Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2018-334-Minutes for Meeting June 27,2018 Recorded 8/10/2018
I Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2018-334 C�UZES COG Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk w' BOARD?, OF Commissioners Journal 08110/2018 10:57:15 AM COMMISSIONERS ��. ,f: Illllllllllllllllllllilll I IIIII 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon2018-334 (541 ) 388-6570 9:00 AM FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY WEDNESDAY, June 27, 2018 BARNES & SAWYER ROOMS Present were Commissioners Tarnmy Baney, Phil Henderson and Anthony DeBone. Also present vdere Tom Anderson, County Administrator, Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator, David Doyle, County Counsel; and Mattie Corya-Swanson, Administrative Assistant No identified representatives of the media were in attendance. CALL TO ORDER: Chair DeBone called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT: CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Baney asked Item 6 be held for discussion; Commissioner Henderson asked Item 3 be held for discussion. BANEY: Move for approval with Items 3 and 6 held for discussion. HENDERSON: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. HENDERSON: Yes. BOCC BUSINESS MEETING JUNE 27, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 8 DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried. Consent Agenda Items: 1. Consideration of Chair Signature of Document No. 2018-299, Amendment to Contract with Stericycle Environmental Solutions, Inc. 2. Consideration of Board Signature of Order No. 2018-045, Personal Property Tax Cancellations 3. Consideration or Board Signature of Resolution No. 2018-033, Establishing Solid Waste Disposal Fee Waivers for Fiscal Year 2018-19 4. Consideration or Board Signature for Document No. 2018-474, 2018-475, 2018-476, and 2018-477, Quitclaim Deeds 5. Consideration or Board Signature of Document No. 2018-479 for Approval of Extended Detention Re -Certification 6. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2018-411, Brightside Animal Center Promissory Note Amendment 7. Approval of Minutes of the April 30, 2018 Work Session 8. Approval of Minutes of the May 2, 2018 Business Meeting 9. Approval of Minutes of the May 7, 2018 Work Session 10.Approval of Minutes of the May 21, 2018 Business Meeting Consent Agenda Item 3 as pulled for discussion: Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2018-033, Establishing Solid Waste Disposal Fee Waivers for Fiscal Year 2018-19 Timm Schimke, Director of Solid Waste, summarized the intent of the Resolution. BAN EY: HENDERSON: VOTE: Move approval. Second. BAN EY: HENDERSON: DEBONE: Yes. Yes. Chair votes yes. Motion Carried. BOCC BUSINESS MEETING JUNE 27, 2018 PAGE 2 OF 8 Consent Agenda Item 6 as pulled for discussion: Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2018-411, Brightside Animal Center Promissory Note Amendment Commissioner Baney asked this item be pulled for discussion since Mark Cross, President, and Patricia Bowling, Manager, were both present. Mr. Cross expressed appreciation for on-going support from County. Mr. Cross also advised the Board the last piece of paying back the County loan is selling a property which is in escrow. The closing has been delayed until July 31St prompting the request for an extension on the promissory note. Commissioner Baney asked how things are going. Mr. Cross responded the team feels things are going well and one of their successes is sharp decrease in feral cat population. Commissioner Baney expressed thanks and appreciation for the positive collaboration she has observed between organizations and positive results achieved by the joined efforts. HENDERSON: Move approval. BANEY: Second. VOTE: HENDERSON: Yes. BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried. ACTION ITEMS 11. Consideration of Chair Signature on Document No. 2018-360, Oregon Health Authority Amendment Pamela Ferguson and Tom Kuhn, Public Health Managers were present and explained that though the original agreement was approved for two years it is funded one year at a time so the amendment is asking for Board signature for next year. Commissioner Henderson asked if the programs and supervision of the programs with OHA is consistent. Mr. Kuhn replied 80% of the programs have remained the same throughout the 2 year contract and BOCC BUSINESS MEETING DUNE 27, 2018 PAGE 3 OF 8 the degree of supervision has remained consistent as well. Ms. Ferguson stated that the State reviews all of the programs every three years. BANEY: Move approval. HENDERSON: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. HENDERSON: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried. 12.PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of a Non -Farm Dwelling at 4691 91St Street, Redmond Jacob Ripper, Community Development, outlined the process and procedures and provided a summary for the Board. Mr. Ripper asked Commissioners to disclose any ex parte communication or contacts, prior hearing observations, bias or conflicts of interest pursuant to this matter. Chair DeBone asked if any Commissioner had anything to disclose and if they could proceed; each Commissioner so stated they had none and could proceed. Commissioner Henderson asked if the Board was dealing with both appeals and Mr. Ripper confirmed that Board is hearing both appeals with a final decision due no later than August 24, 2018. Applicant: Shannon McCabe, Lynch -Conger -McLane, attorney representing applicants Todd and Megan Omlid, handed the Board a letter and Soil Suitability Report and clarified there is no new information being presented. Based on all information and evidence provided Ms. McCabe urged the Board to approve the application. Appellant - Carol MacBeth, attorney, Central Oregon LanclWatch; stated that based on testimony submitted to Board in May 2017 the property does not qualify for non-farm dwelling permit because it is farmable and the standard is whether land is farmable not whether someone wants to farm it. Also stability should be considered; the area currently has only 16 houses and BOCC BUSINESS MEETING JUNE 27, 2018 PAGE 4 OF 8 with approval of this application the number could increase to 54 breaking up the farmable land base and de -stabilizing the area. Commissioner DeBone asked, given that Ms. MacBeth started her testimony quoting state land use laws, if LanclWatch has chosen this case as an 'example'to set a standard for area and for County. Ms. MacBeth stated there was no thought in that regard, LanclWatch doesn't operate that way, and she referenced State laws because they closely mirror County law and codes. Commissioner Henderson stated, based on his understanding of land use law, was to protect farm and forest land and he supports that intent; however because land was once zoned EFU (exclusive farm use) yet never been farmed doesn't necessarily make it good farm land now. Chair DeBone asked if anyone else would like to present testimony and two citizens presented testimony in favor of the application. Brian Skidgel: Testified in support of applicant; Mr. Skidgel owns land to the east of property in question and stated that while he does farm his property it is challenging. In order to farm his property Mr. Skidgel first spent weeks removing juniper trees and rocks. Mr. Skidgel feels any successful farming would need water and there are no water rights with this parcel. In response to questions from Commissioners Henderson and Baney, Mr. Skidgel stated water rights came with the his property via wells and he raises alfalfa obtaining three cuttings per year. In his opinion is there is much better land to be'fought over'to be preserved for farming and he supports approval of application. Paul Fisher: Testified in support of applicant; Mr. Fisher owns property near the land in question. Mr. Fisher stated land in this area is mostly solid rock and while he does plan to farm his land, at some point, it would most likely be fruit production on a small scale. While Mr. Fisher respects and supports LanclWatch's efforts, his opinion is that there are better fights to have over preserving land and the application should be approved. Chair DeBone called for rebuttal testimony. Applicant Ms. McCabe stated this parcel had already approved for a non-farm dwelling and land has not changed since. Applicant Ms. Omlid entered testimony stating that wells BOCC BUSINESS MEETING JUNE 27, 2018 PAGE 5 OF 8 need to be about 300' and acquiring water rights, which would cost approximately $20,000 per acre, would only be possible if rights were relinquished by another party. Actual drilling of wells would be another $15,000. Ms. McCabe continued stating this small piece of property, 39.2 acres, cannot support livestock and would not de -stabilize a farming or ranching area. Approval of this application would not set a precedence or guarantee an increase in homes. Each site or parcel is treated separately and the vigorous approval process is site specific. Ms. McCabe ended her testimony asking the record be closed and application approved. Counsel Doyle stated since this deliberation is not the initial hearing there is no requirement the record be kept open. Ms. MacBeth stated LanclWatch wishes to keep the record open. Commissioner Henderson asked why and Ms. MacBeth replied she had been advised more evidence would be forthcoming. Commissioner Baney felt given the length of the appeal process any new evidence would have been presented by now and suggested closing the record as of Friday, dune 28, 2018. Counsel Doyle recommended, if the Board's inclination is to hold the record open, use the standard 7-7-7 policy making August 24th the final decision date. In this matter there is no mandatory open record period. Applicant: Ms. McCabe confirmed all the information has been previously presented and asked again that the record be closed. Appellant: Ms. MacBeth asked for an open record period of one day. Peter Gutowsky clarified there would not be a procedural violation if the Board finds continuance is unnecessary and continuance is at Board discretion. Commissioners agreed to close the record and the Public Hearing at this time; deliberations and final decision tentatively scheduled on Monday, duly 23. 11PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2018-480, Outdoor Mass Gathering Permit for OAS Bigstock 2018 Isabelle Liu, Community Development, outlined hearing procedures and summarized the status of the permit. Prior to updating the Board Ms. Liu BOCC BUSINESS MEETING JUNE 27, 2018 PAGE 6 OF 8 asked Commissioners disclose any ex parte communication or contacts, prior hearing observations, bias or conflicts of interest pursuant to this matter. Chair DeBone asked if any Commissioner had anything to disclose. Commissioner Baney disclosed this item has been part of public work session. Commissioner Henderson and DeBone stated they had none; Chair DeBone then asked if anyone wished to challenge a Commissioner and seeing none the public hearing opened. Ms. Heather Johnson, Bend Magazine, event manager and LeeAnn Schoales, Shine Events, event coordinator were present. Commissioner DeBone asked for clarification of ambulance service and Ms. Johnson explained the Bend Fire department is unable to contract for private events for on-site ambulance so Bigstock has contracted with a private medical staff who is coordinating with Bend Fire for transport process. Counsel Doyle clarified that the County Ambulance Service Area Plan, mandated in County code, outlines what is allowed. Commissioners discussed need for conversation at future date regarding best use of ambulance services. Commissioner DeBone felt clarity may be needed for the public to have a clear understanding of what is being provided. Counsel Doyle explained there is precedence for this type of service hand-off and cited other events. Commissioner Baney asked about comments from property owner who have concerns about parking. Ms. Liu provided addendum to Commissioners showing layout for parking and advised that the property owner has agreed to let the event use additional space; signs and parking attendants will be present and also stationed in places that may seem like available parking to direct attendees to correct parking areas. The Board was also given a copy of water agreement and a copy is part of this record. Chair DeBone asked for any additional public testimony and none was forthcoming. Ms. Liu advised the Board there is a change to document and she will bring the updated document to the Work Session. The Board indicated permit will be approved in the afternoon work session. BOCC BUSINESS MEETING )UNE 27, 2018 PAGE 7 OF 8 OTHER ITEMS: None were offered. Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:35 a.m. DATED this'T Day of -i( 2018 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. sem- /,Al- SECRETARY BOCC BUSINESS MEETING JUNE 27, 2018 PAGE 8 OF 8 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - www.deschutes.or BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 9:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 27, 2018 Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Center - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend This meeting is open to the public. To watch it online, visit www.deschutes.org/meetinfs. Business Meetings are usually streamed live online and video recorded. Pursuant to ORS 192.640, this agenda includes a list of the main topics that are anticipated to be considered or discussed. This notice does not limit the Board's ability to address other topics. Meetings are subject to cancellation without notice. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT This is the time provided for individuals wishing to address the Board, at the Board's discretion, regarding issues that are not already on the agenda. Please complete a sign-up card (provided), and give the card to the Recording Secretary. Use the microphone and clearly state your name when the Board Chair calls on you to speak. PLEASE NOTE. Citizen input regarding matters that are or have been the subject of a public hearing not being conducted as a part of this meeting will NOT be included in the official record of that hearing. If you offer or display to the Board any written documents, photographs or other printed matter as part of your testimony during a public hearing, please be advised that staff is required to retain those documents as part of the permanent record of that hearing. CONSENT AGENDA Consideration of Chair Signature of Document No. 2018-229, Amendment to Contract with Stericycle Environmental Solutions, Inc. Board of Commissioners Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, June 27, 2018 Page 1 of 3 2. Consideration of Board Signature of Order No. 2018-045, Personal Property Tax Cancellations 3. Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2018-033, Establishing Solid Waste Disposal Fee Waivers for Fiscal Year 2018-19 4. Consideration of Board Signature for Document No. 2018-474, 2018-475, 2018-476, and 2018-477, Quitclaim Deeds 5. Consideration of Chair Signature of Doc No. 2018-479 for Approval of Extended Detention Re -Certification 6. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2018-411, Brightside Animal Center Promissory Note Amendment 7. Approval of Minutes of the April 30, 2018 Work Session 8. Approval of Minutes of the May 2, 2018 Business Meeting 9. Approval of Minutes of the May 7, 2018 Work Session 10.Approval of Minutes of the May 21, 2018 Business Meeting ACTION ITEMS 11. Consideration of Chair Signature on Document No. 2018-360, Oregon Health Authority Amendment - Pamela Ferguson, 12. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of a Non -Farm Dwelling at 4691 91St Street -Jacob Ripper, Senior Planner 13. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2018-480, Outdoor Mass Gathering Permit for OAS Bigstock 2018 - Isabella Liu, Associate Planner OTHER ITEMS These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640. Board of Commissioners Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, June 27, 2018 Page 2 of 3 At any time during the meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(b), personnel issues, or other executive session categories. Executive sessions are closed to the public, however, with few exceptions and under specific guidelines, are open to the media. ADJOURN Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. To request this information in an alternate format please call (541) 617-4747. FUTURE MEETINGS: Additional meeting dates available at www.deschutes.org/meetingcolendar Meeting dates and times are subject to change. If you have question, please call (541) 388-6572. Board of Commissioners Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, June 27, 2018 Page 3 of 3 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners Business Meeting of June 27, 2018 DATE: June 19, 2018 FROM: Jacob Ripper, Community Development, 541-385-1759 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of a Non -Farm Dwelling at 4691 91 St Street BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: This is a public hearing regarding an appeal of a Hearings Officer's decision approving a non- farm dwelling in the EFU Zone. The Hearings Officer's Decision was appealed by Central Oregon LandWatch on May 14, 2018. The 150 -day period for issuance of a final local decision is August 24, 2018. