Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAmend Plan - Zone - Butler Mkt Rd - NewlandDeschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 -Fax (541) 385-3202 -www.deschutes.org AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board Business Meeting of February 5, 2014 Please see directions for completing this document on the next page. DATE: January 6,2014 FROM: Paul Blikstad Department CDD Phone # 6554 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: De novo hearing on applications for a Plan Amendment to amend the comprehensive plan designation from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area, and a Zone Change from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU-TRB) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-lO). PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? Yes BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The applicant, NNPIV -NCR, LLC (referred to as "Newland") submitted the plan amendment and zone change applications for property adjacent to Butler Market Road near Bend, which encompasses approximately 171 acres. These applications went before the County Hearings Officer who has recommended denial of the applicant's request. Because the applications involve land designated Agriculture under Statewide Planning Goal 3, the Board is the decision making body on the applications. A de novo public hearing before the Board is required under Deschutes County Code 22.28.030(C) for these applications. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The Board's hearing costs are factored into the application fees. RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: The Board is required to hear the applications de novo under the County Code. Staffwill send notice of the hearing to all parties. ATTENDANCE: Paul Blikstad, Laurie Craghead DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS: Planning Division staff will send notice to all parties of the Board's hearing. Community Development Department Planning Diviston Building Safety Division Environmental SolIs Dlvlslon P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 {541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MEMORANDUM To: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners From: Paul Bllkstad, Senior Planner Date: November 26, 2013 Re: PA-13-1/ZC-13-1, De novo hearing on applications for a Plan Amendment and Zone Change from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU-TRB) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10) for approximately 171 acres adjacent to Butler Market Road in Bend. BACKGROUND: The applicant, referred to as Newland, applied for a Plan Amendment to amend the comprehensive plan designation from agriculture to rural residential exception area, and a Zone Change from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU-TRB) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10) for approximately 171 acres. The 171 acres consists of 9 tax lots, and 8 legal lots of record (parcels). The status of these parcels is outlined in the Hearings Officer written decision on pages 2-3 of the decision. Newland submitted the two applications after the Board's final decision on the Department of State Lands (DSL) plan amendment/zone change for the same type of change. As you may recall, the DSL plan amendment/zone change was for 380 acres out of an approximately 640­ acre parcel on property zoned EFU-TRB. An initial hearing date of April 2, 2013 was scheduled. Based on a joint transmittal (letter) from the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, and the Oregon Department of Agriculture, the applicant requested a continuance of the hearing to July 16, 2013. Testimony and evidence were submitted at that July hearing. By an order dated August 27, 2013, the Hearings Officer reopened and extended the written evidentiary record to September 13, 2013 for the purpose of allowing the applicant to submit written additional evidence concerning soils on the individual parcels comprising the subject property, and for opponents to submit evidence rebutting any such soils evidence. By a letter dated September 5, 2013, the applicant declined to submit additional soils evidence and made additional legal argument. Staff mentions this as the "individual parcels versus the entire tract" soils analysis ended up being one of the two main reasons the Hearings Officer denied (recommending denial of) the applications. Because these applications involve lands designated for agricultural use, Deschutes County Code 22.28.030(C) requires that the applications be heard de novo before the Board without the Quality Services Performed with Pride I i I necessity of filing an appeal, regardless of the determination of the Hearing Officer.1 i Consequently, staff has scheduled the matter before the Board. I The Hearings Officer's decision includes a summary of her decision on pages 7-8 of the decision. This summary states the following: I The Hearings Officer has found the applicant's proposed plan amendment and zone change must be denied because the application failed to demonstrate the subject property is not Ilagricultural land" as defined in statute and administrative rule.I Specifically. I have found that under the unique circumstances of this case, where the I subject property is a tract with multiple parcels, the applicant must demonstrate each parcel consists of predominantly Class VII and VIII soils rather than simply analyzing the tract as a whole. The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence from which the I predominant soils analysis could be conducted as to each parcel. In addition, I have found that even assuming it is appropriate to conduct the I.predominant soils" analysis on the entire tract, the applicant failed to demonstrate the entire subject property is unsuitable for farm use considering profitability and other factors set forth in the administrative rule. That;s because the applicant's agricultural economic analysis, on which it relies heavily, is based on questionable assumptions. I have attached to this memo copies of the Hearings Officer's decision, the OLCO/OOA transmittal letter, and the applicant's agronomic study. There is an extensive file on these applications, most of which includes the applicant's submittals (from Liz Fancher). Feel free to contact me at your convenience. Staff will be scheduling a work session in January, and we are looking at February 5, 2014 as the de novo hearing date. Community Development Department Planning Division Building Satwty Division Environmental Soils DIvision P. O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners will hold a Public Hearing on Wednesday, February 5, 2014 at 10:00 P.M. in the Barnes and Sawyer Rooms of the Deschutes County Services Building located at 1300 NW Wall Street in Bend, to consider the following request: FILE NUMBERS: PA-13-1/ZC-13-1 SUBJECT: Applications for a Plan Amendment to change the comprehensive plan designation of certain property from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area, and a Zone Change from Exclusive Farm Use to Multiple Use Agriculture (MUA-10). A total of 171 acres is proposed to be rezoned. This is a de novo hearing as required under DCC 22.28.030. APPLICANT: NNP IV-NCR, LLC LOCATION: County Assessor's Map 17-12-24, tax lots 206, 300, 301, 302, 304, 305, 401, 405 and 406 ALL INTERESTED PERSONS MAY APPEAR, BE HEARD, BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, OR SEND WRITTEN SIGNED TESTIMONY. ALL WRITTEN REPLIES MUST BE RECEIVED BY THIS DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE HEARING DATE OR SUBMITTED AT THE HEARING. ANY PARTY TO THE APPLICATION IS ENTITLED TO A CONTINUANCE OF THE INITIAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING OR TO HAVE THE RECORD LEFT OPEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 22.24.140 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE. Recipients of this notice may request a copy of the Hearings Officer's decision (25 cents a page). Any person submitting written comment or who presents testimony at the hearing will receive a copy of the decision. I Failure to raise an issue in person at the hearing or in writing precludes appeal by that person to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Failure to provide statements of evidence sufficient to afford the decision-maker an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to LUBA based on that issue. I Copies of the application, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at the Planning Division at no cost, and can be purchased for 25 cents a page. 1 I I Quality Services Perfonned with Pride STANDARDS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA: Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zone Chapter 18.32, Multiple Use Agricultural Zone Chapter 18.136, Amendments Title 23 of the Deschutes County Code, Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 2, Resource Management Chapter 3, Rural Growth Appendix C, Transportation System Plan Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 660 Division 12, Transportation Planning OAR 660-012-0060, Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines Division 33, Agricultural Land NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIENHOLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER: ORS CHAPTER 215 REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT MUST PROMPTLY BE FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. Please contact Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner, with the County Planning Division at (541) 388­ 6554 if you have any questions; Email address: paul.blikstad@deschutes.org Dated this __day of January, 2014 Mailed this ___ day of January, 2014 __ _ _ 23 T17S. R12E Section 24 N Y. Deschutes Co, OR 17 12 24 SECTION 24 T.17S. R. 12E. W.~. & INDEXDESCHUTES COUNTY l ' .i~ I I I I I I I I ~ ~ I ..... •! Jfl , \ \ \ \ " " , \ q-( ~1I 12 1l • ~' " I I I • 1-3I •t •, I\ " IoL. ". :E !II ~' l :~ .... SEE ItIAP 17 12 240 i •_:::1 Il ,. 18 19 I Cuul .clIIo,. ;o l 1 ~~ I~ ~ I :g: 40 1 I ~' '' SCI I I j . " !oj1\ 17 12 24 & INDEX rborine@bendbroadband.com Sage W est, LLC (541) 610-2457 Roger Borine Bend. OR Print Map Page 1 of 1 Scale 1:8,312 1 in =693 ft http://lava5.deschutes.org/mox5/indexintranet.cfm?action=mox52_ vi ew ---'prin ta blemap 11126/2013 \ DECISION OF DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER FILE NUMBERS: PA-13-1/ZC-13-1 APPLICANTI PROPERTY OWNER: NNP IV-NCR, LLC 2660 N.E. Highway 20, Suite 610-369 Bend, Oregon 97701 APPLICANT'S ATTORNEYS: Liz Fancher 644 N.W. Broadway Bend, Oregon 97701 Steven P. Hultberg Radler White Parks &Alexander LLP P.O. BOK2007 Bend, Oregon 97709 REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a plan amendment from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area and a zone change from EFU-TRB to MUA-10 for a 171-acre parcel located near the intersection of Butler Market and Hamby Roads east of Bend. STAFF REVIEWER: Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner HEARING DATES: April 2 and July 16, 2013 RECORD CLOSED: September 5, 2013 I. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: A. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance 1. Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zone 2. Chapter 18.32, Multiple Use Agricultural Zone * Section 18.32.010, Purpose * Section 18.32.040, Dimension Standards SC.A~Tl...... 3. Chapter 18.136, Amendments ~4.I..J.Y".lU) I* Section 18.136.010, Amendments - I* Section 18.136.020, Rezoning Standards OCT 24 2013 B. Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, the Land Use Procedures Ordinance '"""'---­ 1. Chapter 22.20, Review of Land Use Action Applications * Section 22.20.040, Final Action in Land Use Actions C. Title 23 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan NNP IV-NCR. LLC -PA-13-1/ZC-13-1 Page 1 of 39 1. Chapter 2. Resource Management * Section 2.2. Agricultural Lands Policies * Section 2.5, Water Resource Policies 2. Chapter 3, Rural Growth * Section 3.3. Rural Housing * Section 3.7. Transportation System Plan D. Oregon Administrative Rules. Chapter 660 1. Division 12, Transportation Planning * OAR 660-012-0060, Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments 2. Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines 3. Division 33. Agricultural Land * OAR 660-033-0010. Purpose * OAR 660-033-0020. Definitions * OAR 660-033-0030, Identifying Agricultural Land E. Oregon Revised Statutes, ORS Chapter 215. County Planning 1. ORS 215.010, Definitions II. FINDINGS OF FACT: A. Location: The subject property is located near the intersection of Butler Market and Hamby Roads east of Bend. Five of the nine tax lots comprising the subject property have dwellings, each of which has an address on either Butler Market or Hamby Road. The subject property is identified as Tax Lots 206, 300, 301, 302, 304, 305, 401, 405, and 406 on Deschutes County Assessor's Map 17-12-24. B. Zoning and Plan DeSignation: The subject property is designated Agriculture on the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan map and is zoned Exclusive Farm Use­ Tumalo/Redmond/Bend Subzone (EFU-TRB). C. Site Description: The subject property consists of nine contiguous tax lots comprising approximately 171 acres 1 with 103 acres of irrigation water rights.2 Seven of the nine tax lots are receiving farm tax deferral. Five of the nine tax lots are developed with dwellings. The topography is varied with level areas interspersed with some rock outcrops. The undisturbed portions of the property have a vegetative cover of juniper trees and native brush and grasses. Cultivated areas have native and pasture grasses. Following are descriptions of each of the nine tax lots, based on evidence in the record including Assessor's data, and the applicant's burden of proof and post-hearing submissions. Tax Lot 206. This tax lot is 29.92 acres in size, undeveloped and has no irrigation. It has a vegetative cover of juniper trees and native brush and grasses and is not receiving special assessment for farm use. 1 The Assessor's records show the total acreage as 174.33 acres. However, the applicant's burden of proof states the applicant's engineer estimated the property is 171 acres in size. 2 The Assessor's records for the subject property show somewhat less than 100 acres of irrigation. However, the applicanfs burden of proof states there are 103 acres of irrigation. NNP IV-NCR, LLC -PA-13-1/ZC-13-1 Page 2 of 39 Tax Lot 300. This tax lot is 4.52 acres in size and is developed with a 1,188-square-foot manufactured home approved as a farm dwelling (CU-8S-61) and an accessory structure. The Assessor's records show this tax lot has 3.52 acres of irrigation water rights. It has a vegetative cover of juniper trees, native brush and pasture grasses. It is receiving special assessment for farm use. Tax Lot 301. This tax lot is 5 acres in size and is development with a 2,236-square-foot dwelling built in 1935 and accessory structure. The Assessor's records show this tax lot has 3 acres of irrigation water rights. It has a few scattered trees and an irrigated pasture area. It is receiving special assessment for farm use. Tax Lots 302/305. These tax lots comprise a single legal lot. Together they are 20.21 acres in size, are undeveloped, and have 15.07 acres of irrigation water rights. They have a vegetative cover of juniper trees, native brush and pasture and are receiving special assessment for farm use. Tax Lot 304. This tax lot is 13.84 acres in size and developed with a 2,653-square-foot replacement dwelling built in 2005 and accessory structure. The Assessor's records show this tax lot has 4.87 acres of irrigation water rights. It has a vegetative cover of juniper trees, native brush and pasture and is receiving special assessment for farm use. Tax Lot 401. This tax lot is 20.13 acres in size and is developed with a 1,699-square­ foot dwelling built in 1992 and approved as a farm dwelling, and an accessory structure. The Assessor's records show this tax lot has 19.13 acres of irrigation water rights. Vegetation consists mostly of pasture with a few widely scattered trees. This tax lot is receiving special assessment for farm use. Tax Lot 405. This tax lot is 4.9 acres in size and developed with a 3,140-square-foot dwelling built in 1975 and an accessory structure. The Assessor's records show this tax lot has no irrigation water rights. Vegetation consists of native grasses. This tax lot is not receiving special assessment for farm use. Tax Lot 406. This tax lot is 75.81 acres in size and undeveloped. The Assessor's records show it has 52.46 acres of irrigation water rights. The western approximately two-thirds of the tax lot is irrigated pasture. The eastern one-third of the tax lot consists of a cleared area as well as juniper trees and native brush. This tax lot is receiving special assessment for farm use. D. Soils: The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) maps identify three soil units on the subject property: Soil Units 36A and 36B, Deskamp loamy sand 0 to 3/3 to 8 percent slopes; and Soil Unit 58C, Gosney-Rock outcrop-Deskamp complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes. Soil Units 36A and 36B soils are considered high value soils when irrigated. Soil Unit 58C soils are considered nonhigh value soils. The subject property has 103 acres of irrigation water rights. As discussed in detail in the findings below, the applicant submitted a site-specific "Agricultural Soils Capability Assessment" of the subject property, also referred to as an "Order 1 soil survey" (hereafter "soil study"). The soil study is dated July 11. 2012. was prepared by Roger Borine of Sage West. LLC. and is included in the record as Exhibit NNP IV-NCR, LLC -PA-13-1/ZC-13-1 Page 3 of 39 «A" to the applicant's burden of proof. The soil study identifies the same three soil units on the subject property. E. Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses: The applicant's burden of proof states at pages 3-4: 'The subject property is almost entirely surrounded by nonresource land and nonfarm uses. The property adjoins rural residential exceptions areas (MUA-10 zoning) on the west and south. The majority of lands to the east are zoned MUA with intermixed EFU-TRB lots. Lands to the north and northeast are zoned EFU­ TRB and MUA-10 in areas that have been divided into small rural residential lots. A color copy of Page 17-12 of the County's zoning atlas, Exhibit B, illustrates the zoning pattern. The following is a description of the development pattern in the area surrounding the subject property: West: There are two small tax lots on the west side of the subject property, Tax lots 400 and 403. These lots are surrounded by the subject property. These lots are not employed in farm use. Tax lot 400 is owned by the Hamby Trust. It is zoned EFU but is developed with an industrial door manufacturing company and three residences. These uses are lawfully established nonconforming nonagricultural uses of the property. Tax Lot 403 is developed with a nonfarm dwelling on land that is generally unsuited for farm use. The owner keeps a couple of horses on Tax Lot 403 for recreational use. All land immediately west of the subject property across Butler Market Road is zoned MUA-10 and is developed with single-family residences and two churches. This MUA-10 area adjoins residential lands zoned UAR-10 that adjoin the City of Bend. The Pine Nursery Park, a community park and offices for the US Forest Service are in close proximity to the subject property. The USFS property was recently annexed to the City of Bend. Southwest: The property that touches the southwest corner of the subject property is developed as the East Villa, East Villa First Addition and East Villa Second Addition subdivisions. This area adjoins and lies west of the Los Serranos subdivision that adjoins the southern boundary of the subject property. The East Villa area is zoned MUA-10 and is developed with 67 urban-sized lots that are approximately one half acre in size. South: All land to the south of the subject property is zoned MUA-10. Most of the land to the south is located in the Los Serranos rural residential subdivisions (Los Serranos and Los Serranos First Addition). The area of the Los Serranos First Addition subdivision that adjoins the subject property was initially zoned EFU-20 by Deschutes County in 1979 and 1980. The County rezoned the property MUA-10 in the early 1980's because the property was predominantly scabland that is not suitable for agricultural uses (File Z-80-37, Exhibit C). All other lands in Section 17-12-24D not included in the Los Serranos First Addition subdivision were also rezoned MUA-10 from EFU-20 zoning. The southwest quarter of Section 24D was rezoned MUA-10 because the predominant soil type is, according to the Assessor, Class VII soils and the property had not been farmed (File Z-80-28, Exhibit D). The east half of Section 24D was rezoned EFU because the property was predominantly Class VI or VII soils suited only for NNP IV-NCR, LLC -PA-13-1/ZC-13-1 Page 4 of 39 grazing (File Z-81-14, Exhibit E). These MUA-10 properties are now developed with single-family residences and some hobby farms. East: The properties that adjoin the eastern boundary of the subject property are all nonfarm properties that do not receive farm tax deferral and all contain lands that are not suitable for farm use. The northernmost property is Tax Lot 201, Assessor's Map 17-12-24. It is developed with a nonfarm, single-family dwelling on 12.55 acres. This home was approved by Deschutes County in CU-92-84 as shown by DIAL Report, Exhibit F. Tax Lot 203, Assessor's Map 17-12-24, is approximately 20 acres and is owned by Central Electric Cooperative. It is developed with four power lines and does not receive farm tax deferral. The power lines extend across and dominate the southernmost property, Tax Lot 200. Tax Lot 200 is part of a tract that includes Tax Lot 205 that is owned by the Culvers. The tract contains the foundation of a nonfarm dwelling. See, DIAL Report for Tax lot 205, Exhibit G. Neither Culver property is tax deferred. Land to the west of the Culver property is zoned MUA-10. There are two EFU-zoned lots east of the CEC property that adjoin Butler Market Road. One is developed with a dwelling on a five-acre lot. This home does not receive farm deferral (Tax Lot 100) (see Exhibit H). The other, Tax Lot 101, is developed with a farm dwelling on a 35-acre lot. Tax Lot 101 contains an irrigated farm field. It is separated from the subject property by Tax Lots 100, 201 and 203 that include a rock ridge and two major power lines and two smaller power lines. The land to the west of Tax Lots 101 and 205 is zoned MUA-10. North: Butler Market Road divides the subject property from EFU-zoned lands found to the north of the subject property. The westernmost lot is a 1. 