Resource Conservation Districts MSR and SOI

MODOC LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATES FOR 1. CENTRAL MODOC RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT 2. SURPRISE VALLEY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT 3. GOOSE LAKE RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT 4. LAVA BEDS-BUTTE VALLEY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT 5. PIT RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT Resolution # 2014-0006 Municipal Service Review – August 12, 2014 Resolution # 2014-0007 Sphere of Influence - August 12, 2014 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Municipal Services Review Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.3 Municipal Services Review Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.4 Sphere Of Influence Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.5 Possible Approaches to the Sphere of Influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.6 SOI Amendments and CEQA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.7 Resource Conservation Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.7.1 Background of Resource Conservation Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.7.2 Possible Programs for Resource Conservation Districts . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.8 Modoc County Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1.9 Modoc County Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2 CENTRAL MODOC RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.1 Central Modoc Resource Conservation District Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.1.1 Central Modoc Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.1.2 Central Modoc RCD History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.1.3 Central Modoc RCD Contact Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.1.4 Central Modoc RCD Board of Directors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.1.5 Central Modoc RCD Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.1.6 Central Modoc RCD Audit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.2 Central Modoc Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review 17 2.2.1 Growth and Population Projections for the Central Modoc Area . . . . 17 2.2.2 Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUC) within or Contiguous to the Central Modoc Resource Conservation District SOI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2.2.3 Capacity and Infrastructure for the Central Modoc RCD . . . . . . . . . . 17 2.2.4 Financial Ability for the Central Modoc RCD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2.2.5 Opportunities for Shared Facilities for the Central Modoc RCD . . . . . 17 2.2.6 Central Modoc RCD Government Structure and Accountability . . . . . 17 2.3 Central Modoc Resource Conservation Sphere of Influence Update 18 2.3.1 Present and Planned Land Uses in the Area, Including Agricultural and Open Space Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2.3.2 Municipal Services—Present and Probable Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2.3.3 Public Facilities Present and Future Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2.3.4 Social or Economic Communities of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2.3.5 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3 SURPRISE VALLEY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.1 Surprise Valley Resource Conservation District Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.1.1 Surprise Valley Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.1.2 Surprise Valley RCD History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.1.3 Surprise Valley RCD Contact Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.1.4 Surprise Valley RCD Board of Directors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.1.5 Surprise Valley RCD Critical Resource Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 1 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 3.2 Surprise Valley Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review 25 3.2.1 Growth and Population Projections for the Surprise Valley Area . . . . 25 3.2.2 Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUC) within or Contiguous to the Surprise Valley RCD SOI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.2.3 Surprise Valley RCD Capacity and Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.2.4 Surprise Valley RCD Financial Ability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.2.5 Surprise Valley RCD Opportunities for Shared Facilities . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.2.6 Surprise Valley RCD Government Structure and Accountability . . . . 25 3.3 Surprise Valley Resource Conservation District Sphere of Influence Update 26 3.3.1 Present and Planned Land Uses in the Area, Including Agricultural and Open Space Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.3.2 Municipal Services—Present and Probable Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.3.3 Public Facilities Present and Future Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.3.4 Social or Economic Communities of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.3.5 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 4 GOOSE LAKE RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4.1 Goose Lake Resource Conservation District Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4.1.1 Goose Lake RCD Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4.1.2 Goose Lake RCD Contact Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 4.1.3 Goose Lake RCD Board of Directors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 4.2 Goose Lake Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review . . . . 29 4.2.1 Growth and Population Projections for the Goose Lake RCD Area 29 4.2.2 Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUC) within or Contiguous to the SOI . . . . . . 29 4.2.3 Capacity and Infrastructure for Goose Lake RCD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 4.2.4 Financial Ability for Goose Lake RCD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 4.2.5 Opportunities for Shared Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 4.2.6 Government Structure and Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 4.3 Goose Lake Resource Conservation Sphere of Influence Update . . . . . . . . . 30 4.3.1 Present and Planned Land Uses in the Area, Including Agricultural and Open Space Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4.3.2 Municipal Services—Present and Probable Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4.3.3 Public Facilities Present and Future Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4.3.4 Social or Economic Communities of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4.3.5 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 5 LAVA BEDS-BUTTE VALLEY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT . . . . . . . 31 5.1 Lava Beds-Butte Valley Resource Conservation District Background . . . . . . 31 5.1.1 Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 5.1.2 Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD Contact Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 5.1.3 Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD Board of Directors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 5.1.4 Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD Facilities and Services . . . . . . . . . . . 33 5.1.5 Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 5.1.6 Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD Audit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 2 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 5.2 Lava Beds-Butte Valley Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 5.2.1 Growth and Population Projections for the Lava Beds-Butte Valley Area RCD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 5.2.2 Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUC) within or Contiguous to the SOI . . . . . . . . . . . 37 5.2.3 Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD Capacity and Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . 37 5.2.4 Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD Financial Ability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 5.2.5 Opportunities for Shared Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 5.2.6 Government Structure and Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 5.3 Lava Beds-Butte Valley Resource Conservation Sphere of Influence Update 38 5.3.1 Present and Planned Land Uses in the Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD Area, Including Agricultural and Open Space Lands . . . . . . . . . . . 38 5.3.2 Municipal Services—Present and Probable Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 5.3.3 Public Facilities Present and Future Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 5.3.4 Social or Economic Communities of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 5.3.5 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 6 PIT RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 6.1 Pit Resource Conservation District Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 6.1.1 Pit RCD Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 6.1.2 Pit RCD Contact Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 6.1.3 Pit RCD Board of Directors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 6.1.4 Pit RCD Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 6.1.5 Pit RCD Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 6.2 Pit r Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review . . . . . . . 44 6.2.1 Growth and Population Projections for the Pit RCD Area . . . . . 44 6.2.2 Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUC) within or Contiguous to the Pit RCD SOI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 6.2.3 Pit RCD Capacity and Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 6.2.4 Pit RCD Financial Ability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 6.2.5 Pit RCD Opportunities for Shared Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 6.2.6 Pit RCD Government Structure and Accountability . . . . . . . . . 44 6.3 Pit Resource Conservation Sphere of Influence Update . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 6.3.1 Present and Planned Land Uses in the Area, Including Agricultural and Open Space Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 6.3.2 Municipal Services—Present and Probable Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 6.3.3 Public Facilities Present and Future Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 6.3.4 Social or Economic Communities of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 6.3.5 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 PREPARERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 3 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) History This report is prepared pursuant to legislation enacted in 2000 that requires LAFCO to conduct a comprehensive review of municipal service delivery and update the spheres of influence (SOIs) of all agencies under LAFCO’s jurisdiction. This chapter provides an overview of LAFCO’s history, powers and responsibilities. It discusses the origins and legal requirements for preparation of the municipal services review (MSR). Finally, the chapter reviews the process for MSR review, MSR approval and SOI updates. After World War II, California experienced dramatic growth in population and economic development. With this boom came a demand for housing, jobs and public services. To accommodate this demand, many new local government agencies were formed, often with little forethought as to the ultimate governance structures in a given region, and existing agencies often competed for expansion areas. The lack of coordination and adequate planning led to a multitude of overlapping, inefficient jurisdictional and service boundaries, and the premature conversion of California’s agricultural and open-space lands. Recognizing this problem, in 1959, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Sr. appointed the Commission on Metropolitan Area Problems. The Commission's charge was to study and make recommendations on the "misuse of land resources" and the growing complexity of local governmental jurisdictions. The Commission's recommendations on local governmental reorganization were introduced in the Legislature in 1963; resulting in the creation of a Local Agency Formation Commission, or "LAFCO," operating in every county. LAFCO was formed as a countywide agency to discourage urban sprawl and to encourage the orderly formation and development of local government agencies. LAFCO is responsible for coordinating logical and timely changes in local governmental boundaries; including annexations and detachments of territory, incorporations of cities, formations of special districts, and consolidations, mergers and dissolutions of districts, as well as reviewing ways to reorganize, simplify, and streamline governmental structure. The Commission's efforts are focused on ensuring that services are provided efficiently and economically while agricultural and open-space lands are protected. To better inform itself and the community as it seeks to exercise its charge and to comply with the State Law; LAFCO conducts service reviews to evaluate the provision of municipal services within the County. LAFCO regulates, through approval, denial, conditions and modification, boundary changes proposed by public agencies or individuals. It also regulates the extension of public services by cities and special districts outside their boundaries. LAFCO is empowered to initiate updates to the SOIs and proposals involving the dissolution or consolidation of special districts, mergers, establishment of subsidiary districts, and any reorganization including such actions. Otherwise, LAFCO actions must originate as petitions or resolutions from affected voters, landowners, cities or special districts. 1 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 1.2 Municipal Services Review Requirements Effective January 1, 2008, Government Code §56430 requires LAFCO to conduct a review of municipal services provided in the county by region, sub-region or other designated geographic area, as appropriate, for the service or services to be reviewed, and prepare a written statement of determination with respect to each of the following six topics: 1. Growth and population projections for the affected area 2. The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUC) within or contiguous to the sphere of influence 3. Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies 4. Financial ability of agencies to provide services 5. Status of, and opportunities for shared facilities 6. Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies 1.3 Municipal Services Review Process For local agencies, the MSR process involves the following steps: • Outreach: LAFCO outreach and explanation of the project • Data Discovery: provide documents and respond to LAFCO questions • Map Review: review and comment on LAFCO draft map of the agency’s boundary and sphere of influence • Profile Review: internal review and comment on LAFCO draft profile of the agency • Public Review Draft MSR: review and comment on LAFCO draft MSR • LAFCO Hearing: attend and provide public comments on MSR MSRs are exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to §15262 (feasibility or planning studies) or §15306 (information collection) of the CEQA Guidelines. LAFCO’s actions to adopt MSR determinations are not considered “projects” subject to CEQA. The MSR process does not require LAFCO to initiate changes of organization based on service review findings, only that LAFCO identify potential government structure options. However, LAFCO, other local agencies, and the public may subsequently use the determinations to analyze prospective changes of organization or reorganization or to establish or amend SOIs. Within its legal authorization, LAFCO may act with respect to a recommended change of organization or reorganization on its own initiative (e.g., certain types of consolidations), or in response to a proposal (i.e., initiated by resolution or petition by landowners or registered voters). 2 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS Once LAFCO has adopted the MSR determinations, it must update the SOI for each jurisdiction. The LAFCO Commission determines and adopts the spheres of influence for each agency. A CEQA determination is made by LAFCO on a case-by-case basis for each sphere of influence action and each change of organization, once the proposed project characteristics are sufficiently identified to assess environmental impacts. 1.4 Sphere Of Influence Updates The Commission is charged with developing and updating the Sphere of Influence (SOI) for each city and special district within the county.1 An SOI is a LAFCO-approved plan that designates an agency’s probable future boundary and service area. Spheres are planning tools used to provide guidance for individual boundary change proposals and are intended to encourage efficient provision of organized community services and prevent duplication of service delivery. Territory cannot be annexed by LAFCO to a city or district unless it is within that agency's sphere. The purposes of the SOI include the following: • to ensure the efficient provision of services • to discourage urban sprawl and premature conversion of agricultural and open space lands • to prevent overlapping jurisdictions and duplication of services LAFCO cannot regulate land use, dictate internal operations or administration of any local agency, or set rates. LAFCO is empowered to enact policies that indirectly affect land use decisions. On a regional level, LAFCO promotes logical and orderly development of communities as it considers and decides individual proposals. LAFCO has a role in reconciling differences between agency plans so that the most efficient urban service arrangements are created for the benefit of current and future area residents and property owners. The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg (CKH) Act requires LAFCo’s to develop and determine the SOI of each local governmental agency within the county and to review and update the SOI every five years. LAFCOs are empowered to adopt, update and amend the SOI. They may do so with or without an application and any interested person may submit an application proposing an SOI amendment. While SOIs are required to be updated every five years, as necessary, this does not necessarily define the planning horizon of the SOI. The term or horizon of the SOI is determined by each LAFCO. 1 The initial statutory mandate, in 1971, imposed no deadline for completing sphere designations. When most LAFCOs failed to act, 1984 legislation required all LAFCOs to establish spheres of influence by 1985. 3 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS LAFCO may recommend government reorganizations to particular agencies in the county, using the SOIs as the basis for those recommendations. In determining the SOI, LAFCO is required to complete an MSR and adopt the six determinations previously discussed. In addition, in adopting or amending an SOI, LAFCO must make the following determinations: 1. Present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands 2. Present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area 3. Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public service that the agency provides or is authorized to provide 4. Existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the Commission determines these are relevant to the agency 5. The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUC) within or contiguous to the sphere of influence The CKH Act stipulates several procedural requirements in updating SOIs. It requires that cities file written statements on the class of services provided and that LAFCO clearly establish the location, nature and extent of services provided by special districts. By statute, LAFCO must notify affected agencies 21 days before holding the public hearing to consider the SOI and may not update the SOI until after that hearing. The LAFCO Executive Officer must issue a report including recommendations on the SOI amendments and updates under consideration at least five days before the public hearing 1.5 Possible Approaches to the Sphere of Influence LAFCO may recommend government reorganizations to particular agencies in the county, using the SOIs as the basis for those recommendations. Based on review of the guidelines of Modoc LAFCO as well as other LAFCOs in the State, various conceptual approaches have been identified from which to choose in designating an SOI. These seven approaches are explained below: 1) Coterminous Sphere: A Coterminous Sphere means that the sphere for a city or special district that is the same as its existing boundaries. 2) Annexable Sphere: A sphere larger than the agency’s boundaries identifies areas the agency is expected to annex. The annexable area is outside its boundaries and inside the sphere. 4 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 3) Detachable Sphere: A sphere that is smaller than the agency’s boundaries identifies areas the agency is expected to detach. The detachable area is the area within the agency bounds but not within its sphere. 4) Zero Sphere: A zero sphere indicates the affected agency’s public service functions should be reassigned to another agency and the agency should be dissolved or combined with one or more other agencies. 5) Consolidated Sphere: A consolidated sphere includes two or more local agencies and indicates the agencies should be consolidated into one agency. 6) Limited Service Sphere: A limited service sphere is the territory included within the SOI of a multi-service provider agency that is also within the boundary of a limited purpose district which provides the same service (e.g., fire protection), but not all needed services. Territory designated as a limited service SOI may be considered for annexation to the limited purpose agency without detachment from the multi-service provider. This type of SOI is generally adopted when the following four conditions exist: a) The limited service provider is providing adequate, cost effective and efficient services b) The multi-service agency is the most logical provider of the other services c) There is no feasible or logical SOI alternative, and d) Inclusion of the territory is in the best interests of local government organization and structure in the area Government Code §56001 specifically recognizes that in rural areas it may be appropriate to establish limited purpose agencies to serve an area rather than a single service provider, if multiple limited purpose agencies are better able to provide efficient services to an area rather than one service district. Moreover, Government Code Section §56425(i), governing sphere determinations, also authorizes a sphere for less than all of the services provided by a district by requiring a district affected by a sphere action to “establish the nature, location, and extent of any functions of classes of services provided by existing districts” recognizing that more than one district may serve an area and that a given district may provide less than its full range of services in an area. 7) Sphere Planning Area: LAFCO may choose to designate a sphere planning area to signal that it anticipates expanding an agency’s SOI in the future to include territory not yet within its official SOI. 5 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 1.6 SOI Amendments and CEQA LAFCO has the discretion to limit SOI updates to those that it may process without unnecessarily delaying the SOI update process or without requiring its funding agencies to bear the costs of environmental studies associated with SOI expansions. Any local agency or individual may file a request for an SOI amendment. The request must state the nature of and reasons for the proposed amendment, and provide a map depicting the proposal. LAFCO may require the requester to pay a fee to cover LAFCO costs, including the costs of appropriate environmental review under CEQA. LAFCO may elect to serve as lead agency for such a review, may designate the proposing agency as lead agency, or both the local agency and LAFCO may serve as co-lead agencies for purposes of an SOI amendment. Local agencies are encouraged to consult with LAFCO staff early in the process regarding the most appropriate approach for the particular SOI amendment under consideration. Certain types of SOI amendments are usually exempt from CEQA review. Examples are SOI expansions that include territory already within the bounds or service area of an agency, SOI reductions, and zero SOIs. SOI expansions for limited purpose agencies that provide services (e.g., fire protection, levee protection, cemetery, and resource conservation) needed by both rural and urban areas are typically not considered growth- inducing and are likely exempt from CEQA. Similarly, SOI expansions for districts serving rural areas (e.g., irrigation water) are typically not considered growth-inducing. Remy et al. write In City of Agoura Hills v. Local Agency Formation Commission (2d Dist.1988) 198 Cal.App.3d480, 493-496 [243 Cal.Rptr.740] (City of Agoura Hills), the court held that a LAFCO’s decision to approve a city’s sphere of influence that in most respects was coterminous with the city’s existing municipal boundaries was not a “project” because such action did not entail any potential effects on the physical environment.2 The spheres of influence recommended in this report are coterminous with the district boundaries or areas of existing resource conservation services and will be exempt from further environmental review. 1.7 Resource Conservation Districts 1.7.1 Background of Resource Conservation Districts The following general description of Resource Conservation District applies to all the Districts covered in this report: Conservation Districts emerged during the 1930s as a way to prevent the soil erosion problems of the Dust Bowl from recurring. Formed as independent local liaisons between the federal government and landowners, conservation districts have always worked closely with the 2 Remy, Michael H., Tina A. Thomas, James G. Moose, Whitman F. Manley, Guide to CEQA, Solano Press Books, Point Arena, CA, February 2007, page 111. 6 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service). In California, Resource Conservation Districts are "special districts" organized under the state Public Resources Code, Division 9. Each district has a locally elected or appointed volunteer board of directors made up of landowners in that district. RCDs address a wide variety of conservation issues such as forest fuel management, water and air quality, wildlife habitat restoration, soil erosion control, conservation education, and much more. California now has 103 Resource Conservation Districts, most of which are funded largely through grants. A few receive limited funds through county property tax revenues. The Department of Conservation and the Natural Resources Conservation Service provide training and in-kind support, as well as a watershed grant program for districts. Today, RCDs work in urban areas as well as with farmers and ranchers on agricultural-related concerns. California's size and geographical diversity-along with an ever-growing population-make natural resources stewardship a great challenge in the Golden State. 3 The USDA office in Alturas assists the RCDs. The contact person is Bryon Hadwick, District Conservationist, E-Mail: Bryon.hadwick@CA.USDA.gov, Phone: 530-233-4137x104. 1.7.2 Possible Programs for Resource Conservation Districts The following is a list of possible programs that Resource Conservation Districts can develop: 1. Soil Surveys With a physical inventory of the soil, its capabilities for maximum production and its limitations will be known and available to all district farmers. Lands suitable for certain crops and unsuitable for others will be shown, as well as conservation farming practices that should be employed to overcome any limitations such as shallow soil, high water table, alkali soil or other factors. 2. Land Leveling Studies Conservation engineering surveys and designs will permit more efficient use of irrigation water as well as promote greater efficiency in the application of water. 3. Farm and Ranch Runoff Control Recommendations and designs for diversion ditches, check dams, and improvement of water ways will control runoff and reduce erosion and silting damage. 3 Central Modoc RCD, http://centralmodocrcd.org/About/about.html, December 6, 2012. 7 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 4. Water Conservation Conservation designs and construction supervision of small dams, diversions and percolating systems will detain flood waters and help to build up the underground water sources. 5. Flood Control Cooperative work with public agencies and districts on flood control, if and when such a program is authorized, will protect the interests of local people and accomplish vast community improvements. A coordinated program of watershed protection and flood prevention designed to facilitate cooperation under authority of the local district organization in Public Law 566 (83rd Congress) is available under qualified applications. 