DOCSLIB.ORG

Findings and Recommendations of the Lane County Large Events Task Force

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Findings and Recommendations of the Lane County Large Events Task Force September 28, 2015 Findings and Recommendations of the Lane County Large Events Task Force Page 2 Contents 1. The Charge of The Lane County Large Events Task Force p. 4 2. Reasons For Hosting Large Events In Lane County Parks p. 5 3. The Mission of Lane County Parks p. 5 4. Existing Rules and Restrictions Regarding Park Use p. 7 5. General Conclusions & Guiding Principles p. 8 6. Recommendations for Policies and Standards Regarding Large Events p. 9 Frequency and Duration of Large Events Noise Environmental Impacts Traffic and Parking Fire Safety/Emergency Response Public Safety/Security Alternatives to Large Events as Sources of Park Revenue Appropriateness of Large Events throughout the Parks System 7. Concerns and Findings Regarding Large Events p. 13 Frequency and Duration of Large Events Noise Environmental Impacts Traffic and Parking Fire Safety/Emergency Response Public Safety/Security Park Revenue Appropriateness of Large Events throughout the Parks System 8. Special Considerations for Howard Buford Recreation Area p. 19 9. Overarching Observations p. 20 Appendices p. 23 A: Members of the Lane County Large Events Task Force B: Lane County Parks Suitable or Potentially Suitable For Large Events C: Subject Experts Who Provided Information to the Task Force D: Biodiversity Inventory Update for Emerald Meadows E: Emerald Meadows Transportation Demand Management Plan F: Lane County Parks Large Events Survey G: Parks Advisory Committee/Stakeholder Event Review and Oversight Group Findings and Recommendations of the Lane County Large Events Task Force Page 3 1. The Charge of the Lane County Large Events Task Force In the summer of 2013, large events were held in the Emerald Meadows portion of Howard Buford Recreation Area which generated concerns surrounding the events and the criteria used to approve events. As a result, the Lane County Board of Commissioners expressed interest in establishing “success criteria” for large events that must be met in order for an event to be approved. In June 2014, the Lane County Board of Commissioners directed the Lane County Administrator to create a Lane County Large Events Task Force charged with the responsibility of developing and recommending to the Board operational policies and standards to be applied in all Lane County Parks Special Event Contracts and to determine the appropriateness of such events throughout the Park System. Fourteen Lane County citizens were appointed to the Task Force representing the following interests: local tourism, lodging, Lane County Parks Advisory Committee, Friends of Buford Park and Mt. Pisgah, Mount Pisgah Arboretum, Sheriff’s Mounted Posse, outdoor events industry, the Seavey Loop neighborhood, young adults (18‐34 years of age) and general park users. The Task Force was staffed by Lane County Parks Division personnel. (See Appendix A.) For purposes of the Task Force, a “large event” was defined as a single event attended by 1,000 or more people; the event may occur within a single day, or may be spread over several continuous days. It may be an event open to the public or by private invitation only, and it may be conducted by a commercial enterprise, not‐for‐profit organization, private individual, governmental agency, or public institution. The Lane County Parks Division proposed, and the Task Force concurred, that 10 county parks either are currently capable, or with improvements are potentially capable, of accommodating large events. The criteria used to select the parks included: the park is at least 10 acres in size; the land is zoned either Parks & Recreation (PR), Rural Parks & Recreation (RPR), Impacted Forest Land (F2), or Rural Public Facilities (RPF); the land is either in Lane County ownership, or it is leased on a long‐term basis; and parking is available on‐site. (See Appendix B.) Examples of large events which have occurred in recent years include: Large Event Attendees Triton Yacht Club Boat Show at Richardson Park 1,000 Oregon Supported Living Pedal for People at Armitage Park 1,200 Triathlon Eugene at Richardson Park 1,600 Gear Heads Classic Car Show at Armitage Park 2,000 Wildflower Festival at Mount Pisgah Arboretum/HBRA 2,500 4th of July at Richardson Park and Orchard Point 4,500 Mushroom Festival at Mount Pisgah Arboretum/HBRA 4,500 Faerieworlds at Emerald Meadows/HBRA 6,000 Kaleidoscope Music Festival at Emerald Meadows/HBRA 7,500 The Dirty Dash at Emerald Meadows/HBRA 10,000 The Task Force met during 20 regularly scheduled meetings, each at least two hours in duration, from June 23, 2014 to September 28, 2015. Additionally, smaller working groups composed of Task Force members met on a number of occasions to study specific issues, the results of which were discussed with the entire Task Force. To inform the Task Force’s recommendations, expert testimony was obtained from “subject experts” versed in law, public administration, economics, land use planning, transportation, environmental analysis, law enforcement and public advocacy. (See Appendices C, D and E.) Findings and Recommendations of the Lane County Large Events Task Force Page 4 Additionally, substantial efforts were made to engage the general public by providing opportunities for comment before and after each Task Force meeting, two widely advertised public workshops, an on‐line web comment form, the “Engage with Lane County” web site, and a professionally conducted survey. 