15-acre lot, Tax Lot 500, Assessor's Map 17-12-13. This lot is developed with a single-family nonfarm dwelling (no farm tax deferral). Two small to medium-sized farm parcels (37.15 acres and 38.88 acres), Tax Lot 400 and 402, Assessor's Map 17-12-13, are located east of Tax Lot 500. These lots were created by Partition Plat 1993-42. These parcels have a common owner but each lot contains its own dwelling. The westernmost lot, Tax Lot 402 received approval for a land division and nonfarm dwelling in 1997 (MP-97-37ICU-97-137). The easternmost lot contains a dwelling that is located near Butler Market Road. These properties are irrigated and are used to grow field crops. The eastern part of Tax Lot 400 contains poor soils that are not a part of the farm operation. This ridge and the poor soils extend to the south onto the subject property. Land to the north of the Butler Market Road farm properties described above is zoned EFU and MUA-10. The MUA-10 zoning applies to two large areas that are unrecorded residential subdivisions. Northeast: To the northeast along Butler Market Road is a small farm parcel (19.26 acres), Tax Lot 600, Assessor's Map 17-12-13 zoned EFU-TRB and a neighborhood area of small lots (2.2 to 8.4 acres) that are zoned MUA-10. The poor soils found on the subject property extend across the east part of Tax Lot 600 and separate lands to the east from the subject property. This part of Tax Lot 600 is not used for farm use. " The Hearings Officer did not conduct a site visit to the subject property and vicinity and therefore cannot confirm the applicant's surrounding area descriptions. However, the staff report states staff believes the applicant's descriptions are accurate, with the NNP IV-NCR, LLC -PA-13-1/ZC-13-1 Page 5 of 39 exception of the "east" description. The staff report states the reference in this section to the area west of the Culver property and Tax Lots 101 and 205 should be to the area to the east. F. Land Use/Property History: The record indicates that in 1981 the C-5 Company, one of the applicant's predecessors in title, applied to rezone a portion of the subject property from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU-20) to MUA-10. The application was withdrawn following planning staff's recommendation that the application be denied based on soils information. Between April and December 2007 the applicant purchased the subject property through six separate deeds. In 2009 the applicant received approval of a lot line adjustment between Tax Lot 206, part of the subject property. and the adjacent Tax Lot 201, resulting in an increase in the size of Tax Lot 206 from 28.63 to 34.91 acres. G. Procedural History: The subject applications were submitted on January 29, 2013. The request includes a comprehensive plan amendment, and therefore under Section 22.20.040(0) of the county's land use procedures ordinance the applications are not subject to the 150-day period for issuance of a final local land use decision under ORS 215.427. A public hearing was scheduled for April 2, 2013. Bya letter dated April 1, 2013, the applicant requested a continuance of the hearing to a date in July. Because the continuance request was submitted after notice of the public hearing was published, the Hearings Officer opened the hearing on April 2, 2013 and continued it on the record to July 16, 2013. One member of the public testified at the initial hearing. At the continued public hearing, the Hearings Officer received testimony and evidence, left the written evidentiary record open through July 30, 2013. and allowed the applicant through August 6.2013 to submit final argument pursuant to ORS 197.763. The applicant submitted final argument on August 6, 2013, and the record closed on that date. By an order dated August 27, 2013, the Hearings Officer reopened and extended the written evidentiary record to September 13, 2013 for the purpose of allowing the applicant to submit additional evidence concerning soils on the individual parcels comprising the subject property, and for opponents to submit evidence rebutting any such soils evidence. By a letter dated September 5, 2013, the applicant declined to submit additional soils evidence and made additional legal argument. Because there was no additional evidence for opponents to rebut, the extended record closed on September 5, 2013. H. Proposal: The applicant requests approval of a plan amendment from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area and a zone change from EFU-TRB to MUA-10. The applicant is not requesting an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3, Agricultural Land, and argues the requested plan amendment and zone change are warranted because the subject property is not agricultural land protected by Goal 3. I. Public/Private Agency Comments: The Planning Division mailed notice of the applicant's proposal to a number of public and private agencies and received responses from: the Deschutes County Transportation Planner and Road Department; the City of Bend Planning Department; the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD); the ·Oregon Department of Water Resources, Watermaster­ District 11 (Watermaster); the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA); and Pacific NNP IV-NCR. LLC -PA-13-1/ZC-13-1 Page 6 of 39 Power. These responses are set forth verbatim at pages 6-7 of the staff report and are included in the record. The following agencies did not respond to the request for comments or gave a "no comment» response: the Deschutes County Environmental Soils Division and Assessor; the City of Bend Fire Department; the Bend-la Pine School District; the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ); the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT); Central Oregon Irrigation District (COlD); Cascade Natural Gas; Central Electric Cooperative (CEC); and CenturyLink. J. Public Notice and Comments: The Planning Division mailed individual written notice of the applicant's proposal and the initial public hearing to the owners of record of all properties located within 750 feet of the subject property. The record indicates these notices were mailed to 58 property owners. In addition. notice of the initial public hearing was published in the Bend "Bulletin" newspaper. and the subject property was posted with a notice of proposed land use action sign. Notice of the continued public hearing was given on the record at the initial hearing. As of the date the evidentiary record in this matter closed. the Planning Division had received one written comment from the public in response to these notices. In addition. three members of the public testified at the two public hearings. K. Lot of Record: The staff report states the Planning Division previously determined the legal lot status of the nine tax lots comprising the subject property based on partitions (MP). lot line adjustments (ll). lot-of-record determinations (lR). and deeds. as follows: I ~ ! 'I t 1 I I I As the applicant notes in its burden of proof, this Hearings Officer previously has held ! the provisions of Chapter 18.136 of the Deschutes County Code governing plan I ! amendments and zone changes, discussed in detail in the findings below, do not require I that land consist of a legal lot of record in order to be re-designated and/or rezoned. I E.g., City of Sisters (PA-08-21ZC-08-2/MA-08-8)., I , ~ III. SUMMARY:I I The Hearings Officer has found the applicant's proposed plan amendment and zone change must be denied because the applicant failed to demonstrate the subject property is not "agricultural land" as defined in statute and administrative rule. Specifically, I have found that under the unique circumstances of this case, where the subject property is a tract with multiple parcels, the applicant must demonstrate each parcel consists of predominantly Class VII and VIII soils rather than simply analyzing the tract as a whole. The applicant did not provide i.~,;E';;"', ,-r. :.,' ;~t:>:t;,t,~~g'g',r~?i:,< ,"'.,' 206 1,,:;;~\i;i;"C~~";;i;;h ~,~ ,:~y.~,. :~ ,j"l!}~;n LL-09-22 300 MP-79-204 304 MP-79-204 301 LR-97-45 302/305 ­one legal lot together LR-97-45 401 CU-91-101, Legal deed 1970 405 LR-89-41 406 LR-89-90 NNP IV-NCR, LLC -PA-13-1/ZC-13-1 Page 7 of 39 sufficient evidence from which the predominant soils analysis could be conducted as to each parcel. In addition, I have found that even assuming it is appropriate to conduct the "predominant soils" analysis on the entire tract, the applicant failed to demonstrate the entire subject property is unsuitable for farm use considering profitability and other factors set forth in the administrative rule. That is because the applicant's agricultural economic analysis, on which it relies heavily, is based on questionable assumptions. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES A. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning. Ordinance 1. Chapter 18.136, Amendments a. Section 18.136.010, Amendments DCC Title 18 may be amended as set forth in DCC 18.136. The procedures for text or legislative map changes shall be as set forth in DCC 22.12. A request by a property owner for a quasi-judicial map amendment shall be accomplished by filing an application on forms provided by the Planning Department and shall be subject to applicable procedures of DCC Title 22. FINDINGS: The applicant requests a quasi-judicial map amendment and submitted applications for a plan amendment and zone change. The applications are being reviewed under the procedures of Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code. In their March 18, 2013 written comments on the applicant's proposal, DLCD and aDA argued that where, as here, the applicant is not requesting a goal exception, and despite the language in this section, the county cannot consider a quasi-judicial plan amendment to change the designation of resource land (EFU) to non-resource land (MUA-10). T hey argue the county can only make such a change through a legislative process. The agencies rely for this proposition on the following policy language in Chapter 2 of the comprehensive plan: Section 2.2, Agricultural Lands Policies 2.2.4, Develop comprehensive policy criteria and code to provide clarity on when and how EFU parcels can be converted to other designations. Section 3.3, Rural Residential Exception Areas In Deschutes County most rural lands are designated for farms, forests or other resources and protected as described in the Resource Management chapter of this Plan. The majority of the land not recognized as resource lands or Unincorporated Community is designated Rural Residential Exception Area. The County had to follow a process under Statewide Goal 2 to explain why these lands did not warrant farm or forest zoning. The major determinant was that many of these lands were platted for residential use before Statewide Planning was adopted. In 1979 the County assessed that there were over 17,000 undeveloped Rural Residential Exception Area parcels, enough to meet anticipated demand for new rural housing. As of 2010 any new Rural Residential Exception Areas need to be justified NNP IV-NCR, LLC -PA-13-1/ZC-13-1 Page 8 of 39 through taking exceptions to farm, forest, public facilities and services and urbanization regulations. and follow guidelines set out in the OAR. (Underscored emphasis added.) The agencies assert the above-underscored language signifies no EFU-zoned parcels can be re-designated and rezoned to non-resource lands through a quasi-judicial application process, without taking an exception to Goal 3, unless and until the county adopts criteria and code provisions establishing under what circumstances EFU parcels may be converted to non­ resource designations. However, DLCD and ODA acknowledge this argument was rejected by this Hearings Officer in my previous decision in Pagel (PA-07-1/ZC-07-1), as well as by Hearings Officer Ken Helm and the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (hereafter "board·) in their decisions in DSL (PA-11-7/ZC-11-2). Copies of these decisions are included in the record as Exhibits avo and OW," respectively, to the applicant's burden of proof. In approving a plan amendment and zone change for the 380-acre EFU-zoned DSL (Department of State Lands) parcel, the board stated in relevant part: "Newland raised questions about whether the County must adopt a nonagricultural land designation in the Comprehensive Plan, and perhaps an associated zone under the development code before the application can be approved. Those concerns appeared to be most closely associated with this policy [Policy 2.2.4]. e1 The record shows that no such Comprehensive Plan designation or zone exists currently. The recently adopted policy acknowledges this fact and provides a general directive that requires the County to at least consider such a Comprehensive Plan deSignation at some point in the future. The policy sets no deadline for doing so. The policy also does not dictate any consequences for failing to do so. More specifically, from a statutory construction perspective, the policy does not state that quasi-judicial Comprehensive Plan amendment applications cannot be processed and approved until such a non-resource designation is established. To read this requirement into the policy would be to violate the most basic rule of construction which is to not add words or phrases which have been omitted from the text. ORS 174.010. This being the case, the Hearings Officer found and the Board concurs that the current application presents essentially the same facts as were present in PA-07-1 (Pagel) in which Hearings Officer Karen Green found that a proposal to amend land from 'Agriculture'to 'Rural Residential Exception Area' could be allowed regardless of the fact that the application was not seeking a Goal 3 exception, and that no non-resource Comprehensive Plan designation existed to accommodate land that was determined to be nonagricultural. The Hearings Officer found that the current circumstances with regard to the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan are essentially the same as when Hearings Officer Green reached her decision in 2007 on Pagel. Although the above policy indicates the desired direction for the County, that work has not yet been accomplished, 3 In response to the Hearings Officer's question about Newland's arguments in the DSL case, which are contrary to the applicant's position in this case, the applicant's (and Newland's) attorney Liz Fancher stated Newland questioned the effect of the plan's EFU lands policies in order to obtain a ruling interpreting these policies to guide the applicant's anticipated efforts to change the EFU plan designation and zoning of the subject property. NNP IV-NCR, LLC -PA-13-1/ZC-13-1 Page 90f39 and the Board finds that it was not intended to impose a moratorium on the type of quasi-judicial Comprehensive Plan amendment applications such as the one currently proposed." The Hearings Officer notes the comprehensive plan includes policies in Chapter 23.120 addressing the designation of "exception areas," identified in part as lands throughout the county that are committed to non-resource uses including rural residential uses. However, I find these policies are not applicable to the applicant's proposal because the applicant is not requesting a "committed" or other exception to Goal 3, and the applicant does not argue that the subject property is committed to non-resource uses. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer adheres to the board's and my previous interpretations of the plan policies concerning conversion of EFU land to a non-resource designation. Accordingly, I find there is no merit to OLCO's and OOA's argument, and the applicant's proposal is properly before me. b. Section 18.136.020, Rezoning Standards The applicant for a quasi-judicial rezoning must establish that the public interest is best served by rezoning the property. Factors to be demonstrated by the applicant are: A. That the change conforms with the Comprehensive Plan, and the change is consistent with the plan's introductory statement and goals. FINDINGS: The proposed plan amendment is being reviewed under the applicable comprehensive plan provisions. The staff report notes the county's recently adopted plan no longer contains an "introductory statement and goals," and therefore the Hearings Officer finds that language in Paragraph A no longer is applicable. Chapter 2, Resource Management Section 2.2, Agricultural Lands Policies 2.2.2 Exclusive Farm Use SUb-zones shall remain as described in the 1992 Farm Study shown in the table below, unless adequate legal findings for amending the sub-zones are adopted or an individual parcel is rezoned as allowed by Policy 2.2.3. FINDINGS: The applicant is not requesting an amendment to the subzone (EFU-TRB) that applies to the subject property. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal is consistent with this policy. 2.2.3 Allow comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments for individual EFU parcels as allowed by State Statute, Administrative Rules and this Comprehensive Plan. FINDINGS: The applicant has requested a quasi-judicial plan amendment and zone change to remove the EFU deSignation and zoning from the subject property without requesting an exception to Goal 3. As discussed in the findings above, the Hearings Officer has found this request is authorized by policies in the comprehensive plan. I find it also is permitted under state law. In Wetherell v. Douglas County (Great American Properties), 52 Or LUBA 677 (2006), the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) stated in relevant part: NNP IV-NCR, LLC -PA-13-1/ZC-13-1 Page 10 of 39 1 j 1 i 1 "As we explained in OLCO v. Klamath County, 16 Or LUBA 817, 820 (1988) there are two ways a county can justify a decision to allow nonresource use of land previously designated and zoned for farm or forest uses. One is to take an exception to Goal 3 I j (Agricultural Lands) and Goal 4 (Forest Lands). The other is to adopt findings which I demonstrate the land does not qualify either as forest lands or agricultural lands under the statewide planning goals. When a county pursues the latter option, it must demonstrate that despite the prior resource plan and zoning designation, neither Goal 3 nor Goal 4 applies to the property. Caine v. Tillamook County, 25 Or LUBA 209, 218 (1993); OLCO v. Josephine county, 18 Or LUBA 798, 802 (1990)." I The applicant's burden of proof states at pages 8-9: "LUBA's decision in Wetherell was appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals and the I Oregon Supreme Court but neither court disturbed LUBA's ruling on this point. n4 The Hearings Officer concurs with the applicant that the subject applications are consistent with I LUBA's and the courts' holdings on this issue. Therefore, I find the applicant's proposal is consistent with this policy. I 2.2.4 Develop comprehensive policy criteria and code to provide clarity on when and how EFU parcels can be converted to other designations. ] FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein, the Hearings Officer has found the county's failure to adopt comprehensive plan policies and code provisions describing the circumstances under which EFU-zoned land may be converted to a non-resource designation and zoning does not preclude the county from considering the applicant's quasi­ judicial plan amendment and zone change applications. Therefore, I find the applicant's proposal is consistent with this policy. Section 2.5 Water Resource Policies 2.5.24 Ensure water impacts are reviewed and, if necessary, addressed for significant land uses or developments. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds it is not clear from this plan language what "water impactsU require review --impacts to water supplies from use or consumption on the subject property, or impacts to off-site water resources from development on the subject property. Therefore, I will address both issues. The applicant has not proposed any particular land use or development, and any subsequent applications for development of the subject property would be reviewed under the county's land use regulations which include consideration of a variety of on-and off-site impacts. The applicant's requested zone change to MUA-10 would allow a variety of land uses on the subject property on 10-acre lots. As discussed in the Findings of Fact above, much of the land surrounding the subject property is zoned MUA-10 and developed with rural residences and "hobby farms" --Le., small-scale, non-commercial farm activities subsidized by non-farm income. Consequently, the Hearings Officer finds it likely similar development would occur on the subject property if it were re-designated and rezoned. The record indicates the area 4 Wetherell v. Douglas County (Great American Properties), 204 Or App 778, 132 P3d 50 (2006); 342 Or 666, 160 P3d 614 (2007). NNP IV-NCR, LLC -PA-13-1fZC-13-1 Page 11 of 39 surrounding the subject property is served by Avion Water Company which submitted a "willing­ to-serveD letter for the subject property. Therefore, I find future development of the subject property under MUA-10 zoning will have adequate domestic water service. The applicant's proposal, if approved, likely will result in the permanent removal of the subject property's irrigation water rights.5 The applicant's burden of proof states some of those water rights already have been leased for in-stream use within the Upper Deschutes River basin, based on the applicant's choice not to irrigate land it considers unproductive for farm use. Nevertheless, this plan policy does not prohibit transfer of water rights, but simply requires that water impacts be reviewed and addressed as done through this decision. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal is consistent with this policy. Section 3.3, Rural Housing Rural Residential Exception Areas In Deschutes County most rural lands are designated for farms, forests or other resources and protected as described in the Resource Management chapter of this Plan. The majority of the land not recognized as resource lands or Unincorporated Community is designated Rural Residential Exception Area. The County had to follow a process under Statewide Goal 2 to explain why these lands did not warrant farm or forest zoning. The major determinant was that many of these lands were platted for residential use before Statewide Planning was adopted. In 1979 the County assessed that there were over 17,000 undeveloped Rural Residential Exception Area parcels, enough to meet anticipated demand for new rural housing. As of 2010 any new Rural Residential Exception Areas need to be justified through taking exceptions to farm, forest, public facilities and services and urbanization regulations, and follow guidelines set out in the OAR. FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein, the Hearings Officer has found the board's DSL decision makes clear that applications for plan amendments and zone changes to convert EFU land to non-resource designation and zoning, without an exception to Goal 3, are not precluded by this policy language. Therefore, I find the applicant's proposal is consistent with this policy. Section 3.7, Transportation System Plan Executive Summary Arterial and Collector Road Plan Goal 4 5 In the Watermaster's comments, he stated if new homes are developed on the subject property, the applicant will be required to consult with COl D regarding transfer of water rights. NNP IV-NCR, LLC -PA-13-1/ZC-13-1 Page 12 of 39 I I ! I 4. Establish a transportation system, supportive of a geographically distributed and diversified economic base, while also providing a I safe, efficient network for residential mobility and tourism. I Policies 4.1 Deschutes County shall: ! a. Consider the road network to be the most Important and valuable component of the transportation system. I 4.3 Deschutes County shall make transportation decisions with consideration of land use impacts, including put not limited to, adjacent land use patterns, both existing and planned, and theirI i designated uses and densities. I 4.4 Deschutes County shall consider roadway function, classification and capacity as criteria for plan map amendments and zone changes. This shall assure that proposed land uses do not exceed the planned capacity of the transportation system. (Emphasis added.) FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the above-underscored language indicates these plan I I policies provide direction to the county but do not create approval criteria for a quasi-judicial plan amendment and zone change. In any case, as discussed in detail in the findings below concerning compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), the applicant submitted a traffic impact analysis (hereafter "traffic study") prepared by Kittleson & Associates, Inc., included in the record as Exhibit "Y" to the applicant's burden of proof. The traffic study 1 concludes traffic generated by development at the reasonable "worst-case" density under the proposed plan amendment and zone change will not significantly affect a transportation facility and therefore will comply with the TPR. B. That the change in classification for the subject property is consistent with the purpose and intent of the proposed zone classification. FINDINGS: Section 18.32.010 states the purpose of the MUA-10 Zone is: * * * to preserve the rural character of various areas of the County while permitting development consistent with that character and with the capacity of the natural resources of the area; to preserve and maintain agricultural lands not suited to full-time commercial farming for diversified or part-time agricultural uses; to conserve forest lands for forest uses; to conserve open spaces and protect natural and scenic resources; to maintain and Improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the County; to establish standards and procedures for the use of those lands designated unsuitable for intense development by the Comprehensive Plan, and to provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. The applicant's burden of proof at page 12 addresses this criterion as follows: 'The subject property is not suited to full-time commercial farming. The MUA-10 (zoning) will allow part-time unprofitable hobby farming to occur where appropriate. The low NNP IV-NCR, LLC -PA-13-1/ZC-13-1 Page 13 of 39 density of development allowed by the MUA-10 zone will conserve open spaces and protect natural and scenic resources. The cluster or planned development aI/owed by this zone currently requires a developer to set aside 65% of the land area as open space. This low level of development will also help maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the county by encouraging future owners of the property to return irrigation water to area waterways or to more productive farm ground elsewhere in the county rather than to waste it on unproductive lands. The subject property is located a short distance outside of the City of Bend and was included in the Bend UGB adopted in 2009 that has been remanded to the City by OLCO. The MUA-10 zoning provides a proper transition zone from EFU to the City zoning that could be applied to this property in the future -whether in this or subsequent rounds of urban growth by the City of Bend. The zone imposes a large lot size that creates lots suited for redevelopment and further division at such time as the property is added to the Bend UGB. In addition, the property adjoins MUA-10 zoned properties on two sides. This rezoning will therefore create a logical extension of the MUA-10 zone." The Hearings Officer concurs with the applicant that rezoning the subject property to MUA-10 would be consistent with the purpose and intent of that zone because it would be consistent with the character of much of the surrounding area where there is significant MUA-10 zoning and a number of small-scale farms, and also because it would provide a transition between EFU­ zoned lands and the Bend UGB. C. That changing the zoning will presently serve the public health, safety and welfare considering the following factors: 1. The availability and efficiency of providing necessary public services and facilities. FINDINGS: The applicant's burden of proof at page 13 addresses this criterion as follows: "Necessary public facilities and services are available to serve the subject property as shown by the following evidence: (1) Will-serve letters from PacifiCorp and Avion Water Company, Inc., Exhibits P and Q of this application, show that electric power and water services are available to serve the property; and (2) the Transportation System Plan Analysis prepared by Kittelson and Associates, Inc., Exhibit Y, shows that the street network in the area of the property can accommodate the reasonable worst case development scenario that might occur after the property is rezoned; and (3) the property receives police services from the Deschutes County Sheriff; and (4) the property is in a rural fire protection district and the nearest fire station is just a little over a mile from the subject property. It is efficient to provide necessary services to the property because the property is already served by these service providers and the property is close to the corporate limits of the City of Bend and adjacent large tracts of land zoned MUA-10 and UAR-10 that has been extensively developed with rural and urban density residences. 