6. Drainage Conservation designs and recommendations for sub-surface drainage will remove underground waters in areas needing such work, to depths where root zones for crops will be increased as well as improving the conditions of surface wet spots in fields and other areas. 7. Range and Pasture Improvement Encouragement of establishment of better range grasses, water development, and improvement of range conditions will increase beef production, control erosion, and reduce runoff. 8. Cropland and Orchards Recommendations for cover crops on sloping lands, rotations where possible and practicable, and improved land management will increase production, control runoff, and reduce erosion. 9. Conservation Farm and Ranch Plans Cooperative work providing guidance and assistance to farmers, ranchers, and landowners will make available the latest technical information on soils, irrigation, land use, drainage, soil and water conservation and flood control applications in developing individual and/or group plans. Objectives are to secure increased farm enterprise efficiency and economy in operations. The (Resource Conservation) District will provide each farmer-rancher- cooperator at his request with technical assistance in the development and preparation of a Conservation Farm or Ranch Plan. This Plan brings together all of the soil, land and water resource information of all agencies assisting the District to provide basic information for improved farm and ranch management practices. The Farm Conservation Plan is based upon detailed soil and land capability surveys and inventories of each acre of each individual farm, or ranch. This information provides a comprehensive basis for development by the farmer, or rancher, with the help of District technical assistance, of the Farm or Ranch Conservation Plan. The Conservation Plan is specifically tailored to meet the management and operations needs of the individual farmer or rancher seeking assistance. 8 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 10. Irrigation In addition to determination of irrigation needs, including design of new irrigation systems and rehabilitation of old systems in connection with the development of the Farm Conservation Plan, the District may also provide on-site assistance to help the individual farmer-cooperator to obtain more efficient use of his irrigation water. This will include methods of irrigation desirable to satisfy water requirements of crops and pastures and efficiently utilize available irrigation and water supplies. 11. Cooperation Contacts and negotiations with other agencies will accelerate proposed long-term projects for community betterment. Cooperation between farmers on problems will make for better and more prosperous living and result in the establishment of a permanent agriculture with maximum production. 1.8 Modoc County Population Modoc County population has declined in recent years as follows:4 2010 9,686 2012 9,346 2013 9,147 Modoc County has a lower median household income and more poverty than the State of California as a whole as is shown below: 5 INCOME AND POVERTY LEVEL MODOC CALIFORNIA Median household income, 2008-2012 $37,482 $61,400 Persons below poverty level, percent, 2008-2012 19.9% 15.3% 1.9 Modoc County Crops The top field crops in Modoc County are as follows:6 1. Barley 2. Wheat 3. Oats 4. Peas 5. Alfalfa 6. Grain Hay 7. Meadow Hay 8. Pasture (Irrigated) 9. Pasture (Dryland) Wood products and livestock are also important parts of the agricultural economy. 4 US Census Bureau, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06049.html, April 18, 2014 5 US Census Bureau, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06049.html, April 18, 2014 6 Modoc County Department of Agriculture, 2008 Crop Report, Joseph A. Moreo, Agricultural Commissioner, Phone 530- 233-6401, Fax 530-233-5542, e-mail: modocag@hdo.net. 9 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 2 CENTRAL MODOC RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT 2.1 Central Modoc Resource Conservation District Background 2.1.1 Central Modoc Area The Central Modoc Resource Conservation District includes the communities of Alturas, Likely and Canby. Although the focus of the Central Modoc Resource Conservation District is on land and water resources, the communities in the area are also important. The three communities in the Central Modoc RCD are described below. Alturas Alturas now occupies what was initially an Achumawi village known as Kosealekte or Kasalektawi. Alturas (formerly, Dorris Bridge, Dorris' Bridge, and Dorrisville)7 was named after Pressley and James Dorris, who built a bridge across the Pit River at this location. Alturas is located at an elevation of 4370 feet. As the county seat, the town is also home to regional government offices, including a California Highway Patrol office and a state Department of Motor Vehicles office. The Dorris Bridge post office opened in 1871, renamed Dorrisville in 1874, and in 1876, was renamed Alturas, which is Spanish for "heights". The census of 1880 showed a population of 148. However, settlement continued over the next two decades, until the city was officially incorporated on September 16, 1901; the county's only incorporated city. Because of its central location, Dorrisville became the county seat when Modoc County formed in 1874, even though both Adin and Cedarville were then larger towns. The population of Alturas was 2,827 at the 2010 census. There were 1,238 households, out of which 391 (31.6%) had children under the age of 18 living in them, There were 403 households (32.6%) were made up of individuals and 160 (12.9%) had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.27. There were 753 families (60.8% of all households); the average family size was 2.85. The population was spread out in age as follows: ALTURAS AGE DISTRIBUTION 2010 Under the age of 18 702 people 24.8% 18 to 24 219 people 7.7% 25 to 44 672 people 23.8% 45 to 64 802 people 28.4% 65 years of age or older 432 people 15.3% TOTAL 2827 people 100.0% The median age was 39.9 years. For every 100 females there were 92.7 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 88.6 males. There were 1,407 housing units of which 691 (55.8%) were owner-occupied, and 547 (44.2%) were occupied by renters. The homeowner vacancy rate was 2.8%; the rental 7 Durham, David L. (1998). California's Geographic Names: A Gazetteer of Historic and Modern Names of the State. Quill Driver Books. p. 351. ISBN 9781884995149 10 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS vacancy rate was 7.8%. There were 1,563 people (55.3% of the population) living in owner-occupied housing units and 1,251 people (44.3%) living in rental housing units. Canby Canby is an unincorporated community in Modoc County California located 17 miles west of Alturas, south of Rattlesnake Butte, at an elevation of 4314 feet.8 It had a population of 315 at the 2010 census which was a decrease from the 2000 population of 413 people. The present population is also smaller than the 1980 population of 440.9 The first post office opened at Canby in 1874.10 The name honors General Edward Canby who was shot by a companion of Captain Jack at a peacemaking session, after the American government made a pretense of purchasing the territory of the Modoc people from the Klamath people, and forced the Modoc people to move to the Klamath Reservation in Oregon. Some Modoc people left the reservation, because the Klamath people made it clear that the Modoc were not welcome there. This shooting lead to the siege at Captain Jack’s Stronghold.11 Until the late 1940s, Canby was the site of Big Lakes Box Company and the supply point for Big Lakes Logging Camp in the Adin Mountains about 10 miles to the southeast, where conditions were primitive.12 The town is surrounded by hay farms and cattle ranches. Adin Mountain rises just to the southwest and the Pit River runs nearby. The hot springs has been host for many years to the annual Lions Easter Egg hunt for Modoc community children. The waters are hot enough to boil the eggs.13 Today the community includes the I’SOT (In Search of Truth) organization, which hosts a private school and was instrumental in writing a large grant for the new Canby Family Practice Clinic. For a few weeks beginning with Thanksgiving and ending with Christmas, Canby has a display of dioramas showing the first European settlers’ Thanksgiving and scenes celebrating the birth and life of Christ. The 2010 US Census reported that Canby had a population of 315. The Census reported that 154 people (48.9% of the population) lived in households, 133 (42.2%) lived in non-institutionalized group quarters, and 28 (8.9%) were institutionalized. There were 62 households, out of which 15 (24.2%) had children under the age of 18 living in them. The average household size was 2.48. There were 40 families (64.5% of all households); the average family size was 2.58. 8 U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Canby, California. 9 Modoc County General Plan, Background Report, September 1988, Page 172. 10 Durham, David L. (1998). California's Geographic Names: A Gazetteer of Historic and Modern Names of the State. Quill Driver Books. p. 362. ISBN 9781884995149. 11 "Modoc Wars, 1873–74". California State Military Museum. 2009. http://www.militarymuseum.org/Modoc1.html. Retrieved 21 July 2009. 12 Pease, Robert W. (1965). Modoc County; University of California Publications in Geography, Volume 17. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. p. 115. 13 http://www.deanneerrealty.com/modoc_communities.htm, June 5, 2011 11 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS The 2010 Canby population was spread out in age as follows: CANBY AGE DISTRIBUTION 2010 Under the age of 18 87 people 27.6% Aged 18 to 24 27 people 8.6% Aged 25 to 44 71 people 22.5% Aged 45 to 64 80 people 25.4% 65 years of age or older 50 people 15.9% TOTAL 315 people 100.0% The median age was 36.2 years. For every 100 females there were 85.3 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 83.9 males. There were 76 housing units reported in 2010. This is less than the 104 housing units reported in 1985.14 In 2010, 34 (54.8%) of the housing units were owner-occupied and 28 (45.2%) were occupied by renters. The homeowner vacancy rate was 2.9%; the rental vacancy rate was 12.5%. There were 73 people (23.2% of the population) living in owner-occupied housing units and 81 people (25.7%) living in rental housing units. Likely Likely (formerly, South Fork)15 is a census designated place (CDP). It is located near the South Fork of the Pit River, 18 miles south of Alturas, at an elevation of 4,449 feet. Located 6 miles north-northwest of Likely Mountain, it is somewhat sheltered from prevailing southwesterly winds, and its microclimate is noticeably drier and less stormy than surrounding areas. Likely now occupies what was originally an Achumawi (Pit River) village known as Hamawe or Hammawi. The town was initially known as South Fork, named after the South Fork of the Pit River, and was renamed at the insistence of the United States Post Office, which insisted at that time that Post Offices could only have one-word names. Residents were unable to agree what to name their town until a local rancher observed that they would most likely never agree upon a name, at which point someone nominated the name, "Likely", and the name was voted in. The South Fork post office operated from 1878 to 1882. The Likely post office opened in 1886. One of the last of the American Indian Wars was fought at Infernal Caverns, a short distance from Likely. A 1913 book described Likely as having a population of 75, and situated along the main automobile route from Madeline to Bayley. The Likely Peat Moss Company, Radel Inc. operated in Likely until 1987 when the non- renewing supply of high quality hypnum peat moss in nearby Jess Valley was depleted. The peat moss was strip-mined from the floor of Jess Valley and trucked 13 miles to Likely on the winding canyon road paralleling South Fork Pit River between Likely and Ivy, California. The peat moss was processed and packaged and then shipped by both truck and by Southern Pacific Railroad until rail services to Likely were discontinued. The company, Radel, was dissolved in 1987 upon the owner's retirement. 14 Modoc County General Plan, Background Report, September 1988, Page 172. 15 Durham, David L. (1998). California's Geographic Names: A Gazetteer of Historic and Modern Names of the State. Quill Driver Books. p. 393. ISBN 9781884995149. 12 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS The 2010 US Census reported that Likely had a population of 63. There were 34 households, out of which 4 (11.8%) had children under the age of 18 living in them, There were 11 households (32.4%) were made up of individuals and 8 (23.5%) had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 1.85. There were 21 families (61.8% of all households); the average family size was 2.29. The population was spread out in age as follows: LIKELY AGE DISTRIBUTION 2010 Under the age of 18 5 people 7.9% 18 to 24 2 people 3.2% 25 to 44 7 people 11.1% 45 to 64 24 people 38.1% 65 years of age or older 25 people 39.7% TOTAL 63 people 100.0% The median age was 59.1 years. For every 100 females there were 103.2 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 100.0 males. There were 46 housing, of which 29 (85.3%) were owner-occupied, and 5 (14.7%) were occupied by renters. The homeowner vacancy rate was 0%; the rental vacancy rate was 37.5%. There were 55 people (87.3% of the population) living in owner-occupied housing units and 8 people (12.7%) living in rental housing units. 2.1.2 Central Modoc RCD History The Canby Soil Conservation District and the South Fork Soil Conservation District were merged to form the Central Modoc Soil Conservation District on March 7, 1966.16 2.1.3 Central Modoc RCD Contact Information17 Central Modoc RCD 804 221 W. 12th 8th Street, Alturas, CA 96101 Phone: 530-233-4137 4314 Fax: (530) 233-8869 Web site: www.centralmodocrcd.org Watershed Coordinator: Kate Hall (530) 233-8878 Project Coordinator: Richard Westman (530) 233-8879 Business Manager: Reina Baremore (530) 233-8872 4314 16 Modoc County Board of Supervisors, Resolution No. 66-14 Resolution Declaring the Consolidation of Soil Conservation Districts, March 7, 1966. 17 Central Modoc RCD, http://centralmodocrcd.org/Contact/contact.html, December 6, 2013. 