONE LINES, TWO LINE, THREE IRREGULAR TOTAL SIZE (ACRES) BOUNDARIES NATURAL NATURAL NATURAL BOUNDARIES PARCELS <5 1 0 3 1 2 ? 5-9.9 1 0 8 3 4 16 10-19.9 3 5 9 5 ? 29 20-39.9 1 7 7 3 19 37 40-59.9 2 51? 3 18 60-79.9 6 8 4 2 1 21 80-99.9 4 ? 5 0 2 18 100-1 59. 9 12 18 5 0 3 38 160-1 99. 9 9 ? 1 1 1 19 200-239. 9 1 1 2 0 1 5 240-299.9 2 0 0 0 0 2 300-399.9 2 1 0 0 0 3 >400 0 1 0 0 1 2 PERCENT OF PARCELS 3.26% 7&44~ 13.49X 17.21% 8.37% 9.77t. 8.37% 17.67:( 8.841. 2.33~ O.93~ 1.40-;' 0.93% NUMBER OF TRIANGLE UNJTS* 4 11 14 10 8 2 5 5 o o o o o 59 27.44% 100.001'.215 100.00':1. 44 20.47% Totals 44 60 45 22 Percent 20.47X 27.91:t. 20.93X 10.231.. * Incl uded in the number~ to the 1eft--NOT additional parcels **ASCS measured management units farmed in more than one cultivation unit: 1st number is acres, 2nd number is no. of cultivation unit~. 85/3 135/3 155/3 137/2 142/2 276/3 181/2 113/3 178/4 7715 97/2 149/4(T) 118/3 156/2 315/11(T) 317/3447/674/275/2127/2146/3110/2159/316912 174/5(T) 179/8(T) 309/2 163/2 106/2 250/4 167/5(T) 148/2 189/2 143/4 171/2 541/3 470/3 104/3 152/4 210/3 7913 41/2 160/3, for a total 01 7,768 acres farmed in 141 cultivation units =55 ocree average cultivation unit size, in fiel de 'Where each cul itvation unit is not separate l y measured on ASCS rnop 8011 1""ce: ASCS/USDA (Umatill Q County) maps F 1'-' ··21 '119-20, H19-21 ~\f CULT I \J ATI ON PARCEL SIZE SUMMARV, NORTHEAST COUNTY AREA (T5-6N, R36E), UMAT ILLA COUNTY TYPE OF PARCEL BOUNDAR 1ES FARM ALL SECT10N THREE SECT. TWO SECT. ONE SECT. ALL PARCEL LI NE LINES, ONE LI NES, TWO LINE, THREE IRREGULAR TOT AL SIZE (ACRES) BOUNDARIES NATURAL NATURAL NATURAL BOUNDARIES PARCELS <5 0 0 2 1 7 10 5-9. 9 0 1 5 0 7 13 10-19.9 0 0 2 2 4 8 20-39.9 1 2 11 5 4 23 40-59.9 0 1 9 1 6 17 60-79. 9 5 5 7 4 4 25 80-99. 9 '7 8 9 5 2 31 100-159.9 6 12 16 6 0 40 160-199.92 10 5 0 0 17 200-239. 9 1 2 1 1 1 6 240-299. 9 0 6 1 1 1 9 300-399. 9 0 2 1 0 0 3 >400 1 1 0 0 0 2 PERCENT OF PARCELS 4.90% 6.37'1. 3.92% 11 .27% ·8.331.. 12.25% 15.20% 19.61"1. 8.33% 2.94% 4.41% 1.47% 0.98% NUMBER OF TRIANGLE UNITS* 1 4 o 6 7 6 7 9 o o o o o 40 19.61'1. 100.00%204 100.00% 36 17.65% Total s 23 50 69 26 Percent 11 .27-.1. 24.51 f. 33.82% 12.75% *1 ncluded in the numbers to the 1eft--NOT additional parcel s **ASCS measured management units farmed in more than one cul tivation unit: 1st number is acres in the measured unit, 2nd no. is the no. of cul tivation units. 161/2 4812 298/9 (T ) 340/7 8713 124/5{T} 218/2 259/2 559/5 141/3 8013 74/2 257/5 262/2 197/3 280/2 8512 136/2 129/2 126/3 149/2 123/2 121/2 160/2 112/2 125/2 118/3 110/3 91/2 79/2 27/2 174/6 117/2 208/215613 6312 219/3 270/2 404/2 9"8/2 7812· 80/2 108/3 8312 99/2 307/3 4714 91/5 82/4171/3 47/2192/3 89/2 191/4 (T ) 60/2 112/2 117/2 for a total of 8, 946 acres farmed in 165 cul tivation units, for an average of 54 acres per unit Source: ASCS/USDA (Urnati11 a County) rr"lops A23-25, 823-25, C23-25 NORTHEAST COUNTY CULTIVATION PARCEL SIZE SUMMARY, UMATILLA COUNTY FARM T4N, R34E* TS-SN, R36E* AREA PARCEL PARCEL PARCEL COUNT SIZE (ACRES) COUNT percent COUNT percent TOTAL percent <5 7 3.26% 10 4.90~ 17 4.06'/. 5-9 •. 9 16 7.441.. 13 6.37% 29 6.92h 10-19.9 29 13.49'1. 8 3.92% 37 8.83:1. 20-39.9 37 1'7.21'1. 23 11 .2?% 60 14.32~ 40-59.9 18 8.37~ 17 8.33~ 35 8.35~ 60-79.9 21 9.?7'l. 25 12.25'1. 46 10.98'1. 80-99.9 18 8.371:. 31 15.20% 49 11 •69~ 100-159.9 38 1?S?'/. 40 19.61% 78 18.62'1. 160-199.9 19 8.84% 17 8.33'1. 36 8.591: 200-239.9 5 2.331. 6 2.94'1. 11 2.63~ 240-299.9 2 0.931.. 9 4.41% 11 2.63% 300-399.9 3 1• 401.. 3 1 .471: 6 1• 43i: >400 2 0.931.. 2 0.98'/. 4 0.95i: -------- --_ ..._.... - -_ ..._---- ~~----- ------- ----~-- Totals 215 100.00~ 204 100.00'1. 419 100.00'1. * Number of cultivation units in respective ~ize categories, EXCEPT ASCS measured management units farmed in more than one cultivation unit are counted only once, as if they 'Were cultivation units the slze of the measured units (See ill ustration "Cul tivation Unit Definition" ) Source: ASCS/USDA (Pendl eton, Ore. ) airial photo maps % OF PARCELS 20 18 16 14 12 ",.,..---,,\ SIZE DISTRIBUTION.. CULTIVATION PARCELS .. NORTHEAST UMATILLA COUNTY 3 7 15 30 50 70 90 130 180 220 270 350 450 SIZE CATEGORV.. ACRES ••- NE COUNTY -0- COUNTY AVERAGE CULTIVATION PARCEL SIZE SUMMARV, SOUTH COUNTY AREA (T2N, R29E), UMATILLA COUNTY FARM PARCEL SIZE (ACRES) <5 5-9.9 10-19.9 20-39.9 40-59.9 60-79.9 80-99.9 100-159.9 160-199.9 200-239.9 240-299.9 300-399.9 >400 TYPE OF PARCEL BOUNDARIES ALL SECT ION THREE SECT. TWO SECT. ONE SECT. ALL LINE LINES, ONE LINES, TWO LINE, THREE IRREGULAR TOTAL BOUNDARIES NATURAL NATURAL NATURAL BOUNDARIES PARCELS o 0 1 1 3 5 o 0 0 0 a 0 o a 3 a 3 6 o a 2 0 2 4 o 1 1 a 2 4 1 0 0 1 0 2 o 1 0 3 0 4 1 3 5 1 1 11 2 1 0 0 1 4 1 0 1 0 0 2 o 2 1 0 1 ... 2 0 2 0 1 5 1 0 0 1 1 3 PERCENT NUMBER OF OF TRIANGLE PARCELS UNITS* 9.26Z 1 0.00% 0 11.11% 3 7.41% 0 7.41% 0 3.70~ 0 7.41~ 1 20 .. 371: 0 7.41% 0 3.70% 0 7.41X 0 9.26% 0 5.561.. 0 Totals Percent 8 14.811.. 8 14.81X 16 29.63~ 7 12.96% 15 27.78% 54 100.001.. 100.00'1. 5 9,,261.. * Included in the numbers to the left--NOT additional parcels **ASCS measured management units formed in more than one cul t ivation uni1: 1st number is acree , 2nd number is no .. of cul tivotion units .. 324/2 523/4 360/2 291/2 5312 112/3300/2 163/2 306/2 ,for a totol of 2,432 acres formed in 21 cultivation units, for an average of 116 acres per unit Source: ASCS/USOA (Umatill Q County) maps LS-7, MS-7, NS-7 ~\ /r"'- CULTIVATION PARCEL SIZE SUMMARY, SOUTH COUNTY AREA (T1S, R32E), UMATILLA COUNTY FARM PARCEL SIZE (ACRES) <5 5-9.9 10-19.9 20-39.9 40-59.9 60-79.9 80-99.9 100.... ,59.9 160-199.9 200-239.9 240-299.9 300-399.9 >400 TVPE OF PARCEL BOUNDARIES ALL SECT ION THREE SECT. TWO SECT. ONE SECT. ALL LINE LINES, ONE LINES, TWO LINE, THREE IRREGULAR BOUNDARIES NATURAL NATURAL NATURAL BOUNDARiES o 0 1 5 21 o 0 1 ·,5 35 a 1 6 14 24 1 2 13 9 8 o 1 8 7 4 2 3 3 3 5 1 3 5 3 6 53? ? 10 1 3 0 2 3 o 1 3 0 1 o 1 2 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 0 010 TOTAL PARCELS 27 51 45 33 18 16 18 32 9 5 3 6 1 PERCENT OF PARCELS 10.23% 19.32% 17.05% 12. SOt. 6.82% 6.06% 6.821. 12.121.. 3.41% 1• 89% 1• 14% 2. 27·~ 0.38% NUMBER OF TRIANGLE UNITS* 1 2 2 5 o 1 1 1 o o o o a ---~~-------~--~---~~~---------------~---~---------~-~----------.------------------ 13 4.92% 100.001..264 100.00% 117 44.32i. Totals 11 18 50 68 Percent 4.171. 6.82% 18.94% 25.76% * Included in the numbers to the 1eft--NOT additional parcels **ASCS measured management units farmed in more than one cul tivation unit: 1~t number is acres, 2nd number 18 no. of cultivation units. 236/2 9012 331/8 509/3 240/3 128/3 152/2 153 2 5612 11 3/6 (T ) 210/21 (T , S ) 101/5 125/5 111/2 148/3 26/4 33/4 159/2 92/3 150/2 49/2 278/4 78/4 24/2 236/3 221/2 358/7 334/3 114/4 173/4 133/2 5412 38/3322/5 163/5 84/3 67/5 145/2 9112 135/4 106/3 367/6 1812 31 /4 349/2 126/5 for a total of 7, 257 acres farrJ!ed in 173 cul tivation units, for an average of 43 acres per unit Source: ASCS/USDA (Umatilla County) maps R13-15, 513-15, T13-15 SOUTH COUNTY CULTIVATION PARCEL SIZE SUMMARY, UMATILLA COUNTY FARM T2N, R29E* T1 S, R32E* AREA PARCEL PARCEL PARCEL COUNT SIZE (ACRES) COUNT percent COUNT percent TOTAL percent <5 5 9.26~ 27 10.23'f. 32 10.06'1. 5-9.9 0 0.00% 51 19.32% 51 16.04% 10-19.9 6 11.11~ 45 17.05% 51 16.04% 20-39.9 4 7.41% 33 12.50% 37 11 .64% 40-59.9 4 7.41-.t. 18 6.82% 22 6.92~ 60-79.9 2 3.70% 16 6.06i.. 18 5.66% 80-99.9 4 7.41% 18 6.82:<' 22 6.92% 100-159.9 11 20.37% 32 12.12~ 43 13.52*1. 160-199.9 4 7.411: 9 3.41% 13 4.09% 200-239.9 2 3.70% 5 1• 89'1. 7 2.20% 240-299.9 4 7.41~ 3 1• 14% ? 2.201.. 300-399.9 5 9.26·1. S 2.21'1. 11 3.461.. >400 3 5.56% 1 0.38% 4 1.26% -~~----------~---~---~-----~~-~---- -----~- ~------ Totals 54 tOO. 00'1. 264 100.00% 318 100.00~ * Number of cul tivation units in respective size categories, EXCEPT ASCS measured management units farmed in more than one cultivation unit are counted only. once, as if they were cul tivation units the size of the measured units Source: ASCS/USDA (Pendl eton, Ore. ) airial photo mops ('\\ .,- SIZE DISTRIBUTION, CULTIVATION PARCELS, SOUTH COUNTY AREA UMATILLA COUNTY 16 ---' ~ OF PARCELS 16 14 12 6 4 2 .-~-""/o_<>~ -.- SOUTH COUNTY -0- COUNTY AVERAGE o I I I I I I I I I I I I , 3 7 15 3050 70 90 130 180 220 270 350 450 SIZE CATEGORY, ACRES CULTIVATION PARCEL SIZE SUMMARY, SOUTH COUNTY FOOTHILLS AREA (T1S, R34E), UMATILLA COUNTY FARM PARCEL SIZE (ACRES) <5 5-9.9 10-19.9 20-39.9 40-59.9 60-79.9 80-99.9 100-159.9 160-199.9 200-239.9 2~O-299.9 300-399.9 >~oo TVPE OF PARCEL BOUNDARIES ALL SECT ION THREE SECT. TWO SECT. ONE SECT. ALL LINE LINES, ONE LINES, TWO LINE, THREE IRREGULAR TOTAL BOUNDARIES NATURAL NATURAL NATURAL BOUNDARIES PARCELS o 0 0 1 13 14 o 0 0 2 4 6 o 0 1 2 9 12 o 1 0 , 8 10 a 1 1 4 0 6 o 0 0 0 0 0 o 1 0 0 0 1 o 0 0 1 0 1 o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 000 o 0 0 0 1 1 o 0 0 000 o 0 0 0 0 0 PERCENT OF PARCELS 27.45% 11 • 76% 23.53% 19.61% 11 • ?6~ O.OO~ 1. 96~ 1.96% 0.00% O.OO~ 1.96% 0.00% 0.00'1. NUMBER OF TRIANGLE UNjTS* o o o o o o o o o o o o o Total~ Percent o O.OO~ 3 5.88% 2 3.92h 11 21.57~ 35 68.63% 51 tOO. 00% 100.004 o O.OOi. * Included in the numbers to the 1eft--NOT additional parcel ~ **ASCS measured management units farmed in more than one cul tivation unit: 1~t number is acres in the measured unit, 2nd no. is the no. of cul tivation units. 50/3 48/2 254/6 8012 for a total 432 acres farmed in 13 cul tivation units, for an average of 33 acres per unit SOURCE: ASCS/USOA (UMATILLA COUNT¥) maps R18-20, S18-20 ---_.__.- _.,----- ----_.- --" CUL TIVAT ION PARCEL 51 ZE SUMMARV, EAST COUNTY FOOTH ILLS (T5N, R37E), UMATILLA COUNTV FARM PARCEL SIZE (ACRES) 400 TYPE OF PARCEL BOUNDARI ES ALL SECT ION THREE SECT. TWO SECT•. ONE SECT. ALL LINE LINES, ONE LINES, TWO LINE, THREE IRREGULAR TOTAL BOUNDARIES NATURAL NATURAL NATURAL BOUNDARIES PARCELS 000 1 6 7 o 000 6 6 o 0 1 2 8 11 o 0 2 5 9 16 o 103 5 9 o 0 2 2 9 13 o 0 1 2 1 4 o 0 0 1 3 4 o 101 2 4 o 0 1 1 1 3 o 0 2 a a 2 o 0 0 000 o 0 0 0 0 0 PERCENT OF PARCELS 8.86'l.. 7.59/. 13.92% 20.25% 11 .39% 16.46% 5.06% 5.06% 5.06% 3.801.. 2.5381. 0.00'l.. 0.00% NUMBER OF TR·IANGLE UNITS* o o o 3 1 o 1 o o o o o o Totals Percent o 0.00% 2 2.53% 9 11 .39% 18 22.78% 50 63.29% 79 100.00% 100.001. 5 6.33% * Inc1uded in the numbers to the 1eft--NOT additional parcel s **ASCS measured managemen1 units farmed in more than one cul tivation unit: 18t number is acres in the measured unit, 2nd no. is the no. of cul tivation units. 269/4 11 6/3 9/2 6012 49/3 279/4 3212 52/2 231/3 229/7 (T ) 179/6 for a totol of 1 ,505 acres farmed in 38 cultivation units, for an average of 41 Clcres per unit Source: ASeS/USDA (Umatilla County) maps C26-28, 026-28, E26-28 FOOTHILLS AREA CULrrVATION PARCEL SIZE SUMMARY, UMATILLA COUNTY FARM T1S, R34 T5N, R37E* AREA PARCEL PARCEL PARCEL COUNT SIZE (ACRES) COUNT percent COUNT percent TOTAL percent < 5 14 27.45~ 7 8.86X 21 16.15'1. 5-9.9 6 11 .78X 6 ?59'1. 12 9.23'1. 10-19.9 12 23.53% 11 13.92% 23 17.69~ 20-39.9 10 19.61'(. 16 20.25X 26 20.00% 40-59.9 6 11 • 76'1. 9 11 •39~ 15 11 • 54~ 60-79.9 a 0.00% 13 16.46% t 3 10.00% 80-99.9 1 1• 96'1. 4 5.06'1. 5 3.85% 100-159.9 1 1• 96t.. 4 5.06'1. 5 3.85'1. 160-199.9 0 0.00'1. 4 5.06'1. 4 3.081: 200-239.9 0 0.00'1. 3 3.80'1. 3 2.31~ 240-299.9 1 1.96% 2 2.53% 3 2.31h 3'00-399.9 0 0.00'1. a 0.001: 0 0.00'1. >400 0 0.001.. 0 0.00'1. 0 0.00% ------------------------------------ ---~--- ---~--- Total s 51 100.00'1. 79 100.001.. 130 100.00% * Number of cul tivation units in respective size ca1egories, EXCEPT ASCS measured management units farmed in more than one cul tivation unit are counted only once, as if they 'Were cultivation units the size of the measured units (See ill ustration "Cul tivation Unit Definition" ) Source: ASCS/USOA (Pendl eton, Ore. ) airial photo mops SIZE DISTRIBUTION.. CULTIVATION PARCELS .. FOOTHILLS AREA UMATILLA COUNTY 25 ~ OF PARCELS 20 15 10 5 o 3 7 15 30 50 70 90 130 180220 270 350 450 SIZE CATEGORV .. ACAE5 -.- FOOTHILLS ·0- COUNTY AVERAGE COUNTY-WIDE CULTIVATION PARCEL SIZE SUMMARY, UMATILLA COUNTY FARM COUNTY PARCEL GRANO SIZE (ACRES) TOTAL* percent <5 93 7.. 54% 5-9.9 132 10.71% 10-19.9 135 10.95% 20-39.9 160 12.98:1. 40~59.9 97 7.87% 60-79.9 100 8. 11 ~ 80-99.9 128 10.38'1. 100-159.9 185 15.001.. 160-199.9 91 7 • 38"1. 200-239.9 28 2.27% 240-299.9 29 2.35"1. 300-399.9 30 2.43% >400 25 2.03% --~------~------- Total s 1233 100.00~ * County-'w'ide cul tlvation parcel count--number of cul tivation units in re~pectlve size co measured management units farmed in more than one cul tivation unit are counted onl yonce, os if they were cul tivation units the size of the measured units (See ill ustration "Cultivation Unit Definition") Source: ASCS/USOA (Pendl eton, Ore. ) airiol photo map~ SIZE DISTRIBUTION 1 CULTIVATION PARCELS~ NORTHEAST UMATILLA COUNTY 25 -0- FOOTHILLS -0- NE COUNTY -.- 'SOUTH COUNTY .... NW COUNTY -'-'~I \~ I I~ COUNTV 5 VI- - ~. \ AVERAGE -0. ~/j "-c~~-/ o I I I I I I I I I I""CJ~'-o 3 7 1530 50 70 90130180220270350450 2 20 % OF PARCELS SIZE CATEGORV 1 ACRES / ') A 65.9Ac. -F-126- \ ',C t'33.8 Ac. G ·17.5Ac. ( ',-- SOURCE: U.S.D.A., A.S.C.S. Aerial Photo No. B·25M (T6N, R31E), September, 1980. NATURAL lANDFORM FEATURES AERIAL PHOTO IllUSTRAliON NO. 1 ".' . ....... tL:-:'.;t,: ..... :--·f•.t: " .:!::~" '.'