11 The Hearings Officer concurs with this analysis and finds the applicant's proposal satisfies this criterion. 2. The impacts on surrounding land use will be consistent with the specific goals and policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan. NNP IV-NCR, LLC -PA-13-1/ZC-13-1 Page 14 of 39 FINDINGS: The applicant's burden of proof at page 13 addresses this criterion as follows: "The MUA-10 zoning has been shown to be consistent with the specffic goals and policies of the comprehensive plan discussed above. The MUA-10 zoning will create a consistent and logical zoning pattern and make the zoning of the subject property the same as the properties south and east of the subject property. MUA-10 zoning allows residential uses that are similar to the nonfarm dwellings approved for properties that adjoin the eastern boundary of the subject property, Tax Lots 201 (Ryba) and 2001205 (Culver). The zone change will not impose new impacts on farm land to the north because (a) these lands are separated from the subject property by a rural arterial road; and (b) the area along and on both sides of Butler Market Road has been developed with a number of single-family homes. JI The Hearings Officer concurs with the applicant's analysis because I find the proposed plan amendment and zone change, in and of themselves, will not have any impact on surrounding farm land. No specific development has been proposed in conjunction with the subject applications, and as discussed in detail in the findtngs below, I have found the subject property is not necessary for the continuance of farm uses on adjacent or nearby lands. Therefore, I find the applicant's proposal satisfies this criterion. D. That there has been a change in circumstances since the property was last zoned, or a mistake was made in the zoning of the property in question. FINDINGS: 1. Mistake. The applicant argues the proposed plan amendment and zone change are justified because they will correct a mistake made in the original EFU zoning of the subject property allegedly due to inaccurate soil classification on the property. However, the Hearings Officer concurs with staff's observation that in light of the soils information that was available to the county in the late 1970's when the comprehensive plan and map were adopted, the subject property's EFU designation and zoning were appropriate. The applicant also argued in its July 15, 2013 submission that in 1982 the county again erred in not changing the designation and zoning of the subject property from agriculture to MUA-10 on Tax Lot 206 based on soils information that showed the tax lot consisted predominantly of Class I-VI soils. The record indicates the applicant's predecessor withdrew that application. In any case, I find that based on the soils information available to the county in 1981, the disposition of that application was not a mistake. 2. Change in Circumstances. The applicant's burden of proof at pages 13-15 argues the following changes justify the proposed plan amendment and zone change: U1. The area of the Los Serranos First Addition subdivision that adjoins the subject property was initially zoned EFU-20 by Deschutes County in 1979 and 1980. The County rezoned the property to MUA-10 in the early 1980's after the EFU zone was applied to the subject property. (File Z-80-37, Exhibit C). This area has been developed with single-family rural residences. 2. All lands in Section 17-12-240 outside the Los Serranos subdivisions were rezoned MUA-10 from EFU-20 zoning. See File Z-80-28, Exhibit 0 and File Z-81­ NNP IV-NCR, LLC -PA-13-1/ZC-13-1 Page 15 of 39 14, Exhibit E due to poor soils. These properties were subsequently developed with residences and hobby farms. 3. A large amount of new residential development has occurred on the MUA-10 and UAR-10 zoned lands that lie between the City of Bend and the subject property. 4. Two churches were developed on an MUA-10 zoned lot that adjoins the western boundary ofthe subject property (west of Butler Market Road). 5. The City of Bend included the subject property in its unacknowledged 2009 UGB boundary. The decision was remanded for reconsideration by the City and is still pending. 6. The City of Bend and FAA have made substantial financial investments in expanding the Bend Airport to seNe as a regional employment center for aircraft­ related activities and manufacturing. In 1979 and 19BO, the airport was a small local airport that provided hangar space for the planes and local residents. The airport is located a short distance to the east of the subject property. Allowing additional homes in close proximity to this new employment center is logical. 7. A detailed, Order 1 soils sUNey has been conducted on the subject property and has determined that the subject property is predominantly Class VII nonagricultural soils. B. Avion Water Company, Inc. has upgraded its water seNice to the northeast area of Bend and now provides water seNice to the subject property that can seNe urban or rural residential development. " The Hearings Officer finds some of the circumstances described above are not really changes in circumstance since they reflect the type and density of development contemplated by the county's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance -i.e., the increase in rural residential development and the establishment of churches in the surrounding MUA-10 Zone. However, I agree with the applicant that the plan amendments and zone changes approved for some of the surrounding MUA-10 zoned property based on site-specific soils analyses, coupled with the applicant's submitted soil study, constitute changes in circumstance of the type that can justify a plan amendment and zone change. However, as discussed in detail in the findings below, I have found the applicant's soil study does not justify the proposed plan amendment and zone change to MUA-10 because it analyzed soils on the entire subject property rather than as to each parcel. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal satisfies the applicable prOVisions of the comprehensive plan. STATEWIDE LAND USE PLANNING GOALS B. Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 660, Land Conservation and Development Commission 1. Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines NNP IV-NCR, LLC -PA-13-1/ZC-13-1 Page 16 of 39 FINDINGS: Goal 1, Citizen Involvement. The Planning Division has provided notice of the proposed plan amendment and zone change to the public through individual mailed notice to nearby property owners, publication of notice in the Bend "Bulletin" newspaper, and posting of the subject property with a notice of proposed land use action sign. In addition, two public hearings were held before the Hearings Officer on the proposed plan amendment/zone change, and a public hearing on the proposal will be held by the Board. Goal 2, Land Use Planning. Goals, policies and processes related to plan amendment and zone change applications are included in the county's comprehensive plan and land use regulations in Titles 18 and 22 of the Deschutes County Code and have been applied to the review of these applications. Goal 3, Agricultural Lands. Goal 3 is "[t]o preserve and maintain agricultural lands." The applicant argues the goal does not apply to the subject property because the property does not constitute "agricultural land" based upon a site-specific soil study. As discussed in detail in the findings below concerning compliance with the applicable administrative rules governing agricultural land, incorporated by reference herein, the Hearings Officer has found the applicant's soil study is not adequate because it does not demonstrate the parcels comprising the subject property are predominantly Class VII and VIII soils, and the applicant has failed to demonstrate the subject property is unsuitable for farm use considering profitability and factors in the Goal 3 administrative rules. Therefore, I find the applicant's proposal is not consistent with Goal 3. Goal 4, Forest Lands. The Hearings Officer finds this goal is not applicable because the subject property does not include any lands that are zoned for, or that support. forest uses. Goal 5, Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources. The Hearings Officer finds this goal is not applicable because the record indicates there are no identified GoalS resources on the subject property. Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resources Quality. The Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal to rezone the property from EFU-TRB to MUA-10 will not impact the quality of the air, water, and land resources of the county because it would allow the subject property to be developed in accordance with the provisions of the MUA-10 Zone, including small hobby farms and low-density rural residences similar to development on surrounding land. Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards. The Hearings Officer finds this goal is not applicable because the subject property is not located in a known natural disaster or hazard area. Goal 8, Recreational Needs. The Hearings Officer finds this goal is not applicable because the proposed plan amendment and zone change do not affect recreational needs, and no specific development of the property is proposed. Goal 9, Economy of the State. This goal is to provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities. The Hearings Officer finds the proposed plan amendment and zone change will have little impact on the economy of the state. Approval of the proposal will remove approximately 171 acres of land inventoried for farm use. However, as NNP IV-NCR, LLC -PA-13-1/ZC-13-1 Page 17 of 39 discussed in detail in the findings below, the record indicates that for the last several decades agriculture on the subject property has consisted primarily of small-scale, non-commercial farming that has not contributed significantly to the agricultural economy of the county. Goal 10, Housing. The Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal is consistent with this goal because it has the potential to increase housing density and therefore the supply of needed housing. Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services. The Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal will have no effect on the provision of public facilities and services to the subject site and the surrounding area. As discussed in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein, public facilities and services necessary for development of the subject property in accordance with MUA-10 zoning are available and adequate. Goal 12, Transportation. As discussed in the detail in the findings below concerning compliance with the TPR, incorporated by reference herein, the Hearings Officer has found the applicant's proposal will not significantly affect a transportation facility and therefore complies with the TPR. Accordingly, I find it also is consistent with Goal 12. Goal 13, Energy Conservation. The Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposed plan amendment and zone change, in and of themselves, will have no effect on energy use or conservation since no specific development has been proposed in conjunction with the subject applications. Goal 14, Urbanization. Goal 14 is "[t]o provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use." The staff report states Goal 14 is not applicable to the applicant's proposal because it does not affect property within an urban growth boundary and does not promote the urbanization of rural land. OLCO and OOA dispute that conclusion. In their comments on the applicant's proposal, they argue Goal 14 is applicable, and the applicant failed to demonstrate compliance with the goal, for the following reasons: "OAR 660-004-0040 provides guidance for planning and zoning new rural residential exception areas. Specifically, OAR 660-004-0040(7) requires new rural residential exception areas to have a minimum lot size of at least 10 acres. The subject proposal does not seek to create a new rural residential exception area. Instead, it attempts to demonstrate that the subject property is nonresource land and not deserving of protection under statewide planning goal 3. Nonresource areas are specifically excluded from the provisions of OAR 660-004-0040. We believe that in most cases nonresource lands should be placed in a plan and zone category that requires at least a 20-acre minimum lot size." The Hearings Officer finds this argument is connected to OLCO's and OOA's claim that the county cannot remove a resource land designation without first, through a legislative process, creating a specific new plan designation and zone for such lands. As discussed in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein, the board and the county's hearings officers have rejected that argument. NNP IV-NCR, LLC -PA-13-1/ZC-13-1 Page 18 of 39 I The Hearings Officer also finds the agencies' reliance on OAR 660-004-0040 is misplaced. OAR Division 660, Chapter 4. addresses the Goal 2 exceptions process -i.e., the taking of an exception to one of the goals, thereby creating an -exception area." As DLCD and ODA acknowledge, the applicant is not requesting an exception to Goal 3 and therefore is not seeking to create a new exception area. Finally, DLCD and ODA do not explain, nor do they cite authority for, the proposition that non­ resource land must be placed in a plan and zone category with a 20-acre minimum lot size. The applicant has requested that the subject property be rezoned to MUA-10 which is the predominant non-resource zone in the surrounding area. This zone has a 10-acre minimum lot size, with the potential for a 7.5 dwelling unit per acre density within a cluster development that also includes 65 percent open space. In either case, the Hearings Officer finds the proposed rezoning would not result in the "urbanization" of the subject property because it would allow low-density development typical in the surrounding area. Therefore, I find the applicant's proposal is consistent with Goal 14. Goals 15 through 19. The Hearings Officer finds these goals, which address river, ocean, and estuarine resources, are not applicable because the subject property is not located in or adjacent to any such areas or resources. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal is not consistent with all of the statewide goals because it does not comply with Goal 3. 2. Division 12, Transportation Planning Rule a. OAR 660-012-0060, Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments. (1) If an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation (Including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, then the local government must put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would: (a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan; (b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or (c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection based on projected conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area of the amendment may be reduced if the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the amendment. NNP IV-NCR, LLC -PA-13-1/ZC-13-1 Page 19 of 39 (A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; (B) Degrade the perfonnance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or (C) Degrade the perfonnance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected to not meet the perfonnance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the TPR is applicable to the applicant's proposal because it requests an amendment to an acknowledged plan. The applicant submitted a traffic study, included in the record as Exhibit "Y" to the applicant's burden of proof. In order to evaluate potential traffic impacts from conversion of the subject property from EFU to MUA-zoned land, the traffic study assumed the "worst-case" scenario for density of development -Le., a total of 30 dwellings on the subject property (including the five existing dwellings). The traffic study then compared traffic impacts from the existing EFU-zone development (5 dwellings) and MUA-10 zone development (30 dwellings) on the affected intersections -i.e., a net increase of 25 dwellings. The traffic study predicted that MUA-10 density residential development would generate 201 additional average daily vehicle trips (ADTs) of which 25 would be during the p.m. peak hour (4:30 to 6:30 p.m. weekdays). The traffic study found that both affected intersections would continue to function at acceptable levels of service under the county's transportation system plan standards with the addition of this traffiC. Based on the above-described analysis, the traffic study concluded the applicant's proposal would not Significantly affect a transportation facility, and that no changes to the affected intersections or to the county's transportation plan would be required. In his February 19, 2013 comments on the applicant's proposal. the county's Senior Transportation Planner Peter Russell stated he agreed with "the methodology, conclusions, and recommendations of the submitted traffic study. It (4) Determinations under sections (1)-(3) of this rule shall be coordinated with affected transportation facility and service providers and other affected local governments. FINDINGS: As discussed in the Findings of Fact above, the Planning Division sent written notice of the applicant's proposal to a number of public and private agencies, including the City of Bend Engineering and Fire Departments, the county road department and ODOT. as well as Pacific Power, Cascade Natural Gas, CEC, and CenturyLink. The staff report states, and the Hearings Officer agrees, this notice provided adequate opportunity for coordination with affected transportation and service providers and local governments. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal complies with the TPR. NNP IV-NCR, LLC -PA-13-1/ZC-13-1 Page 20 of 39 AGRICULTURAL LAND STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES 3. Division 33, Agricultural Land FINDINGS: The applicant is requesting approval of a plan amendment and zone change for the subject property on the basis that it does not constitute "agricultural land P requiring protection under Goal 3. The standards and procedures for identifying and inventorying agricultural land are found in OAR Chapter 660, Division 33. a. OAR 660-033-0010, Purpose The purpose of this division is to preserve and maintain agricultural lands as defined by Goal 3 for farm use, and to implement ORS 215.203 through 215.327 and 215.438 through 215.459 and 215.700 through 215.799. FINDINGS: Goal 3 defines "agricultural land" in relevant part as follows: Agricultural Land -* * * in eastern Oregon is land of predominantly Class I, II, III, IV, V and VI soils as identified in the Soil Capability Classification System of the United States Soil Conservation Service, and other lands which are suitable for farm use taking into consideration soil fertility, suitability for grazing, climatic conditions, eXisting and future availability for farm irrigation purposes, existing land-use patterns, technological and energy inputs required. or accepted farming practices. Lands in other classes which are necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands, shall be included as agricultural land in any event. More detailed soil data to define agricultural land may be utilized by local governments if such data permits achievement of this goal. FINDINGS: Under this definition, which is mirrored in the Goal 3 administrative rules (OAR 660­ 033-0020), "agricultural land" consists of: • Land that is predominantly Class I-VI soils (in Eastern Oregon) unless a goal exception is merited; • Land that is predominantly Class VII and VIII soils and that is "suitable for farm use" considering the factors set forth in OAR 660-033-0020(1 )(a)(8); • Land that is necessary to permit farm practices on adjacent or nearby agricultural lands; and • Class VII and VIII land that is adjacent to or intermingled with Class I-VI land within a farm unit. The applicant argues the subject property does not constitute "agricultural land" under any of these categories, each of which is discussed in the findings below. NNP IV-NCR, LLC -PA-13-1/ZC-13-1 Page 21 of 39 Predominantly Class I-VI Soils (1 ) (a) "Agricultural Land" as defined in Goal 3 includes: (A) Lands classified by the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as predominantly Class I-IV soils in Western Oregon and I-VI soils in Eastern Oregon; FINDINGS: Appropriate Unit of Land The "predominant soils" prong of the agricultural land definition cannot be applied until a unit of land is selected for analysis. Wetherell v. Douglas County (Standley), 50 Or LUBA 71 (2005). The applicant argues the entire 171-acre subject property is the appropriate unit of land for this analysis. The staff report questions whether the proper analysis requires that each parcel comprising the subject property be evaluated. OAR 660-033-0030 sets forth the process by which a county identifies "agricultural land." Subsection (2) of that rule states in relevant part: When a jurisdiction determines the predominant soil capability classification of 2­ lot or parcel it need only look to the land within the lot or parcel being inventoried. However, whether land is "suitable for farm use" requires an inquiry into factors beyond the mere identification of scientific soil classifications..