2. Reasons for Hosting Large Events in Lane County Parks Lane County parks meet the needs of people seeking a wide range of outdoor activities, including opportunities associated with large events. Large events that are well managed can provide recreational, educational, physical, intellectual, spiritual and professional experiences to people of all ages. Large events can contribute to the local economy by generating tourism dollars in the form of gas, food, lodging and miscellaneous spending. While estimates vary, studies indicate that out of town visitors spend an average of $57 to $127 in a day trip to the area, and overnight visitors spend an average of $166 to $270 (Lane County Travel Impacts and Visitor Volume, 2014, by Dean Runyan & Associates for Travel Lane County; Oregon Travel Impacts, 1991‐2014, by Dean Runyan & Associates for Oregon Tourism Commission). Overnight hotel stays generate transient room tax, of which approximately 9 percent is distributed to Lane County Parks, accounting for nearly 15 percent of the gross revenue of the Lane County Parks Division. Large events can contribute to revenue for the Lane County Parks Division by introducing new users to the parks. Large events can provide funding or volunteers for controlling invasive plants or improving wildlife habitat. Large events such as trail, obstacle course and “fun” runs can promote healthy living. Large events can promote community identity and foster cultural development by encouraging volunteerism, support of local non‐profit and charitable organizations, enjoyment of the diverse offerings of local vendors, fellowship, and cooperation among groups that might otherwise have no opportunity to connect. 3. The Mission of Lane County Parks The mission of the Lane County Parks Division is: To preserve and enhance parks and open space within Lane County in a manner that provides visitors outstanding customer service and a diverse, high‐quality recreational experience that meets their needs and expectations. There are 70 recreational sites in the county parks system. The sites range from 0.1 acres to 2,260 acres in size, totaling 4,317 acres. Over 1.5 million people visit the county parks annually. Approximately 60 percent of day use visitors, 34 percent of campers and 72 percent of moorage holders are Lane County residents. Visits have grown by more than 70 percent since 2010. Visitors participate in a broad variety of park activities, ranging from individual or small group activities such as hiking, picnicking, weddings and horseback riding, to water‐oriented activities such as swimming, fishing and boating, to large events such as festivals, athletic competitions and concerts attended by 1,000 or more people. Customer service is provided by the parks division staff consisting of 14.8 FTE. This ratio of 1 FTE to 291 acres of park land compares to the 2014 nationwide median of 1 FTE to 46 acres as reported in the National Recreation and Parks Association 2015 Field Report. Findings and Recommendations of the Lane County Large Events Task Force Page 5 The current annual budget for park operations and maintenance is $3.2 million. Funding is derived primarily from camping and user fees, grants and special taxes, e.g., transient room, car rental and boater fees. No funding is derived from the county general fund, i.e., real property taxes are not used to support county parks. At present, the Lane County Parks Master Plan is being updated. This plan was adopted in 1980 with the purpose to “project and plan for the parks and open space needs of Lane County to the year 1995”. The plan contains two General Goals: 1. Provide a comprehensive and balanced park development program which offers a variety of park and recreational opportunities for Lane County residents and visitors consistent with the Statewide Planning Goal #8 [Recreational Needs]; and 2. Provide for adequate open space and protect important scenic and historic areas consistent with Statewide Planning Goal #5 [Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces]. While the plan does not specifically address large events, it anticipated that “There appears to be a greater demand for more ‘active’ facilities near population centers, as opposed to ‘passive’ park and recreation areas” (Finding 9, page 19). It also contains policies that are still relevant today, for example: “… continue to show appropriate concern to adjacent land use when planning a park or recreational area. (Examples – lighting, noise, traffic in developed residential neighborhoods.) Buffer areas or other modifications might be considered in the planning process” (Policy 11, page 12); “… consider environmental quality with regard to recreation.
Recommended publications
  • Timing of In-Water Work to Protect Fish and Wildlife Resources