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. ATTENDANCE: Jacob Ripper, Senior Planner. o.,,.. Oso... NNW STAFF MEMORANDUM FILE NUMBERS: 247-18-000410-A (appeal of Hearings Officer's decision 247-17- 000852-A on appeal of administrative decision 247 -17 -000220 - CU) OWNER/APPLICANT: Megan & Todd Omlid APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY: Shannon McCabe, Lynch Conger McLane LLP APPELLANT: Carol Macbeth, Central Oregon LanclWatch PROPOSAL: The applicant requested approval of a conditional use permit to establish a nonfarm dwelling on a 39.20 -acre property in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zone. HEARING DATE: June 27, 2018 STAFF REVIEWER: Jacob Ripper, Senior Planner STAFF COMMENT: This memorandum attempts to summarize the appellant's objections, the applicant's materials, and the Hearings Officer's findings in regards to the issues raised in the appellant's Notice of Appeal submittal. STANDARDS & APPLICABLE CRITERIA Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 i P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 (541) 388-6575 adv cdd@deschutes.org ,j,D www.deschutes.org/cd II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY The subject parcel was created as part of an approved nonfarm partition (file no. MP -04-26) with two associated nonfarm dwelling approvals (file nos. CU -04-89 and CU -04-90). The partition was completed but the nonfarm dwelling approval for the subject property expired. The applicants submitted a new application for a conditional use permit for a nonfarm dwelling on March 27, 2017. The application was incomplete at the time and after submitting additional materials was deemed complete on April 26, 2017. The Planning Division issued an administrative decision without a public hearing on October 3, 2017, determining the applicant met the applicable criteria. The decision was appealed by Central Oregon LanclWatch on October 13, 2017. A public hearing was held and a County Hearings Officer's Decision approving the nonfarm dwelling was issued on May 4, 2018 (Attachment 1). The Hearings Officer's Decision approving the nonfarm dwelling was appealed by Central Oregon LandWatch on May 14, 2018 (Attachment 2). The 150 -day period for issuance of a final local decision is August 24, 2018. The applicant has requested to extend the 150 -day decision period at several points throughout the process. The length of combined extensions cannot exceed 215 days per ORS 215.427, unless the applicant chooses to waive the time period limitations. August 24, 2018, is 150 days from the date the application was deemed complete, plus the maximum 215 -day extension. III. OBJECTIONS & COMMENTS STAFF COMMENT: The Deschutes County Code (DCC) has incorporated applicable state statutes and administrative rules into Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones. Staff will comment on the appellant's objections as staff understands those objections, and as they relate to the applicable sections of the DCC and the Hearings Officer's decision. 1. Stability. DCC 18.16.050(G). 1. One single family dwelling, including a manufactured home in accordance with DCC 18.116.070, not provided in conjunction with farm use, may be permitted on an existing lot or parcel subject to the following criteria: a. The Planning Director or Hearings Body shall make findings that. ii. The proposed nonfarm dwelling will not materially alter the stability of the overall land use pattern of the area. In determining whether a proposed nonfarm dwelling will alter the stability of the land use pattern in the area, the County shall consider the cumulative impact of nonfarm dwellings on other lots or parcels in the area similarly situated, by applying the standards under OAR 660-033-0130(4)(a)(D), and whether creation of the parcel will lead to creation of other nonfarm parcels, to the detriment of agriculture in the area. (emphasis added) 247-18-000410-A (247-17-000852-A, 247 -17 -000220 -CU) Page 2 of 10 APPELLANT'S OBJECTION AND STAFF COMMENTS: The appellant addressed this criterion as DCC 18.16.050(G)(1)(a), and staff understands that subsection (ii) is the intended criterion. The Hearings Officer's decision states: On June 1, 1998, the Land Conservation and Development Commission adopted amendments to the administrative rules implementing Goal 3, Agricultural Lands (OAR Chapter 660-033) to incorporate case law and to clarify the analysis under the "stability" approval criterion. The rules continue to apply the three-step "stability" analysis first articulated in Land Use Board of Appeals (CUBA) case Sweeten v. Clackamas County, 17 Or LUBA 1234 (1989). The rules are as follows:... The stability analysis is found in the Hearings Officer's decision (pp. 10-17). The appellant argues this analysis should focus on the potential for future nonfarm dwellings and parcels, which staff understands the Hearings Officer has done. The appellant argues that this criterion is applied when considering the creation of a nonfarm parcel. Because the subject parcel was created as part of land use applications CU -04-89, CU -04-90, and MP -04-26, the appellant states that the stability analysis from that land use decision should be the applicable analysis. Staff notes that both the administrative decision and the Hearings Officer's decision incorporated the following into the stability analysis (Hearings Officer's decision p. 13, quoted from OAR 660-033- 130(4)(c)(C): 'The dwelling will not materially alter the stability of the overall land use pattern of the area. In determining whether a proposed nonfarm dwelling will alter the stability of the land use pattern in the area, a county shall consider the cumulative impact of nonfarm dwellings on other lots or parcels in the area similarly situated by applying the standards set forth in paragraph (4)(a)(D) of this rule. Ifthe application involves the creation of a new parcel for the nonfarm dwelling a countk shall consider whether creation of the parcel will lead to creation of other nonfarm parcels, to the detriment of agriculture in the area bVappl�g the standards set forth in paragraph (4)(a)(D) of this rule; and (..]"(emphasis added) According to LUBA's reading of this OAR in Elliott v. Jackson County, 43 Or LUBA 426 (2003), the potential to create new parcels for nonfarm dwellings must be considered when applying the stability test even when no new parcels are proposed by a land use application. The appellant states that the findings in CU -04-89, CU -04-90, MP -04-26 indicate there would be 38 new nonfarm dwellings added in the study area at the time that decision was written. The Hearings Officer found 15 parcels could be created through non -irrigated nonfarm land division, seven (7) parcels could be created through irrigated nonfarm land division, and 15 existing vacant lots could potentially be approved for a nonfarm dwelling. The Hearings Officer's decision does not explicitly quantify a final maximum number of potential nonfarm dwellings, but staff understands the inferred quantity to be 37. 247-18-000410-A (247-17-000852-A, 247 -17 -000220 -CU) Page 3 of 10 It is important to recognize that these are potential nonfarm partitions and dwellings and each application would need to meet the approval criteria for a nonfarm dwelling and/or partition on its own merits. 2. Suitability. DCC 18.16.050(G)(1)(a): iii. The proposed nonfarm dwelling is situated on an existing lot or parcel, or a portion of a lot or parcel, that is generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops and livestock, or merchantable tree species, considering the terrain, adverse soil or land conditions, drainage and flooding, vegetation, location and size of the tract. APPELLANT'S OBJECTION: In the Notice of Appeal, the appellant states: Land that is predominantly Class I -VI according to the NRCS is presumed suitable for the production of farm crops and livestock as a matter of law under county code and state law. Moreover land that is wholly Class I -VI like the subject property is capable of producing farm crops and livestock as a matter of fact according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). The hearings officer misconstrued and misapplied the applicable law in approving the application as the applicant did not overcome the presumption of suitability. The applicant provided many statements and photos to support their position that the applicants have not proven that the building envelope is generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops, livestock, and merchantable trees and that the applicants have not overcome the presumption of suitability as described in DCC 18.16.050(G)(2)(b): A lot or parcel or portion of a lot or parcel is not 'generally unsuitable" simply because it is too small to be farmed profitably by itself. If a lot or parcel or portion of a lot or parcel can be sold, leased, rented or otherwise managed as part of a commercial farm or ranch, it is not "generally unsuitable." ... STAFF COMMENT: The appellant correctly argues that the NRCS soil maps identify soil units 65A and 128C are present on the subject property and that these are Class VI soils. However, the applicant submitted a soils assessment prepared by Ryan Miebach, a certified professional soil scientist and a certified professional soil classifier. The soils study demonstrates that 84.5% of the area proposed for nonfarm development (dwelling, septic system, garage, shop building, well, etc.) is comprised of Class VII soils. Mr. Miebach's professional finding is that the majority of the proposed building area is composed of soils generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops, livestock, or merchantable tree species. The appellant also argues that several properties in the area are engaged in farm use and are within the same or similar NRCS soil units. While this is true, this particular criterion focuses on the location of the proposed nonfarm dwelling and not on the surrounding lands. When a nonfarm dwelling is 247-18-000410-A (247-17-000852-A, 247 -17 -000220 -CU) Page 4 of 10 proposed on unproductive parts of farmland on lands outside the Willamette Valley, the County is to focus on the productivity of the part of the property selected for nonfarm development and should not consider the suitability of the rest of the parcel or tract. See Frazee v. Jackson County, 45 Or LUBA 263 (2003). Staff understands this would also apply beyond the boundaries of the subject parcel or tract, which would exclude consideration of other discrete properties. DCC 18.16.050(G)(2)(b) above and OAR 660-0330-130(4)(c)(B)(ii) creates a presumption in Eastern Oregon that land is generally suitable if it is comprised of predominantly Class I -VI soils. Here, the soils are predominantly Class VII. Thus, there is no presumption that the building envelope is suitable for the production of crops and livestock. As explained in Central Oregon LondWatch v. Crook County, LUBA No. 2017-108 (Or. LUBA 2018), if the subject property is generally unsuitable for farm use based on factors other than size and location, then the local government "need not consider size or location and need not consider whether the subject property can be used for farm use in conjunction with other lands." (p. 12). As noted in Williams v. Jackson County, LUBA No. 2007-103, it is proper for a county to rely on a detailed soil study when the other soil evidence is an NRCS map. The soil survey the applicant submitted provides significant detail regarding the elements of the soil on the building site. In consideration of this soil study, staff does not share the appellant's belief that simply because other properties have some 128C soil in productive farm use that all 128C lands can be put to productive use. However, staff defers to the Board to determine if the evidence in the record substantially demonstrates the building envelope is not "generally suitable". 3. Soils Assessment. DCC 18.16.050(G): 2. For the purposes of DCC 1&16.050(G) only, "unsuitability" shall be determined with reference to the following. a. A lot or parcel or a portion of a lot or parcel shall not be considered unsuitable solely because of size or location if it can reasonably be put to farm or forest use in conjunction with other land... APPELLANT'S OBJECTION: The appellant claims in two sections of the Notice of Appeal that the Hearings Officer erred in relying on the submitted soils assessment (referred to alternatively as the soil study or soil report in various documents). First, the appellant claims there is no basis for determining soils are rocky or shallow. Second, the appellant claims there is no indication that the "consultant" is qualified to determine suitability. STAFF COMMENT: Staff clarifies that the Soils Professional that conducted the subject soils assessment is Ryan L. Miebach, who is a Soil Science Society of America Certified Professional Soil Classifier (#35369) and Certified Professional Soil Scientist (#35369). Furthermore, below is a screenshot from the Department of Land Conservation and Development's website on June 12, 20181, from the section titled "List of Qualified Soils Professionals". 1 https://www.oregon.gov/LCD/pages/soilsassessment.aspx 247-18-000410-A (247-17-000852-A, 247 -17 -000220 -CU) Page 5 of 10 List of Qualified Seryls Professionals The current list of qualified soNs professionals is shown beiovv.. Property owners and others who i%ish to challenge aar iCU tura= :and capability must select one of these individuals to prepare a sods assessment. These: individuals have the necessary educator, and experience to provide detailed soil; data to determ ne whether sails are agricultural., However-,: this listir-g s not an endorserner.;t and t1hose re —ue t.rg soils assessments are encouraged to request references a=s ,sell as bid fr m rno,:e than one soils Professional. It can a;so be usefuto o. a; n a preliminary field check to Clete ;-nine whether a fall soils assessment is ,x;arranted. only soPs assessments submitted by thelisted individua s to the department may beconsidered by areal cover ,r€ er-s in ;-.cal land use proceedings. This list h be updated or: an as needed bas's, Name Andy Gallag!:er Red Hill Soil Brian T, Rabe Cascade Earth Sciences Cary A.-KitZrow Paul Kennedy Ryar' Hiebach Address ROo Eox 2�`2r3 Corvallis, CHR 47334 3511 Par f c B;vcl. SW Abony, oR 4732' P,O. Box 46 Harr sbrrr=9, OR, 74615 446 S,,%f ''.4'e.erarr5 VV av = 342 Redmond, OR 47756 2468 Crestview ?eve. Roseburg, OR 4747.1 1.6056 SE orci-ar=d View Lr- Darr,aSCUS,. P 37,0159 Phone Number Ennail Address 541-740-4508 ay rEdhiII S o,'11 541-812-6634 brian.rabe Q4 ascade ear ix -cm3 541-817-4744 a I.. 114 .:....... 541-684-4366 541-673-0538 p'au '4 enn GtirJn)ar 5441-771-1631 rytar,mr lam Jr, Srra , cmn As stated previously, Williams v. Jackson County, LUBA No. 2007-103, explains that it is proper for a county to rely on a detailed soil study when the other soil evidence is an NRCS map. Due to Mr. Miebach's qualifications and the Hearings Officer's appropriate consideration of his soils assessment in making a decision, it appears these objections are unsupported. 4. Used in Conjunction with Farms. DCC 18.16.050(G): 2. For the purposes of DCC 18.16.050(G) only, "unsuitability" shall be determined with reference to the following.- a. ollowing.a. A lot or parcel or a portion of a lot or parcel shall not be considered unsuitable solely because of size or location if it can reasonably be put to farm or forest use in conjunction with other land ... APPELLANT'S OBJECTION: In the Notice of Appeal, the applicant states: The hearings officer misinterpreted and misapplied the use in conjunction and managed as part of standards. There are farming operations to the west, northwest, north, northeast, and east of the subject property. Neither the use in conjunction nor the managed as part of tests require farms to be directly adjacent. Many livestock producers move their livestock large distances between pastures to allow them to graze at different times of the year. The regulation is an imperative conditional, meaning use in conjunction must be considered regardless of size or location. The relevant question is not whether the land is being used in conjunction with other land, or whether the farmers who happen to own the neighboring farms choose to manage this land or 247-18-000410-A (247-17-000852-A, 247 -17 -000220 -CU) Page 6 of 10 use it in conjunction, the relevant question is whether the land can reasonably be put to farm use in conjunction with or managed as part of other farms. STAFF COMMENT: The following LUBA cases provide some background on how to apply this criterion. • In Central Oregon LandWatch v. Crook County, LUBA No. 2017-108 (Or. LUBA 2018), if the subject property is generally unsuitable for farm use based on factors other than size and location, then the local government "need not consider size or location and need not consider whether the subject property can be used for farm use in conjunction with other lands." (p. 12). LUBA's quote, in this case, references Epp v Douglas County, 45 Or LUBA 480, 485. • LUBA has determined the issue of whether nonfarm parcels can be put to farm use in conjunction with other properties "is triggered under DCC 18.16.050(G)(2)(a) if the parcels are found to be unsuitable solely because of size or location." Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County, 56 Or LUBA 280 (2008). See also, Williams v. Jackson County, 55 Or LUBA 223, 230 (2007). • When a nonfarm dwelling is proposed on unproductive parts of farmland on lands outside the Willamette Valley, the County is to focus on the productivity of the part of the property selected for nonfarm development and should not consider the suitability of the rest of the parcel or tract. See Frazee v. Jackson County, 45 Or LUBA 263 (2003). The building envelope was determined to be generally unsuitable based on evidence entirely not based on the size or location of the property, therefore, this objection is immaterial. Regardless of applicability, the Hearings Officer's decision includes findings as to why the property could not reasonably be put to farm or forest use in conjunction with other land (pp. 26, 27). 5. Irrigation. DCC 18.16.050(G)(1)(a)(iii): iii. The proposed nonfarm dwelling is situated on an existing lot or parcel, or a portion of a lot or parcel, that is generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops and livestock, or merchantable tree species, considering the terrain, adverse soil or land conditions, drainage and flooding, vegetation, location and size of the tract. APPELLANT'S OBJECTION: The appellant's materials state that water rights are available to purchase in Deschutes County. The appellant also states, "The presence or absence of irrigation water is not one of the relevant characteristics for the suitability determination under ORS 215.284" and, "The hearings officer's findings improperly consider the price of irrigation water rights or the tax burden as relevant." However, the appellant also seems to argue that the potential for irrigation should have been considered in the livestock grazing and foraging portions of the suitability analysis. STAFF COMMENT: Staff is unconvinced of the importance of irrigation in this case. Certainly, the cost could be a prohibitive factor for a farmer or rancher, but even if the applicants wanted and were 247-18-000410-A (247-17-000852-A, 247 -17 -000220 -CU) Page 7 of 10 able to acquire irrigation rights, it would not necessarily have an effect on the "suitability" of this subject building envelope. 6. Structure on Property. DCC 22 20 15 Code Enforcement and Land Use. A. Except as described in (D) below, if any property is in violation of applicable land use regulations, and/or the conditions of approval of any previous land use decisions or building permits previously issued by the County, the County shall not. 1. Approve any application for land use development, C. A violation means the property has been determined to not be in compliance either through a prior decision by the County or other tribunal, or through the review process of the current application, or through an acknowledgement by the alleged violator in a signed voluntary compliance agreement ("VCA"). APPELLANT'S OBJECTION: The appellant alleges there is an unpermitted structure on the property and that it violates the DCC. The appellant states, "The hearings officer erred in issuing a decision without requiring this issue to be addressed". STAFF COMMENT: There was no violation confirmed as of the date of this memo through any of the methods listed in subsection (C) above. During a site visit conducted on August 23, 2017, staff observed a recreational vehicle on the property. One of the property owners explained the RV was there for use during the August 21 solar eclipse. The DCC allows for the temporary use of an RV without a permit per DCC 18.116.095: A. A single recreational vehicle, as defined in DCC Title 18, may be located on a lot or parcel not containing a dwelling and used as a temporary dwelling unit: 1. For a period totaling not more than 30 days in any consecutive 60 -day period without obtaining a land use permit from the Deschutes County Planning Division; or ... Additionally, staff notes the applicants have applied for a building permit for an accessory structure prior to establishing the primary use of the property, as allowed by DCC 18.116.040 below, but the building permit (247-18-001380-STR) has not been issued as of the date of this memo. An accessory use shall comply with all requirements for a principal use, except as DCC Title 18 specifically allows to the contrary, and shall comply with the following limitations: A. The primary use of the property must be established or applied for prior to issuance of any building or land use permits for accessory structures. 1. Exception: a. Building permit for a ramada or carport may be issued without establishment or application of primary use if all other criteria for issuance are met. b. Land use, building or environmental health permits or extensions of such permits sought to correct existing code violations for the subject property shall be issued if all other criteria for issuance are met. 247-18-000410-A (247-17-000852-A, 247 -17 -000220 -CU) Page 8 of 10 C. A building permit for an accessory structure or structures not exceeding a combined total of 2,000 square feet in size, with no windows, with only one floor, an operable garage door, no plumbing or stack vents through the roof or walls and not requiring plumbing or mechanical permits. The design of the proposed accessory structure complies with the above requirements and will be located within the nonfarm dwelling building envelope. 7. Appeal Fees. DCC 22.32.015. A. To file an appeal, an appellant must file a completed notice of appeal on a form prescribed by the Planning Division and an appeal fee. C. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body and the Board declines review, a portion of the appeal fee may be refunded. The amount of any refund will depend upon the actual costs incurred by the County in reviewing the appeal. When the Board declines review and the decision is subsequently appealed to LUBA, the appeal fee may be applied toward the cost of preparing a transcript of the lower Hearings Body's decision. APPELLANT'S OBJECTION: The appellant cites several ORS sections, the Oregon Constitution, and Court of Appeals jurisdiction in alleging the appeal fee to the Board of County Commissioners is in violation of, interferes with, and is inconsistent with those citations. STAFF COMMENT: The Planning Division (and the Community Development Department as a whole) charges an average of the actual cost to review and process any application, including appeals. Staff believes this land use proposal is not the appropriate setting to challenge the Community Development Department's fee schedule. IV. CONCLUSION The Hearings Officer's decision for this application identifies all applicable zoning ordinances and evaluates compliance with the criteria and standards of those ordinances. This memorandum only supplements the findings of compliance with the identified ordinances in relation to the issues raised in the Notice of Appeal. DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION Jacob Ripper, Senior Planner Dated June 19, 2018 247-18-000410-A (247-17-000852-A, 247 -17 -000220 -CU) Page 9 of 10 Attachments: 1. Area Map 2. Application Materials, Burden of Proof 3. Notice of Application 4. Incomplete Application, First Supplemental Burden of Proof 5. Agency Comments 6. Public Comments & Applicant Emails 7. Findings & Decision, Notice of Decision 247 -17 -000220 -CU 8. Notice of Appeal, Staff Memorandum 9. Notice of Public Hearing 10. Open Record Submittals 11. Second Supplemental Burden of Proof 12. Hearings Officer Decision 13. Notice of Appeal of Hearings Officer's Decision 14. Board Consideration to Accept Review 15. Notice of Public Hearing, Comments 16. Staff Memorandum re Appeal Hearing Work Session 247-18-000410-A (247-17-000852-A, 247 -17 -000220 -CU) Page 10 of 10 T-YNCH CONGER CLAN'E m.,p All"ORNLYS A`F LAW Shannon McCabe smccabe@lynchconger.com 541.749.3317 direct line June 27, 2o18 BY BAND DELIVERY Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97702 Subject: Appeal of a nonfarm dwelling approval. Files 247 -17 -000220 -CU, 247-17-000852-A, 247-18-000410-A Dear Commissioners: Pursuant to ORS 215.284 and Deschutes County Code, nonfarm dwellings are explicitly allowed if certain criteria are met. The subject parcel was previously approved for a conditional use permit for a nonfarm dwelling and the relevant characteristics of the property have not changed since that approval. The Applicants have met their burden to establish that the subject property meets the criteria to qualify for a nonfarm dwelling, therefore the decision of the Hearings Officer should be affirmed. 1. ORS 215.284(2)(b); DCC i&i6.050(G)(1)(iii); the proposed nonfarm dwelling is situated on an existing lot or parcel, or portion of a lot or parcel, that is generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops and livestock, or merchantable tree species, considering the terrain, adverse soil or land conditions, drainage and flooding, vegetation, location, and size of tract. Applicants submitted pictures of the proposed building envelope. The pictures clearly indicate that the land is not suitable for production of livestock, farm crops, or merchantable timber. The proposed property is an unproductive site, and there is no evidence in the record to indicate that it has ever had irrigation rights, ever been used to cultivate crops, or ever been used to graze livestock. In late January of 2018, a soil assessment of the building envelope, which is approximately 16.7 acres, was completed for the subject property. The results of that assessment are attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 1. 4811-0406-3035, v. 1 1567 S.W. CHANDLER AVENUE, SUITE 204, BEND, OREGON 97702 PHONE(541)383-5857 WWW.LYNCHCONGER.COM LYNCH,CONGER McL,ANE AFFORNEYS AI' LAW The soils analysis determined that 85% of the proposed building envelope is comprised of Class VII and VIII soils. Class VII and VIII soils do not have attached to them the presumption of suitability. The remaining 15% is comprised of Class 6 soils. The report concludes that the majority of the proposed building envelope is composed of soils generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops, livestock, or merchantable tree species. LUBA affirmed a decision wherein the county relied in part on testimony that the land was unsuitable for livestock grazing and an expert soil survey demonstrated that the land was unsuitable for livestock grazing. Williams v. Jackson County, 55 Or LUBA 223 (2007). Here, adjoining property owners gave extensive testimony related to the fact that this property is not suitable for grazing livestock or growing farm crops, and a soil expert provided evidence that the soil quality could not sustain forage for grazing. Appellants argument that NRCS data somehow trumps the site-specific analysis performed by a qualified expert is misplaced. According to the NRCS website, "[g]enerally, soil survey information is not adequate for site-specific investigations, and point sampling must be done to collect data for a specific use at a specific location.", LUBA has recognized that it is reasonable for a county to rely on a more accurate soil survey as opposed to the generalized NRCS data. Williams v. Jackson County, 55 Or LUBA 223 (2007). Appellants arguments that the soil on the subject property is Class VI is refuted by the scientific report of a qualified expert. Class VII and VIII soils are severely limited as to the types of crops that can be supported, and the amount of forage produced for grazing. Soil capability is not the sole inquiry when determining if a property is generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops, livestock, or merchantable timer. In addition to poor soils, this property also lacks irrigation water rights. Without irrigation water it is virtually impossible to get crops and forage to grow on a sustained basis. Appellant makes a point of noting that properties that are irrigated are being used for irrigated farm crops and pasture. However, properties with irrigation water are distinguishable from dryland parcels, and whether a property has irrigation water rights is relevant to the inquiry regarding whether or not a property is unsuitable for the production of crops or livestock. See Griffin v. Jackson County, 48 Or LUBA 48o, n. 6 (2004). In addition to the limitations of the soil quality and lack of irrigation water rights, the property is further unsuitable for the grazing of livestock because of the amount of forage produced on the property. On the subject property there is little, if any, forage for livestock. The understory is very sparse and would support only minimal dryland grazing. Some of the calculations currently in the record are inaccurate for a 3 https://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/ref/?cid=nresl42p2_O53393, a print out of the website is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 2. 4811-0406-3035, v. 1 1567 S.W. CHANDLER AVENUE, SUITE 204, BEND, OREGON 97702,PHONE(541)383-5857 WWW.LYNCHCONGER.COM AIN NCH CONGER McLANE 1j.F A1.1ORNLYS AF LAW variety of reasons, including the fact that you cannot graze cattle for 12 months in central Oregon. Further, most of the forage grazed in central Oregon grows on an annual basis, and once it is consumed it is not available for further grazing until the following year, especially in the absence of irrigation. According to Tim DeBoodt with the Oregon State University Extension Service, whose curriculum vitae is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 3, on dryland: "An AUM (Animal Unit Month) is the amount of forage required to feed 1 AU (Animal Unit) for 1 month. We define 1 AU as a beef cow with or without calf at side. Adjustments for other classes of livestock are made accordingly. As an example, horses are 1.25 AU, and sheep are .2 AU. Carrying capacity is a measurement of the productivity of a site in its ability to produce forage for livestock or wildlife. Carrying capacity of the land here in central Oregon is highly dependent on whether or not irrigation is available. Dryland carrying capacities in central Oregon range from 3 acres per AUM to 4o acres per AUM. A good average to use is 20 acres per AUM. Therefore, for a 4o acre parcel, you have 2 AUM's available (4o acre/2o Acres per AUM). Once those 2 AUM's are grazed during the year, they are not available again for the rest of the year. Using this example, you would need to have 12o acres of dryland pasture to graze one cow for six months (6 months x 20 ac/AUM). If this one cow raised a calf and the owner sold that calf in today's livestock market, the gross sales receipt would be approximately $1000 (500 lb calf x $2.00/lb). Before expenses are subtracted that would yield the landowner a rate of return of $8.33/ac." Mr. DeBoodt goes on to describe the limiting factors for crop production "As to the question of what else the landowner could produce (agricultural crop) on this dry 39.02 ac parcel, the answer is realistically nothing if they don't have access to irrigation water rights. In central Oregon, we are limited with the annual precipitation we receive. On average, central Oregon receives 9 — 15 inches of precipitation per year. Approximately 70 percent of that comes in the form of winter snow and rain. It does not come during the growing season. Only 2 — 4 inches of precipitation occurs during the growing season. That is why we here in central Oregon enjoy 4811-0406-3035, v. 1 1567 S.W. CHANDLER AVENUE, SUITE 204, BEND, OREGON 97702 PHONE(541)383-5857 WWW.LYNCHCONGER.COM LYNCH CONGER CLINE 1si.p A'T FORNL•'YS ATLAW an extensive system of water storage (dams) and delivery systems (canals) to deliver water during the summer months to agricultural producers. In conversations with the Oregon Department of Water Resources (regulates and issues water rights in the State of Oregon) and most of the irrigation districts in central Oregon, there are no new water rights being issued. If you don't currently have a water right to irrigate, you're probably not going to get a water right irrigate. Here are some crops and their average water requirements in central Oregon. Wheat and other cereal crops 18 inches Irrigated pasture 30 inches Alfalfa hay 28 - 32 inches Potatoes 28 - 36 inches Our next limiting factor to crop production in central Oregon is the weather. Growing conditions in central Oregon are difficult. We can have a killing frost any night of the summer. Crop selection in central Oregon is limited to crops that are least sensitive to these sporadic yet frequent temperature swings. Soils and soil condition would be next. The old adage that without soil, it would be difficult to grow anything is still true. While hydroponic crop production is viable (crops grown without soil in a water solvent), without a high capital investment in infrastructure (a greenhouse) and water rights, it is not realistic on any large scale here. Class 6 soils (rocky) with irrigation will grow pasture grasses for livestock grazing. Whether the economics makes sense depends on each specific instance and the landowners financial condition. Soil pH (extreme high or low) and the amount of salts present are controlling factors to the success of particular crops and agriculture production." Although there is conflicting information regarding the amount of income that could be generated from raising livestock on the property, the analysis performed by Mr. DeBoodt is sound, and a reasonable person could rely on that information to determine that the property is generally unsuitable for the production of livestock. 