• This ·inquiry requires the consideration of conditions existing outside of the lot or parcel being inventoried. (Emphasis added.) OAR 660-033-0020(12) states that for purposes of OAR 660-033, the term "parcel" has the meaning set forth in ORS 215.010(1} -i.e. a unit of land lawfully created by a partition or by a deed or contract if no land use regulations were in place. OAR 660-033-0020(13) defines "tract" as ·one or more contiguous lots or parcels in the same ownership." Under these definitions, the subject property is a tract and not a parcel. The text of OAR 660-033-0030(2) makes clear the "predominant soils" and "suitable for farm use" analyses are applied to different units of land. The language of the former focuses on the "parcel" whereas the language of the latter includes the parcel and certain lands outside it. This rule language has been addressed and applied in a handful of Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) and court cases. However, as discussed below, most of these cases involve very different circumstances than those presented here. In 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco County Court, 299 Or 34, 703 P2d 207 (1985), the Supreme Court upheld the county's decision to re-designate and rezone 2,135 acres of the 64,000-acre EFU-zoned Rancho Rajneesh on the basis of the "predominant soils" analysis, rejecting opponents' arguments that soils on the entire ranch must be considered. However, in its decision in Wetherell (Standley) cited above, LUBA questioned the effect of the court's decision since it did not state whether the 2,135 acres at issue represented one or more parcels or rather whether they represented part of an existing parcel. LUBA also noted the court had mischaracterized one of the LUBA cases on which it relied. As a result, LUBA concluded it was unclear whether court's holding in Wasco County Court dealt with evaluating a "parcel within a tract" or a "portion of a parcel within a parcel." NNP IV-NCR, LLC -PA-13-1/ZC-13-1 Page 22 of 39 i I I Turning to the facts before it in Wetherell (Standley), LUBA reversed the county's non-resource designation and zoning of 55 acres of a 135-acre EFU-zoned parent parcel, which decision was based on the county's finding that soils on the 55 acres were not predominantly agricultural. With respect to OAR 660-033-0030(2), LUBA stated: "While the above rule language admittedly does not expressly mandate inventorying agricultural land by lot or parcel and does not expressly prohibit inventorying agricultural land at a sub-parcel or sub-lot level, it appears to assume that such inventories will examine whole lots and parcels rather than portions of lots or parcels." (Underscored emphasis added.) LUBA noted that unlike the "predominant soils" analysis language in OAR 660-033-0030(2), the "general unsuitability· test for nonfarm dwellings under ORS 215.283(3)(d) expressly allows approval based on a determination that a "portion of a lot or parcel" is generally unsuitable. LUBA ultimately held in Wetherell (Standley) that in applying the "predominant soils class" prong of the "agricultural land" definition: "With that context, we do not beJieve OAR 660-033-0030(2) allows portions of existing parcels that are predominantly class I-IV soils to be analvzed on a sub-parcel basis so that sub-areas within that parcel can be eliminated from the county's acknowledged inventory of agricultural land. "(Underscored emphasis added.) Thus, LUBA did not address the "parcel within a tracr question presented here -Le., whether OAR 660-033-0030(2) allows or requires tracts or individual parcels within the tract to be evaluated for the "predominant soils" analysis. Similarly, previous county decisions re­ designating and rezoning non resource land have not addressed this question. That is likely because prior county cases involved single parcels rather than tracts comprised of multiple parcels. For example, the Pagel and DSL decisions cited above involved, respectively. a 17­ acre parcel and a 380-acre portion of a 640-acre parent parcel.6 In a supplemental memorandum dated March 20, 2013, the applicant's attorney Steven Hultberg stated OAR 660-033-0030(2) permits the county "to consider the entire tract of land in common ownership.· Mr. Hultberg argued that had LCDC intended the focus of the "predominant soils" analysis to be on each individual parcel within a tract it would have said so explicitly. However, one could argue that is exactly what LCDC said by using the term "parcel" rather than "tract" in the administrative rule. Mr. Hultberg also argued that as a practical matter, focusing on individual parcels rather than the entire tract makes little sense since parcel lines can be adjusted or vacated to meet the predominance test. While in theory such adjustments could be made -assuming they would not conflict with previous land use decisions such as farm dwelling approvals --the Hearings Officer finds that fact does not justify interpreting the term "parcel" in the administrative rule to mean "tract." Moreover, the Hearings Officer is concerned about the result of such parcel manipulation. It could have a negative effect on preserving and protecting agricultural land comparable to that addressed in LUBA"s Wetherell (Standley) decision resulting from removing a portion of a parcel from the inventory of agricultural land. 6 The County's approval in DSL may not have been consistent with LUBA's holding in Wetherell since it I may have approved the re-designation of part of a parcel. NNP IV-NCR, LLC -PA-13-1IZC-13-1 Page 23 of 39 t. In response to the Hearings Officer's concerns about parcel manipulation and aggregation, Ms. Fancher stated in the applicant's final argument: "In the pending case, NNP did not acquire the property or adjust property lines to create a farm unit with a predominance of Class VII and VIII soils. Rather, the lot configuration is simply the layout of NNP's land. The NNP land was acquired because it was a good candidate for inclusion in the Bend UGB, not because NNP was seeking to create a tract of land that would qualify as nonagricultural/and. * * * Oregon law requires the County to look at all of NNP's property, regardless of property lines, to assess whether it is suitable for farm use. See, Meyer v. Lord, 37 Or App 59, 586 P2d 367 (1978). This and other similar provisions of State law are written to make it difficult to remove areas of poor soils from large units of farm land. State law does not prohibit the aggregation of lots and parcels into a farm unit. In fact, the aggregation of EFU land into larger tracts is an activity that supports profitable farm use and is encouraged by State law. With respect to the concern raised by the Hearings Officer regarding the removal of farmland from production by adding to a tract composed of poor soils, NNP believes that it is unlikely that owners of EFU-zoned land with poor soils will acquire good farm land and combine it into a single farm unit for the purpose of obtaining MUA zoning for the combined property. * *. 7 'I< The Hearings Officer finds this argument misses the mark. First, Meyer v. Lord does not address the ·predominant soils class" prong of the "agricultural land" definition but rather the "suitable for farm use" prong. As discussed above, the appropriate unit of land for the "suitability" test expressly includes land beyond the parcel to be inventoried. Second, the applicant misunderstands the issue I raised. My concern is not about an applicant acquiring good farm land to facilitate rezoning poor quality farmland. Rather, my concern is for the opposite scenario -i.e., the applicant acquiring and blocking up parcels with poor quality soils (e.g., Tax Lots 206,300 and 304) with parcels with irrigated high value soils, thereby potentially tipping the balance on the tract to nonagricultural soils and resulting in the removal of irrigated farmland with high value soils from the county's inventory of agricultural land. Finally, while I agree state law does not prohibit the aggregation of parcels "into a farm unit" as described by Ms. Fancher, that is not what the applicant did here. The applicant acquired the parcels comprising the subject property because they had been identified for inclusion in the Bend UGB, and as discussed in the findings below, the applicant argues the subject property is not, and cannot become, a farm unit. In the absence of clear direction from the courts, LUBA or the board concerning application of the language in OAR 660-033-0030(2) to the unique circumstances of this case -i.e., a tract consisting of multiple parcels -the Hearings Officer finds it is reasonable to conclude the rule gives the county discretion to choose the appropriate unit of land for the "predominant soils" analysis. In other words, the county can choose either to evaluate the soils on an individual parcel basis or as to the entire tract. I find that choice should be informed by the purpose of Goal 3 to preserve and maintain agricultural lands for farm use. 7 As discussed in the findings below, the applicant argues the subject property is not a "farm unit" in part because it is an aggregation of multiple parcels. NNP IV-NCR, LLC -PA-13-1/ZC-13-1 Page 24 of 39 As discussed in the Findings of Fact above, the 171-acre subject property has 103 acres of irrigation water rights, and seven of the nine tax lots are receiving farm tax deferral. Although the "Revised Soil Map" at page 24 of Mr. Borine's soil study shows that significant parts of Tax Lots 206, 300 and 304 are composed of Class VII and VIII soils, the soil map also shows the remaining six tax lots have large areas of Class III-VI soils which are considered high value soils when irrigated. Two of these tax lots have dwellings approved as farm dwellings. Under these circumstances, the Hearings Officer finds it likely at least some of the parcels comprising the subject property contain predominantly Class I-VI soils. Therefore, I find that in this case, the tract is not the appropriate unit of land for the "predominant soils" analysis because it may not preserve and maintain agricultural land for farm use. Rather, I find the appropriate unit of land for this analysis is each individual parcel within the tract. The applicant declined the Hearings Officer'S request to submit soils information for each parcel, thereby precluding me from conducting the "predominant soils· analysis for the individual parcels comprising the subject property. Therefore, I find the applicant has not met its burden of proof for the proposed plan amendment because it has not demonstrated the parcels making up the subject property are not "agricultural land" under the "predominant soils" analysis of OAR 660-033-0030(2). The Hearings Officer anticipates the applicant will appeal this decision to the board under Section 22.28.030(0). Therefore, to assist planning staff and the board in the event of an appeal, I make the following alternative findings assuming the appropriate unit of land for the "predominant soils" analysis is the entire subject property. Predominant Soils The NRCS soils maps for the subject property show it is composed of three soil units: Soil Units 36A and 36B, Oeskamp loamy sand 0 to 3/3 to 8 percent slopes; and Soil Unit 58C, Gosney­ Rock outcrop-Oeskamp complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes. Soil Units 36A and 36B soils are designated Class III when irrigated and Class VI without irrigation and are considered high value soils when irrigated. Soil Unit 58C soils are considered non high value soils. The Gosney and rock outcrop components of Soil Unit 58C soils are designated Class VII and VIII, respectively, with or without irrigation. As discussed above, the subject property has 103 acres of irrigation water rights. The NRCS maps show Soil Units 36A and 36B comprise 56.4 percent and Soil Unit sac soils comprise 43.6 percent of the subject property. Therefore, according to the NRCS data, the subject property is predominantly Class I-VI soils. As discussed above, the applicant submitted a site-specific "Agricultural Soils Capability Assessment» of the subject property, also referred to as an "Order 1 soil survey".8 The soil study is dated July 11, 2012, was prepared by Roger Borine of Sage West, LLC, and is included in the record as Exhibit "A" to the applicant's burden of proof. The record indicates that in July of 2012 Mr. Borine submitted the soil study to OLCD for certification pursuant to OAR 660-033­ 0030(5). By an electronic mail message dated July 20, 2012, from Katherine Daniels of DLCD to Oeschutes County Planning Director Nick Lelack, DLCD certified the study. Mr. Borine's 8 The soil study explains there are three levels of soil analyses: (1) Order 3 map units which are "mainly complexes;" (2) Order 2 map units which are more detailed but still identify mainly consociations and complexes; and (3) Order 1 soil studies that provide more detail about soils within the large mapping units shown in the NRCS maps. NNP IV-NCR, LLC -PA-13-1/ZC-13-1 Page 25 of 39 submission and the certification document are included in the record as Exhibits "I" and "J: respectively, to the applicant's burden of proof.9 DLCD's certification states in relevant part: "The department has reviewed the attached soils assessment prepared by a professional soil classifier under OAR 660-033-0030 and 0045, as well as the submittal, release and report requirement fonns. A completeness check indicates that the soils assessment is consistent with reporting requirements, and may therefore be considered to be certified. The County may make its own determination as to the accuracy and acceptability of the soils assessment. II The soil study identified the same three soil units on the subject property that are identified on the NRCS maps. However, Mr. Borine conducted an on-site investigation to provide a more detailed analysis and mapping of the soils. His analysis methodology is described at page 5 of the soil study as follows: 'There were one hundred forty five (145) soil data points of which seventy two (72) were excavated with a backhoe and seventy three (73) with a shovel/auger. These data points were not randomly selected, but located to accurately verify soil and landscape relationships. Where soils and landscapes have been modified semi-grid pattern was used. Ten (10) transects were completed during the mapping process to detennine soil boundary placement and map unit composition. Each transect point had three investigations with a tile probe within a 5 foot radius to determine average soil depth. There were one hundred thirteen (113) obseNation points with approximately 3 probes each to determine soil depth for a total of over 325 observations. In addition, non­ recorded obseNations using the tile probe, shovel and auger were made to accurately . locate soil boundaries. II Mr. Borine explained that in the study area, soil depth and available water capacity are the primary criteria for identifying soils and their classifications. Based on his analysis, Mr. Borine found that in both Soil Units 36A and 36B there were contrasting inclusions with very shallow soils which he characterized as "Zeta" soils for purposes of the soil study. Based in large part on soil depth information, Mr. Borine divided the three NRCS soil units into five "Soil Survey Map Units." They are: (A) Deskamp loamy sand, 0-3 % slopes; (B) Gosney, deep-Deskamp complex, 0-8% slopes; (C) Gosney-Zeta complex, 0-3% slopes; (D) Gosney-Rock outcrop complex, 0-15% slopes; and (E) Gosney extremely stony loamy sand, 0-3% slopes. Mr. Borine concluded that because of inadequate soil depth, Map Unit C soils do not constitute Class I-VI soils. Table 2 of the soil study shows that of the 170.88 acres comprising the subject property, Map Units A and B comprise 57.04 acres (33.38%), and Map Units C, D and E comprise 113.84 acres (66.62%). Therefore, based on his on-site investigation and analysis, Mr. Borine concluded the subject property consists of predominantly Class VII and VIII soils and therefore is not "agricultural land." In their March 18, 2013 comments on the applicant's proposal, DLCD and ODA stated in relevant part: "The applicant has presented additional site specific soils information to supplement the NRCS data which indicates that the subject tract is actually 9 DLCD's certification indicates Mr. Borine is a "qualified soils professional." NNP IV-NCR, LLC -PA-13-1/ZC-13-1 Page 26 of 39 composed predominantly of Class VII soils. The departments find the conclusion that level, irrigated land would be considered Class VII is surprising. Should the county agree with the applicant's soils report addition [sic] provisions of the definition of agricultural land must be considered. " The agencies did not submit any evidence challenging Mr. Borine's methodology or analysis or rebutting his conclusions. The Hearings Officer finds Mr. Borine is a qualified soils expert and his soil study is detailed and comprehensive. Therefore, in the absence of competent evidence to the contrary, I find Mr. Borine's analysis and conclusions constitute substantial, credible evidence that the subject property is composed predominantly of Class VII and VIII soils. (8) Land in other soil classes that is suitable for farm use as defined in ORS 215.203(2)(a), taking into consideration soil fertility; suitability for grazing; climatic conditions; existing and future availability of water for farm irrigation purposes; existing land use patterns; technological and energy inputs required; and accepted farming practices; and (Underscored emphasis added.) FINDINGS: Because the applicant's soil study shows the subject property, evaluated as a tract, is predominantly Class VII and VIII soils, the next question under this administrative rule is whether the predominant Class VII and VIII soils on the subject property nevertheless constitute "agricultural land" because they are suitable for farm use based on the seven factors listed in the rule. OAR 660-033-0020(7)(a) states "farm use" as used in the rule has the meaning set forth in ORS 215.203 which provides: As used in this section, "farm use" means the current employment of land for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money by raising, harvesting and selling crops or the feeding, breeding, management and sale of, or the products of, livestock, poultry, fur-bearing animals or honeybees or for dairying and the sale of dairy products or any other agricultural or horticultural use or animal husbandry or any combination thereof. "Farm use" includes the preparation, storage and disposal by marketing or otherwise of the products or by-products raised on such land for human or animal use. "Farm use" also includes the current employment of the land for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money by stabling or training equines including but not limited to providing riding lessons, training clinics and schOOling shows. "Farm use" also includes the propagation, cultivation, maintenance and harvesting of aquatic species and bird and animal species to the extent allowed by the rules adopted by the State Fish and Wildlife Commission. "Farm use" includes the on-site construction and maintenance of equipment and facilities used for the activities described in this subsection. "Farm use" does not include the use of land subject to the provisions of ORS chapter 321, except land used exclusively for growing cultured Christmas trees as defined in subsection (3) of this section or land described in ORS 321.267(1)€ or 321.415(5). (Underscored emphasis added.) LUBA and the courts have found the above-underscored means the county may consider "profitability" in addition to the seven factors listed in the administrative rule -i.e., whether a NNP IV-NCR, llC -PA-13-1/ZC-13-1 Page 27 of 39 reasonable farmer would be motivated to put the land into agricultural use for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money. Wetherell (Foley 11/), 62 Or LUBA 80 (2010). However, in Foley III, LUBA gave the following guidance and caution in considering profitability: "In our view, while profitability is a permissible consideration in determining whether land is agricultural land under the rule definition, it is a relatively minor consideration, and one with a large potential for distracting the decision maker and the parties from the primary considerations listed in the rule definition -soil fertility, suitability for grazing, climatic conditions, existing and future availability of water for farm irrigation purposes, existing land use patterns, technological and energy inputs required, and accepted farming practices. Because an economic analysis such as the Day report yields hard numbers, it is easy to assign unwarranted significance to the analysis, and fail to appreciate that it is based on highly variable assumptions regarding hypothetical farm uses, and that its conclusions are only as reliable as its assumptions. " Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds it is appropriate for me to consider profitability in the context of the seven factors in the administrative rule, but that it is not the determining factor in the "suitability" analysis. Each of the seven factors is discussed in the findings below. 1. Soil Fertility. The applicant argues the subject property is not suitable for farm use because the Class VII and VIII soils are not fertile. In support of its argument, the applicant relies on Mr. Borine's soil study, which states at page six: "One soil sample from this parcel was collected and analyzed by Agri-Check, Inc. (attached). Comparative lab analyses by Agri-Check, Inc. of similar soils in this same region were studied and analyzed to develop this assessment. Organic matter for these sites is extremely low to non-measureable and clay content is less than five percent, resulting in very low Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC); the higher the CEC the higher potential fertility. CEC is important because it provides a reseNoir of nutrients for plant uptake. Sample sites have low levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and sulfur. High levels of fertilization are required for a grass crop to be produced. Without an ability of the soil to attract and absorb nutrients (low CEC) they are readily leached out of the soil by irrigation and precipitation thus becoming unavailable for plant use and lost into the surface and ground water. The pH (acidity/basicity) for most soils in this region is adequate for plant growth. The pH in soils with a low CEC can quickly be reduced by additions of nitrogen and sulfur fertilizers resulting in the reduction of nutrient availability to plants. Lime as a soil amendment must be added to raise soil pH to an acceptable range for plant nutrient uptake. To maintain a minimum level of essential nutrients for proper crop growth multiple yearly applications of very high rates of fertilizer and soil amendments are required. Without soil sampling, lab analyses, proper fertilization and soil amendments these soils are non­ productive and infertile." OLCO and OOA dispute the applicant's assertion. However, they do not challenge Mr. Borine's qualifications or findings or the results of the Agri-Check analysis. Rather, they argue soil fertility can be improved through the application of lime, manure and fertilizers. They also argue some types of agriculture -e.g., confinement livestock and poultry operations, and horse breeding and raising facilities -are not "strictly dependent" on soil fertility but merely need suitable space and topography which the subject property has. NNP IV-NCR, LLC -PA-13-1/ZC-13-1 Page 28 of 39 In her July 16, 2013 response to OLCO's and OOA's comments, the applicant's attorney liz Fancher noted that the NRCS considers Class VII and VIII soils as having significant limitations for cultivation or raising of livestock, describing them as follows: "Class VII (7) soils have very severe limitations that make them unsuited to cultivation and that restrict their use mainly to grazing, forestland, or wildlife. I Class VIII (8) soils and miscellaneous areas have limitations that preclude their use for commercial plant production and limit their use to recreation, wildlife, or water supply or for esthetic purposes. It I In addition, Ms. Fancher argues a reasonable farmer would not incur the costs associated with amending and fertilizing the soil. However, the applicant's submitted agricultural economic analysis, prepared by Stephen Caruana and discussed in detail in the findings below, shows no fertilizer expenses at all in the annual budget for a cattle grazing operation, identified as one of the most likely farm uses of the subject property. The annual budgets for a bluegrass seed operation and an alfalfa hay operation show fertilizer costs of $10,712 and $3,970, respectively. Thus, the fertility of the Class VII and VIII soils on the subject property could be improved with fertilizer to a sufficient degree to sustain a grass seed or grass hay operation. The applicant does not explain why a reasonable farmer would not be willing to incur these relatively low fertilizer expenses for such operations. 