    Timing of In-Water Work to Protect Fish and Wildlife Resources

    OREGON GUIDELINES FOR TIMING OF IN-WATER WORK TO PROTECT FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES June, 2008 Purpose of Guidelines - The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, (ODFW), “The guidelines are to assist under its authority to manage Oregon’s fish and wildlife resources has updated the following guidelines for timing of in-water work. The guidelines are to assist the the public in minimizing public in minimizing potential impacts to important fish, wildlife and habitat potential impacts...”. resources. Developing the Guidelines - The guidelines are based on ODFW district fish “The guidelines are based biologists’ recommendations. Primary considerations were given to important fish species including anadromous and other game fish and threatened, endangered, or on ODFW district fish sensitive species (coded list of species included in the guidelines). Time periods were biologists’ established to avoid the vulnerable life stages of these fish including migration, recommendations”. spawning and rearing. The preferred work period applies to the listed streams, unlisted upstream tributaries, and associated reservoirs and lakes. Using the Guidelines - These guidelines provide the public a way of planning in-water “These guidelines provide work during periods of time that would have the least impact on important fish, wildlife, and habitat resources. ODFW will use the guidelines as a basis for the public a way of planning commenting on planning and regulatory processes. There are some circumstances where in-water work during it may be appropriate to perform in-water work outside of the preferred work period periods of time that would indicated in the guidelines. ODFW, on a project by project basis, may consider variations in climate, location, and category of work that would allow more specific have the least impact on in-water work timing recommendations.
  • Mckenzie River Sub-Basin Action Plan 2016-2026

    Mckenzie River Sub-Basin Action Plan 2016-2026

    McKenzie River Sub-basin Strategic Action Plan for Aquatic and Riparian Conservation and Restoration, 2016-2026 MCKENZIE WATERSHED COUNCIL AND PARTNERS June 2016 Photos by Freshwaters Illustrated MCKENZIE RIVER SUB-BASIN STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN June 2016 MCKENZIE RIVER SUB-BASIN STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN June 2016 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The McKenzie Watershed Council thanks the many individuals and organizations who helped prepare this action plan. Partner organizations that contributed include U.S. Forest Service, Eugene Water & Electric Board, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, McKenzie River Trust, Upper Willamette Soil & Water Conservation District, Lane Council of Governments and Weyerhaeuser Company. Plan Development Team Johan Hogervorst, Willamette National Forest, U.S. Forest Service Kate Meyer, McKenzie River Ranger District, U.S. Forest Service Karl Morgenstern, Eugene Water & Electric Board Larry Six, McKenzie Watershed Council Nancy Toth, Eugene Water & Electric Board Jared Weybright, McKenzie Watershed Council Technical Advisory Group Brett Blundon, Bureau of Land Management – Eugene District Dave Downing, Upper Willamette Soil & Water Conservation District Bonnie Hammons, McKenzie River Ranger District, U.S. Forest Service Chad Helms, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jodi Lemmer, McKenzie River Trust Joe Moll, McKenzie River Trust Maryanne Reiter, Weyerhaeuser Company Kelly Reis, Springfield Office, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife David Richey, Lane Council of Governments Kirk Shimeall, Cascade Pacific Resource Conservation and Development Andy Talabere, Eugene Water & Electric Board Greg Taylor, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jeff Ziller, Springfield Office, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife MCKENZIE RIVER SUB-BASIN STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN June 2016 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................
  • Mckenzie River Subbasin Assessment Summary Table of Contents