13 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 2.1.4 Central Modoc RCD Board of Directors The CMRCD Board of Directors is as follows: Chico Pedotti, President term expires December 2016 Pearce Flournoy, President term expires December 2014 Dick Mackey term expires December 2016 Shane McGarva term expires December 2016 Erica Neneeka term expires December 2014 Walter Sphar term expires December 2016 Bill Valena term expires December 2014 The Board of Directors meets the 3rd Tuesday of each month. 2.1.5 Central Modoc RCD Projects The Central Modoc RCD adopted a Strategic Plan in January 2014. The Strategic Plan provides a detailed description of the district, an inventory of current conditions, a vision and future work plan activities including the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, Watershed Enhancement, Public Education, Irrigation Water Management, Grazing Land Management, and Maintaining a Private Land Base. The Strategic Plan includes the use of Collaborative Partnerships, Marketing Efforts, Operations and Management and a discussion of Management and Accountability, Risks, Challenges and Assumptions18. The Upper Pit River Watershed Enhancement & Protection Project (UPRWEPP) is to improve water quality and aquatic habitat. This can be accomplished in many ways, some examples are as follows: • vegetation planting along stream banks for soil stabilization • riparian fencing for livestock management and off-stream watering stations Benefits to the landowner mean fish/wildlife enhancement and decreased soil erosion of valuable pastures and farmable ground. With increasing state/federal attention on nonpoint source pollution (i.e. from agriculture, timber, grazing, etc.), it is important to demonstrate that a locally directed watershed management program can be effective.19 The Green Wing Properties River Bank and Wetlands Restoration Project was recently completed and is described as follows: The project will focus on improving water quality, stream bank stabilization, wetland restoration and improving agricultural irrigation conveyance and efficiency. This project consists of riparian and wetland restoration along with watershed improvement in the surrounding upland areas. Beneficiaries of the project include the land owner and general public. 18 Central Modoc Resource Conservation District Strategic Plan, January 2014 19 Central Modoc RCD http://centralmodocrcd.org/UPRWEPP/uprwepp.html, December 6, 2013. 14 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 2.1.6 Central Modoc RCD Audit The Central Modoc RCD had an independent audit performed for the year ended June 30, 2012. The following Consolidated Statement of Net Assets was reported: Central Modoc Resource Conservation District Consolidated Statement of Net Assets, June 30, 201220 June 30, 2012 June 30, 2011 Percent Change Current and Other Assets $59,695 $101,853 -41.39% Capital Assets - - - Total Assets $59,695 $101,853 -41.39% Liabilities $29,468 $50,810 -42.00% Net Assets Invested in Capital Assets - - - Unrestricted $30,227 $51,043 -40.78% TOTAL LIABILITIES AND $59,695 $101,853 -41.39% NET ASSETS The Central Modoc RCD shows less funding on hand in 2012 which means that grant funding has been used for the purpose intended. Central Modoc Resource Conservation District Condensed Statement of Activities, June 30, 201221 June 30, 2012 June 30, 2011 Percent Change Revenues $95,818 $119,485 -19.81% Expenses (116,634) (114,118) -2.20% Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets (20,816) $5,367 -487.85/5 Beginning of year $51,043 $45,676 11.75% Prior Period Adjustment - - - End of Year $30,227 $51,043 -40.78% During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2012, the Central Modoc RCD revenue decreased due to fewer grants provided to the District. The Revenues are generated primarily by various grants. The District bills the different governmental agencies, which provide the grants, progressively as the projects are completed. The District is involved in many projects such as conserving water quality, aquatic habitat, wild life, and soil. The following table shows the expenditures, revenues, and changes in fund balances: 20 Central Modoc Resource Conservation District, Financial Statements and Independent Auditor’s Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2012, Prepared by Blombert & Griffin Accountancy Corporation, 1013 North California Street, Stockton, California 95202, Phone 209-466-3894, Fax 209-466-5545, Page 2. 21 Central Modoc Resource Conservation District, Financial Statements and Independent Auditor’s Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2012, Prepared by Blombert & Griffin Accountancy Corporation, 1013 North California Street, Stockton, California 95202, Phone 209-466-3894, Fax 209-466-5545, Page 3. 15 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS Central Modoc Resource Conservation District Statement of Activities Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances June 30, 201222 General Adjustments Statement Fund of Activities Revenues Grants State 90,939 90,939 Tree Sales 1,229 1,229 Miscellaneous 3,650 3,650 Total Revenues 95,818 95,818 Expenditures General Government Salaries, Wages, Employee Benefits 74,750 74,750 Service Fees 13,975 13,975 Construction Materials /Supplies 4,905 4,905 Telephone 1,234 1,234 Vehicle Maintenance 670 670 Office Expense 1,594 1,594 Travel 490 490 Education 761 761 Insurance 8,171 8,171 Utilities 224 224 Miscellaneous 6,805 6,805 Permits, Licenses, Fees 3,055 3,055 Total Expenditures 116,634 116,634 Excess of Revenues over Expenditures (20,816) 20,816 Changes in Net Assets - (20,816) (20,816) Fund Balance/Net Assets Beginning 51,043 51,043 Balance Fund Balance/Net Assets Ending $30,227 $30,227 Balance June 30, 2012 The Independent Auditor found no material weaknesses or other problems with Central Modoc RCD. 22 Central Modoc Resource Conservation District, Financial Statements and Independent Auditor’s Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2012, Prepared by Blombert & Griffin Accountancy Corporation, 1013 North California Street, Stockton, California 95202, Phone 209-466-3894, Fax 209-466-5545, Page 7. 16 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 2.2 Central Modoc Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review 2.2.1 Growth and Population Projections for the Central Modoc Area 1-1) The population of Modoc County has declined slightly since the 2010 Census. 1-2) The population of the Central Modoc RCD is not expected to increase substantially. 2.2.2 Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUC) within or Contiguous to the Central Modoc Resource Conservation District SOI 2-1) The population of Modoc County has a Median Household Income lower than 80% of the State Median Household Income so could be considered disadvantaged. 2-2) The City of Alturas is incorporated. The other communities are too far away from Alturas to be annexed. 2.2.3 Capacity and Infrastructure for Central Modoc RCD 3-1) The Central Modoc RCD has two full-time employees and one two part-time employees. 23 2.2.4 Financial Ability for Central Modoc RCD 4-1) The Central Modoc RCD is funded by grant funds only, there are no tax revenues.24 4-2) The Central Modoc RCD had an independent audit performed for the year ending June 30, 2012. 2.2.5 Opportunities for Shared Facilities for Central Modoc RCD 5-1) The Central Modoc RCD is planning to be consolidated with the Surprise Valley RCD.25 2.2.6 Central Modoc RCD Government Structure and Accountability 6-1) The Central Modoc RCD has a seven member board of directors. 6-2) The Central Modoc RCD plans to consolidate with the Surprise Valley RCD and the Board of Directors will remain at seven members elected at large. 23 Hadwick, Bryon, NRCS Alturas CA, E-Mail: Bryon.Hadwick@ca.usda.gov, January 10, 2014. 24 Hadwick, Bryon, NRCS Alturas CA, E-Mail: Bryon.Hadwick@ca.usda.gov, January 10, 2014. 25 Hadwick, Bryon, NRCS Alturas CA, E-Mail: Bryon.Hadwick@ca.usda.gov, January 10, 2014. 17 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 2.3 Central Modoc Resource Conservation District Sphere of Influence Update The recommendation for the Central Modoc Resource Conservation District SOI is that it include the Surprise Valley RCD area so that ultimately these two districts could be combined in to the Modoc Resource Conservation District. 2.3.1 Present and Planned Land Uses in the Area, Including Agricultural and Open Space Lands 1-1] The land is Modoc County is designated for agricultural uses and open space except in the areas where there are small communities.26 2.3.2 Municipal Services—Present and Probable Need 2-1] The services provided by the Central Modoc RCD will continue to be needed because farmers, ranchers and the general public can benefit from these services to improve the environment. 2.3.3 Public Facilities Present and Future Capacity 3-1] The Central Modoc RCD has adequate staff and facilities to provide service in the future and to provide service to the Surprise Valley RCD area if the two districts are combined. 2.3.4 Social or Economic Communities of Interest 4-1] The Central Modoc RCD includes three communities (Alturas, Canby and Likely) but also represents the entire area because all residents and visitors have an interest in preserving agricultural lands and protecting and improving the environment. 2.3.5 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community Status 5-1] The population of Modoc County has a Median Household Income lower than 80% of the State Median Household Income so could be considered disadvantaged. 26 Modoc County General Plan, Goals, Policies and Action Program, September 1988. 18 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 3 SURPRISE VALLEY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT 3.1 Surprise Valley Resource Conservation District Background 3.1.1 Surprise Valley Communities The Surprise Valley RCD area includes the four communities of Cedarville, Eagleville, Lake City and Fort Bidwell. Each community is briefly described below. Cedarville Cedarville (formerly, Surprise Valley and Deep Creek)27 is a census designated place located 20 miles east of Alturas at an elevation of 4,652. According to the Census Bureau the CDP covers an area of 5.4 square miles. The largest community in Surprise Valley, Cedarville is located on the alluvial apron at the mouth of Cedar Canyon, on the eastern base of the Warner Mountains, near the western shore of Middle Alkali Lake. Originally known as Deep Creek, Cedarville was founded around 1864 as a stopping place for wagon trains. In 1867 a trading post was being run by William Cressler and John Bonner, who later also built the first road over Cedar Pass, which connected Surprise Valley to Alturas and the rest of Modoc County. The first Cedarville post office opened in 1869. The current name is derived from Cedarville, Ohio. As branch county seat of Siskiyou County, nearby Lake City was the population center of Surprise Valley until Modoc County formed in 1874. However, by 1880 Cedarville was the largest in the valley, with a population of around 220, and once Fort Bidwell, 20 miles to the north was demilitarized, Cedarville's central location and access to Cedar Pass made it the natural population and business center of the valley. By 1880 Cedarville was the largest town in Surprise Valley, with a population of around 220. A 1913 book described Cedarville as being on Middle Alkali Lake and having a population of about 500. The Laxague Lumber Company mill was located in Cedarville, and employed from 18 to 60 residents. The town hosts an annual Last Frontier Fair in August. Tourist services, such as bed and breakfast accommodations, are available in the community. An area attraction is the Warner Mountains, most of which are inside Modoc National Forest, and the headquarters of the Warner Mountain Ranger District is in downtown Cedarville. Public schools in Cedarville are administered the Surprise Valley Joint Unified District and includes the Surprise Valley High School as well the Surprise Valley Elementary and Middle School The 2010 US Census reported that Cedarville had a population of 514. The Census reported that 490 people lived in 237 households, out of which 55 (23.2%) had children under the age of 18 living in them, 92 households (38.8%) were made up of individuals and 51 (21.5%) had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The 27 Durham, David L. (1998). California's Geographic Names: A Gazetteer of Historic and Modern Names of the State. Quill Driver Books. p. 363. ISBN 9781884995149. 19 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS average household size was 2.07. There were 132 families (55.7% of all households); the average family size was 2.71. The population was spread out in age as follows: CEDARVILLE AGE DISTRIBUTION 2010 Under the age of 18 94 people 18.3% 18 to 24 31 people 6.0% 25 to 44 104 people 20.2% 45 to 64 149 people 29.0% 65 years of age or older 136 people 26.5% TOTAL 514 people 100.0% The Cedarville median age was 49.5 years. For every 100 females there were 89.0 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 94.4 males. There were 294 housing units of which 146 (61.6%) were owner-occupied, and 91 (38.4%) were occupied by renters. The homeowner vacancy rate was 1.3%; the rental vacancy rate was 12.5%. There were 296 people (57.6% of the population) living in owner-occupied housing units and 194 people (37.7%) living in rental housing units. Eagleville Eagleville is a census-designated place is located 25 miles east-southeast of Alturas, at an elevation of 4642 feet. The first post office at Eagleville opened in 1868. A 1913 book described Eagleville, Modoc County as being on one of the Alkali Lakes and having a population of 150. The 2010 US Census reported that in Eagleville, 59 people lived in 29 households, out of which 4 (13.8%) had children under the age of 18 living in them, 5 households (17.2%) were made up of individuals and 2 (6.9%) had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.03. There were 20 families (69.0% of all households); the average family size was 2.30. The population was spread out in age as follows: EAGLEVILLE AGE DISTRIBUTION 2010 Under the age of 18 8 people 13.6% 18 to 24 1 people 1.7% 25 to 44 9 people 15.3% 45 to 64 26 people 44.0% 65 years of age or older 15 people 25.4% TOTAL 59 people 100.0% The Eagleville median age was 56.6 years. For every 100 females there were 126.9 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 104.0 males. There were 47 housing units of which 21 (72.4%) were owner-occupied, and 8 (27.6%) were occupied by renters. The homeowner vacancy rate was 0%; the rental vacancy rate was 0%. There were 42 people (71.2% of the population) living in owner-occupied housing units and 17 people (28.8%) living in rental housing units. 