2. Suitability for Grazing. The applicant argues the subject property is not suitable for farm use because it cannot be profitably managed for livestock grazing. In support of its argument, the applicant relies in part on Mr. Borine's soil study. which states at page six: "Soil, vegetation, climate and landscape are determinant factors for the suitability for grazing of livestock. Limitations that are recognized on this site include very low available water for plant growth. Restricted depth limits seeding only to drought tolerant species, and rock outcrop limits the areas suitable for grazing. The cold climate and soil temperatures delay growth of forage and low water retention in the soil and no summer moisture shortens the growing season. Re-establishment of the native vegetation is likely impossible due to the pumice ash surface layer and past land alterations. Restricted depth limits seeding only to drought tolerant species, and rock outcrop limits the areas suitable for grazing. " In their comments on the applicant's proposal, OLCO and OOA argued the subject tract is suitable for livestock grazing. either on its own or operated in conjunction with other properties, for the following reasons: ". • • [1]lTigated pasture in Central Oregon is generally assumed to be able to support one cow-calf pair for a grazing season running roughly from May 15 through October 15, or about five AUMs [animal unit month] per acre. [10] Dry land pasture has a much lower capability. The applicant's materials suggest that dry land on the subject tract could support one pair per acre for 30 days, or about one AUM per acre. Added together, 103 acres of irrigated pasture and 68 acres of dry land 10 The record indicates an AUM is the amount of forage or feed required to feed one animal unit such as one cow-calf pair for 30 days. NNP IV-NCR, LLC -PA-13-1/ZC-13-1 Page 29 of 39 I pasture would result in 583 AUMs capable of supporting about 117 pairs for a five-month grazing season. Other grazing alternatives could include for higher stocking rates for a shorter period. If cattle were not the selected livestock the same number of AUMs could support about 580 sheep or goats for the same amount of time. If property configuration and other factors were to limit utilization to 75% of the total potential, the subject tract would still be capable of running over 80 pairs for a grazing season. In most Central Oregon cow-calf operations calves will be born between January and March and weaned at around 205 days. Seven month old calves from most traditional beef breeds should weigh about 500 Ibs. If the weaned calves are then sold rather than held through the winter the subject property could produce 80 or more calves for market each Fall. For the week of March 11, 2013, 400-550 lb. calves sold for between $152 and $181 per hundred weight ($1.51-1.81 per pound) at the Central Oregon Livestock Auction in Madras, Oregon. Eight 500 lb. calves fetching $1.66 per pound would result in a gross return of $66,400. A high number of weaned calves available in the Fall could result in lower market prices. " In support of their argument, the agencies submitted into the record information on weaning beef calves from Oregon State University (OSU) Extension Service, and a September 2002 "Livestock Update" from Virginia Cooperative Extension dealing with beef breed differences. In her July 16, 2013 response, Ms. Fancher challenged OLCO's and OOA's assumptions and conclusions, stating that while it is possible to graze cattle on the subject property "there is no ability to do so with any expectation of obtaining a profit in money." Ms. Fancher cited NRCS data indicating the specific soils on the subject property could not support more than 1.5 ALiMs per acre and therefore could not support 80 cow-calf pairs. She also noted OLCO's and OOA's analysis and projections for a 7-month grazing season appear not to have considered the cost of feeding and maintaining the retained mother cow herd the remaining five months of the year. However, Ms. Fancher did not explain why a seasonal grazing operation would not be a reasonable use of the subject property. Finally, Ms. Fancher relied on the July 11, 2013 "Budget Analysis Study" attached to her July 16th submittal and prepared by Stephen C. Caruana of Agronomic Analytics.ll This study concluded the subject property is not suitable for farm use because it could not be operated profitably if the full costs of the agricultural operation were considered. Mr. Caruana analyzed the economics of five potential farm enterprises on the subject property: (1) a horse breeding operation for 14 horses; (2) a llama breeding operation with 28 llamas raised for the pet market and wool production; (3) a full-year cow-calf operation with 40 cow/calf pairs that retains the mother cow herd; (4) a bluegrass crop for seed; and (5) an irrigated alfalfa hay operation. Mr. Caruana's analysis projected total revenues and expenses for each farm operation, but did not include as costs the land purchase price,12 debt service, or property tax payments. 11 The "Statement of Qualifications" attached to the study as Exhibit "C" states Mr. Caruana has a BS in Agronomy from OSU, did post-graduate work at the University of Oregon in Landscape Architecture, and founded Agronomic Analytics in 1997 for agricultural consulting among other areas. 12 The Hearings Officer notes Table 2 of Mr. Caruana's report shows the Assessors assigned real market values of the tax lots comprising the subject property and not their actual purchase prices which are significantly higher according to the deeds included in the record. NNP IV-NCR, LLC -PA-13-1/ZC-13-1 Page 30 of 39 Mr. Caruana's report explains the five farm enterprises in his analysis were chosen based on the soils present on the subject property and "the types of farm uses that might be considered for the property by a prudent farmer who hopes to make a profit by farming the land." With respect to livestock grazing in particular, Mr. Caruana stated: "For the livestock operations, the starting point to determine herd size was the number of animals that can be fed directly from the hay and pasture grown on the property. Then additional animals were added based on the ability to purchase feed and, where typical and likely to be cost effective, to operate a confined operation. The accepted farm practice is to graze on pasture or range during the growing season (typically seven months) and fed during the winter months. " He also stated the AUMs used in his analysis were derived "utilizing aggressive estimates of the maximum carrying capacity of both the pasture and hay land in an improved condition." Mr. Caruana developed a budget for each of the five agricultural enterprises. With respect to I l livestock grazing with 40 cow/calf pairs, he included in the budget expenses for: construction of a bam and 10.000 feet of fencing; purchase of farm equipment such as a new truck and trailer and a used tractor and manure spreader; purchase of an irrigation system. He also included annual expenses for: insurance; supplies; farm help; supplies; utilities; and veterinary medicine. Based on his analysis, Mr. Caruana concluded none of the five agricultural enterprises he evaluated, including livestock grazing, would produce a profit. Table 9 of the study shows the amount of projected loss for each enterprise, and indicates the grazing operation would have a net annual loss of $20,767. I Mr. Caruana's analysis is very detailed. However, the Hearings Officer questions what weight it 1 should be given in general, and for a grazing operation in particular, because of its expense assumptions. The livestock operation budget includes expenses for a start-up operation without apparent consideration of existing assets. The budget includes almost $60,000 for a bam and fcattle equipment although the record indicates there are existing buildings on the subject iproperty that may be suitable for cattle and storage of supplies. The budget also includes Jnearly $20,000 for fencing without indicating whether or to what extent existing fencing on the subject property was accounted for. The budget identifies over $50,000 for the purchase of equipment. including $42,000 for a new truck and trailer without explaining why less expensive used truck and trailer would not be adequate. Finally, Mr. Caruana's budget for the livestock grazing operation lists $150,000 in expenses for the initial investment in an irrigation system. As discussed in the findings above, the subject property has 103 acres of irrigation water rights that previously were delivered to and applied on ! the subject property, presumably through an irrigation system. A photograph of the subject property attached to Mr. Caruana's study shows irrigation pipe lying in a field. The record also indicates there are one or more irrigation ponds on the property. It is unclear from this record I how much of the original irrigation system remained on the subject property after the applicant purchased the property and to what extent it was considered by Mr. Caruana. In her response to DCLD's and ODA's comments, Ms. Fancher stated with respect to the t irrigation system: I f "Improvements to the existing irrigation system are needed to operate the property as a single farm unit -the most efficient way to operate the property. Even with such improvements -which would come at some costs -the property remains unsuitable for tNNP IV-NCR, LLC -PA-13-1/ZC-13-1 Page 31 of 39 I ~ I farm use. Furthermore, the state of the existing ilTigation system is not highly relevant. A farmer will need to pay for the cost of purchasing the irrigation system whether it is purchased with the land or whether it is purchased after a farm is acquired. Either way, the cost of purchasing the system is a cost that must be paid for [sic] from gross income." The Hearings Officer disagrees that the state of the existing irrigation system is not relevant where, as here, the cost for an irrigation system represents the single largest expense. Because Mr. Caruana's budget calculations appear not to account for the value and utility of existing irrigation equipment and infrastructure, I am not persuaded his projected expenses for irrigation in particular, and for a grazing operation in general, are accurate. Inasmuch as the projected loss for the grazing operation was approximately $21,000, the Hearings Officer finds elimination of or reduction in the projected costs of buildings, fences, equipment, and irrigation system easily could exceed that amount, thereby making the cowlcalf operation profitable. I find that without additional information explaining the basis for such high expenses, and in light of the property's historical use for cattle grazing, the applicant has not met its burden of proving the subject property is unsuitable for livestock grazing. 3. Climatic Conditions. The applicant argues the subject property is unsuitable for farm use because the climate in Central Oregon is cold and dry. In support of its argument, the applicant relies on Mr. Borine's soil study which states at pages 6-7: "This parcel is located very close to the Bend Weather station. Climatic data is available from 1) AgriMet BEWO (2003-present) and, 2) Bend Weather Station (1971-2000). The Soil Survey of the Upper Deschutes River Area, OR cites the Bend Weather Station for analysis. Pertinent conditions for this parcel using this weather station data show that 5 years in 10 the freeze (killing frost -28 degrees F.) dates are later that June 1h and earlier than September 15th with the growing season of 91 days, and growing degree days are 1,493. Average annual precipitation is 11.7 inches at 3,600 ft. elevation. The Madras area, also in Central Oregon, will be used for comparison as it is known to produce a variety of field crops successfully. The Madras Weather Station data show that 5 years in 10 the freeze dates are later than May 6th and earlier than October 1ih with the growing season of 184 days, and growing degree days of 1,745. Average annual precipitation is 11.4 inches at 2,400 ft. elevation. Comparison of data shows the Madras area, which is known to successfully produce a large variety of field crops, has greater than 60 days with less chance of having a killing frost, has twice the growing season, and 117% greater number of growing degree days as the Bend weather station and this parcel. Climatic conditions that exist on this parcel greatly restrict production of field crops. " oLCo and OoA state in response, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that Central Oregon climatic conditions "are not ideal for commercial agriculture." Nevertheless, as the agencies note, the conditions existing at the subject property are similar to areas in the region that support hay and cattle production, such as the Fort Rock and Christmas Valley areas to the south in Lake County that are at higher elevation than the subject property. I find the Central Oregon climate certainly makes farm use more challenging, but I am not persuaded by the applicant's evidence that climatic conditions would dissuade a reasonable farmer from putting the subject property into agricultural use. NNP IV-NCR, LLC -PA-13-1/ZC-13-1 Page 32 of 39 4. Existing and Future Availability of Water for Farm Irrigation Purposes. The applicant argues the subject property is not suitable for farm use because the soils are too poor to justify irrigating them. As discussed above, the subject property has 103 acres of irrigation water rights and is located within COlD's boundaries. Therefore, it is considered "irrigated" under OAR 660-033-0020(9).13 The applicant's burden of proof states most of these water rights currently are being leased for in-stream use to improve water levels in the Deschutes River. The applicant argues the existence of these water rights is not important to the suitability analysis because: "Placing this water back in-stream rather than squandering it to irrigate nonagricultural soils is a far better use of limited water resources. Selling the irrigation water rights for use on more productive farm grounds is also far more beneficial than applying the water to the subject property ... The Hearings Officer finds this argument unpersuasive. The record indicates water is available for the subject property now and in the future for farm irrigation purposes. 5. Existing Land Use Patterns. As discussed in detail in the Findings of Fact above, the existing land use pattern in the area surrounding the subject property consists of both EFU­ zoned land engaged in agriculture and MUA-10 zoned land developed with rural residences and small-scale "hobby" farms. The applicant argues the subject property is unsuitable for farm use in light of the surrounding area for the following reasons: "The close proximity of so many nonfarm uses limits the type of unprofitable agricultural activities that could reasonably be conducted on the subject property. The subject property would not be suitable for raising animals that are disturbed by noise. Any agricultural use that requires the application of pesticides and herbicides would be very difficult to conduct on the property given the numerous homes located on adjoining properties in the area due to aerial drift of these chemicals ... DLCD and aDA argue, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that there is nothing about this land use pattern that would limit "responsible farming practices" or serve to reduce the property's value for agriculture. 6. Technological and Energy Inputs Required. The applicant argues the subject property is unsuitable for farm use because it would require excessive technological and energy inputs to be productive. The applicant again relies on Mr. Borine's soil study which states at page 7: 'This parcel requires technology and energy inputs over and above that considered acceptable farming practices. Excessive fertilization and soil amendments; very frequent irrigation applications pumped from a pond with limited availability; and marginal climatic conditions restrict cropping alternatives." In their response, DLCD and aDA argue: "The subject property appears to have been neglected and untended for some time. Recovering neglected properties takes effort but it can be done and is not uncommon. 13 That paragraph defines "irrigated" as having irrigation water rights, and states an area once irrigated in an irrigation district shall continue to be "irrigated" after a transfer of water rights. NNP IV-NCR, LLC -PA-13-1/ZC-13-1 Page 33 of39 The soils can be amended and fertilized. The irrigation pond(s) can be improved. Irrigated lands in Central Oregon typically receive about 2.5 acre-feet of water per irrigation season. The water applied to the subject property would not be in excess of what is applied to other lands in the Central Oregon Irrigation District. The property has had irrigation systems and equipment that either remain in place or have been removed by prior operators or the current owner. Any shortcomings with the irrigation system are a function of management and not a problem with the subject property. " In her response to DLCD and ODA, Ms. Fancher argued that although the subject prope~ "has not been used for agricultural purposes for quite some time" it has not been "neglected." 4 She asserts the cost of amending, fertilizing and irrigating the soils on the subject property "is a cost that contributes to making it unprofitable to farm the subject property." As discussed in the findings above, the Hearings Officer has found Mr. Caruana's annual budget for a cattle grazing operation does not include any expenses for amending or fertilizing the soil. The annual budgets for grass seed and alfalfa hay operations amount to only approximately $10,000 and $4,000, respectively. And I have questioned the accuracy of the cost Mr. Caruana projections for the irrigation system. Based on these findings, I am not persuaded the technological and energy inputs required to put the subject property to profitable farm use are excessive. 7. Accepted Farming Practices. The applicant argues the subject property is unsuitable for farm use because: "Farming lands comprised of soils that are predominantly Class VII is not an accepted farm practice in Central Oregon. Dryland grazing, the farm use that can be conducted on the poorest soils in the County, n typically occur on Class VI non-irrigated soils that have a higher soils class if irrigated. Crops are typically grown on soils in Classes 11/ and IV." The applicant again relies on Mr. Borine's soil study, which states at page 7: "Accepted farming practices in Central Oregon to raise forage crops generally require and include a relatively flat to gently sloping parcel that has a moderately deep soil with readily available irrigation water in adequate amounts. Irrigation begins in April and ends in October. The site will produce 2 to 3 cuttings of hay or continuous rotational grazing by limited numbers of livestock. Fertilization with multiple yearly applications is required to sustain the plants and produce a crop." In their response, OLCO and OOA state: "Common and accepted farming practices include, but are not limited to, efforts involving hay and livestock production, some cereal grain production, and boarding and training equines. Nothing about the subject property indicates that it could not operate with accepted farming practices common in the area. " Ms. Fancher responded to OLeo and ODA as follows: 14 In his public hearing testimony, Guy Hamby stated there had been no agricultural use on SUbject property for approximately five years. NNP IV-NCR. LLC -PA-13-1/ZC-13-1 Page 34 of 39 ! "OLCO and aDA have failed to properly frame the issue. The issue is not whether accepted farming practices common in the area can be conducted on the subject property. The issue is whether they are conducted with the primary purpose of making a profit in money. If not, the NNP property is not suitable for farm use. The farm practices mentioned by OLCO and aDA are the accepted farm practices/operations in this part of the agricultural community. Mr. Caruana has studied each of these operations and has shown that they will not be profitable on the NNP property. Whether a property can 'operate' is not the determinative issue -the issue is whether the property would be operated with the intention to make a profit in money." (Emphasis added.) The applicant acknowledges cattle grazing, bluegrass seed and alfalfa hay production are accepted farming practices in the county and in the area surrounding the subject property, but argues on the basis of Mr. Caruana's study that these practices are not profitable. As discussed above, the Hearings Officer has questioned the accuracy of Mr. Caruana's projected expenses for these operations. For the same reasons, I also question the projected losses, which are $20,767, $6,727, and $10,373, respectively for the livestock grazing, grass seed and alfalfa hay operations. I find only minor adjustments to projected expenses could put these operations in the profit column. For example, cutting the projected $45,000 expense for a new truck and trailer for the cow/calf operation would wipe out the projected losses for that operation. Reducing the $150,000 expense for the irrigation system by 15% would wipe out the projected losses for all of the operations requiring· irrigation. For these reasons, and considering past livestock grazing and hay production on the subject property, I find the applicant has failed to demonstrate that a reasonable farmer would not put the subject property to farm use with one of more of these three accepted farming practices. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the subject property is suitable for farm use considering the seven factors in the rule as well as profitability. (C) Land that is necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby agricultural lands. FINDINGS: The applicant's burden of proof at pages 20-21 : "The subject property is not land necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands. The following facts are shown by the applicant's discussion of surrounding development in Section 0 of this application, above, which is discussed further below. " As set forth in the Findings of Fact above, the area surrounding the subject property is comprised of both MUA-10 zoned land that is developed with rural residences and "hobby farms" and EFU-zoned land either that is not engaged in farm use or supports small-scale agricultural activities. Under these circumstances, the Hearings Officer concurs with the applicant that the subject property is not land necessary to permit farm practices on any of the adjacent or nearby EFU-zoned parcels. (b) Land in capability classes other than I-lVII-VI that is adjacent to or intermingled with lands in capability classes I-lVII-VI within a farm unit, shall be inventoried as agricultural lands NNP IV-NCR, LLC -PA-13-1/ZC-13-1 Page 35 of 39 I even though this land may not be cropped or grazed. (Emphasis added.) FINDINGS: The record shows the Class VII and VIII soils on the subject property are intermingled with the Class I-VI soils. The remaining question under this paragraph is whether these soils are intermingled ·within a farm unit.» The term "farm unit" is not defined by statute or administrative rule. The Hearings Officer has reviewed LUBA and court cases addressing this prong of the "agricultural land" definition for guidance on how to interpret this term and has found the analysis focuses on the property's history of use as part of, or in conjunction with, farm use on other adjacent or nearby parcels. E.g.: Wetherell (Great American Properties), 60 Or LUBA 131 (2009) (on remand from the Supreme Court based on its decision in Wetherell v. Douglas County (Wetherell 11/), 342 Or 666, 160 P3d 614 (2007»; Wetherell v. Douglas County), 58 Or LUBA 101 (2008); Wetherell v. Douglas County, 50 Or LUBA 167 (2005). At the public hearing, Guy Hamby, who lives on a four-acre EFU-zoned parcel surrounded by the subject property, testified that in the 1950's and 1960's most the subject property was part of his family's large dairy operation, but that the family lost much of the land to creditors when the dairy ceased to be profitable. The applicant's burden of proof indicates that prior to its purchase of the subject property, the property was engaged in what the applicant describes as several "hobby farms" including cattle grazing on approximately 62 acres, llama raising on 5 acres, hay production on 77 acres, and growing of ornamental trees on approximately 26 acres. The applicant's burden of proof at pages 21-22 states in relevant part: tiThe subject property is not and has not been a part of a farm unit that includes other lands. A part of Tax Lot 206 was once owned by the Culvers, owners of Tax Lot 200 and Tax Lot 205, but these properties have no known history of being used for farm use and contain poor soils that make it generally unsuitable for farm use as confirmed by the fact that the owners of Tax 205 received approval of a nonfarm dwelling for that property and none of the properties are tax deferred. Another part of Tax Lot 206 was owned by Mr. Ryba, the owner of Tax Lot 201. Tax Lot 201 is developed with a nonfarm dwelling. The land now a part of Tax Lot 206 that was formerly owned by Ryba was a part of the nonfarm parcel that was found generally unsuited for farm use when the nonfarm dwelling was approved. Compare, Exhibit AA (map used for approval of nonfarm dwelling) and Exhibit BB (current tax map). All parts of the