    Mckenzie River Subbasin Assessment Summary Table of Contents

    McKenzie River, ca. 1944 McKenzie River Subbasin Assessment Summary Report February 2000 McKenzie River, ca. 2000 McKenzie River, ca. 2000 Prepared for the McKenzie Watershed Council Prepared By: Alsea Geospatial, Inc. Hardin-Davis, Inc. Pacific Wildlife Research, Inc. WaterWork Consulting McKenzie River Subbasin Assessment Summary Table of Contents High Priority Action Items for Conservation, Restoration, and Monitoring 1 The McKenzie River Watershed: Introduction 8 I. Watershed Overview 9 II. Aquatic Ecosystem Issues & Findings 17 Recommendations 29 III. Fish Populations Issues & Findings 31 Recommendations 37 IV. Wildlife Species and Habitats of Concern Issues & Findings 38 Recommendations 47 V. Putting the Assessment to work 50 Juvenile Chinook Habitat Modeling 51 Juvenile Chinook Salmon Habitat Results 54 VI. References 59 VII. Glossary of Terms 61 The McKenzie River Subbasin Assessment was funded by grants from the Bonneville Power Administration and the U.S. Forest Service. High Priority Action Items for Conservation, Restoration, and Monitoring Our analysis indicates that aquatic and wildlife habitat in the McKenzie River subbasin is relatively good yet habitat quality falls short of historical conditions. High quality habitat currently exists at many locations along the McKenzie River. This assessment concluded, however, that the river’s current condition, combined with existing management and regulations, does not ensure conservation or restoration of high quality habitat in the long term. Significant short-term improvements in aquatic and wildlife habitat are not likely to happen through regulatory action. Current regulations rarely address remedies for past actions. Furthermore, regulations and the necessary enforcement can fall short of attaining conservation goals. Regulations are most effective in ensuring that habitat quality trends improve over the long period.
  • Volume II Willamette Spring Chinook

    Volume II Willamette Spring Chinook

    Oregon Native Fish Status Report – Volume II Willamette Spring Chinook Existing Populations The Willamette Spring Chinook SMU consists of six populations (Table 63). The status of four of these populations including the Molalla, South Santiam, Calapooia, and Upper Willamette is somewhat uncertain. Little is known about these populations, but what is known indicates that the native populations are extremely depressed. While some natural spawning occurs, it is likely that these spawners are the offspring of naturally-spawning hatchery fish since hatchery fish comprise almost the entire naturally-spawning population each year in these basins. Future inventory work is needed for these populations so that they may be more appropriately assessed. Table 63. Population list and existence status for the Willamette Spring Chinook SMU. Exist Population Description Yes Molalla Molalla River basin. Yes North Santiam North Santiam River basin. Yes South Santiam South Santiam River basin. Yes Calapooia Calapooia River basin. Yes McKenzie McKenzie River basin. Yes Upper Willamette Willamette River basin upstream from mouth of McKenzie River. Habitat Use Distribution The distribution criterion was based on proportions of accessible and inaccessible habitat. It must be recognized that these estimates are derived at the 1:100,000 scale and thus will not capture habitat lost in many smaller (1:24,000) streams resulting from barriers such as culverts. Habitat lost in smaller streams will vary by population, but is not likely to account for 50% of any population, and thus does not alter assessment outcomes derived using data at the 1:100,000 scale. Data presented in this report on accessibility of habitat should be viewed as general approximations and not as a definitive analysis on habitat availability/accessibility.
  • Subsistence Variability in the Willamette Valley Redacted for Privacy