4811-0406-3035, v. 1 1567 S.W. CHANDLER AVENUE, SUITE 204, BEND, OREGON 97702 PHONE(541)383-5857 WWW.LYNCHCONGER.COM ILYNO-4 CONGER McLANE u.P ATTORNEYS Al- LAW Appellant relies on the fact that Applicants filled out the application using NRCS information as some kind of admission that certain plants are supported by the NRCS classified soils. A review of the application shows that Applicants were not stating that this property could grow farm crops, but merely reciting "Crops or Livestock which NRCS Survey States can be Produced on this Soil Type." As previously mentioned, although NRCS data is useful and informative, it is not a substitute for site specific analysis. Further, citing a publication from 1917 regarding grains that may have been dryland farmed in Central Oregon at that time is hardly conclusive evidence that it is reasonable for this property to grow those types of crops. Based on the evidence presented to the Hearings Officer, there is substantial evidence to support the finding that this property is generally unsuitable for the production of farms crops and livestock. Based on the findings of the soil assessment and the other documents and information contained in the record in this matter, the Applicants have met their burden to establish that the subject property is generally unsuitable for the production of crops or livestock. 2. ORS 21L5.284(2)(b); OAR. 660-033-130(4)(c)(S)(i); DCC 18.i6.o5o(G)(2(a); if a property is generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops and livestock based on factors other than size and location, the county does not need to determine if the property can reasonably be used in conjunction with other properties. Under current law, if the size and location of the property are not the sole reasons it is unsuitable for the production of crops or livestock, the possibility of using the property in conjunction with other properties need not be evaluated. Central Oregon LandWatch v. Crook County, LUBA No. 2017-1o8 (2018), Epps v. Douglas County, Or LUBA 48o (2004). There is ample evidence in the record to substantiate a finding that the property is generally unsuitable for the production of crops or livestock because of the soil type, rocky terrain, and lack of vegetation. However, if this criterion were at issue, there is evidence to support the finding that this property could not be used in conjunction with other properties. The record indicates that there are four privately owned parcels directly abutting the subject property. The properties to the west and south are dryland and not in farm deferral or engaged in agriculture. The properties to the north and east are irrigated, in farm deferral, and are engaged in the production of crops. The subject property is separated from the two adjoining properties engaged in farm use by county roads. It is unlikely that this property would be used in conjunction with other operations because of the poor soil quality and lack of irrigation. There has been no offer to lease, purchase, or otherwise use the property in conjunction with nearby farming operations. Further, 4811-0406-3035, v. 1 1567 S.W. CHANDLER AVENUE, SUITE 204, BEND, OREGON 97702 PHONE(541)383-5857• WWW.LYNCHCONGER.COM L.YNCIJCONGER. McLANE iLp A"t TORNLYS Al" LAW there is no evidence in the record that the property has ever been used for the grazing of livestock or the cultivation of crops. For the foregoing reasons, the proposed nonfarm dwelling is generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops or livestock based on factors independent of size and location, therefore analysis related to whether it can be used in conjunction with other property is not required. Even if the analysis were required, there is substantial evidence in the record from which a reasonable person could determine that this property cannot reasonably be put to use in conjunction with adjoining parcels engaged in commercial agricultural. 3. ORS 215.284(2)(b); DCC i8.16.o5o(G)(i)(iii); availability of irrigation water is a relevant consideration to the suitability analysis Availability of irrigation water is relevant to whether a property is suitable for the production of farm crops or livestock in the high desert. Limited precipitation restricts the amount and types of crops, including forage, that a property can grow. Availability of irrigation water is relevant to adverse soil or land conditions because those terms encompass how much water the soil can hold, which is relevant to what crops can be grown and how much forage can be produced, which in turn is relevant to whether a property is suitable for the production of crops and livestock. In addition, the inquiry into whether a property has too much or too little water (flooding and drainage) further establishes that water availability is essential to the determination of a property's suitability for crops and livestock. Finally, the types of vegetation that can be produced will hinge largely on the amount of water the property has, and whether the water is provided through precipitation or irrigation. The availability of irrigation water is a vital consideration to the suitability analysis in Deschutes County where the annual precipitation is extremely limited. In Oregon, and particularly in Deschutes County, a part of the state's High Desert, lack of irrigation water rights is not a temporary or self-imposed condition. Water is a precious and finite resource that is in limited supply in Central Oregon. Although it may be possible to acquire irrigation water rights, it is not logical or reasonable. Although availability of irrigation water was discussed, it was not dispositive in the determination that the subject property is generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops and livestock. There is substantial evidence in the record to support the finding regardless of the issue of irrigation water. 4. Applicants' consultant is a soil classifier The Hearings Officer relied on the record as a whole to make her determination that the property was generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops and livestock. One piece of evidence that contributed to this finding was the soils analysis. 4811-0406-3035, v. 1 1567 S.W. CHANDLER AVENUE, SUITE 204, BEND, OREGON 97702 PHONE(541)383-5857 WWW.LYNCHCONGER.COM property property. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 5. DCC 22.20.15, there are no unpermitted structures on the The county has verified that there are no unpermitted structures on the 6. DCC 18.i6.o5o(G)(1)(a); stability analysis A revised stability analysis with explanation is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 4. Based on the revised analysis, Applicants believe that there is the possibility of 37 additional nonfarm dwellings. The approval of this application will not materially increase the number of nonfarm conditional use permits that are ultimately granted. Each nonfarm conditional use permit will be evaluated on its own merits and there is no guarantee that the 37 possible nonfarm parcels will be created, applied for, or approved. Granting this conditional use permit will not materially alter the stability of the area. 7. ORS 215.422; ORS 2.516; ORS 215.825; the exhaustion requirement of ORS 215.825 as applied to the land use appeal fee of $3361 violates the Oregon Constitution's justice without purchase clause and raises due process, equal protection, and separation of powers issues, interferes with jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals; the fee is inconsistent with ORS 215.422, which allows charging of only an average or actual cost of a review of the lawfulness of an adverse decision Applicants agree with staff s determination that the appeal of this specific application is not the appropriate forum to challenge the fees assessed by the County. Conclusion Applicants have supplied substantial evidence to support the finding that the subject property meets the criteria to qualify for a nonfarm dwelling. The decision of the Hearings Officer should be affirmed. Thank you for your courtesies in this matter. Very truly yours, R\0,nA-e�— -,yltatk� Shannon McCabe 4811-0406-3035, v. 1 15G7S.W. CHANDLER AVENUE, SUITE 204,BEND,OREGON97702 PHONE(541)383-5857 WWW,LYNCHCONGER.COM SYNCH CONGER, cLANE T j.p XF-FORNL:YS AT LAW Exhibits Exhibit 1 - Soil Analysis Exhibit 2 — Information from NRCS Website Exhibit 3 — Email from Tim DeBoodt and curriculum vitae Exhibit 4 — Revised Stability Analysis Other Documents 1. Application Materials 2. Supplemental Burden of Proof 3. Updated Site Plan/Building Envelope 4. Findings and Decision, 17 -22o -CU FD NOD 5. Staff Memorandum 6. Staff Presentation 7. Second Supplemental Burden of Proof 8. Site Plan 9. Applicants' Open Record Final Statement 10. Assessor's Maps from Hearings Officer 11. Hearings Officer Decision 12. Staff Memo re Appeal Hearing Preparation 4811-0406-3035, v. 1 1567S.W.CHANDLERAVENUE, SUITE 204,BEND, OREGON 97702•PHONE (541)383-5857 WWW.LYNCHCONGER.COM Agricultural Soil Suitability Assessment for Nonfarm Dwelling T14S, R12E, Section 34, Tax Lot 00200 Deschutes County, Oregon Property Address: 4691 NW 91St St. Redmond, Oregon 97756 Todd and Megan Omlid 3179 SW 28th St. Redmond, Oregon 97756 Completed by: Ryan L. Miebach, CPSS/CPSC 16056 SW Orchard View Ln Damascus, Oregon 97089 Field Work Completed on: January 27 & 28, 2018 Exhibit 1 Page 1 of 46 T14S, R12 E, Section 34, Tax Lot 00200 Deschutes County, Oregon Contents Current Owner Information............................................................ 2 Location Information....................................................................... 2 General Information........................................................................ 3 Purpose............................................................................................. 3 Background....................................................................................... 3 Methodology.................................................................................... 4 Discussion......................................................................................... 5 Findings............................................................................................. 5 Data Review and Evaluation........................................................... 6 Conclusion........................................................................................ 7 Attachments: Soil Map Soil Map w/ Soil Site/Pedon Locations Site/Soil Pedon Description Tables and Photographs Web Soil Survey Report Excerpt pages from 1999 Soil Survey Publication Ryan L. Miebach, CPSS/CPSC 16056 SW Orchard View In Damascus, Oregon 97089 Exhibit 1 Page 2 of 46 1 T14S, R12E, Section 34, Tax Lot 00200 Deschutes County, Oregon Owner: Todd and Megan Omlid 3179 SW 28th St. Redmond, Oregon 97756 q Location: This property is located in Deschutes County, Oregon approximately 6.3 miles NW of Redmond, 5.7 miles SW of Terrebonne, 13.3 miles ENE of Sisters, and 4.1 miles NNW of Eagle Crest Resort in Township 14S, Range 12E, Section 34, and Tax Lot 00200. It is zoned Exclusive Farm Use, Terrebonne Subzone. The subject property has no water rights. It is currently idle land and the vegetation is western juniper, mountain sagebrush, and grasses; dominantly shallow rooted annual grasses with a few areas of perennial grasses. Exhibit 1 Page 3 of 46 T14S, R12E, Section 34, Tax Lot 00200 Deschutes County, Oregon Report: Ryan L. Miebach, 16056 SE Orchard View Ln, Damascus, Oregon 97089 conducted the field work and prepared the report. Field work was conducted on January 27 & 28, 2018. Ryan L. Miebach is a Soil Science Society of America Certified Professional Soil Classifier (#35369) and Certified Professional Soil Scientist (#35369). Purpose: The purpose for this study was to conduct a soil inventory of the proposed building envelope in order to determine the amount of lands generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops and livestock or merchantable tree species per Deschutes County Code (DCC)18.16.050(G) - Standards for Dwellings in the EFU Zones — Nonfarm dwelling. Background: Geology and Topography: This area is low to gently sloping with slopes ranging from 0 to 8 percent. These soils developed in parent material of volcanic ash deposited by eruptions of volcanos of the Cascade Mountains. The bedrock is dominantly basalt with some areas of welded tuff. Soils: The area of the building envelope is shown by the Sail Survey of Upper Deschutes River Area, Oregon, including parts of Deschutes, Jefferson, and Klamath Counties to have only one soil mapping unit; 128C — Statz — Deschutes complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes. The Web Soil Survey (WSS) report shows the map unit composition of major soil components to be "Statz and similar soils" and "Deschutes and similar soils". These major components makeup 85 percent of the map unit composition, but the WSS report does not account for the remaining 15 percent of the map unit. The 1999 publication of Soil Survey of Upper Deschutes River Area, Oregon, including parts of Deschutes, Jefferson, and Klamath Counties shows the 15 percent of "Contrasting Inclusions" (minor components) to be the Redmond and Stukel soil series. The typical soil profile for the Stukel component was located in a soil polygon of map unit 35B — Deschutes — Stukel complex, dry, 0 to 8 percent slopes. This map unit also addresses Rock Outcrop in the "Contrasting Inclusions" and "General Management Considerations" sections. A custom soil resource report from WSS for the area of this proposed building envelope is attached to this document as well as excerpted pages from the 1999 Upper Deschutes River Area, Oregon Soil Survey publication. Ryan L. Miebach, CPSS/CPSC 16056 SW Orchard View Ln Damascus, Oregon 97089 Exhibit 'I Page 4 of 46 3 T14S, R12E, Section 34, Tax Lot 00200 Deschutes County, Oregon Methodology: An Order 1 soil survey of the building envelope was conducted. Two transects across the longest length of the building envelope were laid out with site/pedon locations situated at approximately 200ft intervals. Soil pits were excavated by the use of sharpshooter and spade shovels. Site and soil profile descriptions were collected in accordance with the USDA -MRCS Field Book for Describing and Sampling Soils. Soil textures were evaluated utilizing the USDA Textural Triangle. A clinometer was used to determine and verify slope angles. A digital camera was utilized to further document site and soil conditions. Collected soil data was evaluated to correlate the soil profiles to existing soil components from the Soil Survey of Upper Deschutes River Area, Oregon. Soil bulk density values from WSS for these soil components were used with the table for "Available Water Capacity for horizons influenced by volcanic ash" from NRCS Soil Survey Region 1 Technical Note #40 "NASIS — DMU Data Population Guide" to calculate the Available Water Capacity (AWC) of the described soil horizons and profiles. These values were adjusted for recorded rock fragment volumes using the equation given in Tech Note #40. Data point (waypoint) locations of the soil site and pedon descriptions were collected by the use of a handheld Garmin GPS unit and are shown on the attached map titled "Omlid Building Envelope Soil Map and Soil Site/Pedon Locations. Site/soil pedon description information and calculated soil horizon/profile properties are presented in the attached tables as well as photographs of the site and soil profiles. The area of the building envelope was also evaluated by remote sensing techniques. 