subject property were studied by the applicant's soils analysis, Exhibit A. The analysis shows that the predominant soil type found on the property is Class VII, nonagricultural land with or without irrigation water rights. Some Class VI soils are intermingled with the nonagricultural soil not vice versa. As a result, this rule does not require the Class VII soils to be classified agricultural lands. " In their comments on the applicant's proposal, DLCD and ODA stated: "The applicant's materials and the attached aerial views clearly show that these areas [Class I-VI and Class VII and VIII soils] have been managed together as irrigated units. Therefore, the lands in this area should be inventoried as agricultural lands. " The Hearings Officer finds the agencies' response is off the mark. The question is not whether these intermingled soils are part of "irrigated units." Rather, the question is whether the soils are located on a "farm unit." -i.e., whether the subject property is or has been a "farm unit" or NNP IV-NCR, LLC -PA-13-1/ZC-13-1 Page 36 of 39 t part of a "farm unit.» I find the evidence in the record indicates the subject property has not been managed by itself, or in conjunction with other lands, as a single farm unit since the 1960's, and therefore the agricultural and nonagricultural soils on the subject property are not intermingled on within a "farm unit. D (c) "Agricultural Land" does not include land within acknowledged urban growth boundaries or land within acknowledged exception areas for Goals 3 or 4. FINDINGS: The subject property is not within an acknowledged urban growth boundary or acknowledged exception area. b. OAR 660-033-0030. Identifying Agricultural Land (1) All land defined as "agricultural land" in OAR 660-033-0020(1) shall be inventoried as agricultural land. (2) When a Jurisdiction determines that the predominant soli capability classification of a lot or parcel it need only look to the land within the lot or parcel being inventoried. However, whether land is "suitable for farm use" requires an inquiry into factors beyond the mere identification of scientific soil classifications. The factors are listed in the definition of agricultural land set forth at OAR 660-033-0020(1 )(a)(8). This inquiry requires the consideration of conditions existing outside the lot or parcel being inventoried. Even if a lot or parcel is not predominantly Class I-VI soils or suitable from farm use. Goal 3 nonetheless defines as agricultural "lands in other classes which are necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands." A determination that a lot or parcel is not agricultural land requires findings supported by substantial evidence that addresses each of the factors set forth In 660-033-0020(1). FINDINGS: The interpretation and application of these provisions is discussed in detail in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein. As discussed in those findings, incorporated by reference herein, the Hearings Officer has found the applicant has demonstrated the subject property is not "agricultural land" based on being necessary to permit farm practices on adjacent or nearby lands, or because it is a farm unit within which agricultural soils and nonagricultural soils are intermingled. However, I have found the applicant has failed to demonstrate the subject property does not fall within the definition of "agricultural land" based on its suitability for farm use. (3) Goal 3 attaches no significance to the ownership of a lot or parcel when determining whether it is agricultural land. Nearby or adjacent land, regardless of ownership, shall be examined to the extent that a lot or parcel is either "suitable for farm use" or "necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands" outside the lot or parcel. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds my analysis has attached no significance to ownership of lots or parcels surrounding the subject property in determining whether the property is NNP IV-NCR. LLC -PA-13-1/ZC-13-1 Page 37 of 39 suitable for farm use or is necessary to permit farm practices on adjacent or nearby lands, therefore satisfying this criterion. (5) (a) More detailed data on soil capability that in contained in the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil maps and soil surveys may be used to define agricultural land. However, the more detailed soils data shall be related to the NRCS land capability classification system. (b) If a person concludes that more detailed soils information that that contained in the Internet soil survey of soil data and information produced by the National Cooperative Soil Survey operated by the NRCS of the USDA as of January 2, 2012, would assist a county to make a better determination of whether land "qualifies as agricultural land, the person must request that the department arrange for an assessment of the capability of the land by a professional soil classifier who is chosen by the person, using the process described in OAR 660-033-0045. FINDINGS: As discussed in detail in the findings above, the applicant submitted a soil study prepared by Roger Borine of Sage West, LLC. DlCD found Mr. Borine is a qualified soils expert and certified his study. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds these criteria have been met. (c) This section and OAR 660-033-0045 apply to: (A) A change to the designation of land planned and zoned for exclusive farm use, forest use or mixed farm-forest use to a non-resource plan designation and zone on the basis that such land is not agricultural land; FINDINGS: The applicant requests approval of a plan amendment and zone change from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area, and from EFU to MUA-10. respectively. on the basis that the subject property is not agricultural land. (d) This section and OAR 660-033-0045 implement Oregon laws 2010, chapter 44, section 1, effective on October 1, 2011. After this date, only those soils assessments certified by the department under section (9) of this rule may be considered by local governments in land use proceedings described in subsection (c) of this section. However, a local government may consider soils assessments that have been completed and submitted prior to October 1, 2011. (e) This section and OAR 660-033-0045 authorize a person to obtain additional information for use in the determination of whether land qualifies as agricultural land, but do not otherwise affect the process by which a county determines whether land qualifies as agricultural land as defined by Goal 3 and 660-033-0020. NNP IV-NCR, LLC PA-13-1/ZC-13-1 Page 38 of 39 FINDINGS: As discussed in the foregoing findings, the applicant submitted a soil study that was certified by DLCD under OAR 660-033-0045, therefore satisfying this criterion. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant has not demonstrated the subject property falls outside the definition of "agricultural land." The applicant has not shown that the parcels comprising the subject property are predominantly Class VII and VIII soils. Even assuming the appropriate unit of land for the "predominant soilsH analysis is the entire subject property rather than the individual parcels, the applicant has failed to demonstrate the subject property is not suitable for farm use considering profitability and the seven factors in the administrative rule. Accordingly, I find the subject property is "agricultural land," and the applicant has not met its burden of proof for the proposed plan amendment and zone change from agriculture to non-resource land. V. DECISION: Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearings Officer hereby DENIES the applicant's proposed plan amendment from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area, and zone change from EFU-TRB to MUA-1 0, for the subject property. Dated this 23rd day of October, 2013. Mailed this 24th day of October, 2013. Karen H. Green, Hearings Officer NNP IV-NCR, LLC -PA-13-1fZC-13-1 Page 39 of 39 Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division ,": ,:.... : .~. "...'::' :. :·~v .... '"....:". . P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FILE NUMBERS: PA-13-1, ZC-13-1 DOCUMENT/S MAILED: Hearings Officer's Decision MAPfTAX LOT NUMBERS:17-12-24, 206, 300, 301, 302, 304, 305, 401,405,406 I certify that on the 24th day of October, 2013 the attached Hearings Officer's Decision dated October 24, 2013, was/were mailed by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the persons and addresses set forth on the attached list. Dated this 24th day of October, 2013. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT By: Sher Buckner NNP IV-NCR, LLC 2660 NE Highway 20, Suite 610-369 Bend, OR 97701 Liz Fancher, Attorney 644 NW Broadway Street Bend, OR 97701 Jon Jinings Dept. of Land Conservation & Devel. Bend RSC, Millpoint Building 650 SW Columbia Street, Suite 7100 Bend, OR 97702 Guy and Mary Jo Hamby 21633 Butler Market Road Bend, OR 97701 1000 Friends of Oregon 115 NW Oregon Ave #21 Bend, OR 97701 Steven P. Hultberg P.O. Box 2007 Bend, OR 97709 John Scarborough 21626 NE Butler Market Road Bend, OR 97701 Buck Dyer 63223 Hamehook Road Bend, OR 97701 Quality Services Performetl with Pride Paul Blikstad From: Jinings, Jon <jon.jinings@state.or.us> Sent: Wednesday, March 20,201312:27 PM To: Paul Blikstad Subject: Correction to DLCD/ODA Comments on PA-13-1 & ZC-13-1 Paul, Our comment letter sent bye-mail on Monday, March 18, 2013 at 4:42 PM indicates that Deschutes County may not have considered language included in Section 3.3 of the county plan in previous land use decisions. It has come to our attention that this language has been considered and addressed by a Deschutes County Hearings Officer and the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. This discovery does not change the state agencies (ODA & DLCD) position on the matter. However, we would like the record to show our recognition that questions surrounding the above language have been considered and decided by the county in at least one previous decision. Please add this e-mail message as a supplement to our original comments in the record. Sincerely, Community Services Specialist Department of Land Conservation and Development 1 Paul Blikstad From: Jinings, Jon <jon.jinings@state.or.us> Sent: Monday, March 18,20134:42 PM To: Paul Blikstad Subject: NNP IV-NCR, LLC Attachments: Newland Comments 3-18-13.pdf Hey, Paul. Here are our comments regarding local files PA-13-1 &ZC-13-1. Please include this letter in the record of this case on behalf of the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) and the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA). The following individuals are receiving blind copies of this message: Liz Fancher, Attorney Karen Swirsky, DLCD Katherine Daniels, DLCD Jim Johnson, ODA Please consider this your copy of the attached comments. Jon 1 Department of Land Conservation and Developmentregon Bend RSC, Millpoint Building John A Kitzhaber. MD, Governor 650 SW Colwnbia St, Ste 7100 (541) 322-2032 www.lcd.state.or.us March 18, 2013 Paul Blikstad Deschutes County Community Development Oregon Department of Agriculture 117 NW Lafayette 635 Capitol Stree NEt Bend, OR 97701 OR 97301-2532 QIIggnRE: Local File PA-13-1 & ZC-13-l. ~t til AgrlculnnDLCD File: ADESC 015-08. Mr. Blikstad: This letter includes the joint comments ofthe Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). Both departments would like to thank Deschutes County for the opportunity to review and comment on the land use proposal referenced above. The subject proposal seeks to convert about 171 acres from an Agricultural Plan designation and Exclusive Farm Use Zoning district (EFU-TRB) to a Rural Residential Exception Area Plan designation and Multiple Use Agriculture Zoning district (MUA-lO). The request is based on ajustification that the property does not qualify as "Agricultural Land" pursuant to OAR 660-033-0020(1). No exception to statewide planning goal 3 is proposed. It is our understanding that the subject property is a tract composed of multiple parcels that are now in one ownership. Several homes are present, including at least two that have been approved under the nonfarm dwelling provisions in the county code. The tract consists of some dry land and has over 100 acres of irrigation water rights. According to Deschutes County records, only those parcels including nonfarm dwellings have been removed from farm tax deferral. Our initial observations have been that the subject tract appears capable to be managed as agricultural land and is not an obvious candidate for redesignation to Rural Residential. Our comments and concerns are as follows. j Agricultural Land vs. Nonresource Land The most common way for land to be converted from an Agricultural designation is to pursue an exception to statewide planning goal 3. The exceptions process is identified atI ORS 197.763 and interpreted by OAR Chapter 660, Division 4. Three exception 1 I ,~ i I 1 I J . Descbutes County -1-March 18.1013 I ( i I f opportunities are described in the administrative rule. Showing that lands are either "physically developed" or "irrevocably committed" to uses not allowed by the applicable goal are the two opportunities most applicable to the creation ofa new rural residential exception area. However, as mentioned above, the applicant is not pursuing an exception. Instead, the i applicant is attempting to demonstrate that the subject tract fails to satisfy the definition of agricultural lands. Areas that do not qualify as agricultural or forest lands are often referred to as "Nonresource Lands." Nonresource lands are fundamentally different from rural residential exception areas. Exception areas display an existing settlement pattern and have the characteristics of a rural residential neighborhood, including the presence of public services. Nonresource lands are often large, undeveloped tracts that do not include an existing settlement pattern. Nonresource lands are more likely to exist in remote areas and are usually not complemented with a full range of public services. Statewide planning goal 3 and OAR 660-033-0020(1) provide a definition of agricultural land. The definition states: (1)(a) "Agricultural Land" as defined in Goal 3 includes: (A) Lands classified by the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as predominantly Class I-IV soils in Western Oregon and I-VI soils in Eastern Oregon; (B) Land in other soil classes that is suitable for farm use as defined in ORS 215.203(2)(a), taking into consideration soil fertility; suitability for grazing; climatic conditions; existing and future availability of water for farm irrigation purposes; existing land use patterns; technological and energy inputs required; and accepted farming practices; and (C) Land that is necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby agricultural lands. (b) Land in capability classes other than I-IV II-VI that is adjacent to or intermingled with lands in capability classes I-lVII-VI within a farm unit, shall be inventoried as agricultural lands even though this land may not be cropped or grazed; Materials from the Natural Resource Conservation Service identify the subject tract as predominantly Class I-VI soils. On this basis, the property is correctly defined as agricultural land. The applicant has presented additional site specific soils information to supplement the NRCS data which indicates that the subject tract is actually composed predominantly of Class VII soils. The departments find the conclusion that level, irrigated land could be considered Class VII surprising. Should the county agree with the applicant's soils report addition provisions ofthe definition of agricultural land must be considered. Descllutes County March 18.2013 Even ifthe subject tract is viewed as predominantly composed of Class vn soils, available evidence shows that it is certainly suitable for farm use as defined in ORS 215203(2)(a). Further comments on this topic are offered below. Farm Use The definition of farm use is very broad and everything from crop production to livestock grazing to selling dairy products to aquaculture is included. Honey bees, raising poultry, mink farms, feedlots, aquaculture and, stabling or training equines, included in the definition of "farm use." A site comprised ofmostly levelland with over 100 acres of irrigation water rights is entirely capable of being used for any number of legitimate farm uses. Profitability is an important aspect in agriculture and any business venture. Past perfonnance is one thing to consider when factoring profitability for farming. Future potential is another. Success in agriculture requires the right management at the right time with the right crop or commodity. This management may be applied by the property owner or it may be applied by a tenant who leases the land and incorporates it into a larger agricultural enterprise. The applicant's materials describe past uses ofthe subject tract. However, this is an assessment built from individual properties managed independently by multiple different operators who are generally not commercial farmers or ranchers. Managing the property as a single 171 -acre unit for commercial purposes is likely to yield different results. The attached aerial views obtained from Google Earth show the subject property on a number of different dates going back to 1994. This photographic history shows that for nearly 20 years there has been some level of ongoing farm or ranch activity on the tract. Although the property has been neglected it still retains substantial potential for commercial agriculture. This evidence strongly supports a conclusion that the subject property is suitable for fann use, especially when that term is so broadly defined and could include crops and practices yet to be considered. Soil Fertility We appreciate that soil fertility can be a limitation to agriculture, especially when a property has been neglected. However, applying lime and manure as well as fertilizers to recover soil capacity and boost production are common practices in central Oregon and elsewhere. We also recognize that entire categories offarm uses are not strictly dependent on soil fertility. For instance, boarding and training horses requires space and topography conducive to facility development but soils are not an absolute requirement. Many horse breeding and raising facilities in central Oregon operate on dry, often rocky ground. Confinement livestock or poultry operations require building locations but not necessarily deep soil. Members of central Oregon's growing Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) might say that they create their own soil and all they need is a place to produce their commodities. Deschutes County -4-March 18.1013 According to the applicant's materials the subject tract has adequate soH fertility for· pasture, hay production and growing Christmas trees. The attached aerial views do not appear to show lands so compromised in soil fertility that they are unable to support a farm use of any type. Suitability for Grazing The subject tract is suitable for livestock grazing. It is also large enough to be commercially significant either on its own or in conjunction with other properties. The Animal Unit Month (AUM) method for calculating grazing ability is described in the applicant's materials so we will not restate it here. What we will offer is that irrigated pasture in central Oregon is generally assumed to be able to support one cow-calf pair for a grazing season running roughly from May 15 through October 15, or about five AUMs per acre. Dry land pasture has a much lower capability. The applicant's materials suggest that dry land on the subject tract could support one pair per acre for 30 days, or about one AUM per acre. Added together, 103 acres ofirrigated pasture and 68 acres of dry land pasture would result in 583 AUMs capable of supporting about 117 pairs for a five-month grazing season. Other grazing alternatives could include for higher stocking rates for a shorter period. If cattle were not the selected livestock the same number ofAUMs could support about 580 sheep or goats for the same amount oftime. If property configuration and other factors where to limit utilization to 75% ofthe total potential, the subject tract would still be capable of running over 80 pairs for a grazing season. In most central Oregon cow-calf operations calves will be born between January and March and weaned at around 205 days. Seven month old calves from most traditional beefbreeds should weigh about 500 lbs. If the weaned calves are then sold rather than held through the winter the subject property could produce 80 or more calves for market each FalL For the week ofMarch 11,2013,400-500 lb calves sold for between $152 and $181 per hundred weight ($1.52-1.81 per pound) at the Central Oregon Livestock Auction in Madras, Oregon. Eighty 500 lb calves fetching $1.66 per pound would result in a gross return of$66,400. A high number of weaned calved available in the Fall could result in lower market prices. Please see the attached documents for additional information regarding weaning beef cattle. Climatic Conditions The subject property is in the rain shadow ofthe Cascade Mountain Range on the edge of the Oregon High Desert. In other words, the area is dry with cold winters and the potential for frost nearly every month. These climatic conditions are not ideal for commercial agriculture. However, commercial agriculture is active in similar settings in the local area and throughout the mountain and intermountain regions ofthe United States. For example, the hay and cattle producing regions ofFt. Rock and Christmas Valley share similar precipitation constraints and are located at an elevation of 4,699 and 4,318 feet above sea level, respectively, compared to an elevation of3,623 at Bend, Oregon. The hay and cattle I I I Desebutes County -5-Marcb 18. 2013 producing region of the Big Hole basin near Wisdom, Montana sits at an elevation of over 6,000 feet above sea level. Existing and future availability of water for fann irrigation purposes The subject property has over 100 acres of irrigation water rights. It has been irrigated in the recent past and is considered "irrigated" pursuant to OAR 660-033-0020(9). Therefore,' .. _. water for fann irrigation purposes is existing and available now and in the future. Existing land use patterns We generally agree with the applicant's description of the existing land use pattern. We do not believe that the presence of surrounding land uses would limit responsible fanning practices or serve to reduce the property's value for commercial agriculture. Technological and energy inputs required The subject property appears to have been neglected and untended for some time. Recovering neglected properties takes effort but it can be done and is not uncommon. The soils can be amended and fertilized. The irrigation pond(s) can be improved. Irrigated lands in central Oregon typically receive about 2.5 acre-feet of water per irrigation season. The water applied to the subject property would not be in excess of what is applied to other lands in the Central Oregon Irrigation District. The property has had irrigation systems and equipment that either remain in place or have been removed by prior operators or the current owner. Any shortcomings with the irrigation system are a function of management and not a problem with the subject property. Accepted farming practices Common and accepted fanning practices include, but are not limited to, efforts involving hay and livestock production, some cereal grain production and boarding and training equines. Nothing about the subject property indicates that it could not operate with accepted fanning practices common in the area. Land necessary to permit fann practices on adjacent or nearby agricultural lands The applicant discusses why the subject property is not necessary to permit fann practices to be undertaken on nearby and adjacent lands. We do not necessarily agree or disagree with this assessment. Other Capability Classes The definition offann use includes, "Land in capability classes other than I-lVII-VI that is adjacent to or intermingled with lands in capability classes I-IV II-VI within a farm unit, shall be inventoried as agricultural lands even though this land may not be cropped or grazed." t I Deschutes County -6-March 18.2013 I I • In this situation the NRCS soils information shows the subject property as predominately class I-VI soils while the applicant's private soils study claims that the subject property is predominantly class VII soils. The primary difference, as we understand it, between the two different soils assessments is that the private study identifies inclusions ofclass vn soils within the irrigated lands. In other words, there is capability class vn soil intermingled with capability class I-VI soils. The applicant's materials and the attached aerial views clearly show that these areas have been managed together as irrigated units. Therefore, the Jands in this area should be inventoried as agricultural lands. The result is essentially a return to the beginning and a conclusion that the property is correctly designed as Agriculture and Exclusive Farm Use. Goal 14 Based on the above and in light of the attached aerial views we believe this property satisfies the definition of agricultural land and should retain an Agricultural Plan designation and an Exclusive Farm Use Zoning district. However, even if we agreed that the property did not deserve to be protected under statewide planning goal 3, we would still have concerns that the proposal may not be compliant with statewide planning goal 14. OAR 660-004w0040 provides guidance for planning and zoning new rural residential exception areas. Specifically, OAR 660-004-0040(7) requires new rural residential exception areas to have a minimum lot size of at least 10 acres. The subject proposal does not seek to create a new rural residential exception area. Instead, it attempts to demonstrate that that the subject property is nonresource land and not deserving of protection under statewide planning goal 3. Nonresouce areas are specifically excluded from the provisions of OAR 660-004-0040. We believe that in most cases nonresource lands should be placed in a plan and zone category that requires at least a 20­ acre minimum parcel size. At a minimum, the applicant must address how the proposal is compliant with goal 14. County Plan The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan does not address or contemplate land found to be "nonresource." There is no basis in the plan to designate "nonresource land" for rural residential or any other use. Statewide planning goal 2 states: All land use plans shall include identification ofissues and problems, inventories and other factual information for each applicable statewide planning goal, evaluation of alternative courses of action and ultimate policy choices, taking into consideration social, economic, energy and environmental needs. Section 2.2 ofthe Plan identifies Agricultural Lands Policies and least three are applicable to the subject proposal. Deschutes County -7-March 18.2013 2.2.2 Exclusive Farm Use sub-zones shall remain as described in the 1992 Farm Study shown in the table below, unless adequate legal findings for amending the sub-zones are adopted or an individual parcel is rezoned as allowed by Policy 2.2.3 . . 