~1..' .. '-1. ... A 156.2Ac. H-93 .,.. ··;~-85 .~ ·--7-0··--·0·_·..··· ...... ';\., . Ac. '(~:. .N~· I' ", " ;')01 B 25~5Ac. 1mVi~ IB--~----:-------------AIm SOURCE: U.S.D.A., A.S.C.S. Aerial Photo No. H·16 (T4N, R33E), September, 1980. ... • ','r ,\ ;>.~r/ ·t. .:.~-' . .D':76\t ~" . ~: .~ . ,.: lIIt..- .••• , ,"-" .:....._... • t ....:·r.~.· ,.,' . •. ~ ,.":t-.,;,'--:"'..-..... .... .,.." ~ . .' ..... ) TRANSPORTAIION FEATURES AERIAL PHOTO ILLUSTRATION NO. 2 --~ I ~( A 61.GAo. SOURCE: U.S.D.A., A.S.C.S. Aerial Photo No. H-8 (T4N, R30E), September, 1980. MAN MADE FEATURES (for conservation purposes) AERIAL PHOTO ILLUSTRATION NO.3 SOURCE: U.S.D.A., A.S.C.S. Aerial Photo No. e-24M (T5N, R36E), September, 1980. M DE FEATURES (for conservation purposes) AERIAL PHOTO ILLUSTRATION NO.3____lISfIII_=!IlI!! ---------__--- -'l SOURCE: U.S.O.A., A.S.C.S. Aerial Photo No. G·19 (T4N, R30E), September, 1980. IRRIGATION AERIAL PHOTO ILLUSTRATION NO.4 @ I I ,. ,\ l~c( ~ t ''I .i::.. .....":h .. ....:.0:;.,; .:1"<1' " SOURCE: U.S.D.A., A.S.C.S. Aerial Photo No, H·15 (T4N. R32E), September, 1980. t).) . '.\ ,I , CLINTON B. REEDER, PhD Agricultural Economics StaJ Rw, Box 42 I Pendleton, Ore. 97501 50.3-276-927a Uma,tJlla county Planning Departrnent Umatilla County Court House Pendleton I Oregon HOlviESITE NUIvIBER AND LOCATION SUMMARY RURA L AREA SI UIv!P.~TILLA COUNTY General Comrnents Questions have been raised in the course of developing the Utnatilla County Comprehensive Plan concerning the nlJ,tnber and location of rural 1101nesiOOs, usually \'?itl1 concern about the nature of possible adverse irrlpact upon agricultural resource lands. This 1"evie~.·\;r v,Till prov'ide sotne interesting insigllt to homesitRa location, and ",lill I believe reduce the concern sonl€' have about the ad,rerse ifnpact rurall10using to date is having on i~onservation of farrn lands. The ASCS/USDA (Pendleton Orfice) nlaps V·lere used for the basic data in tllis revie\i\r. The maps are developed from airial pl1ot.os l and 1l0mesites are generally easily identified t..hereon. I attempted to identify the ainount of acreage the homesi1:.es were associated VVitll, but the maps generally ShOVyT the 1101nesi1:.es to be not much larger than the acres necessary to encompass t.he buildings and possibl}T in the areas "'lhere there are more livestock l some pasture area. It is not possible to tell from the n18.pS v?hich cultivation parcels tlle llomesites are "attached to". The critical question I however) pertains to the location of the home-sites in r~lation to ll0W they affect the culti~lation pattern in the fields. Hence, tlie revie-v·l does indicate VVhet..her tll€' homes are in (a) l)ottom lands (streatn boottoms, drainage areas, etc. Tvmere there are small natural parcels an(j/or noncroplan(l, generany); 0)) in field corners (\h1here the interference 'Vvith CUltivation patterns is u.su.ally greater than in the bottOITl 18.n081 but less than if the h0111esite 'lYTere on fiel(! €'ciges or in field centers); (c) on field edges (W1lich tend to cause more CUltivation pattern inconvenience than in corners but less than if in field centers); and (d) in field centers (i.e., 'N"it.ll a drivev.ray that runs ou.t into tile field in such ~, manner as to father severely disrupt t...he field cu.ltivation pattern). For a pictoria.1 presentation of t...hes€' location categories, see t.1le table labell€'cl "Number and Location of Homesites on Farm Parc€,ls1 Umatilla County". The Major Areas of the countYI and the particular to\o\7tlships review€,(j are the sanl€' ones that 'Arere surveyed in the "Cu.ltivation Parcel Size , ~ .. I.. I ~t t. r Page 2 Review"l so that hotnesire data might be directly comparf)d to the cultivation parcel data. Such a comparison is presented in the table labelled "Homesi~sl ACff:JS Per Homesite and Cultivation Units Per Hom~siwi Umatilla County". Finding§. 1. I.nOOrf~r€'tlc~Witb Cr0:Rlanq§.The maps indicaoo rather c1tStarly that the rural homesiws are almost without ~xc~ption locawd to minimize- inoorf0renc~ ~th cUltivaood lands--predominawly in the "bottom land" area. Of tiler homesioos in this location caoogorYI most are in noncrop land under bluffsi on the lower sid€' of swep slop~sJ or in locations that would generally be relatively nonproductive and/or mor~ difficult to fat-m ~fficient1y. . 2. Homesite- Locations. Eighty nine per~etlt (89%) of the homesiw-s were either in bottom lands or in field corners (mostly so as to minimi~~ field cultivation problems)1 'With lO percent located on field edges. The homesiws on fi~ld edg~s tended to be mor~ frequent in ar~as whef(~ the anlount of noncropland was limioodl and/or 'Where roads w(Jre so locawd that on field edges put the homesite most close to the roadway an4 related services. Only 1percent of the llomesioos were on driveways that ~~nded out to'Ward tile center of parcels, in a mnanne-r so as to more severely disturb cUlti~l'ation patterns. 3. t~earness to Services. Almost vvithout exceptionl the llomesites are located nearto county roads l and do not haVe long drives servicing only one home. Most homesiWs are located on Joads that service a. ratnE'f exwnsive area. . 4. Reasons lor Homesite Loc%tlons. If one considersthe fact that the ,¥inters in the Count}l are severely cold and ofoon with cold ~nds, and the summers often vvindy and hot, it is easy to understand that tnost honle sites are so located as to have a natural windbreak and be close to tNater-- for drinkingJ for livestockl and to nourish gardens and trees for shad~ and shelter for livestock. In addition, most of the homesiws have been long established" and t.A ' ere originally located '\Alhert' hand dllg wells could reach warer (whichpr~cluded mo~t.oftnehighground)Jand al(>ngroadways ~Nhlch g~n'~ral1y were built vvith horses along thfr more g~htly slop.e-d and rela.tively'level bottom landsl especially up drainage areas and along streatn banks. The data indicate so levv' homes on "scenic tbps" and "open slope-s" , or in the midst of good crop land that it seetns appropriaf:€. to conclude that more recently constructed homesites have been selected for many of the same reasons as in past years, ahd that cropland for the nlost part has not, been adverse1y impacted by the rural horn€'sites. 5. Urban Fringes.The only areas '(Alher~ ther~ s~em to be any significant homesite development that might be construed to be detrimental to farm lands is on the immediate fringe of the urban areas. Pa.ge 3 6. CroRLRange Tra.n§:ition. In the areas of the County vvhere the crop land is comingled v'lith range lands} there are as expected considerably fewer hOllie-sites. The economics of grazing is such Ula.t greater acreage is required to sust.ain an economical fartn operation. Also} the homes tend in these areas to be clustered on the bottom lands} especially up streanl bottolns} \Albere mnter pasture and vvra.oor is available, a.nd v'lhere the blu.ffs prov~de protection from storrns. 7. Land QualitX. There tend to be nlor€' hOlnes in the deeper soils vmere traditionally a fa,tnily could make a living on a sma.ller acreage farrned more intensively. There are almost no homesiws "in the middle of noWhere"} '( :', /(/" ." ..... !I.,,,lt n. f <~'>,. RESOLUTION, re MINIMUM PARCEL (LOT) SIZE EXCLUSIVE FARM USE (EFU) ZONES, UMATILLA COUNTY, OREGON I I I ./. I,· .~ /"/1-, r' .; WHEREAS, there is a long term need to protect and preserve land for commercial agriculture use; WHEUEAS, nonfarm dwellings and nonfarm activities tend to materially interfere with commercial agriculture use of land; WHEREAS, dividing land into very small parcols tends to make the ljnd parcels less feasible to farm and thus less attractive for commercial agriculture use; WHEREAS, within the boundaries of most commercial agriculture lands there are certain "natural parcels" of various sizes clue to soil types, terrain, roads, streams, etc. that are unsuited [or commercial agriculture use; WHEREAS, large minimum sized parcels lock more land into undivlded ownership interests which often create severe management problems among the involved parties of interest, and often leads to very unstable lease arrangements; WII EHE AS, ve r y 1a rg e III i n i III U 111 par c e I s 1 Z e 0 f ten c rea t e mat e ria I hardship in financing and reflnancing land transfers and continued land ownership, financing farm related s t r u c t II res, set t lin g est ate san d pay in g t a xes ass 0 c 1. ate d therewith, financing start-up of new farming businesses including txansfers to a next generation, etc.; WHEREAS, unJlvided property ownership interests ~reates management problems for government agencies administering conservation and commodity related programs; and \oJ Ii ERE AS, par c e 1 s i z e i s e sse n t i a I I y u n reI ate d t 0 con s t r u c t ion of dweJ ling,s and other structures, BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that Umatliia County shall be encouraged to adopt a Comprehensive Land Use Plan which provides: (1) protection of land for continued commercial agriculture use; (2) limitations on nonfarm uses 1n and around land zoned for agriculture use; (3) criteria by which-a mln1mum parcel Slze shall b~ encouraged to protect "mlnimum economlC management units ll , (l..e., the smallest land parcel that would be attractive to buyers and/or tenants for commerCial agriculture use); -2- RESOLUTION, re Minimum Parcel Size 1n EFU Zones, Umatilla Count~ Q~~£~~----------_._------------------------------------------- (4) flexibility in parcellzation of land to facilitate: (3) land trarsfers for commerclal agrIculture uses. (b) financing of activities and structures for commercial agriculture uses. (c) placement of nonfarm dwellings on land unsuited for commercial agriculture uses, so long as the potential interference with commercial agriculture uses on nearby lands is not material. (5) policies and regulations which minimize the parcel size for dwellings converted from farm use to nonfarm use, so as to minimize the land area potentially converted from commercial agriculture uses. (6) policies and procedures which shall ensure all owners and tenants on adjoining land and land within a designated distance from the subject property that they WIll be notified of any and all pending actions and have opportunity to comment thereon prior to theIr being acted upon. ~/I ~/ ')?CWr! Y:#::~ ... · ~ -.-,~__L~~~~ ~~~Q ~ ~~~7 ( n a 1I1 e)-~ ( tit 1e ) ( d ate ),-----_ .. !(./' " r \.. " RESOLUTION, re MINIMUM PARCEL (LOT) SIZE IN EXCLUSIVE FARM USE (EFU) ZONES, UMATILLA COUNTY, OREGON WHEREAS, there is a long term need to protect and preserve l~nd for commercial agriculture use; WHEREAS, nonfarm dwellings and nonfarm activities tend to materially interfere with commercial agriculture use of land; WHEREAS, dividing land into very small parcels tends to make the land-parcels less feasible to farm and thus less attractive for commercial agriculture use; WHEREAS, within the boundaries of most commercial agriculture lands there are certain "natural parcels" of various Slzes due to soil types, terrain, roads, streams, etc. that are unsuited for commercial agriculture use; WHEREAS, large minimum sized parcels lock more land into undivlded ownership interests which often create severe management problems among the involved parties of interest, and often leads to very unstable lease arrangements; WHEREAS, very large minimum parcel size often create material hardship in financing and ref1nancing land transfers and continued land ownership, f1nancing farlll related structures, settling ~states and paying taxes assocLated therewith, financing start-up of new farming businesses including ttansfers to a next generation, etc.; WHEREAS, unJivided property ownership interests creates management problems for government agencies administering conservation and commodity related programs; and WHEREAS, parcel size is essentially unrelated to construction of dwellings and other structures, BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that Umatilla County shall be encouraged to adopt a Comprehensive Land Use Plan which provides: (1) protection of land for continued commercial agriculture use; (2) limitations on nonfarm uses 1n and around land zoned for agriculture use; (3) crtteria by which a min1111um parcel sJ..ze shall be encouraged to protect "mJ..nimum economJ..c management units", (l.e., the smallest land parcel that would be attractive to buyers and/or tenants Eor commercial agriculture use); -2- RESOLUTION, re Minimum Parcel Size 1n EFU Zones, Umatilla County, Q!::.~~~~--------------------------------_._-------------------------- (4) flexibility in parcelization of land to facIlitate: (a) land transfers for commercIal agrIculture uses. (b) financing of activities and structures for commercial agriculture uses. (C) placement of nonfarm dwellings on land unsuited for commercial agriculture uses, so long as the potential interference with commercial agriculture uses on nearby lands is not material. (5) policIes and regulations which minimize the parcel size for dwellings converted from farm use to nonfarm use, ·so as to minimize the land area potentially converted from commercial agriculture uses. (6) policies and procedures which shall ensure all owners and tenants on adjoining land and land within a designated dIstance from the subject property that they WIll be notified of any and all pending actions and have opportunity to comment thereon prior to thelr being acted upon. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, by the Umatilla County Wheat Grower's League. ..... RESOLUTION, re MINIMUM PARCEL (LOT) SIZE IN GKAZING/FOREST (GF) ZONES, UMATILLA COUNTY, OREGON I' .. , .......... I , ,.. '. ns, Ic.....c w cr··' ··d fL.?)V1}~ ir; ~~ f~' ;';', WHEREAS, there is a long term need to protect and preserve land for C 0111\\\ ere i. .:..l 1 g r" 3 Z i. n g / for est use s ; WHEREAS, nongraz1ng/forest uses tend to materially 1nterfere with commercial grazing/.forest uses; WHEREAS, d1viding land into very small parcels tends to make the land parcels less feasible to operate and thus less att'ractive for commercial grazing/forest uses; WHEREAS, within the boundaries of most grazing/forest lands there are certain "natural parcels' of various sizes due .to SOlI types, terrain, roads, streams, etc. that are unsuited for commercial grazing/forest uses; WHEREAS, large minimum parcel size locks more land into undivided ownership interests which often creates severe management problems among the involved parties of 1nterest, and often leads to very unstable lease arrangements; WHEREAS, very large minimum parcel size often creates material hardship in ~inancing and refinancing land transfers and continued land ownershlp, financing grazing/forest related structures, settling estates and paying the taxes associated therewith, financing the start-up of new grazing/forest businesses inculding the transfers of such operatlons to a next generatlon, etc.; HHEH.EAS, undivided ownershlp interests create management problems for gov('rnment agencies administerlng conservatlon and commodlty related programs; and WHEREAS, parcel size is essentlally unrelated to construction of dwellings and other structures, BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that Umatilla County shall be encouraged to adopt a Comprehenslve Land Use Plan which provides: (1) protection of land tor commercial grazing/forest use; (2) limitations on nong r azlng/f o rest uses in and around land zoned for grazing/forest uses; (3) crlteria by whjr;h a minimum par.cel slze shall be encouraged to protect "minimum economic management unitsl! (i.e., the smallest land parcel that would be attractive to buyers and/or tenants for commercial grazing/forest uses)~ -2- RESOLUTION, re tttnimum Parcel Size 111 GF Zones, Umatilla County, 2E~~£~~__. .·.. - __ (4) flexibility in parcelizatlon of land to facilitate: (a) land transfers for commerclal grazing/forest uses. (b) financing of activities and structures for commercial grazing/forest uses. (c) placement of nongrazing/forest use dwellings on land unsuited for commercial grazing/forest uses, so long as the potent1al interference with commercial grazing/forest uses on nearby lands 1S not material. (5) policies and regulations which minimize the parcel size for dwellings converted from grazing/forest use to non- grazing/forest use, so as to minimize the land area potentially convert from grazlng/forest uses. (6) policies and procedures which shall ensure all owners and tenants on adJ.oining lands and on lands within a designat distance from the subject property that they will be notified of any and all pending actions and have opportunity to comment thereon prior to them being acted upon. I{ESPE77Y~lJBNI/TTED' by ~-'i1"-~( n a In (~) ....., ...~ , '_ f rl ;>/ /~ .-( r. ' ':./ (' I KOfO C 'Z-) C );7 ,')-.1) Vl/I (1, ':' . , c.. 1.U1 n ~:- r : '7 ri':" ~,-(,I '/.J .' RESOLUTION, re MINIMUM PARCEL (LOT) SIZE EXCLUSIVE FARM USE (EFU) ZONES, UMATILLA COUNTY, OREGON IN· WHEREAS, there is a long term need to protect and preserve land for commercial agriculture use; WHER EAS, non fa r ll\ dw ell i n g s and no n far mac t i v i tie s ten d tom ate ria 1 I y interfere with commercial agriculture use of land; HHEREAS, dividing land into very small parce'ls tends to make the land parcels less feasible to farm and thus less attrac)tive for commercial agriculture use; WHEREAS, within the boundaries of most commercial agriculture lands there are certain "natural parcels" of various sizes due to soil types, terrain, roads, streams, etc. that are unsuited for commercial agriculture use; WHEREAS, large minimum siied parcels lock more land into undivIded ownership interests which often create severe management problems among the involved parties of interest, and often leads to very unstable lease arrangements; ( \ WHER EAS, ve r y 1a r g e 111 i n i III U m par c e lsi z e oft en c rea t e mat e ria I hardship in financing and refInancing land transfers and continued land ownership, f'lnancing farm related structur(~s, settling estates and paying taxes associated therewith, financing start-up of new farming businesses including t~ansfers to a next generation, etc.; WHEREAS, undIvided property ownership interests creates management problems for government agencies administering conservation and commodity related programs; and WHEREAS, parcel size is essentially unrelated to construction of dwellings and other structures, BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that UmatIlla County shall be encouraged to adopt a Comprehensive Land Use Plan which provides: (1) protection of land for continued commercial agriculture use; (2j limitations on nonfarm uses In and around land zoned for agriculture use; (~ (3) criteria by which a m~nlmum parcel s~ze shall be encouraged to protect "mInimum economIC management units", (~.e., the smallest land parcel thot would be attractive to buyers and/or tenants for commerc~al agr~culture use); -2- RESOLUTION, re Minimum Parcel Size 1n EFU Zones, Umatilla Count" 2~~££~ ~ _ (4) flexibility in parcellzation of land to facilitate: (a) land transfers for commerclal agrlculture uses. (b) flnancing of activities and structures for commercial agriculture uses. (c) placement of nonfdrm dwellings on land unsuited for commercial qgriculture uses, so long as the pot e n t i a lin t e r fer e nc (. wit h com mer cia 1 a g ric u 1 t u r e uses on nearby lands is not material. (5) policles and regulations which minimize the parcel size for dwellings converted from farm use to nonfarm use, so as to minimize the land area potentially converted from commercial agriculture uses. (6) policies and procedures which shall ensure all owners and tenants on adjoining land and land within a designated dlstance from the subject property that they wl.ll be notified of any and all pending actions and have opportunity to comment thereon prior to their being acted upon. J --' . -- • • !e rrrG~t D MOBILE HOME ------ 1981 (PRIOR) ------ TOTAL T.e. V. TOTL ASSESSD 84. 40% 14J940 12J610 A ::;3~~. ':; S;~1E NT 5 DEFERRED DEFERRED r7 55 DC ACRES 506 00 LJ49. 00 ~Pf.: C I r\L ~ ~'~' 1 ::::. • ~ '! t... =:. ~ ~= 163.94 FIRE PATROL (FL) 7d.29 FIRE ?ATROL (GR) INT/DISC JRNL ~CPT# DESCRIPTION 0.00 C 90 33536 O. 00 C 90 47491 ~. If1PROVEMENT VALUE 15,847 963 16J810 3 PLNG ZONE F-2 4.:~J~·~-~ 72. ~29 ~2~?6 2:3 At··10UNT 163 94 PECEI'..iED -174.83 -174.83 t,I)')r·\L fA X 288. 26 L !\ND ~.: I r~ R . 81 83814 : (I' ,~;4 () 1982 ~ \-\_(_~~",_x-,~~__ Steven H. Corey ~ SHC:m cc: Umat lla county Board .of Commissioners t~c: Umat lla County Planning Director Timber and Wood Products Group Northeast Oregon Region P. O. Box 610 La Grande, Oregon 97850 (503) 963~3141 september 30, 1980 Dennis A. Olson Umatilla County Planning Director Umatilla County Courthouse P. o. Box 1427 Pendleton, OR 97801 Dear Mr. Olson: Boise Cascade 8C-1247 8A-ISS G We would like to make a few comments about the County Comprehen~3ive Plan Discussion Draft materials that Boise Cascade Corporation received. First of all we think that you are doing a good job in the planning process and it looks like a fairly thorough study is being made. However, there are a few things that we question. In the Plan Map Sect~on you chose .1,Q._ggr.~~."..~:;l" .. ~. _W,C).r.kableman~g.~~nt. unit for corniIle'"iC~iaT-·"tj·.~b-~·;;·'·P~·;-(i'u-c't'iC;~~frimbercompanies do own 's'~me 40 ~c'~e p;rc;eis ~nd~···i'D"-'f~c·t'O.Qundar.Y.... lmt has four times the area. This holdsJf It-;::;:;-;f~-;-~;;;;t·-;;':;:;th i ng you do in man agi~g·;;· pi~~e ;:, f property.·We . -r,~~~t~~AJ.DE:~~~~~~tt~~:~··~~u~~~b.~~:j:t~\~~~~·e~6I{~en t that tl)e 41) acre mInimum is not protecting forest land, you could have lost a considerable amount of forest land from its intended purpose. Recreational Residential Zoning is the next thing we would like to address. ~e don't question the area that is already developed and conunitted. What we do question is the need for so much area in the needed for develop- ment category. Doesn't the planning process provide for periodic review and revision if necessary? Couldn't a lot less of the area be designated into this "needed for development category," and then later if it could be shown that the need is there, go ahead and change it? In this way you aren't designating any morp good t~nber growing site land into another category unless it is actually needed. We enclose a map showing what ;areas in the Tollgate-Weston Mountain and I'-1eacham areas that we thin~ 'WOUld be more realistic to put into the "needed for development category. II We think you should look into the statement made about the U.s. Forest Service tentatively planning on sUbstantially increasing the allowable timber cut on the Umatilla National ~orest in the ensuing decade. The Forest Service people at. the mc~eting even questioned this. If it is not a fact ,then don't say it. If it is ,then back the statement up with some substantiat.ing rna tor-ia 1. Page 3 umatilla County Planning Director These are some of the concerns Boise Cascade Corporation has in regard to the forested areas of your planning unit. We hope you will take these things into consideration in your future planning effort. Sincerely, J~,;t~g Stan Wilde __-- Boise Cascade Corporation SW/tawa enclosure xc: Fred Ebel \ I 9-23-82 TOLLGATE - EAST COUNTY MOUNTAIN Comprehensive Land Use Plan Recommendations Prepared by Tollgate Mountain Citizens Advisory Committee Bob Klicker, Chairman Leona Shumway Lowell Eiffert Dean Knudson Bud Shubert Richard Mathison H 9-23-82 ) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The following agencies, private citizens and interest ~roups have provided the Tollgate Citizens Advisory Committee with valuable information and much appreciated assistance. We wish to thank each one by setting aside this special acknowledgement section in recognition of our appreciation. STATE AGENCIES Department of Environmental Quality Ken Birkbeck Department of Fish and Wildlife r·~ i chae1 B1ack State Depa rtment of Fares try Jeff Schwanke State Highway Department George Strawn PRIVATE GROUPS AND CITIZENS 1 I East End Rod &Gun Club Wes Slaughter, Private Timber Management Consultant All those property owners who filled out the Land Use Questionnaire FEDERAL AGENCIES Umatilla National Forest Ed Cole OTHER Uamtilla Electric Cooperative Association Bi 11 Kopacz Harris Pine Mills Charles Fry Boise Cascade Stan \~i 1de -- --~---~--- -.... _~,~ I' RESOLUTION, re MINIMUM PARCEL (LOT) SIZE IN G~AZING/FOREST (GF) ZONES, UMATILLA COUNTY, OREGON WHEREAS, there is a long term need to protect and preserve land for com III ere i. a 1. g r- a z i n g. for est use s ; WHEREAS, nongraz~ng/forest uses tend to materially ~nter[ere with commercial grazing/forest uses; WHEREAS, dlviding land into very small parcels tends to make the land parcels less feasible to operate and thus less attractive for commercial grazing/forest uses; WHEREAS, within the boundaries of most grazing/forest lands there are certain "natural parcels' of various sizes due to so~l types, terrain, roads, streams, etc. that are unsuited for' cOTIIlHerci.al grazing/forest uses; WHEREAS, large minimum parcel size locks more land into und~vided ownership interests which often creates severe management problems among the involved parties of ~nterest, and often leads to very unstable lease arrangements; WHEREAS, very 1arge minimum parcel size often creates material hardship in §inancing and refinancing land transfers and continued land ownersh~p, financing grazing/forest related structures, settling estates and paying the taxes associated therewith, financing the start-up of new grazing/forest businesses inculding the transfers of such operations to a next generat~on, etc.; WHE~EAS, undivided ownersh~p interests create management problems for government agencies administerlng conservation and commodIty related programs; and WHEREAS, parcel size is essentlally unrelated to construction of dwellings and other structures, BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that Umatilla County shall be encouraged to adopt a Comprehens~ve Land Use Plan which provides: (1) protection of land for commercial grazing/forest use; (2) limitations on nongrazlng/forest uses in and around land zoned for grazing/forest uses; (3) crlteria by which a minimum parcel s~ze shall be encouraged to protect "minimum economic management units l ' (i.e., the smallest land parcel that would be attractive to buyers and/or tenants for commercial grazing/forest uses)~ -2- RJ': SOL UTI 0 N, reI tin 1 mum Par c e 1 S i z e 1 1\ GF Z0 n e s, U mat ill a C0 u n t y ) QE~££~ .