10 meter Digital Elevation Model (DEM) was the best available data found for the area at this time. DEM derivatives of slope, aspect, and curvature were produced and evaluated. Several eras of aerial imagery (B&W, Color, and False IR) were reviewed. The 2016 Color NAIP photography was used as the base imagery for the produced maps. Ryan L. Miebach, CPSS/CPSC 16056 SW Orchard View Ln Damascus, Oregon 97089 Exhibit I Page 5 of 46 T14S, R12E, Section 34, Tax Lot 00200 Deschutes County, Oregon Discussion: As defined by OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(A) Agricultural Land is land classified by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as predominantly Land Capability Classification (LCC) 1— 6. The LCC includes criteria for soil depth, surface texture, permeability, slope, available water capacity, drainage class, flooding/ponding, alkali/salinity, frost -free days, and evapotranspiration. In this study area the soil depth and available water capacity (AWC) were the primary criteria used for determining suitability. AWC is the volume of water that should be available to plants in a soil holding water at full potential. When roots are excluded by bedrock or another root limiting layer such as Duripan this is considered the effective soil depth for plant growth. The Oregon NRCS LCC Guide rates soil profiles having an AWC less than 2 inches as LCC 7 and soils less than 10 inches deep to a root limiting layer as LCC 7. The fine earth soil textures of this area were found to be Ashy Sandy Loams consistent with those of the NRCS soil map unit components. Utilizing the values given in the resources mentioned above, the average AWC for an Ashy Sandy Loam in this area is 0.14 inches of water per inch of soil. Therefore a soil less than 14 inches deep would hold less than 2 inches of water. AWC is further reduced by rock fragments, e.g. a soil 20 inches deep with 50% rock fragments throughout the profile would only have the capacity to hold 1.4 inches of water. Findings: Four soil profiles were found to be shallow (less than 20 inches deep) to a Lithic (hard bedrock) contact and were correlated to the Stukel component. Eight soil profiles were shallow to a para-lithic (duripan) contact and were correlated to the Statz components. All of these soil profiles were found to have an AWC of less than 2 inches and consequently rated as LCC 7. Rock Outcrop occupied part of this area. Rock Outcrop has an LCC rating of 8. Two profiles were discovered to be greater than 20 inches deep. These soils were correlated to the Deschutes series and have LCC ratings of 6. The Order 1 mapping units were developed to represent the soil landforms that these soils occur on. These areas were further dissected based on slope, landform curvature, and surface rock fragments. "Dry" in the map unit name is used to identify the low AWC phase of these soil components. Ryan L. Miebach, CPSS/CPSC 16056 SW Orchard View Ln Damascus, Oregon 97089 Exhibit I Page 6 of 46 6 T14S, R12E, Section 34, Tax Lot 00200 Deschutes County, Oregon Soil Man Leaend. LCC Rating. and Area Calculatinnc Map Unit Land Capability Map Unit Percent Symbol Map Unit Name Classification Area of Survey Rating (Acres) Area 1 Stukel - Statz complex, Dry, 0- 1 percent slopes, Cobbly Surface 7 5.1 30.5 2 IStatz Ashy Sandy Loam, Dry, 1- 8 percent slopes, Cobbly Surface 7 9.1 54.5 3 IDeschutes Ashy Sandy Loam, 1- 3 percent slopes 6 2.5 1 15.0 Brief Map Unit Descriptions: • MU 1; Stukel - Statz complex, Dry, 0 - 1 percent slopes, Cobbly Surface o Map unit composition ■ Stukel, dry 66% ■ Statz, dry 33% Rock Outcrop 1% o This soil map unit occurs on the convex ridge top. • MU 2; Statz Ashy Sandy Loam, Dry, 1- 8 percent slopes, Cobbly Surface o Map unit composition ■ Statz, dry 100% o This soil map unit occurs on linear backslopes. • MU 3; Deschutes Ashy Sandy Loam, 1- 3 percent slopes o Map unit composition ■ Deschutes 10091 o This soil map unit occurs in slightly concave depressions. Data Review and Evaluation: The Statz and Stukel components in the 1999 publication Soil Survey of Upper Deschutes River Area, Oregon are both given AWC values of "about 2 inches". The typical profile for Statz in this publication is 20 inches to duripan and has 5 percent rock fragments throughout. The typical profile for Stukel is 18 inches to bedrock and has 5 percent rock fragments in the surface horizon and 20% rock fragments in the subsurface horizons. Current WSS data shows the Statz component to have an estimated AWC of 2.5 inches based on the typical soil profile with a depth of 19 inches to duripan and 13 percent rock fragments throughout. The Stukel component has and estimated AWC of 2.2 inches based on a soil depth of 18 inches deep with 5 percent rock fragments in the surface horizon and 20% rock fragments in the subsurface horizons. Ryan L. Miebach, CPSS/CPSC 16056 SW Orchard View Ln Damascus, Oregon 97089 Exhibit l Page 7 of 46 T14S, R12E, Section 34, Tax Lot 002.00 Deschutes County, Oregon Considering that these soil components had only slightly more than 2 inches of AWC it is reasonable that soils having less volume capacity due to soil depth and/or rock fragment content would have AWC of less than 2 inches. Conclusion: The purpose for this study was to conduct a soil inventory of the proposed building envelope in order to determine the amount of lands generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops and livestock or merchantable tree species per Deschutes County Code (DCC)18.16.050(G) - Standards for Dwellings in the EFU Zones — Nonfarm dwelling. Soil mapping units 1 and 2 are composed of soils with LCC ratings of 7. Map unit 1 also includes areas of Rock Outcrop with LCC of 8. These map units with LCC of 7 and 8 make up 85% of the area of the proposed building envelope. In my professional opinion, the majority of the proposed building envelope is composed of soils generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops, livestock, or merchantable tree species. Sincerely, Ryan L. Miebach, CPSS/CPSC 16056 SW Orchard View Ln Damascus, Oregon 97089 Ryan L. Miebach, CPSS/CPSC 16056 SW Orchard View Ln Damascus, Oregon. 97089 Exhibit I Page 8 of 46 Omlid Building Envelope Soil Map 1:3,000 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 ft '1 N N, Exhibit 1 Page 9 of 46 amlid Building Envelope Soil Map And Soil Site/Pedon Locations 00 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 ft A 1.3,0 NI Exhibit 1 Page 10 of 46 t § - ■�Jƒ� 22J ) k ■t 2 � 2 .§ a+ r O C E N Vi V Vi cl t C Q .Q N W � C,7 A �4 min v n c x ti t� E 14 C- y i6 E ', C to Qa '. A taq� fta 'e6 . 0 } Vey a tf�1 .-7 fn, rtf N Q ai w y G v1 ty " ;? :fid N LW7 0 V � .Oy C � to M Y Re %-n Q 10 a x s i a ; pp Ln W rq Ch +' 0' to ` r Ix Cow ? va � Ln QC M. in rl Ln 'h � M � P• � < Jnr �` � �, s '. ar f.`6 l C. 1 v r9. oo z s�, •'CyaC�•Y ,�' �""�:A ��`� ��� Vit# '� fie, Y@ ail � p / t, !4 ChCA N� � Lq Ln J+ ajy4 � s � t 5 D C 0 2 •+ Y3 f w G; tt]7 p Q H �d�n.a'O.Yavas r� � 9 �[a i4zMA tt w p 6g� a 4 ° CI n di C E U9 W C T t4 Ln t7 N Z 'a" N 2 N dE a % W N wH Z = V9 < M � $ +■m �kKk\k2 ■/ � k 2 i & k £ � r� 2 z Www ro Q '��° An I t zo Q f L& ® w m a 1� ion ui 11 O G x 49 . G G sa � N W & uj A LA. 40 9 cc 0 O O C °az° t U w C fa a R 0 N tl C LL Q M 9 C 41 F1 G � 41U49 t OAC C °az° t ic d p Q 0 C 6 C4 *• u .o � ° � c4'i nub a�»c•�°o� 0 f `W Ln LU W $ �Y ly I ro c' D i9 c LU w 12 Fy USDA, United States Department of Agriculture RCS Natural Resources Conservation Service A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Upper Deschutes River Area, Oregon, Parts of Deschutes, Jefferson, and Klamath Counties Omlid Building Envelope EF,�bWry 8, 2018 Page 27 of 46 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nres.usda.gov/+cps/ portal/nres/main/soils/healtho and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https:/Ioffices.sc.egov,usda,gov/locator/app?agency=nres) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http:/Avww.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/Soils/Contactus/? cid=n res 142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 Exhibit 'I Page 28 of 46 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Exhibit 1 Page 29 of 46 Contents Preface.................................................................................................................... 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 SoilMap.................................................................................................................. 8 Soil Map (Omlid Building Envelope)..................................................................... 9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend (Omlid Building Envelope)......................................................12 Map Unit Descriptions (Omlid Building Envelope)..............................................12 Upper Deschutes River Area, Oregon, Parts of Deschutes, Jefferson, and Klamath Counties..............................................................................14 128C—Statz-Deschutes complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes ..........................14 References.............................................................................................................16 4 Exhibit I Page 30 of 46 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil -vegetation -landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil Exhibit 1 Page 31 of 46 Custom Soil Resource Report scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil -landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil -landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field -observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, ano some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and 6 Exhibit 1 Page 32 of 46 Custom Soil Resource Report identified each as a specific map unit, Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. Exhibit I Page 33 of 46 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 Exhibit 1 Page 34 of 46 _ a_ o9wp ,_ _ a_ Wit, m CL ƒk a3 k� )� d� E c k/ o? m mz,Tzt § / § � �A $ § » % \� k � f k �§ § i _ \ k � $ A f � ` $ $ � � $ �§ y� ( »ua \ ! N w V t � m _ T C Z N v y C 9 N = a to cnu"i 0 �� d to c y� A 74 F m V1 C Qcm y 40 d W J 4. y E 01 d C C C 4fW 2B v D 1 O `O CL D D 1 CU v$ OOOJ CL i .yV S $ O c a s A p� h_; o a o co CL CL 49 Q ui a CD 00'D in o �Ug E N N W N MD EW E W N v� w — rn N o m L 'o toE Z 15 > o cII'c 32d E o m W E rS ~ N u v�mi°yEN Of E dclt E °' (n to dvE C GjCD m N w V t � m _ T C Z N v y C 9 N = a to cnu"i 0 �� d to c y� A 74 F m V1 C Qcm y 40 d W J 4. y E 01 d C C C 4fW 2B v D 1 O `O CL D D 1 CU v$ OOOJ CL i .yV S $ O c a s A p� h_; o a o co CL CL 49 Q ui a in o ti W W u E °' (n to dvE C GjCD d F @ 4 N @ U o to - W to y y Q r ofsm 21 Q IX E ti O � $r °: , 0— a m a a La -6A O O ED .Lr '§10 O Z� v W oa E c4 w t5 d _ a J N 13 O o �_ i -0, O L — N .. N � O u� H m G, 4 m d a W IX � _ a E Q c� = O' Q! W � d w N o W m C.N.. }' uWy1 w 3, V i sW. W OL to W d W to m E 3° ami E g �Ni�.@ d E W U Qi N� %. 7 O G1 y N C EN'E O d d W131 Nom` L `!�t ay 7 A N� WZ. O E .Nr i W �a @ gS W ymm CQ] to Q. E N U d'i7 N w V t � m _ T C Z N v y C 9 N = a to cnu"i 0 �� d to c y� A 74 F m V1 C Qcm y 40 d W J 4. y E 01 d C C C 4fW 2B v D 1 O `O CL D D 1 CU v$ OOOJ CL i .yV S $ O c a s A p� h_; o a o co CL CL 49 Q ui a Z W a W d Q r t" o ..c � co 0. Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Legend (Omlid Building 7� Envelope) D04�101 - dd* LAO, Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in A01 Percent of A01 1280 Statz-Deschutes complex, 0 to 16,7 100.0% 15 percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest 16.7: 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions (Omlid Building Envelope) The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The 12 Exhibit I Page 38 of 46 Custom Soil Resource Report delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha -Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha -Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. 13 Exhibit l Page 39 of 46 Custom Soil Resource Report Upper Deschutes River Area, Oregon, Parts of Deschutes, Jefferson, and Klamath Counties 128C—Statz-Deschutes complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 240f Elevation: 2,500 to 4,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 12 inches Mean annual air temperature: 47 to 50 degrees F Frost -free period. 70 to 90 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Statz and similar soils: 45 percent Deschutes and similar soils. 40 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Statz Setting Landform: Lava plains Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): interfluve Down-slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear ,Parent material. Volcanic ash over basalt Typical profile H1- 0 to 14 inches: sandy loam H2 - 14 to 19 inches: sandy loam H3 - 19 to 25 inches. cemented material H4 - 25 to 35 inches: unweathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 10 to 20 inches to duripan; 20 to 40 inches to lithic bedrock Natural drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding. None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 5 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 2.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group. D Ecological site: JUNIPER SHRUBBY LAVA BLISTERS 10-12 PZ (R010XA0230R) 14 Exhibit I Page 40 of 46 Custom Soil Resource Report Hydric soil rating., No Description of Deschutes Setting Landform: Lava plains Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): interfiuve Down-slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Volcanic ash over basalt Typical profile H9 - 0 to 7 inches: sandy loam H2 - 7 to 17 inches: sandy loam H3 - 17 to 31 inches: sandy loam H4 - 31 to 41 inches: unweathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to lithic bedrock Natural drainage class. Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 5 percent Available water storage in prot!le: Low (about 3.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: JUNIPER SHRUBBY PUMICE FLAT 10-12 PZ (R010XA0090R) Hydric soil rating: No 15 Exhibit I Page 41 of 46 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRue. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep -water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/ n res/detail/national/soils/?cid=nresl 42p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff, 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nres. usda.govlwps/portal/arcs/detail/national/soits/?cid=nres142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, http:// www.nres. usda.gov/wpslporta I/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres l42p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. f=ish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory, 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/ home/?cid=n res 142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/ detail/national/landuse/ra ngepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 16 Exhibit 1 Page 42 of 46 Custom Soil Resource Report United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 43041. htip://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nres/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nres 142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/? cid=nres142p2 053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nres.usda.gov/lnterneVFSE—DOCUMENTS/nrcsl42p2_052290.pdf 17 Exhibit 1 Page 43 of 46 144 • The included areas of Rock outcrop limit the areas suitable for crops and restrict farming operations. Range Site Lava Blisters 10-12pz 1280- Stat; -Deschutes complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes Composition Statz soil and similar inclusions -45 percent Deschutes soil and similar inclusions -40 percent Contrasting inclusions -15 percent Setting Landform: Lava plains Parent material. Ash Elevation: 2,500 to 4,000 feet Native plants: Statz soil—western juniper, mountain big sagebrush, antelope bitterbrush, bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue; Deschutes soil— western juniper, mountain big sagebrush, antelope bitterbrush, Idaho fescue, needleandthread Climatic tactors: Mean annual precipitation -10 to 12 inches Mean annual air temperature -47 to 50 degrees F Frost -free period -70 to 90 days Typical Profile of the Statz Soil 0 to 14 inches—grayish brown sandy loam 14 to 20 inches—brown sandy loam 20 to 25 inches—indurated duripan 25 inches --basalt Properties and Qualities of the Statz Soil Depth: Duripan at a depth of 10 to 20 inches; bedrock at a depth of 20 to 40 inches Drainage class: Well drained Permeability: Moderately slow Available: water Capacity; About inches Typical Profile of the Deschutes Soil 0 to 17 inches—grayish brown sandy loam 17 to 31 inches—light grayish brown sandy loam 31 inches—basalt Properties and Qualities of the Deschutes Soil Depth: Bedrock at a depth of 20 to 40 inches Drainage class: Well drained Permeability: Moderately rapid Available water capacity: About 4 inches Contrasting Inclusions • Redmond soils in swales • Stukel soils on ridges Major use Livestock grazing Soil Survey Major Management Limitations Statz and Deschutes soils—surface texture, soil depth Deschutes soil—permeability General Management Considerations • Care should be taken to protect the soils from wind erosion when applying range improvement practices, • Because the soils are influenced by pumice ash, reestablishment of the native vegetation is very slow if the vegetation is removed or deteriorated. Pond development is limited by the soil depth, the risk of seepage in the Deschutes soil, and the steepness of slope in some areas. • The restricted depth of the Statz soil limits the choice of species for range seeding to drought -tolerant varieties. Range Site Statz soil—Lava Blisters 10-12pz Deschutes soil—Pumice Flat 10-12pz 128D—Statz-Deschutes complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes Composition Statz soil and similar inclusions -45 percent Deschutes soliand similar inclusions --40 percent Contrasting inclusions -15 percent Setting Landform: Lava plains Parent material: Ash Elevation: 