    Subsistence Variability in the Willamette Valley Redacted for Privacy

    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Francine M. Havercroft for the degree of Master of Arts in Interdisciplinary Studies in Anthropology, History and Anthropology presented on June 16, 1986. Title: Subsistence Variability in the Willamette Valley Redacted for Privacy Abstract approved: V Richard E. Ross During the summer of 1981, Oregon State University archaeologically tested three prehistoric sites on the William L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge. Among the sites tested were typical Willamette Valley floodplain and adjacent upland sites. Most settlement-subsistence pattern models proposed for the Willamette Valley have been generated with data from the eastern valley floor, western Cascade Range foothills. The work at Wm. L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge provides one of the first opportunities to view similar settings along the western margins of the Willamette Valley. Valley Subsistence Variabilityin the Willamette by Francine M. Havercroft A THESIS submitted to Oregon StateUniversity in partial fulfillmentof the requirementsfor the degree of Master of Arts in InterdisciplinaryStudies Completed June 15, 1986 Commencement June 1987 APPROVED: Redacted for Privacy Professor of Anthropology inAT6cg-tof major A Redacted for Privacy Professor of History in charge of co-field Redacted for Privacy Professor of Anthropology in charge of co-field Redacted for Privacy Chairman of department of Anthropology Dean of Graduate School Date thesis is presented June 16, 1986 Typed by Ellinor Curtis for Francine M. Havercroft ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Throughout this project, several individuals have provided valuable contributions, and I extend a debt of gratitude to all those who have helped. The Oregon State university Archaeology field school, conducted atthe Wm. L. Finley Refuge, wasdirected by Dr.
  • Mary's River Kalapuyan: a Descriptive Phonology

    Mary's River Kalapuyan: a Descriptive Phonology

    Portland State University PDXScholar Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses 5-1976 Mary's River Kalapuyan: A Descriptive Phonology Yvonne P. Hajda Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds Part of the Linguistic Anthropology Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Hajda, Yvonne P., "Mary's River Kalapuyan: A Descriptive Phonology" (1976). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 2491. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.2488 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. I 1. \ i I I AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Yvonne P. Hajda for the Master of Arts in t-· .Anthropology presented May 11, 1976. Title: Mary's River Kalapuyan: A Descriptive Phonology. APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE THESIS COMMITTEE: Pierce David H. French The thesis is an attempt to apply procedures of aescriptive linguis- tic analysis to a body of mater~al phonetically transcribed by Leo J. Frachtenberg in the Mary's River dialect of ·the central Kalapuyan lan- guage. In 191~-14, Frachtenberg collected thirteen volumes of myth texts ~ .. in Mary's River, twelve from.William Hartless and one from Grace Wheeler; I • in addition, there were nQtes to the texts, three volumes of grannnatical notes, and some ~thnographic material. The phonetic transcription was. carried out in the pre-phonemic tr·adition of recording everything the speaker said as accurately as possible.
  • Oak Savanna Exhibit by August Jackson, Interpretive Coordinator

    Oak Savanna Exhibit by August Jackson, Interpretive Coordinator

    Summer 2019 Volume XLIX, Issue 3 THE MOUNT PISGAH ARBORETUM QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER Oak Savanna Exhibit by August Jackson, Interpretive Coordinator The first European explorers and Euro-American colonizers described the Willamette Valley as a vast expanse of open prairie, dotted here and there with mature trees—mostly oaks—which impressed upon them the feeling of a “park” or “garden.” The only real forests to be found were on the foothills and knolls, and densely cloaking the braided and ponderous Willamette River. On his journey through the Willamette Valley in September of 1826, the botanist and explorer David Douglas discovered the cause of this park-like setting, noting that nearly the entire valley floor had been recently burned. Douglas remarked that some of the native Kalapuya people explained to him that they conducted the burns for the purpose of procuring food. Since the cessation of native burning practices, Oregon white oak savanna has become one of the most critically endangered ecosystems in North Photo by Kimberly Cullen America, with as little as 1% of the original extent remaining. Mount Pisgah Arboretum’s new Oak Savanna Exhibit aims to honor the cultural heritage of this quintessential Willamette Valley landscape and celebrates the biodiverse ecosystem that was supported by considerate and considerable Kalupyan management practices. The exhibit consists of two meditative paths with scattered vignettes that share some of the cultural and ecological outcomes of regular burning. These paths converge in the center around a planter showcasing a number of native plants that were important traditional food sources, and which benefited from regular burning.
  • West Pisgah Community Vision Report FINAL