20 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS Lake City Lake City (formerly, Tri-Lake City) is a census-designated place of 5.8 square miles located 8.5 miles north-northwest of Cedarville, at an elevation of 4626 feet. The first post office at Lake City opened in 1868. A 1913 book described Lake City as being near Upper Alkali Lake and having a population of about 150. The 2010 US Census reported that 61 people (100% of the population) lived in 34 households, out of which 6 (17.6%) had children under the age of 18 living in them, 14 households (41.2%) were made up of individuals and 7 (20.6%) had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 1.79. There were 19 families (55.9% of all households); the average family size was 2.32. The population was spread out in age as follows: LAKE CITY AGE DISTRIBUTION 2010 Under the age of 18 8 people 13.1% 18 to 24 0 people 0.0% 25 to 44 5 people 8.2% 45 to 64 28 people 45.9% 65 years of age or older 20 people 32.8% TOTAL 61 people 100.0% The Lake City median age was 62.2 years. For every 100 females there were 90.6 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 89.3 males. There were 50 housing units in Lake City of which 31 (91.2%) were owner-occupied, and 3 (8.8%) were occupied by renters. The homeowner vacancy rate was 2.9%; the rental vacancy rate was 25.0%. There were 55 people (90.2% of the population) living in owner-occupied housing units and 6 people (9.8%) living in rental housing units. Fort Bidwell Fort Bidwell is a 3.2 square mile census-designated place located 32 miles northeast of Alturas, at an elevation of 4564 feet. The population was 173 at the 2010 census. The Fort Bidwell Indian Community is affiliated with the Paiute nation. Although traffic dwindled on the Red Bluff route once the Central Pacific Railroad extended into Nevada in 1868, the Army staffed Fort Bidwell to quell various uprisings and disturbances until 1890. Both Fort Bidwell and Camp Bidwell, near Chico were named for General John Bidwell. However, Camp Bidwell was commissioned in 1863, renamed Camp Chico by the time Fort Bidwell was commissioned in 1865, and was decommissioned in 1893. Observing confusion between the two, Robert W. Pease explained that such a transfer of name between outposts was a common Army practice of the time. The Fort Bidwell post office opened in 1868. Fort Bidwell is now registered as California Historical Landmark #430. The 2010 US Census reported that 173 people lived in 79 households, out of which 17 (21.5%) had children under the age of 18 living in them, 30 households (38.0%) were made up of individuals and 14 (17.7%) had someone living alone who was 65 years of 21 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS age or older. The average household size was 2.19. There were 43 families (54.4% of all households); the average family size was 2.95. The population was spread out in age as follows: FORT BIDWELL AGE DISTRIBUTION 2010 Under the age of 18 35 people 20.2% 18 to 24 26 people 15.0% 25 to 44 29 people 16.8% 45-64 51 people 29.5% 65 years of age or older 32 people 18.5% TOTAL 173 people 100.0% The Fort Bidwell median age was 41.5 years. For every 100 females there were 80.2 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 86.5 males. In Fort Bidwell, there were 126 housing units of which 45 (57.0%) were owner-occupied, and 34 (43.0%) were occupied by renters. The homeowner vacancy rate was 14.5%; the rental vacancy rate was 12.8%. There were 80 people (46.2% of the population) living in owner-occupied housing units and 93 people (53.8%) living in rental housing units. 3.1.2 Surprise Valley RCD History The Surprise Valley Soil Conservation District was formed in 1956 and is now known as the Surprise Valley Resource Conservation District (SVRCD). The function of the SVRCD is to focus and coordinate technical, financial and educational resources to meet the needs of local landowners and District residents concerning the management of natural resources and to facilitate locally based management of resources in a cooperative manner. The Mission Statement of the Surprise Valley RCD is to “Provide leadership in developing consensus based resource plans that meet the needs of our community by fostering partnerships with public agencies, landowners and service organizations.” At the time of District formation the aims of the District were to have programs for the following:28 Education and Information Water Conservation and Development Efficient Utilization of Land Range Management and Development Acquisition of Soil Conservation Equipment Cooperation with governmental agencies. 3.1.3 Surprise Valley RCD Contact Information The Surprise Valley RCD contact information is listed below: Surprise Valley RCD Phone: 28 Surprise Valley Soil conservation District, Conservation Program and Work Plan, June 20, 1956. 22 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 3.1.4 Surprise Valley RCD Board of Directors The Surprise Valley RCD Board of Directors is listed below: Darrell DePaul term expires December 2014 (530-279-2595) James “Bucky” Harris term expires December 2014 Vacant term expires December 2014 Vacant term expires December 2016 Vacant term expires December 2016 3.1.5 Surprise Valley RCD Critical Resource Issues The following four areas are considered “Critical Resource Issues” for the Surprise Valley RCD:29 1. Improve Watershed Management • Continue to develop strong partnerships with the local, State and Federal agencies, to reach consensus based plans for resource management and improvement on the public-private land interface. • Produce a comprehensive watershed assessment. • Continue sponsorship of the Surprise Valley Watershed group, providing financial and staff support for Watershed Group meetings and projects. • Continue to work on ground water quality and quantity issues. • Address issues related to non-point source pollution on private lands. • Develop a comprehensive Juniper reduction plan. The number one resource issue identified by the Watershed Group. 2. Control the Introduction and spread of noxious weeds • Continue to work with the BLM on weed abatement on private and public lands, including contributing funds for treatment, as well as staff. • Work with the Vya Conservation District (VCD), Washoe, Modoc, and Lassen Counties, BLM, The Modoc County Noxious Weed Management Groups and other agencies to prevent the establishment of new species in the area. • Develop programs that provide an affordable and workable means for Landowners to control noxious weeds. 29 Surprise Valley Resource Conservation District, Business Plan, February 2007. 23 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 3. Develop Education and Outreach Programs • Provide to landowners current information regarding non-point source pollution on private land. • Provide information on programs and financial resources available to landowners and community groups. • Continue sponsorship of resource related youth activities. • Continue existing, and create new student scholarship programs. • Seek public input on resource management issues. 4. Ensure Fiscal Stability for the Surprise Valley RCD • Secure capacity building grant money from public and private organizations. • Provide reasonably priced resource management assistance to private landowners. 24 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 3.2 Surprise Valley Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review 3.2.1 Growth and Population Projections for the Surprise Valley Area 1-1) The population of Modoc County has declined slightly since the 2010 Census. 1-2) The population of the Surprise Valley RCD is not expected to increase substantially. 3.2.2 Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUC) within or Contiguous to the Surprise Valley RCD SOI 2-1) The population of Modoc County has a Median Household Income lower than 80% of the State Median Household Income so could be considered disadvantaged. 3.2.3 Surprise Valley RCD Capacity and Infrastructure 3-1) The Surprise Valley RCD has no staff and does not have a quorum on the Board of Directors due to vacancies so the District will benefit if it can be combined with the Central Modoc RCD to form the proposed Modoc RCD. 3.2.4 Surprise Valley RCD Financial Ability 4-1) The Surprise Valley RCD has no grant funding at this time and will benefit if it can be combined with the Central Modoc RCD to form the proposed Modoc RCD and has not done an audit in recent years. 3.2.5 Surprise Valley RCD Opportunities for Shared Facilities 5-1) The Surprise Valley RCD has no facilities at this time and will benefit if it can be combined with the Central Modoc RCD to form the proposed Modoc RCD. 3.2.6 Surprise Valley RCD Government Structure and Accountability 6-1) The Surprise Valley RCD does not have a quorum on its Board of Directors due to vacancies vacancies. 6-1) The Surprise Valley RCD remaining board members are in favor or combining with the Central Modoc RCD to form the Modoc RCD. 25 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 3.3 Surprise Valley Resource Conservation District Sphere of Influence Update The recommendation for the Surprise Valley RCD Sphere of Influence is for it to include the area of the District and the area of the Central Modoc RCD so that the two districts can be consolidated. 3.3.1 Present and Planned Land Uses in the Area, Including Agricultural and Open Space Lands 1-1] The land is Modoc County is designated for agricultural uses and open space except in the areas where there are small communities.30 3.3.2 Municipal Services—Present and Probable Need 2-1) There is a need for the services of a resource conservation district and this need can best be served by combining the SVRCD with the Central Modoc RCD to form the Modoc RCD. 3.3.3 Public Facilities Present and Future Capacity 3-1) With no staff and vacancies on the Board of Directors the capacity of the SVRCD is limited. 3-2) By combining with the Central Modoc RCD to form the Modoc RCD there will be sufficient capacity to provide resource conservation district services to the entire area. 3.3.4 Social or Economic Communities of Interest 4-1] Although the Surprise Valley is a separate community is some respects, for the purpose of providing resource conservation district services the area is compatible with the area in the Central Modoc RCD. 3.3.5 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community Status 5-1] All four communities within the Surprise Valley RCD are disadvantaged unincorporated communities based on US Census data, but there are no incorporated cities within the area. 30 Modoc County General Plan, Goals, Policies and Action Program, September 1988. 26 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 4 GOOSE LAKE RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT 4.1 Goose Lake Resource Conservation District Background 4.1.1 Goose Lake RCD Communities The Goose Lake RCD includes the three communities of Davis Creek, Willow Ranch and New Pine Creek. These three communities are briefly described below. Davis Creek Davis Creek is located on the 19 miles north-northeast of Alturas, at an elevation of 4846 feet. The town's population is estimated to be 100. There is a post office, service station, and mini-mart housed in a single structure. Settlement of Goose Lake Valley at Davis Creek began with a single log cabin in 1869.31 The Davis Creek post office opened in 1877, and changed its name to Davis Creek in 1879.32 During Goose Lake’s high-water years, at least from 1908 to 1912, Davis Creek served as the southern port on the lake to and from which the ferry, Lakeview carried passengers and cargo for the town of Lakeview, Oregon at the north end of the lake. The Nevada-California-Oregon Railway from Reno reached Davis Creek in 1911. The port fell into disuse as lake waters receded and the railroad was completed to Lakeview.33 A 1913 book described Davis Creek as being on Goose Lake and having a population of 150. In the early 1960s, US Route 395 was realigned, bypassing Davis Creek's business section, leading to the closure of most businesses there, and the construction of a newer general store on the new highway. Willow Ranch Willow Ranch (formerly, Willowranch)34 is located 33.3 miles north-northeast of Alturas, at an elevation of 4731 feet. The Willow Ranch post office opened in 1871, closed in 1882, re-opened in 1883, changed its name to Willowranch in 1896, moved in 1900, and changed its name back to Willow Ranch in 1950. The original site was located about 2 miles away from the present one; the town moved to a place on the railroad line after it reached the area. 31 Pease, Robert W. (1965). Modoc County; University of California Publications in Geography, Volume 17. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. pp. 82,108,147. 32 Durham, David L. (1998). California's Geographic Names: A Gazetteer of Historic and Modern Names of the State. Quill Driver Books. p. 370. ISBN 9781884995149 33 Pease, Robert W. (1965). Modoc County; University of California Publications in Geography, Volume 17. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. pp. 82,108,147. 34 Durham, David L. (1998). California's Geographic Names: A Gazetteer of Historic and Modern Names of the State. Quill Driver Books. p. 430. ISBN 9781884995149 27 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS New Pine Creek The Modoc County General Plan 1988 Background Report states that New Pine Creek is in the Goose Lake Basin and “traverses the California-Oregon Border identifying more closely with Oregon than Modoc County.” There is an elementary school in New Pine Creek.35 The population of New Pine Creek was expected to be 197 in 2000 and there were 33 dwelling units in 1985.36 The County of Modoc Housing Element 2003-2008 adopted May 9, 2006, states that the Community of New Pine Creek has 17 available parcels (4.25 acres) which would allow 17 additional dwelling units. The primary service constraint to growth is the lack of community water and wastewater collection and treatment systems.37 4.1.2 Goose Lake RCD Contact Information The Goose Lake RCD contact information is listed below: Goose Lake RCD, PO Box 212, New Pine Creek, California 97635-0212 Herb Jasper, Phone: (530) 946-4196, E-Mail: Jaspercattle@gmail.com 4.1.3 Goose Lake RCD Board of Directors The Board of Directors for the Goose Lake Resource Conservation District is as follows:38 Paula Fields term expires December 2014 John Stringer term expires December 2014 Richie Vaughn term expires December 2014 Brian Ingraham term expires December 2016 Herb Jasper term expires December 2016 The Board meets monthly at the Stateline School in New Pine Creek Oregon. The District has no paid employees. 