NATURAL AREAS OMITTED FROM INVENTORY

Four natural areas identified by the Nature Conservancy were deleted from the County’s inventory list because they were determined to be 1A sites, meaning that they are not considered to be of special importance. This determination was made for the French Prairie Osprey nests, the confluence of Silver Creek and the Pudding River, the Pudding River marshland, and Moss Lake, after considering testimony received at a public hearing held before the Board of Commissioners on April 7, 1981.

1.    French Prairie Osprey Nests – This area encompasses McKay Reservoir, which was developed on Champoeg Creek for the purpose of providing irrigation water to nearby farms. After the reservoir filled, the trees along the stream bank died, creating nesting areas for the ospreys. The acknowledgment of this site as a natural area was considered inappropriate because the habitat is manmade, the nesting sites will eventually disappear as the trees fall into the reservoir, the surrounding farming activity is apparently compatible, access to the site can be gained only by trespassing on private land, and expert testimony was given indicating that the osprey is neither an endangered or threatened species.

2.    Silver Creek and Pudding River – This area was identified by the Nature Conservancy because of its reported value as a wildlife habitat. Two owners of land on each side of Silver Creek testified that the area was used to graze livestock and that very little wildlife was present. The pollution level in the creek apparently gets quite high during low runoff periods, greatly diminishing its habitat value. This area is omitted from the inventory because farm uses have significantly encroached upon the identified habitat, water pollution has reduced its habitat value, and no evidence is available to indicate that this area is any more significant than the other riparian habitats in the County.

3.    Pudding River Marshland – This area is within several different farm parcels in the EFU (Exclusive Farm Use) zone west of Mt. Angel. The majority of this habitat area has been cleared, drained, and devoted to agricultural use. Much of this bottomland area has been in farm use for some time and as noted in the Silver Creek and Pudding River case, no evidence is available to suggest why this area should receive special consideration as a natural area.

4.    Moss Lake – In its natural state, Moss Lake was approximately one acre in size. A dam was constructed which enlarged the lake to six acres. The original intention was to expand this peat-forming lake in order to produce peat moss. This plan did not materialize and presently no particular use is made of the lake. Moss Lake was removed from the inventory because of its manmade status and the fact that a natural area designation would be likely to cause an increase in trespassing problems currently experienced by the property owners.

Scenic Waterways

In order to preserve and protect selected rivers or sections of rivers, the State of Oregon enacted the Scenic Waterways legislation in 1970. This law was designated to insure that the free-flowing character of designated rivers is preserved in its natural setting.

When a river is designated as a Scenic Waterway, in addition to the County land use regulations, the Oregon Transportation Commission considers changes in land use, development, and timber harvest for their impact on the natural values of that waterway. Scenic Waterways have not been designated in Marion County. The segment of the North Santiam River between Big Cliff Dam and Mehama has been recognized by the State Parks and Recreation Division as a potential scenic waterway, but formal designation is not being actively pursued at this time.

In August, 1980, the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service (which is not part of the National Park Service) released an inventory of natural and free-flowing rivers in the northwestern United States which identified the entire length of Breitenbush River, the North Santiam River between Big Cliff Dam and Mehama and the 26 miles of the Willamette River downstream from Salem. These river segments are recognized as potentially suitable for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. A second phase of the inventory will be directed toward further refinement of the list. Following this phase the remaining river segments will be evaluated for wild and scenic designation and protection. The identified river segments are shown on the Parks and Recreation Map.

Fish and Wildlife Habitats

The Oregon State Department of Fish and Wildlife prepared a report titled “Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Plan for Marion County” (Heintz, Wetherbee; Nov. 1977) to assist in developing inventory and land use related policy statements on fish and wildlife habitat. This report will be summarized here and is available for review at the Marion County Planning Department. The map entitled “Wildlife Habitat” identifying sensitive fish habitat waterways, big game habitat areas and natural areas is located at the back of the Comprehensive Plan Report.