__~ ~ (4) flexibility in parcelizatlon of land to facilitate: (a) land transfers for commercial grazing/forest uses. (b) financing of activities and structures for commercial grazing/forest uses. (c) placement of nongrazing/forest use dwellings on land unsuited for commercial grazing/forest uses, so long as the potential interference with commercial grazing/forest uses on nearby lands is not material. (5) policies and regulations which minimize the parcel size for dwellings converted from grazing/forest use to non- grazing/forest use, so as to minimize the land area potentially convert from grazing/forest uses. (6) policies and procedures which shall ensure all owners and tenants on adjoining lands and on lands within a designat distance from the subject property that they will be notified of any and all pending actions and have opportunity to comment thereon prior to them· being acted upon. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, by 9-23-82 MOUNTAIN LAND USE PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS Tollgate Citizens Advisory Committee IDENTIFICATION OF STUDY GROUP The Tollgate Citizens Advisory Committee was organized at the request of Milton-Freewater area members of the Umatilla County Planning Commission. Their request had been initiated from citizens and property owner's concerns about a land use plan discussion draft developed by the county planning staff and reviewed at several public meetinqs. These citizens felt that valuable information and local citizen comment was lacking and needed to be included in developing a land use plan for the Tollgate Mountain area. Upon approval of a majority of the County Planning Commission, Milton-Freewater area planning commission members were to inquire if there was an interest for a study group, and if so, to organize the committee. The advisory committee was given enough time to develop possible proposals which would then be reviewed by the County Planning Commission and added as testimony if determined to be helpful in formulating a Tollqate area land use plan. The Tollgate Citizens Advisory Committee was formed in the middle of May 1981 and started meetings that some mo~th. Committee membership totaled six members. Their names are listed in the front of this report. The committee met twelve (12) times and souqht the comments of numerous state and federal resource agencies, a timber management consultant~ the electrical utility company serving the Tollgate area, and the State Highway Department. Perhaps the most significant and extensive information qather1ng effort was the Tollgate questionnatre. Approxi- 9-23-82 mately 540 landowners on Tollgate-Weston Mountain were sent a two paqe questionaire seeking citizen comments about timber management, wildlife, recreational needs, commercial development, lot size minimum recommend- ations and environmental questions. About 25% of the questionaires were returned, giving what our committee feels is a good and representative sample of opinions on which to base land use recomnlendations. INTRODUCTION TO COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS The Tollgate Citizens Advisory Committee would like to present to the Umatilla County Planning Commission some land use recommendations for the Tollgate Mountain - Northeast County forest/mountain areas. These recommendations include a plan map, a listing of important planning issues and facts, suggested policies to help guide future land use proposals and advice for recommendations to be included in the Zoning and Subdivision ordinances to carry out the suggested land use policies. We have included background information mentioned earlier to help those reading these pro- posals understand why they are being suggested. STUDY AREA REVIEWED The committee chose to examine a larger study area than just the Tollgate Mountain corridor to help assure a better coordinated and hope- fully more compatible land use plan. The approximate southern boundary of this study area is the Umatilla River. The east boundary is the Umatilla National Forest. The Washington-Oregon state line serves as the northern border of the study area. The western border approximates the present division between forest and agricultu~e lands on the existin~ Umatilla County Comprehensive Plan Map. (See Study Area t·1ap on following page. ) The study area was broken down into sub-areas based upon their similar -2- 9-23-82 physical and existing characteristics and knowledge of these different areas by various committee members. Sub-areas are individually identified on the Study Area Map just mentioned and include: 1. Mill Creek and vicinity which is most everything north of Government Mountain Road, to the Washington State line; 2. Blalock - Lincton - Basket Mountain forest/grazing lands between Government Mountain Road and about one-half mile north of Tollgate Highway 204; 3. Tollgate Highway Corridor which includes a one-half mile area on either side of State Highway 204 having its west boundary defined at the Umatilla Electrical Cooperative substation and its east boundary defined as the Union County line; 4. Weston, Reed, Hawley Mountains and ~Binqham Springs area) between the southern Tollgate Highway Corridor line and the Umatilla River. SUB-AREA FINDINGS, RECOMMENDED POLICIES AND LAND USE MAP SUGGESTIONS In the course of discussing information received from various a0encies, the County Planning Staff, and citizens, our committee has come up with a description and important findings list for each sub-area which we feel are appropriate to place into the comprehensive plan. The analysis and findings are followed by recommendations which are suggested directions towards achieving a certain land use goal. The findings and recommended policies are arranged under an appropriate state land use goal. For example, a finding and recommended policy about timber management of a certain sub-area is placed under State Land Use Goal 4, Forest Lands. Be- cause some of the state land use goals are closely related to one another, some of our land use recommendations may seem appropriate under other goals. -3- 9-23-82 Also, because most areas within each sub-area have very similar characteristics, many findings and suggested policies apply to all sub-districts. When a finding or policy is appropriate in other subareas, it is starred (referenced) and not written out in full, to avoid needless repetition. Should placement of a finding into another goal be more clearly understood or the order in which this report is written need rearrangement, this committee will be open to suggested changes. Our purpose is to attempt to describe as accurately as is possible the areas of concern to us and to list as many important findings and recommendations as we feel will help protect the natural beauty and resources this area provides to County residents. Also, a major goal is to recognize the need for additional yet controlled growth of recreational development including seasonal dwellings. Development of these uses should be in such a manner as to allow them in appropriate areas with certain development requirements insuring the continuation of the rural and recreational character of the northeastern mountain areas in Umatilla County. -4- --. .~. 9-23-82 1. SUB-AREA DESCRIPTIONS, FINDINGS AND RECor·1~1ENDED POLICIES Mill Creek and Vicinity A. Descri pt ion The Mill creek and vicinity study area is the northern most of the four sub-areas examined by the committee. ~1ost of this area lies north of Government Mt. Road and is charac- terized by steep sloped canyons and few accessible roads. Seasonal livestock grazing and timber mana0ement uses predom- . inate. Although data on forest productivity is general for this 'area, the available information shows that timber productivity ,is a bit higher in the southern part of the sub-area than in the :the northern part. In total, this area has a poor-to-fair timber growing potential when compared with the total state "fares t 1ands, but fa i r-to-CJood when compared to eas tern Oregon timber lands. There are several smail areas on private land within the sub-area having critical deer and elk winter habitat according to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. The location of these critical winter ranges are isolated and not too accessible so protection is not anticipated to be too difficult. The sub- area also has streams which support sports fishery populations of steel head, rainJow and dolly varden trout. (Henry Canyon and Mill Creek) Except for several isolated areas (eg. ~1il1 Creek Basin, Government Mt. Road, Henry Canyon) land ownerships are larqe consisting both of private land owners and timber industry lands. -5- 9-23-82 Parcel sizes vary from about 40 acres to 1000 acres. Actual owner- ship sizes approach 4,000 acres. 'fhere are several areas of recreational development within this sub-area. One area is quite extensive and has long been used for recreational use. It is known as the Mill Creek basin. There are several other areas (Saddle Mt., Henry Canyon, Big Meadows) that have some small lot recreational cabin sites but are very limited in number and isolated by surrounding large-lot re- source lands. Most of the development is along the narrow 3.5 mile stretch of Mill Creek along Mill Creek Road (County Road #889) which is paved for a portion of the way and graveled for the other portion. Considerable amounts of property are in a desi0nated floodplain, thus making full development of these lots very difficult. Most parcels are included in one of the three platted subdivisions that exist the~ Although several parcels are over ten acres, most are less than two acres. 0: the over 150 lots included in this area, most are eitehr presently developed or sold to owners who have not exercised their building options. This area has only a marginal value for commercial timber production, according to soils and other information. The Mill Creek basin is not being extensively used as a big game winter range area because of present land uses. The committee also recognizes the important resource lands of the Umatilla National Forest to the east of this sub-area. Not only is there valuable timer lands here, but several important watersheds, one of which serves the city of Walla Walla. -6- •• • • • • • • • • • • • 1ft • ~' 103150 103413 103147 103410 MOBILE HOME 11: 25: 40 26 APR ------ 1981 (PRIOR) ------ TOTAL T.e.V. TOTL ASSESSD 84. 40% 64;470 54,410 DEFERRED DEFERRED 1 r·r:·(".r;·, 102968 103400 PLNG ZONE F-5 IMPROVEMENT VALUE 8;300 59,930 68,230 ~.. 3 1 n"':i4 7'~' 102964 103367 AMOUNT ACRF.S 750.38 2,316.00 146. ,S 7 911. 00 897.05 3,227.00 .", c. l\Ji~;AL TA .x· SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 1 J ;"'257. 9b 750 38 FIRE PATROL 76 OTHER ACCOUNTS SPECIAL ASSES~MENTS CODE FIRE PATROL (FL) FIRE PATROL (GR) LA GRANDE AT8.2 BOISE CASCADE CORP PO BOX 610 PROP CLASS 610 :._,....'" AT L 1 /Fif'1 '... L2~ '"'-.. * ~ J J ~. -. _~.'-~'..•~'" ~C'~'~~_ •.',';.~~~'l y~ ~ ~- G~<':'~~", " ('~'--" -.. . ~- _.~ ~'-,.~-_., .... R 31-0~~~.~~~~• a 101592(P) 101805 102739 102964 102968 103147 1 G.3 1 50 lO3;?13 103239 103249 1 ()331':1 7 j Oj4.('.~ Ai --. a " ... , .. -'. -: ~ -- 103 1 0'"1:'14 '"-. ' .... '....... • , ,~ • ,. • • fI • , • • " " .. :f) . (1'2,. " l1 A-" . I '. .,,';I ,"'- '. 8··'{. ·+o:,~ 8· 83"~lOJ460 11:25:28 26 APR 1982 r1QB I L E HOME --.~---- 1981 (PR lOR) "__ .. "_.__ TOTAL T. C. V. TOTt.. ASSESSD 9,940 f\CRES 485 27 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 157.23 FIRE PATROL 76 OTHER ACCOUNTS PROP CLASS 563 MA 3 CITY CODE 3 PLNG ZONE F-S , ... , .. .. .. • • • ~ROP CLASS 610 MA 3 CITY CODE 3 PLNG ZONE F-l ~ ~ , ~ I' (FL) (GR) DESCRIPTION VOL-PAGE 691238 MOBILE HOME 11:28:40 26 APR 1982 ------ 1981 (PRIOR) ------ TOTAL ~ C. V. TOTL ASSESSD 84. 40% 221210 18,750 DEFERRED DEFERRED 85. 10% 191960 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 235.03 FIRE PATROL 62. 61 FIRE PATROL INT/DISC JRNL RCPT# -21.93 C 90 32926 IMPROVEMENT 'VALUE 20,514 2/936 23J450 AMOUNT ACRES 235. 03 725 41 62 61 388 91 297. 64 1} .114. 32 LOAN# ~~31 450 F78q 64, 780 VOL-PAGE 691238 MOBILE HOME ---'--- 1981 TOTAL T. C. V. DEFERRED DEFERRED f\CRES 1,783,00 339. 00 2, \-:'·22. 00 iiX';~.~ ') \ "N,:j SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 577.69 FIRE PATROL (FL) 135.08 FIRE PATROL (GR) INT/DISC JRNL RCPT# DESCRIPTION O. 00 C 90 32929 0.00 C 90 47856 IMPROVEMENT 80 VALUE 2,000 55,253 4J 117 61,370 ...···~'~'~3i'~/:rtil!~~ D -:- ...~ ·~·r / .J. S:::. I / AMOUNT 577. 69 135 08 LOAN# 1982 (CURRENT) ----- T.e. V. TOTL ASSESSD 85, lO'l. 52/230 71050 59,280 59,280 61,370 8/280 69,650 69,650 "'"\ c:. f 56 OTHER ACCOUNTS THRU: HARRIS PINE MILLS HARRIS. PINE MILLS DRAWER 1168 PENDLETON OR :·{1 1 ;.:! 1 16, T 1-.1 OSD , . L.2 FL 13 FD *. F-'-B t ( f 101562(P) 101565 101566 101628 101638 101644 101957 102061 104342 104842 107205 107206 107237 1072~4 107256 107268 107271 1072/4 107289 1 0730~3 118038 118041 118045 1 ~JOO92 120324 121534 121535 123924 125:1.50 133707 .1 :-~3jl'()8 1 ~:~:~ -:' ( ': ;:7' 133711 1~'7A.7 1'":)'":)"'7~n 1-:<'J7':"'Q i .-• ..,," -.