35 County of Modoc, “Modoc County General Plan 1988 Background Report” P. 168. 36 County of Modoc, “Modoc County General Plan 1988 Background Report” P. 176. 37 County of Modoc, Housing Element 2003-2008, May 9, 2006, P. 29. 38 Goose Lake RCD, Herb Jasper, PO Box 212, New Pine Creek CA 97635-0212, May 19, 2014. 28 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 4.2 Goose Lake Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review 4.2.1 Growth and Population Projections for the Goose Lake RCD Area 1-1) The population within the Goose Lake RCD area is small and is not expected to increase substantially in the future. 4.2.2 Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUC) within or Contiguous to the SOI 2-1) All of the small communities within the Goose Lake RCD are disadvantaged unincorporated communities based on the Modoc County income data but there are no incorporated cities within the Goose Lake RCD. 4.2.3 Capacity and Infrastructure for Goose Lake RCD 3-1) The Goose Lake RCD has no employees or infrastructure and no budget so the District lacks the capacity to achieve its goals. 4.2.4 Financial Ability for Goose Lake RCD 4-1) The Goose Lake RCD has no budget so it lacks the financial ability to meet its goals. 4.2.5 Opportunities for Shared Facilities 5-1) The Goose Lake RCD should consider cooperating with or combining with another resource conservation district in the area. 4.2.6 Government Structure and Accountability 6-1) The Goose Lake RCD has a board which meets monthly but could probably accomplish more by combining with another resource conservation district. 29 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 4.3 Goose Lake Resource Conservation Sphere of Influence Update The Sphere of Influence for the Goose Lake Resource Conservation District should include the Central Modoc RCD and the Surprise Valley RCD so that this District can ultimately be combined with the other two districts to form the Modoc RCD. 4.3.1 Present and Planned Land Uses in the Area, Including Agricultural and Open Space Lands 1-1] The land is Modoc County is designated for agricultural uses and open space except in the areas where there are small communities.39 4.3.2 Municipal Services—Present and Probable Need 2-1] There is a need for the services of a resource conservation district and this need can ultimately best be served by combining with the SVRCD and with the Central Modoc RCD to form the Modoc RCD. The goose lake RCD is currently the irrigated lands coalition for the Goose Lake Basin. It should remain separate until the coalition can be absorbed by one of the larger coalitions in Northern California. 4.3.3 Public Facilities Present and Future Capacity 3-1] The Goose Lake RCD has a limited capacity to provide resource conservation services. 3-2] The Goose Lake RCD could best ensure future capacity to provide resource conservation services by making a plan to combine with the Central Modoc RCD to form the Modoc RCD. 4.3.4 Social or Economic Communities of Interest 4-1] None of the three communities within the Goose Lake RCD are full service communities. 4-2] As part of the Modoc County community there is a focus and dependence on Alturas which would facilitate combining with the Central Modoc RCD in the future. 4.3.5 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community Status 5-1] Modoc County as a whole could be considered disadvantaged since the Median Household Income is lower than 80% of the California Median Household Income. 39 Modoc County General Plan, Goals, Policies and Action Program, September 1988. 30 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 5 LAVA BEDS-BUTTE VALLEY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT 5.1 Lava Beds-Butte Valley Resource Conservation District Background Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD includes land in both Modoc and Siskiyou counties. The Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD is named, in part, after the Lava Beds National Monument located in the area. The Lava Beds RCD and the Butte Valley RCD were consolidated effective April 11, 2006.40 The Lava Beds RCD was approximately 613,000 acres in Modoc County, with the Butte Valley RCD in Siskiyou county roughly 750,000 acres; with the consolidation expanding the size of the consolidated district to 1,360,000 acres. 5.1.1 Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD Area Newell Newell is a census-designated place located 50 miles west-northwest of Alturas at an elevation of 4,042 feet. The community is located along State Route 139 south of the community of Tulelake and south of the Oregon border. The town was named in honor of Frederick Haynes Newell, director of the United States Reclamation Service.41 The 2010 US Census reported that Newell had a population of 449. There were 136 households, out of which 69 (50.7%) had children under the age of 18 living in them, 23 households (16.9%) were made up of individuals and 8 (5.9%) had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 3.30. There were 106 families (77.9% of all households); the average family size was 3.68 people. The Newell population was spread out in age as follows: NEWELL AGE DISTRIBUTION 2010 Under the age of 18 167 people 37.3% 18 to 24 36 people 8.0% 25 to 44 116 people 25.8% 45 to 64 90 people 20.0% 65 years of age or older 40 people 8.9% Total 449 people 100.0% The median age of the Newell population was 29.4 years. For every 100 females there were 110.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 108.9 males. There were 209 housing units of which 83 (61.0%) were owner-occupied, and 53 (39.0%) were occupied by renters. The homeowner vacancy rate was 1.2%; the rental vacancy rate was 8.6%. There were 259 people (57.7% of the population) living in owner-occupied housing units and 190 people (42.3%) living in rental housing units. 40 Modoc LAFCO, Certificate of Completion, Consolidation 04-02, Lava Beds-Butte Valley Resource Conservation District. 41 Durham, David L. (1998). California's Geographic Names: A Gazetteer of Historic and Modern Names of the State. Quill Driver Books. p. 404. ISBN 9781884995149 31 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS There are many grain and horseradish storage facilities in or near Newell. Newell Elementary School, operated by Tulelake Basin Joint Unified School District, is a local landmark. Tulelake Municipal Airport features a 3,500-foot paved runway. The site of the World War II U.S. Army facility named the Tule Lake War Relocation Center is near the north end of the community. The center was a prison camp for interned Japanese nationals, and U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry, during a portion of the war. The Union Pacific Railroad Modoc Subdivision tracks run along the west side of town and parallel to SR139. Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, a unit of Klamath National Wildlife Refuge, is northwest of the town. This is a U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service federal reservation. City of Tulelake (Siskiyou County) Tulelake is at an elevation of 4,066 feet above sea level. The town, incorporated in 1937, is named after nearby Tule Lake. The population was 1,010 at the 2010 census, down from 1,020 at the 2000 census. The 2010 US Census reported that 1,010 people lived in 347 households, out of which 158 (45.5%) had children under the age of 18 living in them, 93 households (26.8%) were made up of individuals and 43 (12.4%) had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.91. There were 240 families (69.2% of all households); the average family size was 3.58. The population was spread out in age as follows: TULELAKE AGE DISTRIBUTION 2010 Under the age of 18 340 people 33.6% 18 to 24 102 people 10.1% 25 to 44 244 people 24.2% 45 to 64 222 people 22.0% 65 years of age or older 102 people 10.1% TOTAL 1010 people The Tulelake median age was 29.4 years. For every 100 females there were 102.4 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 100.0 males. There were 437 housing units in Tulelake of which 173 (49.9%) were owner-occupied, and 174 (50.1%) were occupied by renters. The homeowner vacancy rate was 6.0%; the rental vacancy rate was 12.1%. There were 473 people (46.8% of the population) living in owner-occupied housing units and 537 people (53.2%) living in rental housing units. There are two three schools in the Tulelake Basin Joint Unified School District, the Tulelake elementary school is located in the town of Tulelake and the Tulelake High School, is also located in the town of Tulelake. City of Dorris (Siskiyou County) 32 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS The population of the City of Dorris was 939 at the 2010 census, up from 886 at the 2000 census. Dorris is located in the Butte Valley of Northern California between Mount Shasta and the Oregon Border on Highway 97. The City of Dorris, incorporated in 1908, was founded when the Railroad entered the Valley. Several buildings and businesses were moved four miles east from the former town of Picard to form the original makings of present day Dorris. The move was made by placing round logs under the buildings and them pulling them the distance with horses and mules. Today, Highway 97 transverses through central Dorris.42 The City of Dorris provides city water, sewage and garbage services for all business and private residents with the City limits. Other communities rely primarily on pure and cold well water and local disposal services. Telephone and internet services are available in all but the remote areas of Butte Valley. Pacific Power and Light, head quartered in Portland, Oregon provides electrical service. Natural gas service in currently unavailable, with most business and residence customers relying upon propane tank storage and service. There is a health clinic located in the City of Dorris.43 According to the US Census Bureau, the City of Dorris has a total area of 0.7 square miles. The town was named in 1907 by the Southern Pacific Railroad for brothers Presley A. and Carlos J. Dorris who raised stock in Little Shasta in the 1860s before moving to what later became Alturas in 1876. The 2010 US Census reported that Dorris had a population of 939 living 364 households, out of which 125 (34.3%) had children under the age of 18 living in them, 106 households (29.1%) were made up of individuals and 44 (12.1%) had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.58. There were 241 families (66.2% of all households); the average family size was 3.15. In Dorris, the population was spread out in age as follows: CITY OF DORRIS AGE DISTRIBUTION 2010 Under the age of 18 240 people 25.6% 18 to 24 91 people 9.6% 25 to 44 216 people 23.0% 45 to 64 256 people 27.3% 65 years of age or older 136 people 14.5% TOTAL 939 people 100.0% The median age, in Dorris was 38.2 years. For every 100 females there were 102.4 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 94.2 males. In Dorris, there were 414 housing units of which 248 (68.1%) were owner-occupied, and 116 (31.9%) were occupied by renters. The homeowner vacancy rate was 3.9%; the rental vacancy rate was 7.2%.There were 584 people (62.2% of the population) living in owner-occupied housing units and 355 people (37.8%) living in rental housing units. 42 http://www.buttevalleychamber.com/overviewhighligh.html, June 23, 2014 43 http://www.buttevalleychamber.com/buttevalleybusin.html, June 23, 2014 33 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS Macdoel (Siskiyou County) Macdoel is a census-designated place (CDP) with a 2010 population of 133, down from 140 in at the 2000 census. Macdoel was founded in 1906 by the Church of the Brethren congregation. It is an unincorporated town located on Highway 97 about 15 miles south of the Oregon border. Macdoel features truck scales, a convenience store, fuel stations and U.S. Post office. 44 The 2010 Census reported that 133 people lived in 41 households, out of which 19 (46.3%) had children under the age of 18 living in them, 8 households (19.5%) were made up of individuals and 4 (9.8%) had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 3.24. There were 29 families (70.7% of all households); the average family size was 3.55. The Macdoel population was spread out in age as follows: MACDOEL AGE DISTRIBUTION 2010 Under the age of 18 44 people 33.1% 18 to 24 9 people 6.8% 25 to 44 44 people 33.1% 45 to 64 24 people 18.0% 65 years of age or older 12 people 9.0% TOTAL 133 people 100.0% The median age in Macdoel was 30.6 years. For every 100 females there were 129.3 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 128.2 males. In Macdoel, there were 43 housing units of which 18 (43.9%) were owner-occupied, and 23 (56.1%) were occupied by renters. The homeowner vacancy rate was 0%; the rental vacancy rate was 0%. There were 46 people (34.6% of the population) living in owner- occupied housing units and 87 people (65.4%) living in rental housing units. 44 http://www.buttevalleychamber.com/overviewhighligh.html, June 23, 2014 34 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 5.1.2 Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD Contact Information The Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD contact information is shown below: Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD Board Chair: Mr. Mike Byrne Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD, Secretary: Theresa Wright 611 Main Street (PO Box 861), Tulelake, California 96134-0861 Manager: Dee Sampson: Phone 530-667-3473 Ext. 110 E-Mail: rcd@cot.net 5.1.3 Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD Board of Directors The Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD Board of Directors is listed below. The Board meets on the third Wednesday of each month at 6 pm at 611 Main Street, Tulelake, CA 96134. 1. Scott Seus term expires December 2014 2. Sid Staunton term expires December 2014 3. Ray Ackley term expires December 2016 4. Mike Byrne term expires December 2016 5. Steve Lutz term expires December 2016 5.1.4 Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD Facilities and Services The Lava-Beds Butte Valley RCD has a ten by fifteen foot office in a space shared with USDA-NRCS and DOI-NPS. The District has two part-time employees to assist landowners/operators with resource conservation. 