The report includes information about fish and wildlife habitats, species location and abundance and economic data to support specific land use recommendations. The identification and preservation of fish and wildlife habitats is essential to maintain high population levels and provide a variety of harvest opportunities for recreational and commercial users.

Marion County enjoys a great diversity of fish and wildlife species, which live in a variety of different habitats. Those habitats that are defined as sensitive can be adversely affected by land use activities and changes. The following subsections discuss the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s main concerns, which are to assure minimal impacts to the environment and protect fish and wildlife habitats while still permitting most other land uses. Fish and wildlife habitat goals and policies are listed in the Environmental Quality section of the Comprehensive Plan.

Fish Habitats

Lakes and reservoirs are defined as natural and manmade bodies of water, regardless of size, that have present or potential value for fish production and/or angling. All lakes and reservoirs are considered sensitive areas.

The concerns for lakes and reservoirs include protecting water quality, preserving fish and wildlife habitat, retaining land adjacent to water areas in as near natural condition as possible while allowing compatible land uses, maintaining public fishing areas and access and preserving aesthetic values.

Rivers and streams are defined as natural flowing water including sloughs but excluding estuaries and manmade canals. All rivers and streams with either perennial or intermittent flows are considered sensitive areas.

Concerns for rivers and streams include retaining (1) riparian vegetation and channel integrity, (2) meanders and stable noneroding banks to protect water quality and preserve habitats, and (3) provide for a variety of recreational and aesthetic values.

Headwaters are those areas defined as sensitive areas in stream drainage patterns that fish generally do not inhabit, but where man’s activities can cause a direct impact on downstream water quality and fish production. Steep topography and highly erosive soils typify headwater areas.

The Department of Fish and Wildlife stresses that for headwater areas it is desirable to reduce erosion and turbidities by providing stable conditions in areas of steep topography where the high erosive potential exists. Specific guidelines pertaining to these streams are outlined in Forest Practices Act rules.

Inventory – There is no specific estimate of the total numbers of the various fish species in Marion County. The following tables taken from the Marion County Fish and Wildlife report provide an idea of the relative abundance of the significant fish species in Marion County’s streams and lakes.

Table No. 1
Fish Species, Location and AbundanceMarion County

Game Fish:
Species	Location	Abundance
Chinook Salmon	Wil R, Santiam, LN Fk	Common
Coho	Few streams	Common
Sockeye	Wil R, Santiam main stem	Few
Kokanee	Detroit, Elk Lake	Few
Winter Steelhead	Wil R, Pudding, Santiam	Common
Summer Steelhead	Wil R, Pudding, Santiam	Common
Cuthroat	Most streams, some lakes	Abundant
Rainbow	Most streams and lakes	Common
Brook Trout	Mostly high lakes, few streams	Common
Brown Trout	Rare-Round Lake, Leone Lake	Rare
Mountain Whitefish	Major streams	Common
Largemouth Bass	Wil R, sloughs, lower lakes	Abundant
Smallmouth Bass	Wil R, lower Santiam River	Few
Bluegill	Wil R, sloughs, lower lakes	Abundant
White Crappie	Wil R, sloughs, lower lakes	Abundant
Black Crappie	Wil R, sloughs, lower lakes	Common
Brown Bullhead	Wil R, sloughs, lower lakes	Abundant
Yellow Bullhead	Wil R, sloughs, lower lakes	Common
Yellow Perch	Wil R, sloughs, lower lakes	Common
Pumpkin Seed	Wil R, sloughs, lower lakes	Common
Warmouth	Wil R, sloughs, lower lakes	Common
Channel Catfish	Wil R, Pudding River	Few
Green Sunfish	Wil R, sloughs, some lakes	Few
White Sturgeon	Wil R	Few
Other Species
Carp	Wil R, sloughs, Pudding River	Abundant
Chiselmouth	Wil R, Santiam River, Pudding River	Abundant
Cottids	Most streams, some lakes	Abundant
Dace	Most streams	Abundant
Goldfish	Wil R, sloughs, some lakes	Common
Pacific Lamprey	Most major streams	Abundant
Western Brook Lamprey	Most streams	Abundant
Peamouth	Most major streams	Common
Northern Squawfish	Most streams, some lakes	Abundant
Redside Shiner	Most streams, some lakes	Abundant
Sand Roller	Most major streams	Common
Large Scale Sucker	Most streams, sloughs and some lakes	Abundant
Mountain Sucker	Some streams	Few
Threespine Stickleback	Wil R and some sloughs	Common
Gambusia (Mosquito Fish)	Some lakes	Common