2,500 to 4,000 feet Native plants. Statz soil—western juniper, mountain big sagebrush, bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, Sandberg bluegrass; Deschutes soil—western juniper, antelope bitterbrush, mountain big sagebrush, Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass Climatic factors: Mean annual precipitation -10 to 12 inches Mean annual air temperature -47 to 50 degrees F Frost -free period -70 to 90 days Typical Profile of the Statz Soil 0 to 14 inches --grayish brown sandy loam Exhibit 1 Page 44 of 46 62 General Management Considerations Irrigated cropland • Because the Stukel soil is shallow, intensive irrigation water management is needed for crop production. • Well-managed irrigation systems are needed for deep-rooted crops such as alfalfa. • Because the surface layer is sandy loam, these soils are subject to wind erosion if left unprotected. • The included areas of Rock outcrop limit the areas suitable for crops and restrict farming operations. • Because of the steepness of slope and undulating topography, sprinkler irrigation systems are best suited to this unit. Livestock grazing • Care should be taken to protect the soils from wind erosion when applying range improvement practices. Because the soils are influenced by pumice ash, reestablishment of the native vegetation is very slow if the vegetation is removed or deteriorated. Pond development is limited by the soil depth, the risk of seepage, and the steepness of slope in some areas. Shallow rooting depth of the Stukel soil limits the choice of species for range seeding to drought -tolerant varieties. The included areas of Rock outcrop limit the areas suitable for grazing and restrict accessibility by livestock. Range Site Deschutes soil—Pumice Flat 10-12pz Stukel soil—Lava Blisters 10-12pz 358--Deschutes-Stukel complex, dry, 0 to 8 percent slopes Composition Deschutes so# and similar inclusions -50 percent Stukel soil and similar inclusions -35 percent Contrasting inclusions -15 percent Setting Landform: Lava plains Parent material: Ash Elevation: 2,500 to 4,000 feet Native plants: Deschutes soil—western juniper, mountain big sagebrush, needleandthread, Idaho fescue, western needlegrass; Stukel soil—western juniper, mountain big sagebrush, bluebunch Soil Survey wheatgrass, Thurber needlegrass, Sandberg bluegrass Climatic factors: Mean annual precipitation -8 to 10 inches Mean annual air temperature -49 to 52 degrees F Frost -free period -80 to 100 days Typical Profile of the Deschutes Soil 4 to 17inches---grayishbrown sandy loam 17 to 31 inches—dight grayish brown sandy loam 31 inches—basalt Properties and Qualities of the Deschutes Soil Depth: Bedrock at a depth of 20 to 40 inches Drainage class. -Well drained Permeability: Moderately rapid Available water capacity: About 4 inches Typical Profile of the Stukel Soil 0 to 4 inches grayish brown sandy loam 4 to 11 inches—brown cobbly sandy loam 11 to 18 inches—pale brown gravelly sandy loam 18 inches --basalt Properties and Qualities of the Stukel Soil Depth: Bedrock at a depth of 10 to 20 inches Drainage class: Well drained Permeability: Moderately rapid Available wafer capacity. -About 2.inches Contrasting Inclusions . Redmond soils in swales • Soils that have a loamy sand surface layer • Rock outcrop Ma/or Uses Irrigated cropland, livestock grazing Ma/or Management Limitations Soil depth, surface texture, slope, permeability, climate General Management Considerations Irrigated cropland • Because the Stukel soil is shallow, intensive irrigation water management is needed for crop production. • Well-managed irrigation systems are needed for deep-rooted crops such as alfalfa. • Because the surface layer is sandy loam, these soils are subject to wind erosion if left unprotected. • The included areas of Rock outcrop limit the areas suitable for crops and restrict farming operations. Exhibit 1 Page 45 of 46 Upper Deschutes River Area, Oregon • Because of the steepness of slope and undulating topography, sprinkler irrigation systems are best suited to this unit. Livestock grazing • Care should be taken to protect the soils from wind erosion when applying range improvement practices. • Because the soils are influenced by pumice ash, reestablishment of the native vegetation is very slow if the vegetation is removed or deteriorated. • Pond development is limited by the soil depth and risk of seepage. • The low annual precipitation and restricted depth of the Stukel soil limit productivity and limit the choice of species for range seeding to drought -tolerant varieties. • The included areas of Rock outcrop limit the areas suitable for grazing and restrict accessibility by livestock, Range Site Deschutes soil—Pumice Flat 8-10pz Stukel soil—Lava Blisters 8-10pz 36A—Deskamp loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes Composition Deskamp soil and similarinclusions-85 percent Contrasting inclusions -1 5 percent Setting Landform: Lava plains Parent material. Ash Elevation: 3,000 to 4,000 feet Native plants: Western juniper, mountain big sagebrush, antelope bitterbrush, Idaho fescue, needleandthread Climatic factors: Mean annual precipitation -10 to 12 inches Mean annual air temperature -47 to 50 degrees F Frost -free period -70 to 90 days Typical Profile © to 17 inches—brown loamy sand 17 to 32 inches—pale brown gravelly loamy sand 32 inches—basalt Soil Properties and Qualities Depth: Bedrock at a depth of 20 to 40 inches Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Permeability: Rapid Available water capacity: About 3 inches L1 Contrasting Inclusions • Clovkamp soils in swales • Gosney soils on ridges • Rock outcrop Major Uses Irrigated cropland, livestock grazing Major Management Limitations Soil depth, surface texture, permeability General Management Considerations Irrigated cropland • Well-managed irrigation systems are needed for deep-rooted crops such as alfalfa. • Because the surface layer is loamy sand, this soil is subject to wind erosion if left unprotected. • Because of the surface texture, the water infiltration rate is high, which restricts the type of irrigation system that can be used. • Applied fertilizers and chemicals may be leached and ground water may be contaminated because of the rapid permeability of the soil. • The included areas of Rock outcrop limit the areas suitable for crops and restrict farming operations. Livestock grazing • Care should be taken to protect the soil from wind erosion when applying range improvement practices. • Because the soil is influenced by pumice ash, reestablishment of the native vegetation is very slow if the vegetation is removed or deteriorated. • Pond development is limited by the soil depth and risk of seepage. • The included areas of Rock outcrop limit the areas suitable for grazing and restrict accessibility by livestock. Range Site Pumice Flat 10-12pz 36B--Deskamp loamy sand, 3 to 8 percent slopes Composition Deskamp soil and similar inclusions -85 percent Contrasting inclusions -15 percent Setting Landform: Lava plains Parent material. • Ash Elevation: 3,000 to 4,000 feet Exhibit 1 Page 46 of 46 6/27/2018 TSSH Part 6291 NRCS Soils USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service About Us I Soil Survey Releases I National Centers I State Websites Soils United States Department of Agriculture Browse By Audience I A-2 Index I Help You are Here: Home / Technical References / TSSH Part 629 Stan Connected TSSH Part 629 Onsite Soil Investigations Background (629.00) The National Soil Survey Handbook, Part 655.01(c), provides the following description: Site-specific soil investigations, testing, interpretation, and evaluations are services that support the design and installation of works and structures or the implementation of agricultural practices, or that test and evaluate research predictions. These technical soil services are part ofN&C technical assistance to individual cooperators or units of government that have signed agreements specifying the services. The intention of services to individual cooperators is usually to help apply a conservation plan. These are described in general terms in district agreements with,IV, 1,; . These services are very site specific and often result in design and practice specifications. Onsite investigations are not intended to provide information for program eligibility (see site-specific evaluation, 1(,,,F$AK 512.03). When site-specific investigations are appropriate (629.01) NKQS technical soil services for site-specific investigations are done: on agricultural lands for IJ_$.I?A program purposes when requested by.V,5_QJ+ program participants; or through Federal, State, or local forms of government where there is a memorandum of understanding or a cooperative agreement that lists the services to be provided. For more information, see the National Soil Survey Handbook, Part 655. GM -430 - Title 430 - Soil Survey 402,6 Limitations on Use and Distribution of Soil Survey Information A. Soil surveys seldom contain detailed site-specific information and are not designed for use as primary regulatory tools in site-specific permitting decisions, but are useful for broad regulatory planning and application. Official Soil Survey Information is public information and may be interpreted by organizations, agencies, units of government, or others based on their own needs; however, users are responsible for the appropriate application of soil survey information. �('S will not accept reassignment of authority for decisions made by other Federal, State, or local regulatory bodies. NRCS will not make changes to Oficial Soil Survey Information, or of any supplemental soil mapping, for purposes related solely to State or local regulatory programs. The General Manual, Title 430, Section 402.5F states Supplemental mapping provides more detailed soil maps and information for areas of limited extent as a result of more intensive onsite investigations. It is considered a separate soil map developed for specific needs and is maintained for improved documentation of the reliability of the delineations and attribute data of the Official Soil Survey Information. More detailed supplemental soil maps are not considered changes to the Official Soil Survey Information. Supplemental mapping should only be done to support official,lJl, activities, including the implementation of Farm Bill programs and/or Conservation Technical Assistance. It should not be done simply because a cooperator (who has a conservation plan) has a personal need, such as hoping for a better soil potential rating for purposes of selling property. How site-specific investigations are done (629.02) Generally, soil survey information is not adequate for site-specific investigations, and point sampling must be done to collect data for a specific use at a specific location. For example, for a manure storage facility, information on depth to the water table and restrictive layers is very important at the location of the proposed facility. Therefore, soil descriptions and interpretations are needed only at the location of the proposed facility. It is important to understand what data are needed to make the appropriate interpretations for the proposed use before conducting site-specific investigations. This knowledge can facilitate sampling design and ensure that the Exhibit 2 https://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/ref/?cid=nresi42p2_053393 Page 1 Of 2 1/2 6/27/2018 TSSH Part 6291 NRCS Soils appropriate data are collected. For information on the characteristics that are important for a conservation practice, refer to the conservation practice standards in the Field Office Technical Guide. When assisting other units of government with site-specific soils information, consult with the agency to see whether guidelines and criteria are in place. Make any recommendations regarding the soil characteristics that may be important for interpretation for the proposed use if there are no guidelines or criteria or if they are incomplete. Order 1 soil surveys and site-specific data collected are supplements to the official soil survey, but they do not replace or change the "official" soil survey. In many cases, mapping at an order 1 level or collecting point data may reveal inclusions within map units of soils that were not named in the official soil survey as well as use - dependent soil properties that are different from the typical soil properties listed for map units in the "official" soil survey. Any change to the official and published soil survey can be made only when the survey area is designated as being an MLRA soil survey update (.N.0 J Part 610). The resource soil scientist provides documented evidence of the soil characteristics, including pedon descriptions and any transect notes (geospatiaily located), to the MLBA Project Office Leader. If the onsite investigation is conducted in a non-NL&A, project area (e.g., for conservation planning), the findings are also provided to the State Soil Scientist and can then be used to document the need for a future soil survey update. The field determination of HU orpHE( is provided to the DC and SC. It is important that any data collected during site-specific investigations be properly captured for multiple and future uses through Pedon PC and uploaded into.NA$X.$ where appropriate. Copies of reports should go to the State Soil Scientist. Exhibit 2 https://vvww.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nresJdetail/soils/ref/?cid=nres142p2_053393 Page 2 of 2 2/2 From: Deboodt, Tim To: Shannon McCabe Subject: RE: Dry Land Forage and Crop Production Date: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 8:48:43 AM Attachments: Deboodt 02262018 CV.docx Shannon, Good morning. As a follow up to our conversation yesterday, an AUM (Animal Unit Month) is the amount of forage required to feed 1 AU (Animal Unit) for 1 month. We define 1 AU as a beef cow with or without calf at side. Adjustments for other classes of livestock are made accordingly. As an example, horses are 1.25 AU, and sheep are .2 AU. Carrying capacity is a measurement of the productivity of a site in its ability to produce forage for livestock or wildlife. Carrying capacity of the land here in central Oregon is highly dependent on whether or not irrigation is available. Dryland carrying capacities in central Oregon range from 3 acres per AUM to 40 acres per AUM. A good average to use is 20 acres per AUM. Therefore, for a 40 acre parcel, you have 2 AUM's available (40 acre/20 Acres per AUM). Once those 2 AUM's are grazed during the year, they are not available again for the rest of the year. Using this example, you would need to have 120 acres of dryland pasture to graze one cow for six months (6 months x 20 ac/AUM). If this one cow raised a calf and the owner sold that calf in today's livestock market, the gross sales receipt would be approximately $1000 (500 Ib calf x $2.00/Ib). Before expenses are subtracted that would yield the landowner a rate of return of $8.33/ac. As to the question of what else the landowner could produce (agricultural crop) on this dry 39.02 ac parcel, the answer is realistically nothing if they don't have access to irrigation water rights. In central Oregon, we are limited with the annual precipitation we receive. On average, central Oregon receives 9 — 15 inches of precipitation per year. Approximately 70 percent of that comes in the form of winter snow and rain. It does not come during the growing season. Only 2 — 4 inches of precipitation occurs during the growing season. That is why we here in central Oregon enjoy an extensive system of water storage (dams) and delivery systems (canals) to deliver water during the summer months to agricultural producers. In conversations with the Oregon Department of Water Resources (regulates and issues water rights in the State of Oregon) and most of the irrigation districts in central Oregon, there are no new water rights being issued. If you don't currently have a water right to irrigate, you're probably not going to get a water right irrigate. Here are some crops and their average water requirements in central Oregon. Wheat and other cereal crops 18 inches Irrigated pasture 30 inches Alfalfa hay 28 - 32 inches Potatoes 28— 36 inches Our next limiting factor to crop production in central Oregon is the weather. Growing conditions in central Oregon are difficult. We can have a killing frost any night of the summer. Crop selection in central Oregon is limited to crops that are least sensitive to these sporadic yet frequent temperature Exhibit 3 Pa -0e 1 of 8 swings. Soils and soil condition would be next. The old adage that without soil, it would be difficult to grow anything is still true. While hydroponic crop production is viable (crops grown without soil in a water solvent), without a high capital investment in infrastructure (a greenhouse) and water rights, it is not realistic on any large scale here. Class 6 soils (rocky) with irrigation will grow pasture grasses for livestock grazing. Whether the economics makes sense depends on each specific instance and the landowners financial condition. Soil pH (extreme high or low) and the amount of salts present are controlling factors to the success of particular crops and agriculture production. As a matter of credentials, 1 have worked for Oregon State University Extension Service here in central Oregon for 31 years. I hold a PhD in semi -arid rangeland hydrology from OSU and a Master of Science in Range Management from the University of Wyoming. My job with OSU Extension Service is to provide educational and technical expertise to agricultural producers, public land managers and the general public in the areas of ag production, rangeland management, and the utilization and management of natural resources. Attached is a highlighted CV for your use. 1 hope this information is useful. If you have any additional questions or need me to clarify something, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you! Tim Tim Deboodt, PhD County Leader and Central Oregon Range/Natural Resources Extension Agent tim debnodtiaorPgonttate edu OSU Crook County Extension Service 498 SE Lynn Blvd. Prineville, Oregon 97754 Phone 541-447-6228 / Fax 541-416-2115 htt ;llexte s�,o, n or�ggn tate edu/crook AM State UNIVERSITY Extension Service Exhibit 3 Page 2 of 8 TIMOTHY LEE DEBOODT 10681 NW Dchler Rd. Prineville. OR 9775.1 (5d 1) 4474482 Tdbooti8 rigmail.com EDUCATION 2002-2008 Doctor of Philosophy, Department of Rangeland Ecology and Management. Oregon State University. Corvallis, Oregon. Dissertation title: Watershed Response to Western Juniper Control. 