2.2.3 Allow Comprehensive Plan and zoning map amendments for individual EFU parcels as allowed by State Statute, Administrative Rules and this Comprehensive Plan. 2.2.4 Develop comprehensive policy criteria and code to provide clarity on when and how EFU parcels can be converted to other designations. In addition to the policies of Section 2.2 the Deschutes County Plan does includes clear and· unambiguous language that identifies that new Rural Residential Exception Areas to be established through the appropriate exceptions process. Section 3.3 of the Rural Development Chapter of the Plan expressly states: Rural Residential Exception Areas In Deschutes County most rural lands are designated for fanns, forests or other resources and protected as described in the Resource Management chapter of this Plan. The majority of the land not recognized as resource lands or Unincorporated Community is designated Rural Residential Exception Area. The County had to follow a process under Statewide Goal 2 to explain why these lands did not warrant farm or forest zoning. The major determinant was that many of these lands were platted for residential use before Statewide Planning was adopted. In 1979 the County assessed that there were over 17,000 undeveloped Rural Residential Exception Area parcels, enough to meet anticipated demand for new rural housing. As of2010 any new Rural Residential Exception Areas need to be justified through taking exceptions to farm, forest, public facilities and services and urbanization regulations, and follow guidelines set out in the OAR. (emphasis added) The subject proposal clearly runs contrary to the plain language cited above because the applicant is attempting to designate lands Rural Residential Exception Area without taking an exception to the applicable goals. Reading all of the relevant together language is clear that the county desires to establish provisions regarding converting agricultural land and, that until such policy has been established, nonresource designations are not available under the Plan. We understand that this issue has been before Deschutes County decision makers in a previous case. However, we did not see that the language in Section 3.3 was considered. We would also say this language creates a fundamental difference between similar proposals submitted under the previous county plan, which was silent on the matter of exception vs. nonresource designation. I Deschutes County -8- March 18.2013 In sum, The Deschutes County Plan does not evaluate alternative courses of action or ultimate policy choices with regards to planning and zoning of nonresource lands. We . concede that there may be lands in the county that do not satisfY the definitions of fann or . forest land, but that determination, and the consideration of alternatives and policy choices regarding proper plan and zone designations for such land, must be a deliberate, legislative. . decision by the county, not left to ad hoc quasi-judicial actions like this one. The department believes that Deschutes County does not have the authority to designate nonresource lands until and unless the planning work anticipated by Plan Policy 2.2.4. is done to create a local Nonresource Lands Planning Program. The county completed a significant update of its plan as recently as 20 II and chose not to include any reference to nonresource land. This indicates a deliberate decision to retain the Rural Residential designation for exception areas only. Conclusion In conclusion, the department believes that the subject property satisfies the definition of agricultural land regardless of which soils information is used. Further, we believe the plain language in the county's own plan makes a nonresource land determination unavailable. Finally, any lands that can be justified for conversion from an Agricultural designation based on a nonresource determination are subject to Goal 14 regarding appropriate lot size regulations. It is our recommendation that the existing Plan and Zoning provisions remain intact and that the county decline to process additional nonresource lands proposals until a local non resource lands planning program has been developed. Again, thank you for this opportunity to comment. We request that this letter be entered into the record of these proceedings and that we receive a copy of the decision. If additional information is provided at the hearing, we ask that the hearing be continued, pursuant to ORS 197.763(4)(b), to allow us time to review the new information and respond if necessary. Respectfully, Jon Jinings James W. Johnson Community Services Specialist Land Use and Water Planning Coordinator Cc: Liz Fancher, Esq. Karen Swirsky, OLCO Katherine Daniels, OLCD Deschutes County Attachment A ­ Attachment B ­ Attachment C ­ -9-March 18. 2013 Aerial Photos From Google Earth Recent View September 29.2006 August 17,2003 July 24. 2000 May 7. 1994 Weaning Beef Calves, Oregon State Extension Service Beef Breed Differences: Preliminary Results from the U.S. Meat. Animal Research Center, Virginia Cooperative Extension. IATTACHMENT B I , : ..,. ;., ... ._ _.....:;~. ..!..:. --: i.. ;:. ,.. ._~ _ " I,·' Circular No. RegL&FOS03.. 1~>,};:'~'Extension Revised August 2011 ;,Oregon State Service· UNIVERSITY :. ,. , ; .. ~ '! ", : Courthouse Annex, 1134 SE Douglas Ave., PO Box 1165, Roseburg, OR 97470 Phone: 541-672-4461 or 800-883-7568 Weaning Beef Calves By Shelby Filley ·Regional Livestock & Forage Specialist Introduction . :;;:.~~-.:~-. Weaning time for many spring-born calves is just around the comer. We all know that weaning :Vi{ . ,. is the removal ofa suckling calf from the cow. But, what might not be so obvious are all the stressors and impacts associated with weaning, both for the calf and the cow. Weaning can also be stressful for the owner of the animals, especially if the weaned calves are placed in a pen near a .. , _. ._...: person's bedroom window. As animal managers, we should try and make weaning as stress-free as we can, while keeping productivity and profitability in line with our goals. . There are many considerations for weaning, including time of weaning, preparation for weaning,: <.' method of weaning, and post-weaning management. Different strategies of weaning affe<:t •..', . performance of the calf (market weight, health, etc.) and the cow (reproductive efficiency, cull ··· .:...:..0..'-.... _.. .. weights, health, etc.), and therefore can affect profitability. The information below is a summary of ' . several publications (see references on page 3). Full benefit to the agricultural producer comes from : study of the materials and in-depth consideration of incorporating them into the ranch management .plan. ... . .:,.:: .~---.­ Time of Weaning '. ' ..'. '. ". · Several factors can influence time of weaning, including loss of dam, forage resources and cow body condition, sale time, other ranch activities. Calves can be weaned any time after their rumens : ../": ' .'. become functional, that is, when their digestive system can process whole feeds. Ifa newborn calfis ~: ,:,:~~ unable to nurse its dam, use of a surrogate cow may be the best way to rais·e the calf until weaning.:··· .~-. ~: ... :.. ~ Bottle-fed calves can be weaned after one month of age, while calves nursing cows are weaned between 3 and 8 months of age. It is usually best to wean at the older age. For comparing weight of calves weaned at different ages, a 205-day weaning weight is sometimes calculated. This "205-day~­ WW" is the calf weight adjusted for birth date and weaning date, and does not infer that calves should necessarily be weaned at that age. One potential management tool for the breeding program ."'. that is related to weaning is a practice called 48-hr calf removal. This temporary removal of calves from cows 48 hours prior to breeding has been shown to improve first service conception rates.. Ifforage is in short supply or cow body condition is low, calves can be weaned "early (before 8'~ ~':-:':~ -: mo). This preserves cow energy reserves to allow for development of the new calf inside her and " '.' .' .... . keep her in good shape for timely re-breeding after that calf is born. Studies have shown, that in times of forage shortages, it can be economical to wean calves early. In those cases, the cost of Fence-line weaning is a method of low-stress weaning. ' i.' '.'. Photo: Dan Dmke, Univ. of CA Cooperative Extension. " ;;: ... .•.... Oregon State University Ext8f1sion SeMce offers educallonal programs , activiOes, and mater1als-w~hout regard to race, color, ff/liglon, sex, sexual orientation, . national origin, age, marital status. disab#ity, and disabled veteran or Vietnam-era veteran status-as required by Title Viol the elva R1ghlS Act ot 1964. nUe IX of \he ..•. Educatioo Amendments of 1972, and Section 504 ollila Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Oregon State University Extension Service Is an Equal Oppor1unity Employer, .. . , ... .. -,_ . ---...,-._'­ . ;". feeding early-weaned calves was more than offset with improved reproductive perfonnariceofc6Ws M.;: . that were kept in a body condition that favored efficient reproductive performance. , . .,' (;,j;C', . . Most calves are born in the spring and weaned in the fall. This causes the supply ofweaned;2~-,:·t:~·.:.,:~·:,. calves to be highest in the fall. This high supply leads to seasonally low oalfprices. Consider how;:;;:~:~:~:;;"" changing calf weaning date can affect sale weight and price. Although weaning date may revolve .' around other routines, consider making weaning a higher priority. Preparation for Weaning Preparing calves well in advance to actual weaning time has benefits well worth the -effort.•.... t. :f" . Because immune function and response is lower in times of stress, and weaning can be stressful~T<" };~:. many veterinarians suggest that vaccinations be given 3-4 weeks prior to weaning and that ' ',Y ·t~~~;· . deworming be done after weaning. This not only lessens the stress at weaning. but iilso improvesFdH:~;'::=:-:' immune response to the vaccines and anthelmintics. Other management procedures, such as ";. ~':f:l:{8\F'; ...... branding, castrating, and dehorning should be done we]] in advance of weaning. Also, it is a good . idea to make sure that, before weaning, calves are use to eating the intended post-weaning diet You can feed that diet to both cows and calves for a short period of time, about two-weeks, or provide it in a creep feeder -narrow passages into a feeding area are set up so the calves creep in, but larger cows cannot. Although creep feeding can be used to acclimate calves to a post-weaning diet, it's .' primarily use is to provide supplemental feed to nursing calves in order to increase weaning weight.) . It is ofbenefit to calves, but not a direct benefit to cows. Economically, a good rule of thumb is that):;:. calf prices at sale time ($l1b) should be 10 times the cost of the creep feed ($l1b). See referencesforh:;'-,'~-' more detail. ' ': .' ,«' Make sure that the post-weaning diet is appropriate for the age ofcalf. including forage quantity ­ and quality, and contains a vitamin/mineral mix and plenty of fresh, accessible water. For the very young calf, this means a special calf starter diet, either bagged or specially formulated feed.-For ~~-' older calves, good quality forage (fall pasture re-growth, irrigated summer pasture, or very good quality haylbalage) will suffice, depending on target performance. Make sure they can safely reach water and know how to drink it. If the calves are unfamiliar with drinking water from a trough, let the water over-flow a bit so that it makes a trickling sound. Work with a nutrition consultant or veterinarian to provide a vitamin/mineral mix. Weaning Method Whether your weaning consists of total separation of cows and calves or the relatively new, low­ stress technique offenceline weaning, make sure you address nutrition and health measures:Total---.. separation weaning can be accomplished with good success if pre-weaning and post-weaning management address stress, health, and nutritional management sufficiently. For traditional weaning, . it is best to have cows and calves together in the place where calves will stay. Remove cows to a " . . new location out of sight and sound from calves. Leave calves in familiar surroundings. It is normal for cattle to haw 1for several days. . .. ". --'-r'-,.... -,.. In fenceline weaning, cows and calves are placed on opposite sides of a strong fence (woven wire or multiple-strand, high-tensile wire). As with total separation weaning. cows are moved and calves remain in the initial pasture. Although the cattle are seldom seen challenging the fence, they have some nose-to-nose contact, but spend the majority of time grazing away from the fence. .­ Fenceline visits gradually decrease over the first five days and the weaning process is complete within a week. Studies have shown these calves bawled less and gained more weight during the weaning process than with complete separation weaning. ",' . Post-weaning Management. ..) .• ' r,; Much information is available on post-weaning management Preconditioning is a nutrition aiid -; .~: .,. ~,­ health management practice that prepares calves as stocker/feeder cattle in the next phase of.'. " production. Study the information on this important topic and consider having a preconditionmg period for calves before they are moved to their next destination. A 45-day post-weaning period . before shipping has been shown to be beneficial in comparison to shipping calves immediately' after ..,. . weaning. If you cannot provide this preconditioning period, make sure newly weaned calves are rested, fed, and watered before shipping. . .;... Glenn Selk, Oklahoma State University, has some good advice on being pro-active with '. ,' •... marketing strategy. He suggests you provide buyers with the details of your preconditioning .:·:~;L-·L~L_.~.. program and let them know where your calves can be purchased He said, "Whether you participater-.~·~ .•.. in an organized Value-Added Calfprogram or whether you simply sell your calves on the regular .;'{'.' sale date at the closest market, it makes good business sense to tell buyers that your good calves are available for sale. Don't just rely on others to tell your story. This fall promote the good quality, . healthy cattle that you raise. They deserve iU!" .. References for Further Study Raising Newborn Calves. F. Rulofson, M. Gamroth, and D. Hansen. Oregon State University Extension Service publication No. EC 1418 , .. http://ir.1ibrary.oregonstate.edulxmluilbitstreamlhandlelI957/14257/ecI418.pdf?seguence=1 :.' ~ : Creep Feeding Beef Calves. F. Rulofson and B. Zollinger. Oregon State University Extension . Service publication No. EC 935 (http://ir.library.oregonstate.edulxmluilbitstreamlbandlelI957113842/ec93 5.pdf?soouence=1) .. Weaning Management for Calves. G. Pirelli and B. Zollinger. http://www.csubeef.com/dmdocumentsl748.pdf Time of Weaning and Cow Condition. Jack C. Whittier, Colorado State Extension Beef Specialist Ron C. Torell and Ben Bruce, University of Nevada. CL 747 in: Cow-calfManagement: Guide and Cattle Producers Library http://www.csubeef.comldmdQCumentsl747.pdf. Fenceline contact ofbeef calves with their dams at weaning reduces the negative effects of . separation on behavior and growth rate. E. O. Price, J. E. Harris, R. E. Borgwardt, M. L Sween, and J. M. Connor. J. Anim Sci. 2003 81: 116-121. bttp:llextension.oregonstate.eduldouglaslsitesldefaultlfilesldocumentsllflfenceline.pdf The effects of weaning beef calves in two stages on their behavior and growth rate. D. B. Haley, D. W. Bailey, and J. M. Stookey. J Anim Sci, September 1,2005; 83(9): 2205 -2214. http://extension.oregonstate.eduldouglas/sitesldefaultlfiles/documentsllflfenceline2.pdf . Buyer Survey to Determine Desired Production Practices for Value-added Program for Beef Calves : .. in california. VM Castro, GMVeserat, and JW Oltjen. 1998. Proceedings, Western Section,--.._··­ Am. Soc. Anim. Sci. 49:332. http://extension.oregonstate.eduldouglas/sites/defaultlfilesldocumentsllflBuyersurvey.pdf Nutrition and Management Considerations for Preconditioning Home Raised Beef Calves. D. Lalman, et. al. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service publication No. F-3031 http://pods.dasnr.okstate.eduldocushareldsweb/GetIDocument-19571F-3031 web,pdf I r Beef Breed Differences: Preliminary Results from the u.s. Meal Page] of4 .. i'" . ATIACHMENT C , ! I ··""-L..~-. .._._-_.........--....--.................. I i i ! . l~eferences and broken links. r;tebsite at http://www.ext.vt.edtl/news/. I~ewsletter Archive index: hltp:llsites.ext. vt.edu/newsletter-archivel '. i) I , t~.J_.,..._..... _..... ~ , I Bee~Breed Differences: Preliminary Results. from the' U.S. Meat Animal Research Center .,. Livestock Update, September 2002 Scott Greiner, Extension Animal Scientist, Beef, VA Tech I I YQU'vereached the Virginia Cooperative ExtensionNewsletter,:. f ~rchive. These files cover more than ten year~ of newsletters posted I 911QW' old website (through April/May 2009), andareprov,i4ed iQtc !l).istorical purposes only. As such, they may contain out4jf';date .... " tto~:~ee pur latest newsletters and current information~visitour . . . . I~''ilkh ~~rtlI.\"!l'biStc~1l1V'lt :Al'1'$f~Tt!\;:'1"'1".IttY Over ttiepast 25 years, considerable research has been conducted. to characterize. andcOlnpare the major beef breeds in the U.S. The most comprehensive studies have b~en conducted at the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center in ClayCehter, NE. Since 1970, over 30 breeds have been evaluated in a common environment andmahagement system for characterization of economically important traits. Many qfthe largest and most widely used breeds in the U.S. were characterized 2S.3Qy,earsago at Clay Center. Since that time, considerable changes have been made tq these breed populations as the result of selection. Therefore, research ' '. has beep initiated at the U.S. MARC to evaluate relative changes thai hav~ '. occurred among the prominent U.S. beef breeds since they: were initially evaluat~d in the 1970's, and to provide a current evaluation forthese breeds ..The http://-w,ww.sites.ext.vt.edulnewslettel'-archive/livestocklaps-02_... 3/18/2013. 1 BeefBteed Differences: Preliminary Results from the'U,S, Mea. .. Pa.ge 2,of4! . " I ' ; "'; , fQl1()wjpg~bles present preliminary results from Cycle VII ofthe Germplasm;:,,: " Evaluation Program at the D.s. MARC. '. ' .. . •• ,;, ~},:-,~ j :-.. ' ~.);:\.,~" ... ::! ' , ",' ,', .. Procedures for the evaluation of the breeds were similar to thalutilited'ifl,' , previoQ& OPE cycles. For the current breed characterizatiol1,siresfr.orrl}h~§e.vel) largestiU.S. beefbreeds (based on number of registrations) were mated 'to , ' " maturelAngus, Hereford and composite MARC III cows 0/4 Angus~....; H~e!()f(:l, _Pinzgauer" _ Red Poll). Approximately one-half of the sires sampledfroln,each. breeawere;among the top SOin number of calf registrati9l!S,in'theirrespectt,Y¢::f.b~~ breed, and about one-halfwere young unproven sires of each breed:Calves1'Were;" born in! the spring of 1999 and 2000. Following a postweantI;lgadju~tInellt, ' period,isteers were fed a high energy diet and slaughtered (averageQ;f:2~9,.days, on feed); Steers were slaughtered serially in 5 groups ~panning 43 days, steers, were Mrvested in a commercial facility, and individualcarcassmeasut'etnents ' :takenaifter a36-hour chill.. ... ..... ...~ Sire pr~ed effects for preweaning traits for calves, born in 1999 and 2000 'are' shown below. Lighter birth weights and a higher percentage of unassisted births were r~ported for Angus and Red Angus compared to Hereford and th~ Contil1~ntal breeds (Simmental, Oelbvieh, Limousin, Charolais). The three Britishibreeds (Hereford, Angus, Red Angus) were similar for 200-dayweaning weight) Limousin sired calves were lighter at weaning than all other breed' , groups1200-day weaning weights for Oelbvieh topcrosses w~resimllar to those-' .. ofthe British breeds. Simmental topcrosses were heavier at weaningthllt-all other breed groups. Charolais sired calves were heavier at weaning than Limousin, Hereford, and Red Angus. S'• Ire B'ree dMeans,tiPor rewea,mng Tral'tsa Birth ISurvival 200-dSire UnassistedGestation to wean.calvings, weight,breed of 1ength, d wean., wt.,0/0 lb.ca~f % lb. 1284 1195,6 1190.4 1196.2 1524 1l~erefQrd ngus 1533 I1282 1199.6 184.0 2:6.7 96.7 526AnguS 282 99.1 84.5 1 1~~~ 553]96.7Isimm~ntall1285 1197.7 1192.2 534197.1IOelbvieh 11284 1197.8 1!88.7 httpt/I'o/ww .sites.ext. vt.edu/newsletter-archi ve/livestockJaps-02_,.. 3/18120'13 Beef Breed Differences: Preliminary Results from the U.S. Mea..• Page :3of4 .t 1 I , ! ". : .... ,. Postwe;aning growth and carcass traits for the sire breed groups are pre.sented for the 19Q9..bprn calf crop only. Postweaning average daily g~ins, were sirrii1ar~ _., among !al1 breed groups. The British breeds were similar in slaughte.r weIght· . ~djusted tq 448 days of age. Limousin topcrosses were generally lighter than other's{re bi'eed groups at slaughter. Differences between the breed grOlJP$ in .. slaughter'weight area;lso reflected in carcass weight. Amongthe British,breed~t, Aligus~nd Red Angus sires were superior to Hereford in marbling8c:or~ ~md' percent Choice. Angus and Red Angus also had higher marbling scores than the Continental breeds. The Continental breeds were similar for marbling score .. Contin~ntal breed topcrosses had less 12th-rib fat than British topcrosses. Additionally, Continental breed topcrosses had larger ribeye areas that British topcro~ses except for Angus. Angus-sired calves had greater ribeye areathan Red Angus and Hereford~sired calves, and werenot differentfrom the ContineIltal breeds. Collectively, the British breeds prqduced progeny whIch were 8~.8% Choictf or higher, and 22.3% Yield Grades 1 &·2;.. The Con,titlental breed sires produced progeny with carcasses that were 60.9% Choice or higher, . anq 5110% Yield Grades 1 & 2 (data not shown). . . Sire B~eed Means for Postweaning and Carcass Traits (adjusted to constantag~ I , ILi .' .' i in 11286 1197.6 1189.5 1196.9 11519 I.. Jll.QUS ...... ICharo{ais 11283 1192.8 1193.7 1197.1 11540 '·1 LSpb 111.5 11 3.4 IITJ13.8 1114 asourc~: Cundiff et aI., 2001" Gennplasm Evaluation Program Progre$'Report No. 21 bBreed!diffel'ences that exceed the LSD are significant (p < .05) '.. :: ...