5.1.5 Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD Budget The Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD Budget for 2013-2014 is around $200,000. The district adopts an annual budget with quarterly reviews. The budget is a working budget that is updated through the year as new grants and programs are awarded and implemented. 5.1.6 Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD Audit The Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD completed an Independent Audit for the years ended June 30, 2011 and June 30, 2012. While a budget is a plan for income and spending the Audit only shows actual income and expenses. The Independent Audit showed the following Statement of Net Assets. Lava Beds-Butte Valley Resource Conservation District Statement of Net Assets For the Years Ended June 30, 2012 and June 30, 201145 2012 2011 Assets Current Assets Cash and cash equivalents $121,443 $117,241 45 Lava Beds-Butte Valley Resource Conservation District, Financial Statements, June 30, 2012, Prepared by Molatore Scroggin Peterson and Co., 824 Pine Street, Klamath Falls, OR, 97601, Phone 541-884-4164, Fax: 541-883-1232, Page 2. 35 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS Accounts receivable 3,025 6,622 Total Current Assets 124,468 123,863 Noncurrent Assets: Capital assets (net of accumulated depreciation) Equipment 1,528 3,057 Total Noncurrent assets 1,528 3,057 Total Assets 125,996 126,920 Liabilities Total Current Liabilities 23 633 Net Assets Invested in capital assets, net of related debt 1,528 3,057 Restricted 124,445 123,230 Total Net Assets $125,973 $126,287 The majority of the assets are restricted because the money comes from grant funding for a specific purpose. This is shown in the following Statements of Activities. Lava Beds-Butte Valley Resource Conservation District Statement of Activities For the Years Ended June 30, 201246 Program Revenues Functions/ Expenses Charges Operating Capital Governmental Programs for Grants and Grants and Activities Services Contributions Contributions Governmental $177,397 $18,528 $158,350 - (519) Activities Unrestricted investment earnings 205 Total General Revenues 205 Change in Net Assets (314) Net Assets-Beginning 126,287 Net Assets-Ending $125,973 The Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD prepares an audit every two years and are on a biennial audit program. The independent auditor made the various recommendations to the Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD: 47 The Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD has implemented the recommendations contained in the most recent audit. 46 Lava Beds-Butte Valley Resource Conservation District, Financial Statements, June 30, 2012, Prepared by Molatore Scroggin Peterson and Co., 824 Pine Street, Klamath Falls, OR, 97601, Phone 541-884-4164, Fax: 541-883-1232, Page 3. 47 Lava Beds-Butte Valley Resource Conservation District, Financial Statements, June 30, 2012, Prepared by Molatore Scroggin Peterson and Co., 824 Pine Street, Klamath Falls, OR, 97601, Phone 541-884-4164, Fax: 541-883-1232. 36 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 5.2 Lava Beds-Butte Valley Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review 5.2.1 Growth and Population Projections for the Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD Area 1-1) The population in the Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD area has declined slightly in recent years and is expected to remain the same or to increase slowly. 5.2.2 Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUC) within or Contiguous to the Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD SOI 2-1) Dorris and Tulelake (incorporated) and Macdoel in Siskiyou County and Newell in Modoc County are considered disadvantaged communities. 5.2.3 Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD Capacity and Infrastructure 3-1) Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD has adequate capacity to serve the area with two part-time employees and an office to serve as a contact point. 5.2.4 Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD Financial Ability 4-1) Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD has adequate financial ability and has a budget and an audit. 5.2.5 Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD Opportunities for Shared Facilities 5-1) The Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD shares the office building with the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service and the Department of the Interior National Park Service. 5.2.6 Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD Government Structure and Accountability 6-1) Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD has an active Board of Directors with regular meetings on the third Wednesday of each month. 6-2) The Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD could benefit from a website to post agendas, financial information and resource conservation information on the internet. 37 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 5.3 Lava Beds-Butte Valley Resource Conservation District Sphere of Influence Update The Sphere of Influence for the Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD will remain the same as the District Boundary. 5.3.1 Present and Planned Land Uses in the Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD Area, Including Agricultural and Open Space Lands 1-1] The land within the Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD is used for agriculture and open space except within the communities of Dorris, Macdoel, Newell and Tulelake. 5.3.2 Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD Municipal Services—Present and Probable Need 2-1] The Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD area will continue to need resource conservation services and programs. 5.3.3 Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD Public Facilities Present and Future Capacity 3-1] The Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD has the capacity to provide resource conservation services and programs now and in the future. 5.3.4 Social or Economic Communities of Interest 4-1] The Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD includes four small communities and the surrounding area. 5.3.5 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community Status 5-1] The median household incomes in this area are less than 80% of the California Median Household income, there are two incorporated cities in the Siskiyou County portion of the RCD territory to provide additional services. 38 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 6 PIT RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT 6.1 Pit Resource Conservation District Background 6.1.1 Pit RCD Communities The Pit RCD area includes the three communities of Adin and Lookout (Modoc County) and Bieber (Lassen County). These three communities are briefly described below. Adin Adin (formerly, Adinville and Aidenville) is an unincorporated community in Modoc County California.48 It is located 42 miles by road southwest of Alturas,49 at an elevation of 4203 feet. Adin, the first town in Modoc County west of the Warner Mountains, was founded in 1869 by Adin McDowell as the supply point for the mining town of Hayden in northern Lassen County, and was named for him in 1870.50 The Aidenville post office opened in 1871, and changed its name to Adin in 1876. A 1913 book described Adin as having a population of 200, and as the chief town of the Big Valley.51 It became a sawmill town in the mid-1930s when the Edgerton Brothers Mill moved into town, from the Adin Mountains. The town suffered devastating fires in 1904, 1915, 1931, and finally in 1939. Following the 1939 fire, the town organized a volunteer fire brigade.52 According to the “Modoc County General Plan 1988 Background Report”, Adin is a rural community of approximately 325 persons with an agriculturally-oriented population in the outlying areas. Adin has several services and offices, including a general store-grocery store, motel, service stations, fire hall, post office, State Highway maintenance station, a USDA Forest Service District Ranger Station, Adin Community Park and Adin Airport, the latter two being Modoc County facilities.53 Adin is in the Big Valley Joint Unified School District. The primary school, middle school and high school are located in Bieber (Lassen County). The former Adin School site is used for a preschool.54 48 U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Adin, California. 49 Adin CSD, 2012. 50 Gudde, Erwin; William Bright (2004). California Place Names (Fourth Ed.). University of California Press. p. 3. ISBN 0- 520-24217-3. Drury, Wells; Aubrey Drury (1913). California tourist guide and handbook: authentic description of routes of travel and points of interest in California. Western Guidebook Company. p. 248. http://books.google.com/books?id=yQtFAAAAIAAJ. Retrieved 2009-06-16. 51 Pease, Robert W. (1965). Modoc County; University of California Publications in Geography, Volume 17. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. pp. 84–85, 127. 52 Kean, David. W (1993). Wide Places in the California Roa d - Volume 2 of 4: The Mountain Counties. Sunnyvale, CA: Concord Press. pp. 10. ISBN 1-884261-01-9. 53 County of Modoc, “Modoc County General Plan 1988 Background Report” P. 163. 54 Adin CSD, 2012. 39 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS The 2010 US Census reported that Adin had a population of 272. There were 269 people living in 124 households, out of which 28 (22.6%) had children under the age of 18 living in them 45 households (36.3%) were made up of individuals and 19 (15.3%) had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.17. There were 71 families (57.3% of all households); the average family size was 2.82. The population was spread out in age as follows: ADIN AGE DISTRIBUTION 2010 Under the age of 18 57 people 21.0% 18 to 24 19 people 7.0% 25 to 44 52 people 19.1% 45 to 64 93 people 34.2% 65 years of age or older 51 people 18.7% TOTAL 272 people 100.0% The median age in Adin was 47.3 years. For every 100 females there were 91.5 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 85.3 males. In Adin there were 144 housing units of which 77 (62.1%) were owner-occupied, and 47 (37.9%) were occupied by renters. The homeowner vacancy rate was 1.3%; the rental vacancy rate was 2.1%. There were 163 people (59.9% of the population) living in owner-occupied housing units and 106 people (39.0%) living in rental housing units. Lookout Lookout (formerly, Whitley's Ford) is a census-designated place of 5.5 square miles located 11 miles west of Adin at an elevation of 4144 feet. The Whitley's Ford post office operated from 1874 to 1875. The Lookout post office opened in 1880. The original name honors James W. Whitley, a local hotelier. The name Lookout recalls how Native Americans used nearby hills as observation points. The 2010 US Census reported that in Lookout there were 84 people living in 31 households, out of which 7 (22.6%) had children under the age of 18 living in them, 7 households (22.6%) were made up of individuals and 3 (9.7%) had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.71. There were 22 families (71.0% of all households); the average family size was 3.14. The population was spread out in age as follows: LOOKOUT AGE DISTRIBTUION 2010 Under the age of 18 19 people 22.6% 18 to 24 8 people 9.5% 25 to 44 13 people 15.5% 45 to 64 29 people 34.5% 65 years of age or older 15 people 17.9% TOTAL 84 people 100.0% In Lookout the median age was 45.3 years. For every 100 females there were 86.7 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 97.0 males. 40 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS There were 46 housing units of which 26 (83.9%) were owner-occupied, and 5 (16.1%) were occupied by renters. The homeowner vacancy rate was 3.7%; the rental vacancy rate was 0%. There were 70 people (83.3% of the population) living in owner-occupied housing units and 14 people (16.7%) living in rental housing units. Bieber (Lassen County) Bieber (formerly, Chalk Ford) is a census-designated place (CDP) located on the Pit River, 55 miles north-northwest of Susanville at an elevation of 4124 feet. The settlement sprang up at the Pit River ford in 1877. The first post office at Bieber opened in 1877. The town was a major junction between the Great Northern and Western Pacific railroads for north-south traffic, now owned by BNSF Railway. The 2010 US Census reported that Bieber had a population of 312 people living in households 23 households, out of which 41 (33.3%) had children under the age of 18 living in them, 34 households (27.6%) were made up of individuals and 12 (9.8%) had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.54. There were 84 families (68.3% of all households); the average family size was 3.05. The population was spread out in age as follows: BIEBER AGE DISTRIBUTION 2010 Under the age of 18 78 people 25.0% 18 to 24 27 people 8.7% 25 to 44 77 people 24.6% 45 to 64, 88 people 28.2% 65 years of age or older 42 people 13.5% TOTAL 312 people 100.0% The median age in Bieber was 38.4 years. For every 100 females there were 93.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 105.3 males. In Bieber there were 148 housing units of which 90 (73.2%) were owner-occupied, and 33 (26.8%) were occupied by renters. The homeowner vacancy rate was 4.2%; the rental vacancy rate was 10.8%.There were 237 people (76.0% of the population) living in owner-occupied housing units and 75 people (24.0%) living in rental housing units. 41 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 6.1.2 Pit RCD Contact Information The Pit Resource Conservation District contact information is shown below: Pit RCD, PO Box 301, Bieber, CA 96009 Phone: (530) 299-3405 E-Mail: www.pitriveralliance.net/pitrcd/ Sharmie Stevenson, Pit RCD Business Manager Phone: 530-299-3405 Todd Sloat, Watershed Coordinator E-mail: tsloat@citlink.net Phone: 530-336-5456 or 530-708-1597 6.1.3 Pit RCD Board of Directors The Board of Directors for the Pit RCD meets on the last Wednesday of each month as 7:00 pm at 101 Market Street, Bieber.55 The Board members are as follows: Buck Parks – President Andy Albaugh Rob Kramer Tim Babcock Vacant Board Member 6.1.4 Pit RCD Area The Pit RCD was formed in the 1940’s to address issues pertaining to soil and water conservation. The District (in cooperation with the Natural Resources Conservation Service) provides technical and financial assistance to agricultural producers and promotes vegetation management to benefit stream channel stability and wildlife enhancement. The Adin-Lookout Soil Conservation District was formed in 195256 and later joined the Pit RCD. In 1996 the District entered into an agreement with CDFG to contract grazing and farming operations on the Ash Creek Wildlife Area. Most recently, the Pit RCD has expanded its watershed management role and activities. It has secured public grants used to hire a watershed coordinator, conducted monitoring and watershed assessment studies, and implemented on-the-ground projects to improve stream and upland conditions. 