Another way of showing relative abundance of fish is to determine angler catch. The following table indicates the numbers of sport fish harvested.

Table No. 2
Estimated Angler Catch, Effort and Economic Expenditure for Sport Fishery Harvest, Marion County, 1975

Fishery	Harvest/1	Angler Days Gross	Angler Expenditure
Spring Chinook	250	1,060	$29,680/2
Fall Chinook	300	1,200	$33,600/2
Coho	10	45	$1,260/2
Summer Steelhead	330	1,485	$41,580/2
Winter Steelhead	450	2,250	$63,000/2
Resident Trout	262,780	129,860	$1,064,852/3
Warm-water Species	12,504	7,917	$64,919/3
Totals	278,634	143,817	$1,298,891
Source: Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection Plan for Marion County, by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Wildlife Habitats

Big Game: Basic habitat requirements include food, water, cover and freedom from harassment. These requirements are found in the forested areas of the County where logging practices or fires have created mixed stands of mature forests, brushlands, and clear cuttings. The most important of these habitat areas are those located below 2,500 feet elevation as outlined on the Wildlife Habitat map. These are where deer and elk and other animals concentrate for feeding during the critical winter months.

To best preserve big game habitats while allowing normal agricultural and forest use, the Department of Fish and Wildlife make the following suggestions: (1) Development should not exceed densities of 1:40 acres; (2) New roads should be located to avoid sensitive areas wherever possible, and roads that are no longer necessary for fire protection or logging should be blocked off permanently; (3) Off-road vehicle use should be controlled during the winter and early spring.

Upland Game: Pheasants, and to a lesser extent valley quail, are truly products of and dependent on agriculture for their existence. Ideal habitat includes a varied patchwork of seed-producing crops interspersed with brushy fencerows, ditches, streams, and wood lots. This land use pattern provides their basic needs of food, water and cover.

The Department of Fish and Wildlife encourages the following actions to preserve the habitats of upland game: (1) Protect existing forest and agricultural habitats; (2) Limit residential densities to approximately 1:20 acres; (3) Encourage retention of vegetation along the stream banks, fencerows and wood lots.

Table No. 3
Estimated Big Game Populations in Marion County, 1975

Species	Estimated Populations Summer
Roosevelt Elk	400
Blacktailed Deer	12,200
Black Bear	300
Cougar	35

Table No. 4
Estimated Upland Game Populations in Marion County, 1975

Species	Estimated Populations Summer
Ringnecked Pheasant	40,560
Valley Quail	30,225
Mountain Quail	4,048
Bobwhite Quail	330
Ruffed Grouse	3,948
Blue Grouse	12,020
Doves	17,187
Bandtailed Pigeons	6,500
Silver Gray Squirrel	3,000

Waterfowl: Nesting, feeding and resting areas are definite habitat needs. Nesting is the most critical activity in late spring and early summer. Marshy areas, lakes, and slow moving streams with brushy banks provide important habitat for mallards, wood ducks, some teal, and Canada geese. During the late fall and early winter, large populations of birds that nest in the north migrate to the Willamette Valley. Areas that have large bodies of standing water with food nearby provide ideal resting and feeding areas needed for maintaining waterfowl populations.