- PROP CLASS 563 MA 3 CITY CODE 1 PLNG ZONE F-5 * ) • .. ) ) • • • • ". , .: -:t "i.;"~ l ,If,'; .'"j L ).e). 0 (FL) (GR) DESCRIPTlON , .IJN ~H ~:_,c:;"~-r -. ~.~f!"! .' VOL-PAGE 691238 MOBILE HOME ------ 1981 (PRIOR) ------ TOTAL T.C.V. TOTL ASSESSD 84. 40% 29,860 25,200 DEFERRED DEFERRED (;CRES 746.87 956. 16 1 J 703. 03 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 2<1-1. 99 FIRE PATROL 117 53 FIRE PATROL INT/DISC JRNL RCPT# 0. 00 C 90 32939 O. 00 C 90 47855 IMPROVEMENT VALUE 18,682 9,558 28,240 AMOUNT 241. 99 153.94 395. 93 ~0~~ V' LOAN# nECEIVED -314. 05 -314.04 (,~DVAl TAX 582. 62 ACRES 747 24 ~~~9 11703.03 L.AND ~"" I RR. 80 ----- 1982 (CURRENT) ----- TOTAL T.e. V. TOTL ASSESSD 85. 10% 28J240 24/030 _ J OR 97801 TRr) DAl E: BTCH 11-,15,-81 ;~02 02-15'-82 264 END \WER 1168 ----. f\PPRAISAL YEAR: TREND PERCENT: t'7: :(~R I~r-p It"i;<":. {·tiLLS P ENL-....c.TON NON-OOPR ----- LAND & IRR. VALUE~ SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS CODE FIRE PATROL (FL) 1 FIRE PATROL (GR) 2 > 56 OTHER ACCOUNTS THRU: HARRIS PINE MILLS 81 BAL.ANCE. DUE 314.05 / .~ CODE SPLITS 3108 .....~,',B-T OOPR ..~bASS. L 1 Fe, / ! A ~'" L2 '-..ll F rJ ... G7 G }~ ,~~ * - ~ iJROP CLASS 5,~3 MA~' CITY CODE 5 PLNG ZONE F-5 AT OOPR CLASS ACRES VALUE L.. l. Fr, "G7F'\ Ci60. 00) 4,800 DEFERRED L;;~ "-~'L ! r-" }., 040 00 26JOOO DEFERRED\~ "./ IJ • ;"'-:- - 2,000. 00 30;800 • • • , , • • • , , , , • .' -..,.- ~ PQ#uJ A- 1 1 : 22: 13 26 AP R 1982 MO;) l L E HOME ,- .. ------ 1981 <- o'.J,' P R .c; I SAL '([:: AR ' ) 76 OTHER ACCOUNTS I._A GRANDE 81 Bf~d-ANCE DUE O. 00 AT8.2 BOISE CASCADE CORP i.JCJ BOX 610 NON-OOPR ---- ! ,f~ND~,: I RR , VALUE. 4! e. -- • " • • " -""'I" I _I ., , .. .. - .. •R 16-02 1N3500-00-06200 f • • • • • • • • ~. • • • • • (FL) (GR) DESCRIPTION '7 MOBILE HOME 11:22: 5726 APR 1982 ------ 1981 (PRIOR) ------ TOTAL T. C. V. TOTL ASSESSD 84_ 401. 56J 520 47J700 DEFERRED DEFERRED f-'!CRES 1.984.20 1· 52? 96 ~~~ I ~::. J.·1 1 6 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 642. 88 FIRE PATROL 246. 32 FIRE PATROL INT/DISC ~RNL RCPT# -53. 11 C 90 32786 IMPROVEMENT PLNG ZONE F-2 I·JALUE 6,148 57} 112 631260 5 :~,~'1GUN r 2':+1~ 6 4+,2. 88 8~)f? ~"<{.J ,.... 0.1. 1982 (CURRENT) ----- '1 C. \1 TO TL /\SSESSD 85. 10% 53J830631260 ~j "._---~.._-~_.---.,.-......_-~ f~ECEl VED -1/717.11 CITY CODE f\DVAL TAX 881.02 L f\N D 8~ I RR. rUT ,6,L MA 5 OR 97850 r""''''--'_ . .. .-.~-. --~ QOPR / CLASS ACRES r. G7 F 1 I 229. 60 \ FA ~), 284 56 " ~~1 514. 16 103421 f-\T EFU FL END TRN DAlE BTCH 11-15-81 202 NON-OOPR ._._---- Ll'...ND ~< I HR. VALUE: ::1F'L~.C If\L :t\SSFS:3f'iENT'G C.ODE F IRr':: (.. i,Tl\OL ; j') 1 FTPE:. f'J/~TS'UL (:.::;?; ;; ~PPRAISAL YEAR: lRFND PERCENT: AT8. 2 Ll.. GRANDE [_1 I_.? ? 81 BALANCE DUE O. 00 :> 76 OTHER ACCOUNTS BOISE CASCADE CORP PO BOX 610 .-.....-. PH DP CLASS~ 563 ~ l I I • • • • ~"~-~tJ~: ~.I . " ~ ...... ' J A e; 1""11""-0. .7Q~ r". J {~/; .~L-~~":l' (Co .~......". La J fcY>u,--L G .c;.g 11:22: 17 26 APR 1982 j,.Io.~.Vg R 16-02 lN3400-00-067QP K ~O-U&. J.~VV-UV.LV'''' 103150 1.UCl/;;s"f AT8.2 BOISE CASCADE CORP PU BOX 610 L~ (:lD AT8 ...: .__ ...." _.' ...._. ~ .. . . .__ ......~.~. . _._ .--- .... - 1982 (CURRENT) ----- TOTAL T. C. V. TOTL ASSESSD 85. 1OJ: 13,540 11,520 > 76 OTHER ACCOUNTS NON-OOPR -----. ~ANJ & IRR. VALUE: ..;; ." -. .;- .:~"" ~ , \...- .. "-..! ! o~, , () j.. r c····. v------ ------ 1981 (PR TOR) -- ---- TOTAL T:C V. TOTL ASSESSD 3"~ ·:1.01. b,140 5J 180 DEFERRED DEFERRED PLNG ZONE F-5 VALUE 4,286 9,254 13;540 5CITY CODEMA 5 OR 97850LA GRANDE ~ PROP CLASS 563 '''J AT L.l EFU t•. ? FL * j :) ) I ....' ) APPf 118 OTHER ACCOUNTS CODE SPLITS 1602 ~ AT Ll FL L2 EFU ,, # * I f , f; , , f , ,. # J': c,' -;-;} I~;: ~~"\ ~::. ':J 8~1 Lf .:~~: 20 .. ~30 2() i ~)30 ': P RIO IX) _..._' _ r (J TL. r"'.St:;F"-:-SS L /\ ',./ (f ,,,, " . .r--•.......-r 't '-. ~ ~ I .j ... :J t_i ;--, 1 , ~'70 .d4, 320 24, 320 11:24: 10 26 APR 1982 MOBILE HOME -----. -. -- ~ C?Sl 'r- U ',!- ,;: _ T ~ \) ~-- DEFERRED DEFERRED 81 3; !-~ 4~) [:) ~). 1 Ct"< ;;:;!) 8'7C1 26; (53(~ 26, ~':o30 Ic9':'~ ~~,."J ACRES 957.00 163.00 1; 120,00 ~. GJ VALUE 999 23JOOI 1,500 1J 400 26 1 '-.iOO IMPROVEt1ENT ~ ..u TI. ,.-\3:?jE-SSD Af'10UNT 310. 07 26. 24 ':l~,,- ':>1 ._-"'-J. 'o..J..Q" 1982 (CURRENT ) ....__ ..... _ 7. c. 'v) !+ - 20() ;!~ I 900 ':' 1. 1,,30 ~3 1 .. 1 8.:> ACF(ES 199,75 920.00 O. 25 1 J 120. 00 R 16-02 153600-00-02200 LAND ~; IRR 81 - ----- Tell ..~\L AnVAt' 'T,.. .... 97850 4,280 CLASS G7F FA l'"'OJ. " 116919 HS AT8. 2 BOISE CASCADE CORP PO BOX 610 LA GRANDE > 76 OTHER ACCOUNTS TO !'(;L vr';l UF AT OOPR Ll I="D L ;;~ FL L.3 OSD L'1 * f-'-B DOPP $ 'h';LUr:" BL T i.GD f1-H "X" i i .~ 1 1 1 2 J ~.50 .30 : -I;' 1 11 1 J 730 20 .J:$. '" -. -'.-. NON ..-OOp P '- .... _ L f; N[) ~-: I Rr~ , V A !...JJE , 0[ (1 F) Fi' (j ~./['. /1 EN T \/AL UE' . rc.;TAL N-O V~l..t)E APPRAISAL YEAR: TREND PERCENT: SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS CODE FIRE PATROL (FL) 1 FIRE PATROL (GR> 2 * 8; T1AI ..··NCE DUE " " \ • X,·" ~', '1.- '" , ~~~ROP CLASS 563 MA 5 CITY CODE 5 PLNG ZONE F-S \ .. , , , ., , • • • -- •• ~ .. • • • , 11:34:54 26 APR 1gez r'10B1 LEHOME ------ 1981 (PRIOR) _ TOTAL ~ C_ ~ TO~ ASS~SD 84. 40% '6,710 3,660 1 () 1. ~~ ~.": DEFERRED DEFERRED .,~t~.s~~j~1, ;.__ r 5eiAA'-{)~ Po-'u~f tr - 6 1 ::j90 !1Cf~ES 339. 00 1 rj''") -"Sc,.c::.. / ~J S~~ 1. 7~ ~'-"--"---- :.... .- VALUE 6/755 755 7,510 101651. : i"1i-'F? D\.'L/"'iENT . SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 109.84 FIRE PATROL (FL)2~ 42 FIRE PATROL (GRJ INT/DISC ·JRNL RCPT/t DESCRIPTION o 00 \, 90 33484 O. 00 C 90 474 52 81 .Ltr'10UNT 109. 84 29 42 139. 2:~. 7 / 510 1982 (CURRENT) _ T. C. V. TOlL ASSESSD 85. 1 o/~ t () 1 7?Ll 101642 ACRE 270 ~ 251. 52 :)21 75 R eO-01 5S3000-00-00300 I l\ND ~I TRR ~- ...- ~----- T01AL I?ECr.:.l VED -89. 55 -89. 55 {'. ri V ,c~ 1_ TAX . ! (?\? 3'~1 ID 83814 ~ ..~) ~~ \'1·" !;~-.. 101640 101729 101640 ~DOPR / CLI'\SS FA G7P 1()~·-~· ... AT FL EF{) AT8.2 LOUISIANA PACIFIC CORP PO DRAW~R I COf:UR D'ALENE J 118 OTHER ACCOUNTS PROP CLASS 610 MA ~ CITy CODE a PLNG ZONE F~ ::.; ~l :j :> NON-OorJR --'- ~Lf~';ND ~~ IRR. (''/r''~lUE. rF~n D(~ -I E.. BTCH 11-15-81 202 02--15-82 263 I;F'PRP;ISAL YEAr-~. Trn:-r-·.ID PCRcr~NT: END SPECIAL ASSr:SSt1ENTS CDDE FIRE PATROL (~L) 1 FIRE PAT'~OL (GF1) ~:; . ,- .:-* t>t;~~-.,.! GJ ;~:' 1:-, !.J\ !\iC[-. D I)E. 101333(p) 101335 101656 101721 101969 101999 102024 • ... .,j i; -; • • " f f f Ll • l2 .~ , CLASS 610 MA 5 CITY CODE 3 PLNG ZONE F-2 ;,1 '~. ': I f:'",L /\SSESSMENTS CODe:: FIRE PATROL (FL) 1 FIRE PATROL CGR) 2 • • • • • • • • • • • • • .. 84. 40% 171380 r,SSESSD '", .. ~ (pr-; I OR ) TOTL 101654 101 Q h7 26 APR 1982 PevrG&( B 20.830 ...J~~~'~ 1 ; 101963 10:..:: 52 MOBILE HOME ------ 1981 TOTAL T. C. V. DEFERRED DEFERRED ACRES 1 J 006. 00 74. 00 1 J 080. CO SPECIAL A:'::'-:-t.SS;'1Et,jTS ::--1;;'15 -,;>4 r:rpl-::- P"11RDL (FL, i 1 71 F ~ ''; L-: t' p, ;- f'< [lL \ GR ) ;NT/DI~)C ,y,':JL RCPTtf DESCF IPTION 0.00 C 90 33478 0.00 C 90 47455 r l'"jPRO~';EMENT Vf\LUE 231091 469 23J560 AMOUNT 325. 94 11 91 337 35 23,560 aq i:> 1. 88 -246, 58 -246. 57 t'<' ~__ c: ~ 1 ')t: D /\ I )r...,/ ~.: . T A X l.t\ND 8< IRR, 81 ----- 1982 (CURRENT) ----- TOTAL T.C. V. TOlL ASSESSD 85. 10'% 20,050 ··:~~::·~~'~~"r:::t:~~~\~.. ~t::~~?~~·:'e-. R 80-01 5S300~:090 ID 83814 .. _' r-...... GOP R (-~ Lt\ ':."3S ACRES "'\ r FA 92;1 60, \ G7P 156.40 I '--- 1 I 080. 00.·/ -------_._-- ~ .CIFIC CORP ."..---"- ....---~ . / '. / /. ~6··:'/' , ' ". ~ _L 3! 41 T3~ 3~ -l 3! "!! -L _ ~ _J ~ _ . - _ _ J_ ~ _ .~.......~l. ..--:---....~ <;\ --- ~ flY 3 <; (8 ...~ tY ::::: If \\ II~ij- ~ ~r II II (3 cr \\ w II ~ w 7'" I~'i+ r --1V89°4:-":7f ,w-- 1/ .. 500 LEHMAN SPRINGS Scale 1" ::: 2,000' L 00 300 T/F-/ 10-31-89 ~~~ ..... ~RU~~~~~~I~~G~SlIN i RECREATIONA L ZONE ..:. 45.~ LO~V3 I -t LOT 2 .__ .," L'n ~5.39 1 -------. LOT 4 LOT , . 45.36 IlL'LOT 2~r:4:5~ . LOT 3 13 -+- - J I 8"/8 \>·9'.~2·W 7MEACHAM 15000 " 12601 12600T2 -IO.ooA,. 5-/8-76 13700 80.00 Ae. '2COOTI 13400 11000 lie -- -- ---I-~'~--+----'IIP-"''-X 3 25 - 18-76 12600 F-5 ,- 1/ 9-23-82 TOLLGATE - EAST COUNTY MOUNTAIN Comprehensive Land Use Plan Recommendations Prepared by Tollgate Mountain Citizens Advisory Committee Bob Klicker, Chairman Leona Shumway Lowell Eiffert Dean Knudson Bud Shubert Richard Mathison 9-23-82 ACKN0l4LEDGE~~ENTS The following agencies, private citizens and interest qroups have provided the Tollgate Citizens Advisory Committee with valuable information and much appreciated assistance. We wish to thank each one by setting aside this special acknowledgement section in recognition of our appreciation. STATE AGENCIES Department of Environmental Quality Ken Birkbeck Department of Fish and Wildlife r'~i chae1 Bl ack Sta te Department of Forestry Jeff Schwanke State Highway Department George Strawn PRIVATE GROUPS AND CITIZENS East End Rod &Gun Club Wes Slaughter, Private Timber Management Consultant All those property owners who filled out the Land Use Questionnaire FEDERAL AGENCIES Umatilla National Forest Ed Cole OTHER Uamtilla Electric Cooperative Association Bill Kopacz Harris Pine Mills Charles Fry Boise Cascade Stan Wilde )/~ ~I 9-23-82 B. Findings and Recommended Policies 1. Forest Goal (Findinqs) a. The Mill Creek and vicinity sub-area has important resource uses one of which is timber management. Conservation of forest lands for forest uses (e.g. summer grazing) is an important goal. b. The Tollgate Citizen's Advisory Committee recognizes the importance of proper timber manaqement and the need to follow appropriate state management laws such as the Oregon Forest Practices Act. I c. Even in areas where smaller recreational lots occur, economical and practical timber management is still possible according to Wes Slaughter, a timber management consultant. One such management technique is called I'uneven age timber management'l and allows effective small lot forest manaqement also considered important by the committee. d. The U. S. Forest Service is now in the process of de- veloping a Land Management Plan for the Umatilla National Forest. The decisions and actions of this agency have, and will continue 'to have, major effects on the economic, social and natural environment of this sub-area and the total county. 2. Forest Goal (Recommended Policies) a. To help protect forest lands for forest and other resource uses, a forest/grazin0 or similarly named zone shall be established and shall allow compatible resource uses. b. Because 20 acres is a more reasonable and economic management unit and better protects fish and wildlife resources than the existing 5 acre minimum, the new minimum parcel size for -7- 9-23-82 identified forest/grazing resource areas shall be 20 acres. c. Forest management in this sub-area as well as the other resource areas studied by the Tollgate Citizen's Advisory Committee shall be governed by the Oregon State Forest Practices Act; however, if a new recreation dwelling is allowed on an existing tax lot under 20 acres that has growing stands of timber, the "uneven age timber management" system will be a reco.m- mendation for development approval. (See also Recreational Goal) d. Better coordination and cooperation between the U. S. Forest Service and Umatilla County shall be attempted, par- ticularly as it relates to use of Forest Service lands east of this sub-area. County participation in the development of the Forest Service Land Management Plan for this area and the eventual use of the Land Management Plan policies shall be the starting point for this mutual coordination and cooperation. 3. Gravel and Aggregate Resources Goal (Findings) a. Existing and proposed gravel pit operations in the area do now and will provide important construction materials for on-site improvements such as road surfacing and repair, building construction, and rip-rapping stream banks to protect against erosion and flooding. b. Local gravel extraction is recognized as having the advantage of lower costs involved :with using nearby materials. 4. Gravel and Aggregate-Resources Goal (Recommended Policies) a. Extraction of aggregate resources from new source sites whether for commercial or non-commercial purposes shall be allowed in the Mill Creek and vicinity sub-area, but subject to Conditional Use procedures and standards in the zoning -8- ! ,r 9-23-82 ordinance. The intent of this policy is not to make it to difficult for private land owners who wish to use the aggregate material for non-commercial purposes, but to pro- teet surrounding land uses from excessive noise, dust, erosion and other rotential hazards. b. If an ~~i?~j~ aggregate site is to be reopened which proposes to use blastinq and other gravel removal or processin~ methods, (eg. rock crushinq, asphalt batch plants) such new operation shall be classified as a conditional use and subject to regulations in the zoning ordinance. to be removed for non-commercial uses and where there will be no use of process i ng equ i pment (e l1 • roc k crus hers), may he 1_ opened without obtaining a county'zoning permit. This pol,icy will especially apply to private landowners who wish to use the gravel for cin-site improvements or non-commercial purposes. d. It has come to the attention of the advisory committee that the County Road Department is proposing a surface mining ordinance. If the proposed ordinance is ado~ted, it is recommended that this ordinance be referenced to or incorporated as part of the County Zoninn Ordinance. S. Fish and Wild 1i f eGoal (Findin9s ) a. A concern of the Committee in this sub-area is the protection of fish and wildlife habitat. b. The Mill Creek and vicinity sub-area has significant big game populations which use the habitat for both summer and winter range. -9- 9-23-82 c. Some streams here provide important sports fishery habitat. 