55 Pit RCD, December 27, 2013. 56 Modoc County Board of Supervisors, Resolution No. 2, 1952, Granting the Petition and Calling the Election of the Adin- Lookout Soil Conservation District. 42 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS The Pit RCD encompasses roughly 732,024 acres of land within the Upper Pit watershed. Due to the Pit RCD’s location in the watershed and its land area it exerts a significant influence on the water and upland resources of the Upper Pit River. Approximately 45% of the RCD land area is privately owned, of which 60% are agricultural and rangelands and 40% are timberlands. The USDA Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management together manage about 50% of the land within the Pit RCD, making cooperation between public and private land management essential to achieve management goals. The principal tributaries and sub-watersheds to the Pit River located within in the Pit RCD are Ash Creek, Butte Creek, Dutch Flat Creek, Juniper Creek, Rush Creek, Stone Coal Creek, Rose, Turner, and Willow Creeks. Three large alluvial valleys are located within the Pit RCD (Ash Valley, Round Valley, and Big Valley). Big Valley, the largest of the three, is a key element in the Pit River RCD for agricultural and range interests, as well as fisheries and wildlife. Big Valley is a large fault-block basin that historically contained a large lake. Within Big Valley is the 14,000-acre Ash Creek Wildlife Area, which provides natural and man-made habitats for wildlife species including pronghorn, sandhill cranes, and bald eagles. Fishing, hunting, and bird watching draw many people from outside the watershed. The Pit River winds through the valley floor, providing water for wildlife and for agricultural needs. Over 15,000 acres of Big Valley are irrigated by Pit River waters, mainly through pumps and flashboard structures.57 6.1.5 Pit RCD Mission58 The Pit RCD web site describes the Mission of the Pit RCD as follows: The Pit RCD mission is to protect, conserve, restore, and enhance natural resources for sustainability and economic diversity through the following objectives: • Promote irrigation water management for optimizing water and energy use efficiency. • Promote improvement of ecological status and resource values on rangeland. • Promote erosion reduction through proper land use planning and conservation practices. • Promote maintenance and improvement of surface and ground water quality. • Promote coordination of public resource agency activities to meet resource and user needs. • Promote public awareness of RCD and increase political involvement of RCD. 57 Pit RCD, “Pit RCD Watershed Management Strategy,” December 14, 2006, Pages 2 and 4. 58 Pit RCD, http://pitriveralliance.net/pitrcd/about/about.html, December 6, 2013. 43 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 6.2 Pit Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review 6.2.1 Growth and Population Projections for the Pit RCD Area 1-1) The population within the Pit RCD area will probably continue to decline. Increases in population within Modoc and Lassen counties are more likely to occur within the incorporated cities of Alturas or Susanville. 6.2.2 Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUC) within or Contiguous to the Pit RCD SOI 2-1) The three unincorporated communities within the Pit RCD area are most likely disadvantaged but there are no incorporated cities within the area than can annex these communities. 6.2.3 Pit RCD Capacity and Infrastructure 3-1) The Pit RCD has a website to promote the District and a Watershed Coordinator. 6.2.4 Pit RCD Financial Ability 4-1) The Pit RCD reports that the budget varies but no tax dollars are used, the funds are solely from grants. The most recent audit was for the year ended June 30, 2011.59 6.2.5 Pit RCD Opportunities for Shared Facilities 5-1) The Pit RCD cooperates with the Pit River Watershed Alliance. 6.2.6 Pit RCD Government Structure and Accountability 6-1) The Pit RCD has an active Board of Directors and a website. 6-2) The Pit RCD could include financial information on the District website. 59 Pit River RCD, December 27, 2013. 44 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 6.3 Pit Resource Conservation Sphere of Influence Update The recommendation for the Pit RCD Sphere of influence is that the SOI should be the same as the District boundary. 6.3.1 Present and Planned Land Uses in the Area, Including Agricultural and Open Space Lands 1-1] Planning and land use decisions are made by Modoc and Lassen counties for their respective areas. 1-2] Lands within the Pit RCD area are designated for agriculture and open space except for the areas within the three communities. 6.3.2 Municipal Services—Present and Probable Need 2-1] There is a need for resource conservation services within the Pit RCD area. 6.3.3 Public Facilities Present and Future Capacity 3-1] The Pit RCD has adequate capacity to continue providing resource conservation services in the future. 6.3.4 Social or Economic Communities of Interest 4-1] The Pit RCD does include a social and economic community of interest due to the shared geography of the Big Valley. 6.3.5 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community Status 5-1] The communities within the Pit RCD are Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities but there is no city in the area that can annex these isolated areas. 45 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS ABBREVIATIONS AB Assembly Bill BLM Bureau of Land Management BMPs Best Management Practices CA California CARCD California Association of Resource Conservation Districts CDFG California Department of Fish and Game (Now California Department of Fish and Wildlife) CDP Census Designated Place CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CKH Cortese-­‐Knox-­‐Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 CMRCD Central Modoc Resource Conservation District CSDA California Special Districts Association DOC Department of Conservation (California) DOI Department of the Interior DUCs Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities DWR Department of Water Resources (California) FB Farm Bureau FY Fiscal Year GLRCD Goose Lake Resource Conservation District LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission LB-BV RCD Lava Beds-Butte Valley Resource Conservation District MSR Municipal Service Review (LAFCO) NEPA National Environmental Protection Act NPS National Park Service NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company PO Post Office 46 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS PRRCD Pit River Resource Conservation District RCD Resource Conservation District RC&D Resource Conservation and Development SB Senate Bill SOI Sphere of Influence (LAFCO) SVRCD Surprise Valley Resource Conservation District UPRWEPP Upper Pit River Watershed Enhancement and Protection Project US United States USDA United States Department of Agriculture VCD Vya Conservation District (Nevada) 47 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS DEFINITIONS Agriculture: Use of land for the production of food and fiber, including the growing of crops and/or the grazing of animals on natural prime or improved pasture land. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): A State Law requiring State and local agencies to regulate activities with consideration for environmental protection. If a proposed activity has the potential for a significant adverse environmental impact, an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared and certified as to its adequacy before taking action on the proposed project. Groundwater: Water under the earth’s surface, often confined to aquifers capable of supplying wells and springs. Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO): A five-or seven-member commission within each county that reviews and evaluates all proposals for formation of special districts, incorporation of cities, annexation to special districts or cities, consolidation of districts, and merger of districts with cities. Each county’s LAFCO is empowered to approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve such proposals. The LAFCO members generally include two county supervisors, two city council members, and one member representing the general public. Some LAFCOs include two representatives of special districts. No-till farming: No-till farming (also called zero tillage or direct drilling) is a way of growing crops or pasture from year to year without disturbing the soil through tillage. No-till is an agricultural technique which increases the amount of water that infiltrates into the soil and increases organic matter retention and cycling of nutrients in the soil. In many agricultural regions it can eliminate soil erosion. It increases the amount and variety of life in and on the soil, including disease- causing organisms and disease suppression organisms. The most powerful benefit of no-tillage is improvement in soil biological fertility, making soils more resilient. Farm operations are made much more efficient, particularly improved time of sowing. Sphere of Influence (SOI): The probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, as determined by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) of the county. Surface Water: The water that systems pump and treat from sources open to the atmosphere, such as rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. Water year: A continuous 12-month period for which hydrologic records are compiled and summarized. In California, it begins on October 1 and ends September 30 of the following year.60 Watershed: The land area from which water drains into a stream, river, or reservoir. 60 http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/v1cwp/glssry.html 48 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS REFERENCES Adin CSD, 2012. Central Modoc Resource Conservation District, Financial Statements and Independent Auditor’s Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2012, Prepared by Blombert & Griffin Accountancy Corporation, 1013 North California Street, Stockton, California 95202, Phone 209-466- 3894, Fax 209-466-5545. Central Modoc RCD, http://centralmodocrcd.org/UPRWEPP/uprwepp.html, December 6, 2013. Durham, David L. (1998). California's Geographic Names: A Gazetteer of Historic and Modern Names of the State. Quill Driver Books. ISBN 9781884995149. Goose Lake RCD, Herb Jasper, PO Box 212, New Pine Creek CA 97635-0212, May 19, 2014. Gudde, Erwin; William Bright (2004), California Place Names (Fourth ed.), University of California Press. p. 3. ISBN 0-520-24217-3 Hadwick, Bryon, NRCS Alturas CA, E-Mail: Bryon.Hadwick@ca.usda.gov, January 10, 2014. http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/v1cwp/glssry.html http://www.deanneerrealty.com/modoc_communities.htm, June 5, 2011. Kean, David. W (1993). Wide Places in the California Road - Volume 2 of 4: The Mountain Counties. Sunnyvale, CA: Concord Press. pp. 10. ISBN 1-884261-01-9. Lava Beds-Butte Valley Resource Conservation District, Financial Statements, June 30, 2012, Prepared by Molatore, Scroggin, Peterson and Co., 824 Pine Street, Klamath Falls, OR, 97601, Phone 541-884-4164, Fax: 541-883-1232. Modoc County Board of Supervisors, Resolution No. 2, 1952, Granting the Petition and Calling the Election of the Adin-Lookout Soil Conservation District. Modoc County Department of Agriculture, 2008 Crop Report, Joseph A. Moreo, Agricultural Commissioner, Phone 530-233-6401, Fax 530-233-5542, e-mail: modocag@hdo.net. Modoc County General Plan, Background Report, September 1988. Modoc County General Plan, Goals, Policies and Action Program, September 1988. Modoc County, Housing Element 2003-2008, May 9, 2006, P. 29. Modoc LAFCO, Certificate of Completion, Consolidation 04-02, Lava Beds-Butte Valley Resource Conservation District. "Modoc Wars, 1873–74". California State Military Museum. 2009. http://www.militarymuseum.org/Modoc1.html. Retrieved 21 July 2009. Pease, Robert W. (1965). Modoc County; University of California Publications in Geography, Volume 17. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Pit RCD, December 27, 2013. 49 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS Pit RCD, “Pit RCD Watershed Management Strategy,” December 14, 2006, Pages 2 and 4. Pit RCD, http://pitriveralliance.net/pitrcd/about/about.html, December 6, 2013. Surprise Valley Resource Conservation District, Business Plan, February 2007. US Census Bureau, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06049.html, April 18, 2014 U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Adin, California. U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Canby, California. PREPARERS John Benoit, Modoc LAFCO Executive Officer PO Box 2694, Granite Bay CA 95746 Phone: 916-797-6003 E-Mail: johnbenoit@surewest.net Christy Leighton, Planning Consultant 555 East Willow Street, Willows CA 95988 Phone: 530-934-4597 E-Mail: christyleighton@sbcglobal.net 50 MODOC LAFCO Adopted MSR (Resolution 2014-0006) AND SOI (Resolution 2014-0007 August 12, 2014 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS Modoc LAFCo California/Oregon State Line Lava Beds RCD Goose Lake e Spheres of Influence 2014 RCD n iL e ta tS a Combined Central Modoc d a Modoc County and Surprise Valley RCD v e N Siskiyou County Pit RCD Modoc County /a in ro fila C Fall River RCD Shasta County Lassen County ¦ Modoc County T48N Willow Ranch kj T47N kj Newell Fort Bidwell kj T46N T45N kjDavis Creek ·|}þ 139 ·|}þ T44N 395 kj Lake City T43N ·|}þ kj 299 Cedarville ·|}þ kj T42N Canby 299 Alturas kj T41N kj ·|}þ T40N ·|}þ 395 Eagleville 139 kjLikely T39N kjLookout kj Adin 51 E40R E50R E60R E70R E80R E90R E01R E11R E21R E31R E41R E51R E61R E71R Resource Conservation Districts Legend Modoc Resource Conservation Districts County Boundary Goose Lake RCD kj Communities Resolution: 2014-0006 Municipal Service Review Highways Combined Lava Beds-Butte Valley RCD Adopted: August 12, 2014 Central Modoc and Roads Surprise Valley RCD Pit RCD Resolution: 2014-0007 Sphere of Influence Sectional Grid Adopted: August 12, 2014 (MDB&M) Fall River RCD 0 2.5 5 10 15 20Miles Source: Modoc LAFCo Map Modified 9/17/2014