The most sensitive areas for waterfowl are sloughs, oxbow lakes and floodplain areas along the Willamette, Santiam and Pudding drainages. There are also numerous areas of sensitive habitat around ponds, small drainages, and swampy areas throughout the County that provide winter and nesting habitat.

These habitats are gradually shrinking in Marion County as sloughs, swampy areas and floodplains are continually being converted to other uses by diking, draining, tiling and filling. Clearing of riparian vegetation has meant the loss of nesting habitat for various species of waterfowl.

Recommendations proposed by the Department of Fish and Wildlife to preserve waterfowl habitats are: (1) Retain riparian vegetation along waterways; (2) Development or land use that requires drainage or channelization, filling or excessive removal of riparian vegetation in sensitive waterfowl areas should be identified as conditional uses; and (3) Setbacks or buffer zones should be incorporated into the plans of residential, commercial, or industrial developments adjacent to sensitive waterfowl habitats.

Table No. 5
Estimated Waterfowl Populations in Marion County, 1975

Species		Estimated Populations
		Summer	Winter
Waterfowl:
Geese		150	3,100
Ducks		6,715	48,095
Coots		150	2,500
Snipe		Migrant	Population
Swan		0	600
	Total	7,015	54,295

Furbearing animals include both aquatic forms such as beaver, muskrat, and mink, and terrestrial forms such skunk, fox, and bobcat. They have a wide variety of habitat needs, including brushy streams, wetlands and forested areas.

Conflicts between furbearers and other land uses are minimal in the County. The recommendations for big game, upland game, and waterfowl will also benefit both aquatic and terrestrial furbearers.

Table No. 6
Estimated Furbearer Populations in Marion County, 1975

Species	Estimated Populations
	Summer
Furbearers:
Muskrat	1,700
Beaver	2,350
River Otter	140
Mink	800
Marten	100

Nongame Wildlife: Marion County contains important populations of hawks, owls, songbirds, small mammals, and numerous other nongame wildlife species.

Because of the large diversity of nongame wildlife species, their habitat requirements vary considerably depending on the individual species concerned. Habitat requirements outlined for the other wildlife groups listed previously are applicable to nongame wildlife.

Table No. 7
Estimated Nongame Wildlife Populations Regularly Hunted in Marion County, 1975

Species	Estimated Populations
	Summer
Bobcat	500
Coyote	2,800
Red Fox	2,800
Gray Fox	620
Raccoon	3,600
Brush Rabbit	8,000
Eastern Cottontail	20,000
Snowshoe Hare	6,000
Nutria	8,000
Graydigger	30,000

Mineral and Aggregate Sources

The combined values of sand, gravel, and stone rank as No. 1 in Oregon’s mineral industry. Regions like the Willamette Valley, which are undergoing rapid industrial and urban expansion, and the accompanying population growth, require more sand and gravel per capita than do other areas. The Valley presently produces and consumes about two-thirds of the State’s total in sand and gravel.

Aside from major dam construction, requirements for sand and gravel and crushed rock are directly related to population demands. Sand and gravel are vital raw materials for construction of highways, bridges, buildings, and airports. Large quantities of sand and gravel are also used for fill.

Sand and gravel occur in several types of deposits, primarily stream channels, floodplains, alluvial fans, and deltaic deposits.

The bar and channel gravels are constantly being replenished by the Willamette River. Some gravels originate in the upper reaches of the Willamette and many are brought in by the Santiam River. The quantity of gravel brought into the valley from the Cascade Range is now being limited by the high dams built on the North and South Santiam Rivers. The dams do not allow new gravel to move past their ponded areas, and the leveling effect of most of the floods by dams slows the migration of gravels downstream. Flood control dams and placement of riprap along the banks to prevent erosion result in minimizing bank gravels as a source of stream load.