    West Pisgah Community Vision Report FINAL

    West Pisgah Community Vision and Strategies Summary Report March 2019 West Pisgah Community Vision Report – March 14, 2019 Page i Acknowledgments Round Table Participants A special thank you to the following individuals who volunteered to serve on the West Pisgah Community Round Table and dedicated time, ideas, insight into this visioning effort. The content of this summary report is based on a compilation of Round Table and community input and does not represent the opinion or endorsement by any one individual. Round Table members included: • Amanda Gilbert (Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council) * • Derek Hansen (resident, farmer) • Charlotte Helmer (resident, historic restoration professional) * • John F. Helmer (resident) * • Leda Hermecz (owner of 100 Mile Bakery) • Gayle Landt (land owner, equestrian) • Charles Little (resident, farmer) • Robin Meacher (McKenzie River Trust) * • Glen Miller (resident, farmer) • Mary Moore (resident, farmer) • Greg Nieckarz (resident) • Chris Orsinger (Friends of Buford Park & Mount Pisgah) * • Jared Pruch (Rogue Farm Corps) * • Jim Straub (land owner) * Indicates those Round Table members who also volunteered to serve on the project Steering Committee. The Steering Committee was responsible for providing regular input on the effort, recruiting Round Table members, reviewing draft materials, and helping set agendas for the Round Table meetings. Project Team • Jeff Krueger (JK Environments, facilitation and report production) • Laurie Krei (Friends of Buford Park & Mount Pisgah, project support) • Catia Juliana (Friends of Buford Park & Mount Pisgah, project support) Thanks to Meyer Memorial Trust This effort would not have been possible without funding assistance from Meyer Memorial Trust (MMT) as part of its Willamette River Initiative. MMT is currently supporting numerous efforts to improve the quality of the Willamette River as one way they hope to make a significant difference in improving the lives of Oregonians.
  • Angling Guide Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

    Angling Guide Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

    Angling Guide Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Alton Baker Park canoe canal: In Eugene by Autzen Stadium. Stocked in the spring with rainbow trout. A good place to take kids. Big Cliff Reservoir: 150 acres on the North Santiam River. The dam is located several miles below Detroit Dam off of Highway 22. Stocked with trout. Blue River Reservoir and Upper Blue River: 42 miles east of Eugene off Highway 126. Native cutthroat and rainbow. Stocked in spring and early summer with rainbow trout. USFS campground. Bond Butte Pond: 3 miles north of the Harrisburg exit on the east side of I-5 at MP 212 (the Bond Butte overpass). Channel catfish, largemouth bass, white crappie, bluegill. Carmen Reservoir: 65-acre reservoir located on Highway 126 appproximately 70 miles east of Springfield. Rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, brook trout. Clear Lake: 70 miles east of Eugene off Highway 126. Naturally reproducing brook trout and stocked with rainbow trout. Resort with restaurant, boat and cabin rentals. USFS campground. Cottage Grove Ponds: A group of 6 ponds totaling 15 acres. Located 1.5 miles east of Cottage Grove on Row River Road behind the truck scales. Largemouth bass, bluegill, bullhead. Rainbow trout are stocked into one pond in the spring. Cottage Grove Reservoir: Six miles south of Cottage Grove on London Road. Largemouth bass, brown bullhead, bluegill, cutthroat trout. Hatchery rainbow are stocked in the spring. USACE provides campgrounds. There is a health advisory for mercury contamination. Pregnant women, nursing women and children up to six years old should not eat fish other than stocked rainbow trout; children older than 6 and healthy adults should not eat more than 1/2 pound per week.
  • Howard Buford Recreation Area I ------~·I· I' Master Plan

    Howard Buford Recreation Area I ------~·I· I' Master Plan

    ' . ' I Howard Buford Recreation Area I ----------~·i· i' Master Plan ! I' ' ' ! I ,, . 'I i~'. I I I . I ,i BOOK154?AGf 1252 Jll\\16 i994 IN TUE BO~.RD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LANE COUNTY, OREGON :·ou~'J'fV CLERK ' 1056 ) IN THE MATTER OF ADOPTING THE HOWARD BUFORD ) RECREATION AREA MASTER PLAN AS A REFINEMEN'r TC ) THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITl\N AREA GEN­ ) ERAL PLAN, AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Lane County has received a proposals from the Lane County Parks Division for the adoption of a master plan entitlecl the "Howarcl Buforcl Recreation Area Master Plan" (July 1993), which analyzes the need for new and impJtOved facilities and proposes protection measures within the Howard Buford Recreation Area; and WHEREAS, the Lane County Parke Advisory Committee reviewed and approved the Howard Buford Recreation Area Master Plan in June 1993 and forwarded the Master Flan to.the Lane county Planning commission for review and recommendation; and wagREAS, the Lane County Planning Commission, in regular meeting and public hearing of March and April 1992, clicl recommencl approval of the request; ancl WHEREAS, eviclenca exists within the record indicating that the proposal meets the requirements of Lane code chapter 12, and the requirements of applicable state and local law; and " WHEREAS, The Board of County commissioners has conducted public hearings and is now ready to take action; NOW, ~HEREFORE, the Board of County Commissioners of Lane County ordains as follows; The Howard Buforcl Recreation Area Master Plan (July 1993), copy attached as Exhibit 11 A11 and incorporated herein by this reference, is acloptecl as a refinement to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan.
  • NPSO Bulletin Apr 04