6. Fish and Wildlife Goal (Recommended Policies) a. To protect fish and wildlife habitat in this sub-area, (except the Mill Creek basin which is designated Mountain/ Residential) the county shall adopt the Forest/Grazing or similar zone allowing compatible land uses with fish and wildlife and a recommended parcel size minimum of 20 acres. b. The lIuneven age timber management" system will be a recommendation for all new recreational dwellings approved by the County on lots smaller than 20 acres to assure needed land cover retention for fish and wildlife habitat on the site and help assure compatibility of adjacent habitat areas. 7. Recreational Goal (Findings) a. The Mill Creek basin has mostly developed into a re- creational dwelling area and the small remaining portion should be allowed to develop into similar uses. Power, water, electricity and good access help support further recreational development here. b. There are several small, isolated areas around Saddle f1t., Big Meadows, Henry Canyon and in other remote locations where parcel sizes are 1eass than 20 acres. These lots could accomodate a few recreational cabins without major conflicts to adjacent resource lands. Appropriate development require- ments and public hearing review aooroval could further assure compatibility. -10- ---. 9-23-82 8. Recreational Goal (Recommended Policies) a. The Mill Creek basin, shown on map as approximately ~ mile on either side of Mill Creek shall be designa- ted for recreational home development. Density of new develop- ment shall be at 5 acre minimums and any future land split proposal shall be required to follow appropriate requirements in the Mountain Subdivision Worksheet and,if applicable,to 'encourage management of any timber on the new parcel according to the "uneven age timber management" system. b. Lots legally existing at the time of this plans' adoption and within the Mill Creek basin shall continue to be legal lots for recreational dwellinq development. New recreational lot owners will be encouraged to complete and follow suqgestions in the Mountain Subdivision Worksheet that apply to their property. c. Parcels of 20 acres or less outside the t1ill Creek Basin area shall be allowed to ~ave a recreational dwelling' with the followi~g additional requirements: (~ A Conditional Use Permit be applied for and approved by the county; (i~ The applicant shall address and be encouraoed to follow applicable requirements in the Mountain Subdivision worksheet; (See appendix) (ii~ The owner be encouraqed to manage any timber on the new parcel as recommended in the "uneven atl£? timber management" system. -11- 9-23-82 C. Plan Map Recommendations Based upon the above report and findinqs, the committee recommends the following land use designations on the Plan Map for the Mill Creek and vicinity sub~area: 1. The Mill Creek basin area be designated Mountain Recreation with the allowance of recreational dwellings. Development standards as mentioned in the recommended policy section are attached to permit orderly development of the small remaining areas and to help protect adjacent resource 1ands. 2. Areas within the sub-area but outside the Mill Creek Basin are recommended to be called Forest/Grazing or a similarly-named land designation in recognition of the existing resource uses. Livestock grazing or similar agricultural uses, forest management, and certain utilities are to be allowed. Parcel size minimums and other standards in the recommended policies are suggested to help conserve these lands for resource uses. Some recreational cabins may be permitted only in certain areas and with development standards as outlined earlier. -12- - 9-23-82 II. Tollgate Corridor A. Descri pt ion The Tollgate Highway Corridor is the most extensively developed recreation area in Umatilla County. A description of the area foll ows: The west border of the corridor starts at the Umatilla Electric I Cooperative substation. A more accurate description of this boundary is the center section line of Section 25, Township 4N, Range 36. Based upon local property owner knOWledge, the permanent snow line begins at this point. Development east and increasing in elevation up the mountain they say is of a recreational nature, being seasonal and related to the scenic values of the area. Below the snow line, dwellings are mostly related to grazing, agricultural uses and non- farm, rural residential and tend to be year-around residences. The east boundary of the Tollgate Corridor extends to the Union County 1ine. Recreational ;'1or,le site development ends at about Langdon Lake because beyond this point for about two miles is U. S. Forest Service property where land uses are controlled by the Federal government. Close cooperation with this agency is seen to be important by the committee to help resolve some existing land use problems (eg. off highway parking) and to coordinate planning ~fforts especially involvinq potential land swaps or sales between private land owners and the Forest Service. The north and south borders of the corridor are boundary lines approximately ~ mile from both sides of the hiqhway right-af-way. This distance approximately represents the existing and rather larne area of recreational home and lot development on Tollgate Mountain. -13 ... 9-23-82 Land uses within the Tollgate Corridor are largely recreation-related. Along with recreational cabins, some mobile homes and vacation trailers, there are several commercial uses related to the large number of recreational users needing supplies. Existing commercial facilities appear to be adequate, es- pecially in view of the Spout Springs facilities only four or five miles east, which include skiing facilities and a lodge with r~staurant and some overnight accommodations. Lot sized associated with these recreational uses vary in size from less than ~ acre to over 100 acres. The smaller lots are due to previously approved recreatbnal subdivisions and land divisions allowed under zoning regulations since 1972. The larger lots are properties partially developed or surrounded by or ~rlja('ent to the~e ~mallert mare intensively developed ~ecrpational properties. There are some recognized problems with existing and future uses within the Tollgate Corridor. Off-highway parking is a problem during the winter along with tresspass and associated damage to private property. Related to this are citizen concerns of maintaining and protecting the scenic and environmental values of the area while still allowing additional recreational development. Lastly, maintaining a~cess during the winter is a problem esrecially along the main highway (State Highway 204). State highway crews using snow blowing equipment often have a difficult time of properly removing snow off the highway because they have to avoid blowing it in areas where cabins or other improvements are located adjacent to the highway. Encouraging t~e leaving of vegetation along the highway will help stop snow thrown by snow blowing equipment from damaging existing dwellings and buildings. -14- I l,... 9-23-82 Policies and development requirements includinq a separate section on the Cluster Development concept are recommended for future recreational uses to help solve some of these land use problems and still help protect scenic values and natural resources. This sub-area does have big game populations of deer and elk. Nearly all of this sub-area is outside of elk or deer winter range but several migration corridors cross the area. Identification of, and specific development recommendations for these miqration corri- dors are prop~sed to.help assist continued movement of big ~ame between summer and winter ranges. Vegetation should be kept in these corridor crossings to protect the game. A lot of the corridor area does have, by eastern Oregon standards, moderate to high timber productivity; but much of the corridor is de- veloped into recreational homes on small non-economical lots for tim~er management. However, small wood lot management is recognized to be practical here and can be important to the overall county timber harvest inventories. Special development policies are re- commended to help achieve this important task. Property owners and committee members also recognize the importance of protecting several historic monuments. These monuments are listed in the findings section and several policies are suggested to protect and preserve them for future qenera- tions. As part of planning for future maintenance of roads and Highway 204, existing and proposed gravel extraction uses are re- cognized as an important land use activity. Allowance of these uses are provided for and have suggested guidelines to make sure they and land uses surrounding them can exist in harmony. -15- 9-23-82 -16- - .r ) 9-23-82 3. Forest Goal (Findings) a. The Tollgate Citizen Advisory Committee's quest~onnaire shows that area land owners recognize the importance of proper timber management and the need to follow appropriate state management laws such as the Oregon Forest Practices Act ORS. Chapter ~~1 ; yet there is strong disapproval of clearcutting which tends to ruin scenic and recreational values for which the T611gate Highway Corridor area is known and used. b. Based upon information received from Wes Slaughter, a timber management consultant, economic and practical timber management is still possible along the Tollgate Highway Corridor despite the many existing small lots and extensive recreational development. (eg. cabins, recreational sub- divisions and support commercial uses) One such forest management technique appropriate for the Tollgate Corridor area is call ed "uneven age ti mber management". (See Appendi x for further explanation of this management system:) This technique retains vegetation and tree cover necessary for recreational values and allows effective woodlot management on small acreages. c. It is recognized that some existing development is rather dense along the Tollgate Highway, and that continuation of the same pattern will not necessarily be in the best interests of the area's recreational values nor allow effective har- vesting or manaqing of the timber resource which is still possible as just discussed. d. After discussion with the above mentioned local timber management consultant, it was determined that a five acre -17- 9-23-82 minimum lot size with a requirement to use the Iluneven age timber management'l system would allow additional recreational development and still provide a satisfactory way to grow and harvest existing timber resources within the corridor and better protect adjacent timber/grazing land uses adjacent to the Corridor. 4. Forest Goal (Recommended Policy) a. Forest management in Umatilla County shall be governed by the Oregon State Forest Practices Act, so as to assure continued timber productivity; however, in the Tol19ate Highway Corridor forest practices such as II uneven age timber management 'l techniques that increase timber productivity and still protect scenic and recreational values and fish and wildlife habitat sh~ll be required wtlen any new lot split (land partition) is approved. b. To insure that new recreational land owners who wish to have a dwelling in the Corridor are aware of the potential for small iot timber management, they are encouraqed to complete and follow the suggestions in the t10untain Subdivision Worksheet at the time of zoning application approval for a recreational dwelling. c. Compatible use zones and lot sizes that help protect water, timber, grazing, scenic and recreational values, and fish and wildlife of the Corridor area shall be established. To achieve this policy the Tollgate committee recommends a five (5) acre minimum lot size for new recreational lot splits within the Corridor and a twenty (20) acre minimum parcel -18- 9-23-82 size for proposed land divisions outside the Tollgate Corridor on timber/grazing resource lands. 5. Historical Goal (Findings) a. Four monuments of historic value have been identified by the Tollgate Citizen's Advisory Committee as worthy of preservation consideration. Three of these monuments are called the Olinger Monuments. They are located on private property and are encouraged to be preserved and protected. b. The other monument is located just west of Langdon Lake on State Highway Division Land. 6. Historical Goal (Recommended Policies) a. As a part of any development review, the County shall require appropriate measures to protect the identified Olinger Monuments or any other historic sites or buildings in the Tollgate Corridor that might be later identified and included for preservation or protection. b. Protection measures shall include setbacks and other non- disturbance methods to be included in the Zoning and Sub-division Ordinances. Property owners shall also be encouraged to preserve these sites through tax or other incentive proqrams. Preservation and protection may also include the possible eventual purchase of the Olinger Monuments by the county for relocation to an accessible view point. 