Large deposits of sand and gravel occur in the mile-wide floodplain of the Willamette River. This material represents the gravel deposited during development of the Valley before the river migrated to its present location. As the river meandered back and forth across the Valley, it deposited gravel and sand. During flood stages these areas were covered with varying amounts of silt. In the present floodplain, which is about a mile or so in width, the gravels have generally less than 10 feet of silt overburden. These gravels merge with gravels similarly deposited by the larger tributaries flowing from the Cascade Mountains.

Alluvial or glacial outwash fans in the Santiam River drainage between Mehama and Turner have provided a few hundred square miles in area of sand and gravel. The gravel resource forms a fairly narrow channel through Salem and the Turner Gap areas, but toward Stayton, where the channel of distribution widens, there is 50 feet or more of gravels in this area with little or no overburden. Although these gravels are quite thick, the deposits are usually not as clean as floodplain gravels. This is due partly to weathering, which has produced some clay in the deposits. At the present time, this area is too far from the markets for economical hauling, but there are good possibilities for the future.

Gravel deposits are quite numerous throughout Oregon and Marion County. Generally, transportation costs make only those gravels that are located less than 20 miles from the point of use economical. Those more distant deposits will become more valuable when urban expansion approaches to within the economic limits of the haul or when they are required for special local uses, such as for highways, bridges, or dams.

Gravel extraction operations are frequently halted by urban encroachment before the deposits are completely utilized; therefore, parts of these resources are wasted. Measurements of total quantities do not reflect the available gravel resources unless, for some reason, the land is not suitable for housing, farming, or industrial sites. Unfortunately, most gravel deposits lie in the flat ground adjacent to streams, highways, and rail transportation and therefore are also prime areas for farming as well as residential and industrial development.

Studies by the Department of Geology and Mineral Industries indicate that it is likely that most, if not all, of the available gravel will be needed for future development within the source areas. From past experience in Oregon and other places, gravel shortages become critical long before the entire resource can be used. The incomplete utilization of the resource is attributable to several factors previously mentioned. Since gravel is a vital resource in the development of any area, and it appears that all of the favorable located gravel deposits will be required therefor, adequate protection by State and local governmental agencies will be needed to assure its availability for present and future use. The first step is to identify the minable resource and secondly establish policies for the resolution of conflicts between land uses. There is presently no detailed inventory of gravel or mineral resources in Marion County. However, the State Department of Geology and Mineral Industries is presently undertaking a study of the Marion-Polk County area to provide the basis of mineral and aggregate resource allocation policies.

In addition to sand and gravel, Marion County has significant deposits of precious stones and metals as well as bauxite. There are several active and inactive mines located in the upper end of the valley of the Little North Fork of the North Santiam River in eastern Marion County. These mines have yielded gold, opals, rubies and other similar materials.

Bauxite is the ore from which aluminum is produced. The Reynolds Metals Company owns large parcels of land primarily in the South Salem Hills where this resource is concentrated. Reynolds Metals Company has accomplished exploratory studies of this area and has determined that mining is not at this time economically feasible. The County is concerned with the continuing residential development of surrounding lands and the resultant conflicts that may occur should they attempt to mine this resource.

In order to operate a mineral resource site, a site registration must be filed with the Bureau of Mine Reclamation. Permits from the Division of State Lands must be obtained for riverbed extractions.

Further approval of the operation must be obtained from the Marion County Planning Commission. Information regarding reclamation plans, screening, access roads, and hours of operation must be provided to the commission for consideration in approving the application. The operation will also be required to maintain air, water, and noise pollution standards.