    NPSO Bulletin Apr 04

    Bulletin of the Native Plant Society of Oregon Dedicated to the enjoyment, conservation and study of Oregon’s native plants and habitats VOLUME 37, NO. 4APRIL 2004 The Mountains of Northeastern Oregon, Pt. 1 by Loren Russell, Corvallis Chapter center of scenic beauty and floris- Blue Mountain Region and extend for lumbia Basin to the north, and of the Atic diversity—home to about 2400 more than 200 miles, from the north- northern Great Basin to the south. species of vascular plants, more than 60 eastern corner of Oregon and adjacent There are also large areas of lower, drier percent of the state’s flora—the moun- southeastern Washington to Prineville grassland along the John Day and tains of northeastern Oregon have long in central Oregon. Diverse in its geolo- Crooked rivers, and prairies such as been one of my favorite destinations for gy, soils, and landforms, half of the re- those of the Grand Ronde Valley near hiking and botanizing. The Wallowas gion is covered by eruptive igneous La Grande and of high basins (e.g., Big and the Blue Mountain complex, which rocks, primarily the vast Columbia Summit Prairie in the Ochocos). In the includes the Ochoco, Maury, Aldrich, River flood basalts and the older John western part of the region, timberline is Strawberry, Greenhorn and Elkhorn Day River ash and rhyolite deposits. reached only on Strawberry Mountain, ranges, are collectively known as the There are also large exposures of granite but in the Elkhorn and Wallowa and of sedimentary rocks, including Mountains, alpine and subalpine vege- limestone, and some exposures of serpen- tation is the most extensive and diverse tine rocks; there are significant parallels in Oregon.
  • Geology As Destiny: Cold Waters Run Deep in Western Oregon

    Geology As Destiny: Cold Waters Run Deep in Western Oregon

    PNW Pacific Northwest Research Station INSIDE The Geologic Divide . .2 The Allocation Challenge . .3 Dam the Consequences . .4 Land Use, Water, and Time . .4 Municipal Waters and National Forests . .5 FINDINGS issue forty-nine / december 2002 “Science affects the way we think together.” Lewis Thomas GEOLOGY AS DESTINY: COLD WATERS RUN DEEP IN WESTERN OREGON “Geology plays an extremely But a closer look reveals that the state has been blessed with a huge geological IN SUMMARY important and previously backup plan for water supply. unappreciated role in The summer of 2001 brought the “Contrary to popular belief, most summer determining flow regimes.” second-worst drought on record in flow out of the high Cascades is not due to Gordon Grant snowmelt. Instead, the high Cascades form Oregon, resulting in historically low a vast hydrologic sponge that stores many streamflows and reservoir levels, or most of the year, it just doesn’t decades worth of water as deep groundwa- seem like water is a problem in ter,” says Gordon Grant. “Recent analysis stressed aquatic ecosystems, and even F western Oregon. It’s a fixture, for of streamflow patterns, ranging in scale dramatic confrontations between irri- better or for worse. Few people, including from individual mountain streams to larger residents, fully appreciate that the warm, rivers such as the McKenzie, has revealed gators and federal resource agencies dry sunny weather of each summer actu- that geology plays an extremely important in the Klamath basin. These events ally constitutes a pretty reliable drought, and previously unappreciated role in deter- with serious implications for water mining flow regimes.” underscore the critical and growing management.