7. Gravel 3nd Aggregate Resources Goal (Findings) *See GRAVEL AND AGGREGATE FINDINGS on page 8. The'y are applicable here also. -19- 9-23-82 8. Gravel and Aggregate Resources Goal (Recommended Pol icies) *See GfW EL AND AGGREGATE RECOMMENDED POLICIES on pages 8 and 9. They apply here as well. 9. Fish and Wildlife Goal (Findings) a.A major concern of property owners in the Tollgate Corridor area is the protection of wildlife habitat and to stop further disturbance of these migration routes of big game. b.The Corridor area has significant big ~ame populations which use the habitat for summer range and as a mi~ration area between winter ranges in the Walla Walla and Umatilla River basins. c.The Tollgate Citizen1s Committee identified five im- portant big game crossings along the Tollgate Highway and they have been located on map --- d. Working with a State Fish and Wildlife employee, it was agreed to identify an area or game corridor somewhat larger than the actual game crossing whereby certain re- strictions and requirements should be placed upon proposed development within this area to help the continued movement of big game across the highway to area summer and winter ranges. 10. Fish and Wildlife (Recommended Policies) a. To protect the five identified big game migration trails in the Tollgate Corridor are~ the following regulations will beimposed: ' (i) A ten acre minimum lot size for recreational uses shall be imposed within an identified bi~ game -20- - / { .-~ 9-23-82 protection corridor; ( i i) The location of the ten acre minimum requirement shall be defined as a big game migration corridor one- half mile wide and is to extend all the way to whatever corridor 'is settled upon. (iii) No commercial uses shall be allowed within an identified big game corridor area; (iv) The Iluneven age timber management 'l system will be required for any parcel division within the miqration protection area to help maintain needed ve~etation cover; ~) A one hundred foot setback requirement starting from the Highway 204 right-of-way shall be placed upon any proposed buildings or dwellings in these protection areas; (vi) No clustering of development is recommended with- in a big game migration corridor. 11 . Recreational Goal Findings) a. More off-highway parking is needed along Highway 264 in the winter months and the location of these facilities ;s important not only to provide the most convenience for the recreational users but also to reduce additional opportunities of an already increasing trespass problem on private property. b. Umatilla County should encouraqe the location of new off- highway parking along Highway 204 on Umatilla National Forest 9-23-82 Service Land east of Langdon Lake to the Union County line. Off-highway parking located in this area will provide a needed service and reduce the potential problem of trespass on pri- vate property. c. There are three existing commercial areas serving the Tollgate recreationa area; (1) The Tollgate Chalet, (2) Tamarack Inn, (3) Tollgate Shopping Center. Citizen comments lndicate that no new commercial areas are necessarily needed or desired along the Tollgate Highway Corridor at present and that if new commercial uses are proposed, they should be expansions of existing commercial centers and allowed under special conditions or requirements. d. Additional picnic and day use facilities and travel trailer parks are needed by recreational users along the Tollgate Highway Corridor. These uses are more appropriate on Forest Service property or under special conditions within or expansions of the three existing commercial areas listed in the above finding. e. Specific commercially related recreational uses not recommended for the Tollgate Corridor area are Dude Ranches and Resorts. Land owner, and committee comments indicate that such uses if allowed would create unacceptable tress- pass problems. f. Another major concern of area property owners is the retention of existing scenic views, recreational values and the protection of environmental quality (eg. water, soil ~ air). Specifically, protection of natural vegetation and the prevention -22- 9-23-82 of buildings too close to the highway riqht-of-way is desired not only to keep scenic values but to also allow the State Highway Department to remove snow off the highway without interference from or damage to private dwellinqs. Commercial building setbacks should be treated differently than dwellinos because siting requirements and off-hiqhway parkinq result in other kinds of preparation and maintainence practices. For example parking lots near the hi~hway are cleared of snow by the owners thus highway crews do not blow snow off the hiqhway into these parking areas. g. Committee members see a need for additional recreational development but at this time feel such development should be accomplished in an orderly and efficient manner. As an approach to achieve this goal, such measures as density controls, develop- ment standards, and limiting , the area to be developed for such uses are suggested to hopefully allow orderly recreational development along with orderly economic expansion of utility services and roads. 12. Recreational Goal (Recommended Policies) a. Better coordination and cooperation efforts between the U. S. Forest Service and Umatilla County shall be made, partic- ularly as it relates to the use of Forest Service lands east of Langdon Lake. b. Maximizinq the use of economic and personnel resources to help construct needed off-highway parking and other recrea- tional uses on Federal Forest Service land described in the findings, the County shall seek and coordinate inter-governmental, public, and private group cooperation and participation. -23 - 9-23-82 c. Day use and travel trailer park facilities shall be encouraged to locate on Federal Forest Service land and shall be permitted as conditional uses in existing adjacent commercial areas subject to the same criteria as required for commercial recreational uses found in the following policy. d. New commercial uses recommended by the COlilmittee as needed in the Tollgate area to serve recreationists will only be allowed adjacent to one of the three existing commercial centers. These new uses shall be permitted as conditional uses upon showing that the land where the new use is proposed has no significant commercial timber potential, is not within a big game migration corridor as identified on the plan map, and that the use will be sufficiently buffered so that it will not adversely affect or conflict with adjacent land uses. Buffering measures for new commercial proposals shall include the requirement of a 60' setback r~quirement from the Highway 204 right-of-way. Expansions or additions to present commercial buildings shall be required to meet special regulations relating to pre- existing uses. e. New recreational dwellings and their accessory structures that are proposed to be built along Highway 204, shall be subject to a one hundred foot setback regulation. The setback shall be measured starting from the highway right-of-way line. Keeping or retaining existing vegetation cover within this one hundred foot setback area is also required. f. To achieve orderly and compatible development, future recreational proposals shall be limited to an approximate .... " 9-23-82 one-half mile corridor along each side of Highway 204 starting at the right-of-way line. The west boundary shall start at the Umatilla Electrical Cooperative Substation and shall end at the Union County line. Density of new develop- ment shall be at a minimum of five acres and above. (See also Cluster Development Section) g. Parcels legally existing at the time of this plans' adoption and within the Tollgate Highway Corridor shall continue to be legal lots for recreational dwelling development and are encouraged to complete and follow applicable suggestions in the Mountain Subdivision Worksheet. 13. Cluster Develo ment Conce t (Additional Recreational Development Considerations a. Clustering development in a group and leaving the remaining in permanent open space can have advantages over conventional subdivision lots in certain circumstances. For example, areas of scenic beauty, good timber growing areas, important fish and wildlife habitat can be saved and the remaining area used for recreational development after consideration of those physical and other characteristics of the site. b. The cluster development concept can save the developer significant savings because of the reduced length requirements for roads, utilities and the corresponding lower construction costs. Public cost to serve cluster developments are also usually lower. c. It is recognized that some properties may not be appro- priate for clustering. These properties include lots where -25- 9-23-82 zone and sha 11 parcel sizes or existing land uses will not meet recommended _ 4 cluster development standards or be compatible with or appro- priate for this type of development. Clustering of development will be preferred over other methods. 14. Cluster Development (Recommended Policies) a. Any proposed recreational development on existing parcels of 20 acres and larger or future divisions of property in excess ·of 20 acres that take place within the Tollgate Highway Corridor shall be allowed only under the regulation provisions of cluster developments. The only exception to this policy is if the app- licant can show to the county's satisfaction that another develop- ment method will better preserve the scenic beauty and natural resources of the site and those upon adjacent lands or if the development is within one of the big qame miqration corridors where clusterinq is not recommended. b. Cluster developments shall have a five acre density minimum as allowed in a Mountain Residential or similarly named be processed and reviewed similar to a subdivision or partition under regulations found in the subdivision ordinance. c. Criteria used to approve a cluster development shall include but not be limited to: (i) Adequate water supplies to serve the development are available; (ii) A requirement to manage any areas of marketable timber under the "uneven age forest management" system; (iii) Maintaining the remaining area not planned or con- sidered appropriate for recreational home development in permanent open space or in timber management; -26- 9-23-82 (iv) A minimum of one-half acre of site area shall be allowed per dwelling; (v) Roads within the cluster development shall meet county standards. d. To emphasize the value of cluster development in or adjacent to resource lands, the county will encourage clusterino on property under 20 acres in size within the Tollgate Highway Corridor except in big game migration corridors as explained in earlier policies. C. Plan Map Recommendations The Tollgate Citizens Advisory Committee recommends the Tollqate Highway Corridor be designated ~10untain Recreation with recoqnition that recreational dwellings, some commercial uses and necessary utilities are to be allowed. Site specific locations and develop- ment standards are listed to allow recreational development in an orderly manner within the highway corridor. Also, special consid- eration of the limited but important timber resource and protection of scenic beauty are ahso covered within the policy statements. -27- 9-23-82 III. Blalock - Lincton - Basket Mountain A. Oescri pt ion This area is south of Government r10untain Road and north of the Tollgate Corridor sub-area. Both the North and South Forks of the Walla Walla River flow through this region. The terrain is rugged with timber in the river and creek bottoms and on the north and west facing slopes. ,South and east facing slopes are often bare or lightly timbered and steep and used for seasonal grazing by livestock interests. Examination of the timber productivity for this area shows it to be average or just below average. Some areas, by eastern Oreqon standards, have good timber productivity according to generalized forestry and soils information. These better timber growing areas are said to be toward the Tollgate Highway and in some areas south of the Government Mt. Road. The study area contains a large amount of critical deer and elk winter range according to the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Also, important sport fishery populations are found in the Walla Walla River forks, upper reaches of Couse Creek, Elbow Creek and in small streams within the National Forest east of this sub-area. Important watershed supplies are contained in the Blalock - Lincton - Basket Mountain sub-area. This water is used by farmers and orchar- dists along the forks and main stream of the Walla Walla River and in the Orchard district north and west of tlilton-Freewater. Re- cognition of this important resource will be reflected in policies for its protection on private land and in working with the U. S. Forest Service to develop a Land Management Plan that considers the -28... 