Marion CountyExisting Mineral and Aggregate Sites – 1981 

Map #	Name	Location	Material	Status
1	M.P. Materials	SEC 12, T6S, R3W	SAND & GRAVEL	SMP
2	Gordon H. Ball	SEC 11, T6S, R3W	SAND & GRAVEL	CLOSED
3	AJ Humpert	SEC 22, T6S, R1W	PIT RUN	LE
	Abiqua Rock Products
4	Gerald Baker	SEC 2, 11, T5S, R3W	SAND & GRAVEL	LE
5	Turner Sand & Gravel	SEC 29, T8S, R2W	ROCK	LE
6	W.F Fessler	SEC 28, T6S, R1EWM	ROCK	CLOSED
7	H.S.K., Inc.	SEC 22, T8S, R4W	SAND & GRAVEL	LE
8	Stadeli Pump	SEC 21, T6S, R3W	RIVER ROCK	LE
9	Keizer Sand & Gravel	SEC 33, T6S, R3W	TOPSOIL & GRAVEL	LE
10	OSHD	SEC 11, T5S, R3W	GRAVEL	LE
11	OSHD	SEC 17, T8S, R1EWM	QUARRY ROCK	TE
12	Silvercrest Excavating	SEC 12, T7S, R1W	PIT RUN ROCK	SMP
13	OSHD	SEC 25, T6S, R3W	SOIL	CLOSED
14	OSHD	SEC 21, 28, T5S, R2W	SOIL	CLOSED
15	Ray Keizer Const.	SEC 23, T6S, R1W	SOIL	SMP
16	Bob Qualey Const.	SEC 19, T6S, R1E	SOIL, SAND & GRAVEL	SMP
17	Norman Stadeli	SEC 35, T5S, R3W	ROCK	LE
18	Viesko Ready Mix	SEC 35, T5S, R3W	SAND & GRAVEL	LE
19	Vern Spaur, Silvercrest Excavating	SEC 7, T7S, R1E		TE
20	Bob Qualey Const.	SEC 7, T7S, R1E	CRUSHED ROCK	SMP
21	Walling Sand & Gravel	SEC 28, T6S, R3W	SAND & GRAVEL	LE
22	Weyerhauser Co.	SEC 9, T10S, R2W	RIVER ROCK	VOID
23	Henry Concrete & Gravel Co.	SEC 6, T4S, R1W	BASALT	LE
24	Valley Concrete & Gravel Co.	SEC 33, T8, R4W	STONE & SAND	LE
25	Silvercrest Excavating	SEC 11, T7S, R1E	PIT RUN ROCK
26	Iris Homes, Inc.	SEC 31, T9S, R3W	GRAVEL	TE
27	Capitol Crushing Co.	SEC 20, T9S, R2E	GRAVEL	CLOSED
28	Willamette Quarries	SEC 32, 33, 4, 5, T9/10S, R2W	RIPRAP ROCK	LE
29	Charles Fair & Roger Dunn	SEC 15, T9S, R1E	QUARRY ROCK	VOID
30	Bob Qualey Const.	SEC 17, T8S, R1E	BASALT	LE
31	Bob Qualey Const.	SEC 25, 36, T7S, R1W	BASALT	LE
32	Crown Zellerbach	SEC 17, T8S, R4E	ANDESITE & BASALT	TE
33	Crown Zellerbach	SEC 20, T8S, R4W	ANDESITE & BASALT	TE
34	Crown Zellerbach	SEC 21, T8S, R4W	ANDESITE & BASALT	TE
35	OSHD	SEC 11, T9S, R3W	BASALT	TE
36	OSHD	SEC 29, T9S, R3E	BASALT	TE
37	Andrew Justice	SEC 13, T9S, R2E
38	Mary McNatt	SEC 32, T6S, R1E	BASALT	SMP
39	Floyd Davidson	SEC 26, T9S, R2W	DRIED BASALT	LE
40	Louis Scofield	SEC 11, T5S, R3W	GRAVEL	TE
41	Dean Barlow	SEC 11, T5S, R3W	GRAVEL/SAND	TE
STATUS KEY TE – Total Exemption LE – Limited Exemption SMP – Surface Mining Permit
Data from Oregon State Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, March, 1981