1981-198.1 Masters of Science, Department of Range Management, University of Wyoming, Lan, mic, 1978-1981 Bachelor of Science, Rangeland Resources, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 1993 -Present Associate Professor, Oregon State University Extension Sen -ice, Crook County. Oregon. Responsible for the development, implementation and evaluation of educational programs in the areas of range and natural resource management, and livestock production. Duties also include the administration of budgets and personnel as it relates to the dclivcn• of a total Extension program in Crook County and central Oregon. 1987-1993 Assistant Professor, Oregon State University Extension Scrvicc, Crook County. Oregon. Job Qie areas of range and natural resource management. livestock production and community resource development. 1983-1987 Associate University Extension Agent, Wyoming Cooperative Extension Sen -ice, Teton County, Wyoming. Provided assistance in the coordination of the total Cooperative Extension program in Teton County including program budget development, administration and county staff supervision. Direct responsibilities included educational programs in the areas of agriculture and natural resources, 4H/Youth and community resource development. 1981-1983 Graduate Research Assistant. Department of Range Management. Uauversity of Wyoming, of survey crew and analysis of data collected. Coach, 1983 UW nunge exam team, Society (br Range Management - National Winner. PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES • Society for Range Management. (1979 -Present), member. Pacific Nortimcst Section. Society for Range Management. (1987-Prescnt), member. (2016) President. (2014) 151 Vice President. (1998), PNW Annual Meeting Organizational Committee, Tour Chair and meeting Treasurer. (1996-1999) Board of Directors. (1993-96, 99), Section Treasurer. (1990), Information and Education Committee. (1989), Central Orcgon CI><aptcr vice-president. (1997 -present), chapter treasurer. • Oregon Agricultural Extension Association. (1987 -Present), member. (20004)1), President 1999. I" Vice President. (1989-1988), Board of Directors. • National Association of County Agricultural Agents. (1983 -Present), member. (1989-1986), Regional vice -chair, 4H and Youth Committee. (1988), Nominating Committee. • Oregon State University Extension Association. (1987 -Present). member. (2000) OAEA Board Representative. (1991), Profession Development Committee. Exhibit 3 Pale 3 of 8 Oregon Cattlemen's Association. (1987 -Present), associate member. (1996), Fall Qaanerly Planning Committee. (1995-1991). Land Resources Committee. (1989-1988), Animal Hcalth Committee. Wyoming Section. Society for Range Management. (1987-1983), member. Wyoming Association of County Agricultural Agcnts. (1987-1983), member. SERVICE TO THE COUNTY, DEPARTMENT and UNIVERSITV • Western Juniper Alliance 2014- present • Oregon Solutions — Governor's Juniper Workgroup — Tccluiical Committee 2012-1.1 • Oregon Solutions — GOyernors Group on Contnterciali-f ition of Juniper 2011-14 • WERA 101 l Sustaiii,ible Rangeland & Watershed Stewardship OSU ReprescntatiN-e 2009-13 • Crook County Forestland Reclassification Committee — Clmir 2012-17 • OWEB Regional Review Board 1999 -Present • Crook County Wolf Committee — Ex -Officio 2012-16 • Ochoco/Deschutes National Forest Resource Advisors Council for the Secure Rural Schools Act 2001-2016 • Co -Chair, Range and Watershed Work Group, OSU College of Ag Sciences. 1998-2011 • Crook County High School Ag. Advisors Committee 1987 — present • Crook County High School Natural Resource Advisory Committee Chair 2012 -present • Crook County Fire and Rescue Scn7icc District Budget Committee 201.1 - present ® Crook County OWEB Small Grant Review Tcam 2011 -present • Ochoco National Forest Collaborative 2011 • Wolf Creek Forest Collaborative 2012 • Co-CI>s�ir. Central OrengoJuniper Working Group 1996-2011 • Co -Chair COCC Contnnutit}- Coordim�tor hiring committee 2011 • Co -Chair Crook County Open Campus Office Manger hiring committee 2011 • Co -Chair Crook County Open Campus Computer Lab Manager/Instnictor comiuittce 2011 • Co -Chair Crook County Open Campus/Crook Count•/COCC MOU Agrcement committee 2011 • West Butte Wind Farm Technical Advisors Committee 2009-2012 • Lost Horse Allotment Forage Bank Review Committee 2005 -present • Oregon Department of Forestn. Rides Advisory Review Committee, Class 11 Forest Lands 2009 • Crook County Planning Commission HB3326 review committee 2001-2010 • Ex -officio, Crook County Soil and Water Conscrsation District 1987-prescnt • Ex -officio, Crooked River Watershed Council 1997 -present ® Ex -officio, Central Oregon FSA County Committee 1987 -present • Crook County Natural Resource Adyison- Committee, Founding Member 2008-201.1 • Crooked River Watershed Council. Technical Committee 1997 -present • Crooked River Watershed Weed Management Arca, Board of Directors 2001-2010 • Central Oregon Noxious Weed Committee 1991 -present • Crook County SWCD Local Work Group 1987-prescnt • Central Oregon Wool Pool 1987-2010 • Crook County Grazing Board 1987 -present • Crook County Animal Disposal Committee 2008-2009 • Oregon Department of Agriculture and Department of Forestn-, Rules Advisors Committee - Stewardship Contracts 2005 - 2007 • Committee to propose "Joint Public Lands Grazing Permit' with Ochoco National Forest and Prineville District, BLM 2001 • Congressional Ad Hoc Committee Member, Merger of Ochoco and Deschutes National Forests 2001 • Oregon Dcpanment of Forestry. Juniper RcywicConunittcc 1999-2000 • Powell Butte Rezoning - County Technical Sub -committee 1998-1999 • Central Region FFA Sales Contest, Judge 1999 Exhibit 3 Page 4 of 8 COMMUNITY SERVICE • Economic Development of Central Oregoik Crook County Committee Member 2011 -present • Crook County H igher Education Advisory Council 2011 -present • Crook/Whecler County Farm Bureau, Vice President 2012 -present • Crook County Stock Growers 1987 - present • Jere Breese Kick'in Cancer Fund Raising Event. Treasurer 2012 -present • Crook County FFA Alumni (Landlab Chair) 2004 — present • National FFA Convention. Louisville, KY. Local Chapter Chaperone 2000-2006 • Crook County 4H Building Committee 2003-2007 • Crook County 4H/FFA Livestock Sale Committee 1987 — present • Crook County Vocational Science Advison, Committee 1987 — present • St. Joseph's Catholic Church member • Chaperone, Numerous Crook County FFA Judging Contests • Crook County/Prineville Chamber of Commerce, member Crook County FFA Alumni. • School District Land Lab Operation Committee Chair • Ochoco Federal Credit Union. Chair 1994 - 1996 AWARDS AND HONORS 2017 OSU Extension Oscar Hagg Commuiucation Award 2015 Crook County Stockgrowers' Stockgrower of the Year 2013 Societe for Range Management, Outstanding Achievement in Research/Academia 2012 Trail Boss Award, PWN Section, Societe for Range Management 2012 Partner of the Year, Partnership to End Poverl-v° 2012 Outstanding Conunuiuty Partner, Prineville/Crook County Chamber of Commerce 2010 Excellence in Extension Education, OSU College of Agriculture 2009 OSUEA Team Award. OFNP Program of Central Oregon 2007 OSU Extension Experienced Faculty Award 2007 OSU Rangeland Ecology and Management Department, Outstanding Doctoral Student 2006 Distinguished Scmice Award, NACAA and OAEA 2006 Dillard and Anastasia Gates Rangeland Doctoral Scholarship 2005 Cooperator of the Year Award. Oregon Vocational Ag. Educators 2005 Communication Award. National Finalist, NACAA 2004 Certificate of Appreciation. Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests 2004 Honor Society of Agriculture. Gamma Sigma Delta 2003 Certificate of Sen icc, USDA — 20 years 2003 Honorary State Farmer Degree, Oregon FFA 1994 Friend of the District. Prineville District, Ochoco National Forest, USDA 1994 Albcrta B. Jolutson Extension Educator Award 1988 National Association Count} Agricultural Agents, Certificate of Aclucycment 1986 Socict}- For Range Management. Wyonung Section. Award of Merit 1979 Future Farmers of America. American Farmer Degree 1978 Future Famiers of America. Nebraska State Agribusiness Degree GRANTS Sbatella, G. and T. Dcboodt (2013-14) Use of Herbicides for Juniper Control. Oregon Beef Council. $9.000. Exhibit 3 Page 5 of 8 Parsons, C. and T. Deboodt (2011-1.4) Western Juniper Induced Parturition in Beef Cattle. Oregon Beef Council. $14.500. Deboodt. T. (2012-13) Juniper Han•est and Biomass Study. Crook Counts' Title 111. $50.000. Joluson. D., A.M. Chamberlain, T. Deboodt and P. Schreder. (2012-13) Monitoring Public and Private Gracing Lands in Central and Southeast Oregon. Renewable Resources Extension Act. OSU. $10,000. Deboodt, T., T. Hogue and Crook County (2010-13) Broadband Technology Opportunity Program. US Department of Commerce, ARRA. $3,908.X 4. Fitzgerald, S., T. Deboodt and E. Dodson. (20 10) A Guide 11or Estimating Biomass of Western Juniper. Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-determination Act of 2000: Title 1I, USDA -FS. $16,595. Deboodt. T. and L. Stahancyk. (2009) Conant Basin Fuels Reduction Project. BLM Urban Wildland Interface. $80,000. Wy'East RC & D and T. Deboodt. (2008). Blackstone Sage Grouse Habitat Enhancement. U.S. Fish and Wildlife and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. $73,072.00 Crooked River Watershed Council and T. Deboodt. (2007). Prineville Reservoir Southern Watersheds Restoration Project. OWEB. $.330,000. Central Oregon Intcrgovenunental Council and T. Deboodt. (2006). The Western Juniper Commercialization Feasibility Study for the Prineville Area. Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board. $1.4966. McSivain Michelle and T. Deboodt. (200.4). Camp Creek Paired Watershed Juniper Control/Water Quantity Monitoring Project. Bureau of Land Management Science Grant. $36,000.00. Deboodt, T. (2004). Camp Creek Paired Watershed Juniper Control/Water Quantity Monitoring Project. Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board. $36,800.00. Deboodt, T. (2003). Camp Creek Paired Watershed Juniper Control/Water/Quantity Monitoring Project. Secure Rural Schools and Community Soli -Determination Act of 2000: Title II, USDA -FS. $42.000.00. SELECTED PUBLICATIONS Ochoa, C.G., P.Cannso, G. Ray. T. Deboodt, W.T. Janis and S.1.Guldan. 2018. Ecohydrologic connections in semiarid watershed systems of central Oregon, USA. Water, 10, 181: doi:10.339WAN?] 0020181, 19 pgs . Ochoa, C.G., and T. Deboodt. 2018. Hydrologic connections in western juniper woodlands, Fcbnran, 2018 Oregon Cattlemen. Pgs 4.4 --48. Ochoa. C.G.. T, Deboodt, P. Cannso, and G. Ray. Vegetation, soil, and groundwater interactions in wcstern- .juniper dominated landscapes. 2016. In Proceedings 10'r' International Rangeland Congress. Alan livaasa, H.A. (Bart) Lardncr. Walter Willms, Mike Schellcnbcrg and Kathy Larson Eds. 789-790, Ochoa, C.G., S. Guldan, V. Tidwell. and T. Deboodt. 2016. Ecohydrological and sociocconnomic relationships in disturbed woodland ecosystems of the western U.S. 2016. American Geophysical Union Fall. Abstract H23G-1654. December 12-16, San Francisco, CA. Exhibit 3 Page 6 of 8 Ochoa, C.G., T. Dcboodt, and G. Ray. 2016. Soil moisture and groundwater dynamics in westena jumper woodlands. Societe fbr Range Management — Annual Meeting. January 31—Fcbnmiy 4. Corpus Christi, TX. Sbatella. G., Sasha Twelker and T. Dcboodt. 2015. Use of Herbicides for Control of Western hamper (Junipenis occiclenlalic) in Earle Stages of Sagcbnnsh Conummity Encroaclument. 2013 Studies. Oregon Beef Council Reports. 8 pgs. Kevin D.Welch. Clint A. Stonecipher, Dale R. Gardner, Kip E. Pantcr, Con, Parsons, Tim Dcboodt, Bran Joluason. 2015. The effect of western juniper on the estrous cycle in beef catilc. Research in Veterinan- Science 98 (2015)16-18. K.D. Wcich,C.A. Stonecipher, D.R. Gardner, K.E. Pantcr, C.Parsons. T. Dcboodt, and B. Joluason. 2014. The effect of Western Jumper on the Estrous Cycle in Beef Cattle. BEEF133. In: 2014 Oregon Beef Council Report, pp 16-19. Dcboodt, T. and S.Twclker. 2014. Use of Herbicides for Control of Western Juniper (Junaipenas occidentalis) in early stages of sagebrush conumnnaity encroachment. BEEF 134. In: 2014 Oregon Beef Council Report, pp 24-27. Ochoa.C.. G. Ray, T. Deboodt, M. Fisher, J. Buckliouse, and M. Borman. 2014. Long-tenn hydrologic interactions in Juniper woodlands: An update on the 20 -year paired watershed study in Easteni Oregon. Society for Range Management — Annual Meeting. Febmmn, 8-13, Orlando. FL. Ray.G., C.Ochoa,T. Dcboodt, M. Fisher, J. Buckhousc, J., and M. Borman. 2014. Variations in precipitation events across two neighboring watersheds. Society for Range Management — PNW Section Meeting. October 15-17. Kamloops, BC. Canada. Dodson, Elizabeth; Stephen Fitzgerald; Tim Dcboodt. 2013. Cmising Methods, Volume Estimation, and Chipping Productivity for Western Juniper Biomass Market Development. ha: Proceedings of 2013 Council on Forest Engineering Amoral Meeting, July 7-10, 2013, Missoula, Montana. Parsons, C.T., Deboodt, T.L., Riggs, B.A. Cows and Creeks Workshops Lead to Natural Resource Improvements Through Collabon, tivc Extension Programming in Eastern Oregon. Jouni al of NACAA. ISSN 2158-9429. Volume -i, Issue 2. Parsons, C., T. Deboodt, and B.A. Riggs. 2011. Extension Collaboration Results in Natural Resource Improvements, Proceedings, National Association of County Ag Agents, 2011 AMP1C. Deboodt, T. 2010. Utilizing Remote Sensing Ibr Stock Water Monitoring. Green Technology and Equipment for Rangeland Applications, 2010 Rangeland Technology and Equipment Council (BTEC) Workshop, 63rd Annual Meeting, Society for Range Management, Denver, CO. littp:Hrtcc.r,iiigelaiids.org/20IO%vorksliop.litiii Swanson. S. and T. Deboodt. 2010. Accomplishing Ecological Goals by Extracting Biomass Encr&n, from Rangelands. 63rd Annual Meeting, Society, f'or Range Management. Denver, CO. Paper No Syna- 42.Deboodt, T. 2010. Incorporating Livestock and Aspen Management. Chipter 6 in: Land Managers Guide to Aspen Management in Oregon. Editors: Nicole Strong, Teresa Welch, Betsy Littlefield and Darin Stinger. EM 9005. 79 pgs. Gamroth. M.J., T.L. Dcboodt and M.P. Fisher. 2009. Studying and watershed management in the Pacific Northwest - The effect of Wcstcrn Juniper control in paired watersheds -Camp Creek, Oregon. ha: Proceedings of 2009 USDA-CSREES NATIONAL WATER QUALITY CONFERENCE, St. Louis, MO. littp://w.e-w.usairatcWtialit,,:.orW.confercnces/2009/abstract index htnul Deboodt. T. 2009, Satellite Technology Provides Livestock Producers with New Tools in Tracking Livestock Water Supplies. 62nd Annual Meeting, Society for Range Management, Albuquerque, NM, Exhibit 3 Page 7 of 8 Paper no. 2000-12 Deboodt. T., M. Fisher, J. Buckhousc and J. Swanson. 2009. Monitoring Hydrological Changes Related to Western Juniper Removal, A Paired Watershed Approach. Pgs. 227 — 232. IN: Webb. R.M.T and Semmens, D.J., eds., 2009, Planning for uncertain future — Monitoring, integration and adaptation Proceedings of the Tiurd Interagency Conference on Research in the Watersheds: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5049,292 p. Fisher, M., T. Deboodt, J. Buckhouse and J. Swanson. 2009. Lessons Learned in Calibrating and Monitoring a Paired Watershed Study in Oregon's High Dcserl. Pgs. 237 — 240. IN: Webb, R.M.T and Scnuncns. D.J.. cds., 2009. Planning for uncertain future — Monitoring, integration and adaptation. Proceedings of the Third Interagency Conference on Research in the Watersheds: U.S. Geological Sumcy Scientific Investigations Report 2009-50.19. 292 p.Dcboodt. T. (2008). Watershed response to western juniper control. PhD. Dissertation. Oregon State University. hltp://hdl.liandlc.ncl/1957/8588 (OSU Vallee Library). 