9- 23-82 very vital relationship of watershed protection and management on Forest Service Land and how this effort results in benefits to down stream users. Recreation in the area includes fishing, hunting, hikin~, some horseback riding and overnight camrin0. The county maintains a park along the South Fork of the Walla Walla. The name of the park is Harris Park and provides picnic and some overnight camping spots" Possible expansion of the park and staged improvements are being considered if money becomes available. Lot sizes in this sub-area are rather large. Some land ownerships are as large as 10,000 acres. There are a few scattered parcels throughout the sub-area around 20~~0. acres. T~ere are several very sma 11 i so1ated )Jackets 0 ~- 1aild .owners:,i ~s from one to fi ve acres in size along the South Fork of the Walla Walla River. B. Findings and Recommended Policies 1. Forest Goal (Findinfls) *Same FOREST GOAL FIN Dr NGS appropri ate as those found on page 7. 2. f ores t Goa1 (Recommended Po1i cies) *See a11 FOREST GOAL RECOMMEN DE DPOL IC IES on pages 7 and 8. 3. Gravel and Aggregate Resources Goal (F indings) * See a1so all GMV EL AN 0 AGG REGATE FIN DINGS on page 8. 4. Gravel and Aggregate Rsources Goal (Recommended Policies) *See all GRAV EL AND AGGREGATE POLICIES on pages 8 and 9. 5. Fish and Wildlife Goal (Findings) *See also all FISH AND WILDLIFE FINDINGS on pages 9 and 10. 6. Fish and vJildlife Goal (Recommended Policies) *See all of RECOMMENDED POLICIES on page 10; they are applicable here as well. -29- 9-23-82 4. Recreational Goal (Findings) a. Recreational uses such as campgrounds and hiking trails are desired by recreational users who have access to this -sub-area. b. There are several isolated but small areas of lots with parcel sizes of less than 20 acres. These lots could accom- odate a few recreational cabins without major conflicts to adjacent resource lands. Appropriate development requirements could further assure compatibility. 7. Recreational Goal (Recommended Policies) a. Make provisions in the Comprehensive Plan and appropriate implementing ordinances for the expansion or development of campgrounds and hiking trails. Such provisions shall include req~irements to maintain the natural character of the area as much as is possible and be designed to be compatible with ad- jacent resource lands. b. *See RECOMMENDED POLICY (c), page 11. C. Plan Map Recommendation Based upon the above report and fi.ndings., the committee recommend s the following land use designation on the Plan Map for the Blalock-Lincton- Basket Mt. sub-area~ "This sub-area de designated Forest/Grazing or similarly named designation -30- - .- ) 9-23-82 to recognize existing resource uses. Forest management, livestock grazing, or similar agricultural uses and certain utilities are to be allowed. Parcel size minimums and other standards in the recommended policies are suggested to help conserve these lands for resource uses. Some recreational cabins may be permitted only under certain circumstances and must f~llow appropriate procedures and development standards as out- lined earlier." -31- 9-23-82 IV. Reed - Hawley Mts. Sub-area A. Description The Reed - Hawley Mountain study area is the southern most region examined. It mostly consists of the lands south of the Tollgate Corridor area to about the Uitlatilla River. The Umatilla River is temporarily chosen as the southern boundary only because a more definite boundary could not be determined by the committee to separate this sub-area from the different land use activities to the south. The committee feels that this southern boundary could be re-adjusted when land owners, who have been attendinq Meacham area meetings and the planning commission better determine appropriate land uses along the Umatilla River. The major land uses within the Reed - Hawley Mt. sub-area are livestock grazing and 'some timber management. What general informa- tion is available on the quality or quantity of these resource land uses indicates that both timber growinq potential and grass sustaining capability is better in the northern part of the sub- area than along the south facing slopes of the Umatilla River. This sub-area contains a significant amount of deer and elk winter range according to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Protection of this habitat is considered in the recommended policy section. Land ownership characteristics of this sub-area tend to be rather large. Sizes exceed 1,000 acres. There are a few scattered lots that are between 10 and 20 acres in size that were parceled many years ago. Recreation in this area is mainly limited to hunting. Other -- "". 9-23-82 forms of recreation usually occuring throughout the Blue Mountains such as hiking, fishing, overnight camping and horseback riding are available or provided just to the south of this sub-area, alonq the Umatilla River. The arr.a alonq the Umatilla River has better access i bi 1i ty than the Reed ~ Hawley irlts .. sub-area. Lastly, coordination of further land use planning between several adjacent governmental agencies is an important aspect to consider for this sub-area. Forest Service Lands are to the east and south and as mentioned in other parts of this report close coordination with this federal agency is highly recommended. Also, the Umatilla Indian Reservation is west of this sub-area and is developing its 6wn comprehensive land use plan and set of development codes. Communication with the Reservation should also be considered. B. Findings and Recommended Policies 1. Forest Goal (Findings) *All FOREST GOAL findings on page 7 apply here, as well. 2. Forest Goal (Recommended Policies) a. *A11 FOREST GOAL RECOMMEN DE D POL IC IES, except (d) on page 8, are also appropriate for this sub-unit. b. C10ser coord ina t i on and coopera t i on between the U.S. Fores t Service, the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and Umatilla County shall be attempted, particularly as it relates to future use and management of all respective lands. County participation in the development of the Forest Service Land Management Plan and Comprehensive Plan proposals for lands within the Indian Reserva t i on and the eventua1 us e of these p1ansI po1i ci es shall be the starting point for this Illutual cooperation and coordination. -33.. 9-23-82 3. Gravel and Aggregate Resources Goal (Findings) *All GRAVEL AND AGGREGATE FINDINGS on page 8 are appropriate here. 4. Gravel and Aggregate Resources Goa" (Recommended Pol icies) *All GRAVEL AND AGGREGATE RECOMMENDED POLICIES on pages 8 and 9 apply here. 5. Fish and Wildl ife Goal (F indings) *All FISH AND WILDLIF E GOAL FINDINGS on pages 9 and 10 apply here also. 6. Fish and Wildlife Goal (Recommended Policies) *All FISH AND WILDLIF E GOAL RECOMMENDED POLICIES on page 10 to be recommended here. 7. Recreational Goal (Findings) *See RECREATIONAL GOAL FINDING (b) on page 10, which applies here also. 8. Recreational Goal (Recommended Policies) *RECOMMENDED POLICY (c) on page 11 is appropriate here. C. Plan Map Recommendations The committee recommends the following land use designation on the Plan Map for the Reed - Hawley Mt. sub-area: "This sub-area be designated Forest/Grazing or similar designation in recognition of existing resource uses. Forest management, livestock grazing or similar agri~ultural uses, and certain utilities will be allowed. Parcel size minimums and other standards in the recommended policies are suggested to help conserve these lands for resource uses. Some recreational cabins may be permitted only under certain circum- stances and must follow appropriate procedures and development standards as outlined earlier. 1I -34- \ '-'. MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION WORKSHEEr This wrksheet lists item.s which will likely be addr<'ssed by the Pl:u1l1in~~ Corrmission when reviewing suitability of a site for recreational development. Discussion and resolution of such im})ortant concerns as tl1(~ c:nviroT1lTlOnt, r i sh and wi Idlife, impacts upon adjacent resource lands, and the' effec.ts upon existing or proposed county facilities will be facilitated b~,.' following lhis review outline. It is extremely important to examine and consider all applicable iten-s when developing and before submitting your subdivision proposal. If you do, the review process should be considerably shortened, with wlnecessary delays and revisions avoided, and overall development costs lessened. Site Analysis I. Natural Environment Concerns l ~{r:'-[ T 0\ ',Jt. ii, . t '.1 L. . \.1 ·r • -~j", 7' 1 '...t 1. Does the site analysis map indicate the following natural environment info and concerns? o Topography showing contours o Showing steep slopes over 25% o Natural drainage showing direction of flow ~ Drainage from existing roads D Drainage fran offsi te locat ions o Areas of wet lands or marshes ~ Location of creeks or streams, lakes, ponds, springs o location of periodic flcxxiing areas c==J Location of forest or wcxxied lands o Recently logged; when? ____ years ago o Not logged for last (30) (40) years o Location of open areas or meadows I I IDeation of agricultural areas (grazing) I---J Infonnation about climatic variables such as sun angles and wind directions for summer and winter ( I Location of poor soils, rock out croppings or poorly drained soils 2. How does the proposal consider the following natural environment considerations? A. Natural Drainage ( I Are natural drainage ways preserved, where passible? -1- o Arc) abrupt grade chww:es desil-o':l1ed to control erosion? o Is surface runoff handled so that on-sit() 8Yea.s will not lx' eroded and adjacent pronerties are not floexied or caused to have additional erosion? o Is thcTP a pl'oposa'l to delVe] op a rnrul-rnacl(' dl'alnagl' sys Cern'? r I' so, how will this system better eontain or dispose roooff thWl natural drainage? o How will storm drainage fran parking areas be handled? B. Topog;raphy o Do development improvements and proposed ] and clearing avoid steep sloped areas? (over 25%) o Are road locations and their required and/or proposed ~provement standards designed to follow grades and handle nmoff to allow safe and convenient access to properties? Are slope easements necessary? o Are lots designed to consider topographic liabilities? (eg. access, building and sanitation requirements, emergency vehicles) C. Soil o Do development jmprovements (eg. road, structural) and proposed land clearing avoid soils with slumping, erosion, sliding, building restrietions, or poor draining characteristics? o Are lots located to avoid soil liabilities listed above? I I D. Water o Are rrdtigation measures proposed that would alleviate adverse soil impacts if lots are located on these soils? Is surface drainrrge arrDl1ged so as not to der;ridate existing water supplies? o Do developrnent irnprovernc~nts (incl tiding 1and c.l eaTi ng) nnd 1ayout eonsider PX'Ot'.(!CL ion oj' waU'I' s()urc(~s? -2~ o Arei mprovenx..m ts HPtbad<. rur 0nough l'rcm wat(·~r sources to avoid pollution fran septic tanl-l)(-?cted [rem the developrrent? i<---_ r---; '-'-- Are there provisions fo1' at least two or'trure exits and entrances to the develOprlent from the existing road system? Are the proposed roads wi.de enough aJld 'to a standard to hWldl01 expected traf fj c? Does the proposed road system provide ace-ess to all lots or dwellings proposed? Is the proposed road system laid out to avoid steop grades? Are the rond:-:; proposed to be maintained hy thp developers, O\\11ors, 01' homeO'lVners a,c:;soc.i at ion? 13. DNelJ ings, Buildings, H(1c,rc 1at1onal Facilitic's, Parldnp; Area Loeath~ls,_ Historie Sites and_13uilc~inv~ ,--, Do delve I I (» >l1X In t. pi :U1:-i n !(',< )g-n j ZC' ancl pre 's< 'I'\,{' h 1S L( l)' i ('. bu i 1dings by sere(~ning, llU1d:-)('apinf~ or limiting df'Vc,j()I)!Yj(,Jnt n('ar tll(' huiJding(s)? -6- o If' appli.cable, do (·~xjBting buildings, dwellings, recreational fael Ii ties or parking area..s to remain on the property fit into ,,'" -;'" thp overall development 0cherrB? I I Al'u proposed r<~cr(~ati ona) fu.ci 1i t j os provided to rreet tho ant i- c~pated need or demands of the development "and if proposed the need or use of the general pWJlic? I I Is there adequate on-site parl\:ing to handle expected vehicle use and are these 'areas located conveniently to serve users? c==J Is there a proposal to maintain the proposed parking and recreational facilities by the owners or a homeowners association? r ] Will the parking area be screened fran other developllBnts on the 8ite and fran adj acent land uses? ) ,/ I I Are recreation-open space areas or facilities located and designed to encourage its use? ,,' o Are bui ldings and dwellings located to maintain and enjoy the natural settings, views, etc. of the site? o Are recreation-open space areas or facilities located away fran " adjacent sensitive uses? C. Cultural-Natural-Archeological Areas or Sites cr Have buildings and other site elements been designed and located to preserve identified cultural and natural areas or archeological sites? I I Do ltmd clearing plans mll1DnlZe adverse ~)acts or avoid cultural- natural or archeological areas or sites? D. Utilities I I Can existing utilities handle j ncrea.ses in services required froY) the developrrent? -7- )