140 pgs. Deboodt, T. (2008). Satellite technology provides remote sensing opportunities for livestock producers in tracking water supplies. Western Region Extension Professional Development Conference. Prineville. OR. Abstract 40. Deboodt, T., M.P. Fislicr, J.C. Buckhousc and J. Swanson. (2008). Monitoring Hydrological Cii<vngcs Related to Western Juniper Removal: A Paired Watershed Approach. 31 Interagency Conference on Research in the Watersheds. Eslcs Park, CO. Proceedings in Print. Fisher, M.P., T. Deboodt. J.C. Buckhouse and J. Swanson. (2008). Lessons Learned in Calibrating and Monitoring a Paired Watershed Study in Oregon's HiglnDcscrt. 3'J Interagency Conference on Research in die Watersheds. Estes Park. CO. Proceedings in Print. Deboodt, T.. M.P. Fisher. J.C. Buckhouse and J. Swanson. (2008). Camp Creek Paired Watershed Monitoring Project: The Response. 611 Annual Meeting, Societe for Range Management. Louisville, KY. Abstract no. 1955, Deboodt, T. (2007). Vegetation Treatments in Oregon: Experiences with Mcclia nical Felling. 6011' Annual Meeting. Societe for Range Mannagemenl. Reno. NV. In: Symposium: Vegetation Management for Improved Watershed Function:Watcrshcd Catchment Ecohydrology, Abstract no. 119. Dodson, Elizabeth, T. Dcboodt and G. Hudspeth. 2006. Production. Cost and Soil Compaction Estimates for Two Western Juniper Extraction Systems. Wcstcrn Journal Applied Forestn. 21(4)2006. pgs 185 — 194. Dcboodt, T. J.C. Buckhouse, M.P. Fisher, G. Hudspeth and J. Swanson. (2006). The Desertification of Eastern Oregon: Prompting man><-agcnncnt of wcstena juniper Ibr watershed Inealth. Soil and Water Consen-ation Society International Conference. Kevstone, Colorado. William, R.D., L.Lev, F. Conyay.T. Deboodt R. Hallimay, R. Todd. F. Smith (1991). Improving Oregon's Natnnal Resources: Collaborative Learning, Systems Approaches, and Participatory Action Research. IN: Proc. Int'( Symposium on Systems Oriented Research in Agriculture and Rural Development. Montpellier, France, Nov. 21-25, 1994. Pgs. 355-359. Deboodt, T and T.E. Bedell. (1992, February). Watershed Management Guide for the Interior Northwest. jAbstractj 151h Annual Meeting, Society for Ransc Manamennent #P046. Spokane, WA. Deboodt, T. 1984. Vegetation Composition and Production Dynamics in Grazed versus Non -Grazed Areas of Central Wyoming. M.S. Thesis. University of Wyoming. 87 pp. Exhibit 3 Pale 8 of 8 Revised Stability Analysis- Omlid DCC 18.16.055. Land divisions B. Irrigated land divisions 1. An irrigated land division shall be subject to the minimum lot or parcel size requirement of DCC 18.16.0651, Subzones, and all applicable requirements of DCC Title 17 2. Partitions establishing parcels less than the EFU minimum parcel size established under DCC 18.16.065, may be permitted to create new parcels for nonfarm dwellings as follows: If the parent parcel is equal to or greater than the minimum parcel size established under 18.16.065 -and is less than 80 acres in size, one new nonfarm parcel may be created subject to the following: L Parent parcel was lawfully created prior to July 1,2001; ii. Remainder parcel shall meet the minimum lot size established under 18.16.065; iii. All standards established under 18.16.050(G) for the dwelling shall be met; iv. No minimum lot size shall be required for the nonfarm parcel. v. The parcel for the nonfarm dwelling is generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops and livestock or merchantable tree species considering the terrain, adverse soil or land conditions, drainage and flooding, vegetation, location and size of the tract. A parcel may not be considered unsuitable based solely on size or location if the parcel can reasonably be put to farm or forest use in conjunction with other land. b. If the parent parcel is equal to or greater than the minimum lot size established under 18.16.065, and is greater than or equal to 80 acres in size two new nonfarm parcels may be created subject to the following: i. Parent parcel was lawfully created prior to July 1, 2001; ii. Remainder parcel shall meet the minimum lot size established under 18.16.065; iii. All standards established under 18.16.050(G) for the dwelling shall be met; iv. No minimum lot size shall be required for the nonfarm parcel. v. The parcel for the nonfarm dwelling is generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops and livestock or merchantable tree species considering the terrain, adverse soil or land conditions, drainage and flooding, vegetation, location and size of the tract. A parcel may not be considered unsuitable based solely on size or location if the parcel can reasonably be put to farm or forest use in conjunction with other land. C. Nonirrigated land division. 1. The minimum lot or parcel size for a nonirrigated land division is 80 acres. 2. Notwithstanding 1 above, land divisions creating nonfarm parcels less than the minimum lot size may be allowed as follows: a. If the parent parcel is greater than 80 acres in size, up to two new nonfarm parcels may be allowed subject to the following: Parent parcel was lawfully created prior to July 1, 2001; 1 Applicant's property is zone EFUTE (Terrebonne). A proposed irrigated land division must result in parcels that demonstrate the following characteristics or capabilities: Thirty-five acres of irrigated land. Exhibit 4 Page 1 of 11 Revised Stability Analysis- Omlid ii. Remainder parcel shall be at least 80 acres in size: iii. All standards established under 18.16.050(G) for the dwelling shall be met; iv. The minimum size for the nonfarm parcels is 5 acres. v. The parcel for the nonfarm dwelling is generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops and livestock or merchantable tree species considering the terrain, adverse soil or land conditions, drainage and flooding, vegetation, location and size of the tract. A parcel may not be considered unsuitable based solely on size or location if the parcel can reasonably be put to farm or forest use in conjunction with other land. vi. Be located outside the Horse Ridge East subzone If the parent parcel is greater than or equal to 40 acres and less than or equal to 80 acres, one new nonfarm parcels may be allowed subject to the following: L Parent parcel was lawfully created prior to July 1, 2001; ii. Parcels are not capable of producing more than 20 cubic feet per acre per year of wood fiber; iii. Parcels are composed of at least 90 percent Class VII and VIII soils, or are composed of at least 90 percent Class VI through VIII soils and are not capable of producing adequate herbaceous forage for grazing livestock; iv. Parcels shall not have established water rights for irrigation; v. All standards established under 18.16.050(G) for the dwelling shall be met; vi. The parcel for the nonfarm dwelling is generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops and livestock or merchantable tree species considering the terrain, adverse soil or land conditions, drainage and flooding, vegetation, location and size of the tract. A parcel may not be considered unsuitable based solely on size or location if the parcel can reasonably be put to farm or forest use in conjunction with other land. vii. The minimum parcel size is 5 acres; viii. Be located outside the Horse Ridge East subzone. DCC 18.16.050. Standards for Dwellings in the EFU Zones. E. Lot of record dwelling on non -high value farmland. 1. A lot of record dwelling may be approved on a pre-existing lot or parcel on non -high value farmland when all of the following requirements are met: The lot or parcel on which the dwelling will be sited was lawfully created and was acquired and owned continuously by the present owner: i. Prior to January 1, 1985; or ii. By devise or by intestate succession from a person who acquired and owned continuously the lot or parcel prior to January 1, 1985. b. The tract on which the dwelling will be sited does not include a dwelling. Exhibit 4 Page 2 of 11 Revised Stability Analysis- Omlid Based on these statutes: 5 Possible new nonfarm parcels from irrigated properties 13 Possible new nonfarm parcels from non -irrigated properties 19 Existing parcels that may qualify for nonfarm dwelling 37 TOTAL New nonfarm parcels Exhibit 4 Page 3 Of 11 Tax Lot Total Irrigate Dwelling Year Built New Lot of Acres d Acres Nonfarm Record Parcels Dwelling 1412000001923 37.51 Y 1990 0 Does not meet the [No Does not meet minimum minimum requirement set by requirement set DCC 18.16.055 by DCC (C)(2)(b) - Less than 18.16.050 40 acres (E)(1)(b) - Site includes a dwelling 1412000003900 160.00 N 2 2 nonfarm parcels No Does not meet allowed under DCC minimum 18.16.055 (C)(2)(a) requirement set by DCC 18.16.050 (E)(1)(a)(i) - Acquired ownership in 2002 1412000004100 80.00 N 0 Government Property 1412000001906 76.36 62.00 Y 2000 0 Does not meet No Does not meet requirement set by minimum DCC 18.16.055 requirement set (13)(2)(a)(i) - Parcel by DCC created after 2001 18.16.050 (E)(1)(b) - Site includes a dwelling 1412000001907 40.00 Y 2006 1 1 nonfarm parcel No Does not meet allowed under DCC minimum 18.16.055 (C)(2)(b) requirement set by DCC 18.16.050 (E)(1)(b) - Site includes a dwelling 1412000001913 83.40 65.00 N 2 2 nonfarm parcels No Does not meet allowed under DCC minimum 18.16.055 (13)(2)(b) requirement set by DCC 18.16.050 (E)(1)(a)(i) - Acquired ownership in 2012 Exhibit 4 Page 4 of 11 1412268002100 14.73 N 0 Does not meet the No Does not meet minimum minimum requirement set by requirement set DCC 18.16.055 by DCC (C)(2)(b) - Less than 18.16.050 40 acres (E)(1)(a)(i) - Acquired ownership in 2006 1412270000200 120.00 N 0 Government Property 1412270000301 17.50 N 0 Does not meet the No Does not meet minimum minimum requirement set by requirement set DCC 18.16.055 by DCC (C)(2)(b) - Less than 18.16.050 40 acres (E)(1)(a)(i) - Acquired ownership in 2004 1412270000800 35.27 N 0 Does not meet the No Does not meet minimum minimum requirement set by requirement set DCC 18.16.055 by DCC (C)(2)(b) - Less than 18.16.050 40 acres (E)(1)(a)(i) - Acquired ownership in 2006 1412000001918 152.80 137.00 Y 1995 2 2 nonfarm parcels No Does not meet allowed under DCC minimum 18.16.055 (B)(2)(b) requirement set by DCC 18.16.050 (E)(1)(b) - Site includes a dwelling 1412000003100 471.26 N 0 Government No Property 1412000003200 1588.55 N 0 Government No Property 1412000004301 38.18 34.00 N 0 Does not meet the No Does not meet minimum minimum requirement set by requirement set DCC 18.16.055 by DCC (13)(2)(a)(ii) - Less 18.16.050 than 35 acres of (E)(1)(a)(i) - irrigated land Acquired ownership in 2018 Exhibit 4 Page 5 of 11 Exhibit 4 Page 6 of 11 1412000004302 37.17 Y 1994 0 Does not meet the No Does not meet minimum minimum requirement set by requirement set DCC 18.16.055 by DCC (C)(2)(b) - Less than 18.16.050 40 acres (E)(1)(b) - Site includes a dwelling 1412000004306 36.38 Y 1998 0 Does not meet the No Does not meet minimum minimum requirement set by requirement set DCC 18.16.055 by DCC (C)(2)(b) - Less than 18.16.050 40 acres (E)(1)(b) - Site includes a dwelling 1412000004307 39.09 Y 1982 0 Does not meet the No Does not meet minimum minimum requirement set by requirement set DCC 18.16.055 by DCC (C)(2)(b) - Less than 18.16.050 40 acres (E)(1)(b) - Site includes a dwelling 141226B002200 20.60 N 0 Does not meet the No Does not meet minimum minimum requirement set by requirement set DCC 18.16.055 by DCC (C)(2)(b) - Less than 18.16.050 40 acres (E)(1)(a)(i) - Acquired ownership in 2016 141226B002300 41.90 Y 1992 1 1 nonfarm parcel No Does not meet allowed under DCC minimum 18.16.055 (C)(2)(b) requirement set by DCC 18.16.050 (E)(1)(b) - Site includes a dwelling 141228D000300 19.65 Y 2014 0 Does not meet the No Does not meet minimum minimum requirement set by requirement set DCC 18.16.055 by DCC (C)(2)(b) - Less than 18.16.050 40 acres (E)(1)(b) - Site includes a dwelling Exhibit 4 Page 6 of 11 141235C000100 115.17 N 2 2 nonfarm parcels No Does not meet allowed under DCC minimum 18.16.055 (C)(2)(a) requirement set by DCC 18.16.050 (E)(1)(a)(i) - Acquired ownership in 2001 141235C000200 4.36 Y 1999 0 Does not meet the No Does not meet minimum minimum requirement set by requirement set DCC 18.16.055 by DCC (C)(2)(b) - Less than 18.16.050 40 acres (E)(1)(b) - Site includes a dwelling 1412270000400 185.06 128.00 Y 1998 0 Does not meet No Does not meet requirement set by minimum DCC 18.16.055 requirement set (13)(2)(a)(i) - Minor by DCC partition of the 18.16.050 property in 2004 (E)(1)(b) - Site includes a dwelling 1412270000401 10.21 N 0 Does not meet the No Does not meet minimum minimum requirement set by requirement set DCC 18.16.055 by DCC (C)(2)(b) - Less than 18.16.050 40 acres (E)(1)(a)(i) - Acquired ownership in 2005 1412270000402 11.08 N 0 Does not meet the No Does not meet minimum minimum requirement set by requirement set DCC 18.16.055 by DCC (C)(2)(b) - Less than 18.16.050 40 acres (E)(1)(a)(i) - Acquired ownership in 2003 Exhibit 4 Page 7 of 11 1412270000500 39.04 32.00 Y 1992 0 Does not meet the No Does not meet minimum minimum requirement set by requirement set DCC 18.16.055 by DCC (B)(2)(a)(ii) - Less 18.16.050 than 35 acres of (E)(1)(b) - Site irrigated land includes a dwelling 1412270000600 19.98 Y 2005 0 Does not meet the No Does not meet minimum minimum requirement set by requirement set DCC 18.16.055 by DCC (C)(2)(b) - Less than 18.16.050 40 acres (E)(1)(b) - Site includes a dwelling 1412348000100 80.00 N 0 Does not meet No Does not meet requirement set by minimum DCC 18.16.055 requirement set (13)(2)(a)(i) - Minor by DCC partition of the 18.16.050 property in 2006 (E)(1)(a)(i) - Acquired ownership in 2010 141234B000200 39.20 N 0 Does not meet the No Subject Property minimum Does not meet requirement set by minimum DCC 18.16.055 requirement set (C)(2)(b) - Less than by DCC 40 acres 18.16.050 (E)(1)(a)(i) 1412348000300 39.07 N 0 Does not meet the No Does not meet minimum minimum requirement set by requirement set DCC 18.16.055 by DCC (C)(2)(b) - Less than 18.16.050 40 acres (E)(1)(a)(i) - Acquired ownership in 2018 1412000001920 50.00 18.00 Y 1989 0 Does not meet the No Does not meet minimum minimum requirement set by requirement set DCC 18.16.055 by DCC (13)(2)(a)(ii) - Less 18.16.050 than 35 acres of (E)(1)(b) - Site irrigated land includes a dwelling Exhibit 4 Page 8 of 11 1412280000200 150.09 y 2006 0 Does not meet No Does not meet requirement set by minimum DCC 18.16.055 requirement set (13)(2)(a)(i) - Minor by DCC partition of the 18.16.050 property in 2016 (E)(1)(b) - Site includes a dwelling 1412000004000 320.00 N 0 Government No Property 141226B002000 18.34 N 0 Does not meet the No Does not meet minimum minimum requirement set by requirement set DCC 18.16.055 by DCC (C)(2)(b) - Less than 18.16.050 40 acres (E)(1)(a)(i) - Acquired ownership in 2006 1412270000100 117.91 N 2 2 nonfarm parcels No Does not meet allowed under DCC minimum 18.16.055 (C)(2)(a) requirement set by DCC 18.16.050 (E)(1)(a)(i) - Acquired ownership in 2006 1412270000300 62.58 39.50 y 1988 0 Does not meet No Does not meet requirement set by minimum DCC 18.16.055 requirement set (13)(2)(a)(i) - Minor by DCC partition of the 18.16.050 property in 2004 (E)(1)(b) - Site includes a dwelling 1412270000601 19.97 N 0 Does not meet the No Does not meet minimum minimum requirement set by requirement set DCC 18.16.055 by DCC (C)(2)(b) - Less than 18.16.050 40 acres (E)(1)(a)(1) - Acquired ownership in 2016 Exhibit 4 Page 9 of 11 1512000000700 40.00 N 1 1 nonfarm parcel No Does not meet allowed under DCC minimum 18.16.055 (C)(2)(b) requirement set by DCC 18.16.050 (E)(1)(a)(i) - Acquired ownership in 2016 1512000000701 37.69 35.00 Y 2003 1 1 nonfarm parcel No Does not meet allowed under DCC minimum 18.16.055 (C)(2)(b) requirement set by DCC 18.16.050 (E)(1)(b) - Site includes a dwelling 1512000000406 37.55 30.00 Y 2005 0 Does not meet the No Does not meet minimum minimum requirement set by requirement set DCC 18.16.055 by DCC (13)(2)(a)(ii) - Less 18.16.050 than 35 acres of (E)(1)(b) - Site irrigated land includes a dwelling 1512000001200 437.67 N 0 Government No Property 1512036000900 40.00 N 0 Government No Property 1512000001001 36.10 Y 2004 0 Does not meet the No Does not meet minimum minimum requirement set by requirement set DCC 18.16.055 by DCC (C)(2)(b) - Less than 18.16.050 40 acres (E)(1)(b) - Site includes a dwelling 1412280000100 149.79 N No Does not meet minimum requirement set by DCC 18.16.050 (E)(1)(a)(1) - Acquired ownership in 2001 Exhibit 4 Page 10 of 11 141228D000200 19.11 Y 2010 0 Does not meet the No Does not meet minimum minimum requirement set by requirement set DCC 18.16.055 by DCC (C)(2)(b) - Less than 18.16.050 40 acres (E)(1)(b) - Site includes a dwelling 1412280000300 120.60 N 2 2 nonfarm parcels No Does not meet allowed under DCC minimum 18.16.055 (C)(2)(a) requirement set by DCC 18.16.050 (E)(1)(a)(i) - Acquired ownership in 2001 141228D000101 8.66 N 0 Does not meet the No Does not meet minimum minimum requirement set by requirement set DCC 18.16.055 by DCC (C)(2)(b) - Less than 18.16.050 40 acres (E)(1)(a)(i) - Acquired ownership in 2001 141228D000100 28.60 N 0 Does not meet the No Does not meet minimum minimum requirement set by requirement set DCC 18.16.055 by DCC (C)(2)(b) - Less than 18.16.050 40 acres (E)(1)(a)(i) - Acquired ownership in 2001 Exhibit 4 Page 11 of 11