~. of448:days a Sire Post-Slaughter Carcass Marb. USDA Yield Fat REA. , breed of wean.ADG, weight, Choice, Th., sq.wt., lb. score, Gradecalf IbJd lb. % % in. •In. lHerefQfd 13.46 111363 11832 11538 1179.1 113.35 ImJI12.74! AnguS 13.40 111375 1846 i577 193.6 13.32 .58 [1_3A8 ~[}.40An us IE]839 589 ~3.76 .60 12.21 Simmental 3.47 11390 11854 11536 1161.2 112.95 11.421113.711 I II II II II lill I http://yrww.sites.ext. vt.edu/newsl etter-archive/l1vestockJaps~02_... 3/18/20l3,. . ':."._, .'.. Beef Breed Differences: Preliminary Results from the U.S. Mea... P~ge4 of4 ! . I. IO:elbvieh 13.33 1826 Limolisin. .30 === Charol LSobi asour~:Cundiff et al.t 2001, Gennplasm Evaluation Program Progres~ RepQrt Np. 21---" b:atij"¢i@.T~rences that exceed the LSD are significant (P < .05) I' '. Pr¢nm~natY:results from these breed comparisons indicateti)at differenc~~.:....... between British and Continental breeds are not as great. fo:i'"'unassisted, ca:Ning J . . ~ :. petcen~age, weaning weight, postweaning gain, and slaughter we.igh.t·cqm'pa,ie~ to when the same breeds Were evaluated in the 19700s. British breeds·haye. ~mph~ized selection for growth rate, whereas Continental breeds have. ertlph~ized improvement in birth weight and calving ease. Conse'que:fitly~ smaUef: diffe:rences exist between British and Continental bree~s for gro}vth.~ty an?c~vingease.a~ compared t~ 25 years ago. Howeve.r, si~i~cant diffefenc~~' eXIst b~tween Bntish and Contmental breeds for marblmg and:percentage, retad prodl)ct,(yield grade). These differences in carcass composition exist despite the increa8~sin growth rate and corresponding carcass weight that have heen characterized in the British breeds. ! These *esults confirm that no single breed excels in all economically impor.tanI , traits. 4.. well-designed crossbreeding system that captures the advantages of . . hete~o~isand utilizes these breed differences in a complimentaryfashiQA:Js1he most effective genetic resource for an eflicient beef production systf.'m. . i ", . For th~ full report on Cycle VII of the OPE study visit http://sol.mal'c.usda.govl. I, Visit Virginia Cooperative Extension http://~w.sites.ext. vt.edu/newsl etter-archive/livestocklaps-02 _... 3118/2013 I • In our professional opinion, a prudent operator would not expect to make a profit by farming the subject property. • The cropland and rangeland on the property occur primarily on shallow soils with limited productivity (Sage West, LLC, 2012). • Irrigation water rights are available for approximately 103 acres. • The balance of the property, aside from acreage in structures, yards, and water developments is currently rangeland or idle agricultural land. • Based upon observation, assessment, and the 1 st Order Soil Survey prepared by Sage West, LLC, in the professional judgment of Agronomic Ans/ytics, the NNP Property will require additional capital inputs (e.g. additional fencing, buildings, stock equipment, etc.) in order to be used for livestock production in the most efficient manner as a single farm operation. • Based upon observation and assessment, in the professional judgment of Agronomic Anslytics, the cropland present on the NNP Property will require additional capital inputs (e.g. irrigation equipment, weed control, replanting, machinery, etc.) in order to be used for pasture or crop production in the most efficient manner as a single farm operation. • Several types of agricultural operations were examined in the enterprise budgets detailed in this report: o The first is a horse boarding enterprise for 14 horses. Revenues and costs vary depending on the level of care and training provided. o The second is a llama enterprise conSisting of 28 llamas raised for the pet market and wool production. o The third is a standard cow/calf operation with 40 cow/calf pairs. This is a full year operation that retains a mother herd of fertile cows which are bred to produce a crop of calves, which are then either sold as steers or heifers to supply the stocker trade or as replacement heifers for breeding purposes. o The fourth enterprise is an analysis of costs and returns associated with the establishment of a grass (rough bluegrass) crop for seed. o The fifth enterprise examined is irrigated alfalfa hay production utilizing the available water rights. • Even when factoring out costs associated with land purchase or lease, none of the numerous budget analyses conducted showed a positive cash flow or positive return on investment as an agricultural enterprise. Under the scenarios examined in this report, which are representative of the types of agricultural operations typical in the Bend area of Deschutes County, a positive cash flow was not shown on the NNP Property. An agricultural operation, as with any business operates with fixed and variable costs on a year to year basis. This analysis 2 has accounted for all such costs using published values where possible and conservative local values. Table 1. Budget Summaries I Budget i . Scenario • No. of AnimalsNield Total Revenues Total Costs Net Returnl Loss 11 1 14 Horses Boarding $115,080.00 $119,437.71 ($4,357.71) 12 28 Llama Pet Market $38,780.00 $70,998.05 ($32,218.05) 3 40 Cow/Calf $29,218.25 $49,985.93 ($20,767.68) 4 Blue Grass Establishment $109,695.00 $116,422.15 ($6,727.15) 5 Alfalfa Hay (3 cuttings) $61,800.00 $72,173.98 ($10,373.98) The budgets presented in this analysis represent the costs and revenues associated with the farming operations only. The costs to purchase the land, service the debt, and pay the taxes are not included in the budgets. Those costs would be the same regardless of the type of operation. The costs associated with the purchase of the NNP Property will be in excess of $100,000 per year if carried in a traditional 30-year mortgage. This cost far exceeds the potential net revenue possible with the farming operations agronomically feasible in the Bend area with the soils present on the NNP Property. 3 INTRODUCTION I This letter report describes assumptions, methods and results of budget analyses of various agricultural enterprises that might be considered by a typical Central Oregon farmer for the NNP Property. The budget analyses were conducted utilizing published range, pasture, and cropland productivity values for the soils on the NNP Property Deschutes County Map 17-12-24, Tax Lots 206,300,301,302,304,305,401,405, and 406, a 174.3-acre property located off Butler Market Road in Bend, OR. I The NNP Property is currently occupied by five rural residences with the agricultural land currently idle. The property is currently designated Exclusive Farm Use -550 or 551 Farm and 400 or 451 Tract. A field investigation was conducted on April 22, 2013. The purpose of the field visit was to assess the general vegetation and soils present on the property and to identify factors contributing to or limiting the use of the property as a working agricultural enterprise. The financial analyses were completed utilizing various Enterprise Budgets published by Oregon State University Extension Service. The enterprise budgets track fixed and variable costs and returns for both the entire enterprises and on a per head basis (where applicable). Costs for inputs and prices received are derived from government published statistics, local farm suppliers, advertised values, or personal experience. PROJECT BACKGROUND Agronomic Analytics was retained by NNP to determine whether the NNP Property is suitable for farm use, taking into consideration soil fertility, suitability for grazing, climatic conditions, irrigation availability, and other factors. This report focuses primarily with the profit and loss evaluation of typical farm operations for Central Oregon. The determination of the profitability of a farming operation is governed by many factors. In a livestock or cropping operation, the number of animals that can be raised on the property or the yields of the crops is limited by the inherent productivity of the soils on the property, the availability of working capital, the level of investment necessary to establish the agricultural operation, the management expertise of the owner/operator, and prices for inputs. Consideration must also be given to determining if investments in increased productivity (e.g. fertilization, liming, and reseeding of pastures) will provide an adequate return for the investment made. The soils on the NNP Property were mapped in the Soil Survey of the Upper Deschutes River Area, Oregon, including parts of Deschutes, Jefferson, and Klamath Counties (USDA, 1992), In addition, a private 1st Order Soil Survey was completed on the subject property in May 2012 by Sage West, LLC, 2012. 4 The NNP Property is comprised of over 170 acres of land consisting of nine tax lots. Five of the nine tax lots contain houses, structures, and improvements incidental to farming and ranching. These improvements include boundary fences, cross fences, small earthen dams for water storage, and farm roads. The NNP Property is bordered to the west by rural residential properties, single-family homes and the Bend Seventh-day Adventist church. To the north across Butler Market Road are properties used for agricutture, and residential purposes. The land to the south is a rural residential subdivision. The privately-owned properties that adjoin the east side of the subject property are developed or partially developed with nonfarm, single-family dwellings. The other property that adjoins the east side of the subject property is owned by an electric cooperative and contains major power lines above ground that is not engaged in farm use. The nearest surface water body is the Deschutes River. The NNP Property has water rights to approximately 103 acres. The agricultural land on the site is topographically level to nearly level with a moderate, rocky landscape increasing in steepness towards the eastem edge of the property. The western two thirds of the property are flatter, and have been used for cropland in the past. The site ranges in elevation from 3,446 feet above mean sea level (U.S. Geological Survey, 1987) at the northeast corner of the property to approximately 3,516 feet in the south central rangeland of the site. The NNP Property is 4.5-miles northeast of downtown Bend, Oregon. The tract and parcel identifiers are shown on Figure 2 and listed in Table 2 below. The NNP Property was acquired by NNP in 2006 and 2007. Prior to that time, the NNP Property consisted of a number of small hobby farms and vacant land. When acquired, five hobby farming operations were occurring on the NNP Property. NNP's review of County land use records shows that this pattern of small hobby farm use on multiple parcels has been in place for more than thirty years. Tax Lot 206 (approximately 29.92 acres) has no known history of farm use. Table 2 below lists the various tax lots which are included in this study. 5 Table 2. Tract Descriptions I I I I~ Assessor Real Market Value Assessed Value2 Property Tax Tax Lot Class Acresl (2012-2013) (2012-2013) (2012-2013) 300 SS1-Farm 4.52 $120,300.00 $70,630.00 $950.79 206 4OD-Tract 29.92 $172,770.00 $73,390.00 $987.91 405 4S1-Tract 4.90 $312,480.00 $299.400.00 $3,951.74 • 401 SS1-Farm 20.13 $386,390.00 $260,672.00 $3,508.98 302 SSG-Farm 13.42 $82,910.00 $3,844.00 $50.89 I 304 5S1-Farm 13.84 $365,620.00 $237,048.00 $3,190.98 I 305 SSO-Farm 6.79 $64,080.00 $2,191.00 $29.21 i 406 SSG-Farm 75.81 $292.420.00 $18,007.00 $240.10 301 =551-Farm 5.00 $178,320.00 $118,132.00 $1,590.21 Totals: 174.33 $1,975,290.00 $1,083,314.00 $14,500.81 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REPORTED MAPPED SOILS AND THEIR PRODUCTIVITY The subject property was mapped by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and soil types were published in the Soil Survey of the Upper Deschutes River Area, Oregon, including parts of Deschutes, Jefferson, and Klamath Counties (USDA, 1992) (NRCS Survey). In addition, a private 1st Order Soil Survey was completed on the NNP Property in May 2012 (Sage West Survey, LLC). The Sage West, LLC survey is a private 1 st Order survey undertaken to more narrowly define the extents and limits of the soil series present on the NNP Property.3 This survey provides detailed and accurate infonnalion about NNP soils and fonns the basis of productivity calculations on the NNP Property. The Department of Land Conservation and Development has approved the Sage West, LLC survey for used in Deschutes County's review of the NCR land use applications. The tables below depict the soil acreages present on the NNP Property and the productivity ratings associated with each soil series. Table 3 below presents the acreages and land capability classes of the soils as mapped in the Sage West Survey on the NNP Property. 1 The Assessor's Record shows a total lot size that is believed to be slightly larger than actual. 2 Assessed Value is the lower of Real Market Value and Maximum Assessed Value. 3 Agricultural Soils Capability Assessment completed by Sage West, LLC, Bend, OR. July 11,2012 6 " ". Table 3. Soils Present on the NNP Property (Sage West, LLC) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Land Capability Non-irrigated Land Capability Irrigated , Map U nit Acres A B Deskamp loamy sand, 0 to 3 %slopes Gosney, deep- Deskamp complex, D­ 8% slopes 6 (VI) 6 (VI) 3 (III) 6 (VI) 11.0 46.0 C Gosney-Zeta complex, 0-3% slopes 7 (VII) 7 (VII) 41.0 i D E1--'.. Gosney-Rock outcrop • complex, 0-15 slopes Gosney extremely stony loamy sand, D­ 3% slopes. .. Total: 7 (VII) 7 (VII) 7 (VII) N/A 48.0 25.0 171.0 Capability classes, the broadest groups, are deSignated by Roman numerals I through VIII. The numerals indicate progressively greater limitations and narrower choices for practical use. The classes are defined as follows: • Class I soils have few limitations that restrict their use. • Class II soils have moderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require moderate conservation practices. • Class III soils have severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require special conservation practices, or both. • Class IV soils have very severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require very careful management, or both. • Class V soils are not likely to erode but have other limitations, impractical to remove, that limit their use. • Class VI soils have severe limitations that make them generally unsuitable for cultivation. • Class VII soils have very severe limitations that make them unsuitable for cultivation. • Class VIII soils and miscellaneous areas have limitations that nearly preclude their use for commercial crop production. 7 97405 Agronomic Analytics TRANSMITTAL Date: July 11, 2013 Agronomic Ana/ytics Project No.: AA2013-1 Mary Ruby NNP IV-NCR, LLC 2660 NE Hwy 20, Suite 610-369 Bend, OR 97701 Subject: Letter Report Budget Analysis Study NNP IV-NCR, LLC Property Tax Lots: 206, 300, 301, 302, 304, 305,401,405, & 406 Butler Market Road Bend, OR 97701 We are sending the following: One copy of the above referenced report. Remarks: If you have any questions, please contact our office at (541) 684-8000. Thank you. Stephen C. Caruana Principal 3419 Chaucer Way Eugene, OR 541-684-8000 Date: July 11, 2013 Agronomic Analytics Project No.: AA2013-1 Mary Ruby NNP IV-NCR, LLC 2660 NE Hwy 20, Suite 610-369 Bend, OR 97701 SUBJECT: LetterReport Budget Analysis Study NNP IV-NCR, LLC Property Tax Lots: 206, 300, 301, 302, 304, 305, 401, 405, & 406 Butler Market Road Bend, OR 97 Dear Ms. Ruby: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the results of a site investigation and agricultural budget analysis that was conducted for NNPIV-NCR, LLC ("NNP") by Agronomic Analytics. The site investigation was conducted on April 22, 2013 on the NNP Property located on Butler Market Road, Bend, Oregon ("NNP Property"). The site investigation entailed visual observation of the NNP Property. A detailed financial analysis of the various types of agricultural operations customary for the Deschutes County area was conducted, and the results presented in this report. In addition to the field investigation, extensive research was also conducted into historical soil surveys, present and past aerial photography, and the published literature. The financial analysis was completed utilizing the various Enterprise Budgets published by the Oregon State University Extension Service. Input values for the models were derived from published statistical summaries of the United States Agricultural Statistical Service, and current market rates for fuels, fertilizer, feed, pasture rental, and interest rates. Direct, documented costs or receipts were used when available. The conclusions drawn from the historical and published record, field observations, and the enterprise budget analyses are that: • In our professional judgment the subject property is not suitable for farm use. • In our professional judgment the NNP Property could not be operated profitably as a commercial agricultural enterprise, especially if the mortgage servicing and capital improvements are included in the cost of the farm operation. I j 1 j Range and pasture classifications are derived from the published Soil Survey I Deschutes County Area values where available. The absence of published data may indicate either that no data was available or that the productive capacity of the soils was considered so low as to be impossible to measure or of no forage value. For the purposes of this analysis hay yields and pasture AUM values are assigned equivalent to 1 reported values for similar capability class soils. i Pasture yield (AUM) -Animal-Unit-Month: the amount of forage or feed required to feed one animal unit such as one cow-calf pair) for 30 days. So, for example, to feed one cow-calf pair for one year requires 12 AUMs (1 Animal Unit x 12 Months). If the pasture is rated at 2 AUMs then 6 acres will be required to supply the feed and forage needs for one cow-calf pair for one year (12 Animal Unit Months 12 Acres) either as pasture or hay. If a 15-acre property had an average AUM rating of 2 AUMs/acre then the total available AUMs available would be 30 AUMs. This would produce enough forage to feed 2.5 cow-calf pairs for the entire year. A llama is calculated at 0.6 Animal Units per month and a horse is calculated at 1.2 Animal Units per month. Management of pastures for maximum production requires a high level of management and the application of inputs. With regard to the subject property these levels of input may be either unprofitable or simply impossible to implement. For example, due to limitations imposed by terrain, certain areas of the property could only be fertilized from the air. While this could improve the theoretical carrying capacity of the pastures, it would not do so at a cost that would make the improvement worthwhile. Despite these practical limitations the report incorporates a reasonable high-yield evaluation of AUMs and assumes expenses for reasonable expenses only. In reality, the subject property is unlikely to obtain these levels of AUM productivity. However, for the purposes of providing a conservative analysis, these levels of productivity will be assumed in this report. SITE INVESTIGATIONS On April 22, 2013, Agronomic Analytics visited the NNP Property to meet with the owner's representatives to discuss the operation and to conduct a visual reconnaissance of the base property. The site investigation consisted of a pedestrian survey conducted at selected locations across the NNP Property. Sample sites were chosen which were considered to be representative of the current condition and vegetation present on this property. 8 Research was conducted utilizing historical surveys and aerial photography. The site investigation included general observations of vegetation conditions, observation of exposed soil profiles, and assessing the general condition of agricultural facilities. Typical sites on the ranch are illustrated in the Photo Set which accompanies this report in Appendix B. The idle agricultural fields are currently not being used for production agriculture. The fields would require inputs to be placed into production. REPORT METHODOLOGY This report presents the findings of a series of enterprise budget analyses conducted to examine the costs and returns from various possible agricultural operations that are typical and customary for the Bend area of Deschutes County. What all agricultural efforts have in common is that they can only be as productive as the inherent quality of the land itself. Likewise, the types of crops that can be grown and animals raised are limited by the environmental conditions present. Average annual rainfall, growing season length, and most importantly the soil's capability all govern what can be grown in an area profitably. Stated another way, an agricultural operator chooses what to grow based upon risk and potential profitability. The primary limiting factor on the NNP Property is the poor quality of the soils. Five types of agricultural enterprises typical of the Deschutes County area were chosen for analysis. They were chosen based upon the soils present on the NNP Property and the types of farm uses that might be considered for the property by a prudent farmer who hopes to make a profit by farming the land. For the livestock operations, the starting point to determine herd size was the number of animals that can be fed directly from the hay and pasture grown on the property. Then additional animals were added based on the ability to purchase feed and, where typical and likely to be cost effective, to operate a confined operation. The accepted farm practice is to graze on pasture or range during the growing season (typically seven months) and fed during the winter months. The first step is based on the concept of the Animal Unit Month described above. Tables 4, 5 and 6 below outline inherent soil productivity; the potential yields of pasture, hay land, or range; and the total maximum available animal units the NNP Property is capable of producing. The five agricultural enterprises examined are: • A horse boarding enterprise for 14 horses. Revenues from this are variable depending on the level of care and training provided. 9 I • The second is a llama enterprise consisting of 28 llamas raised for the pet or breeding market and wool production. • The third is a standard cow/calf operation with 40 pair. This is a full year operation that retains a mother herd of fertile cows which are bred and produce a crop of calves, which are then either sold as steers or heifers to supply the stocker trade or as replacement heifers for breeding purposes. • The fourth enterprise is a grass (rough bluegrass) crop grown for seed during the establishment year. • The fifth enterprise examined is an irrigated alfalfa hay crop utilizing all the available water rights. The basis of any agricultural enterprise is the productive capacity of the soil. Based upon the Order 1 Soil Survey completed by Sage West, LLC, Sage West prepared Table 4 to show the potential yields for each soil mapping unit found on the NNP Property. 10 Table 4. Soil Productivity (Sage West, LLC) Svmbol A B C i ·0 E Name Acres Oeskamp loamy sand, 0-3% slopes 11.0 Gosney, deep- Oeskamp complex, 0-8% slopes 46.0 Gosney-Zeta complex, 0-3% slopes 41.0 Gosney-Rock outcrop complex 0-15% 48.0 Gosney extremely stony loamy sand, I 0-3% slopes I 25.0 171.0 Rangeland (AUM/ac) 0.12 0.25 Dryland Pasture (Ibs./ac[year) 350 350 200 N/A N/A Irrigated Irrigated I Grass Hay Pasture • (tons/ac) (AUM) 3 1.5 3 1.5 1.5 0.5 N/A N/A i N/A I N/A i i As described above, animal unit numbers are derived utilizing aggressive estimates of the maximum carrying capacity of both the pasture and hay land in an improved condition. Various budget enterprise scenarios were developed that assumed fertilization and liming of the potential hay land or pasture. The grass hay harvested from the hay land is used to feed the livestock during the winter. Increases in the productivity of the hay land will allow more animals to be fed during the winter; however, the limiting factor is how many animals can be pastured on the available pasture. In addition, increasing the productivity of the hay land brings with it costs for fertilization and increased inputs. A farmer whose operations are not profitable may not be able to bear this expense, given the low return on investment likely due to the shallow depth and sandy (porous) texture of the soils on the NNP Property. Based upon the values in Table 4 above, the agricultural land is potentially capable of producing the following maximum yields. 11 I I I I Table 5. Computed Soil Yields I I Symbol Name Acres Hay Production Potential (Tons/ac.) Available Irrigated Pasture (Potential AUM) Native Rangeland (Potential AUM) Dryland Pasture (Lbs. IAcre/vr.) A Deskamp loamy sand, 0-3% slopes 11.0 33.0 16.5 3,850.0 :8 Gosney, deep- Deskamp complex, 0-8% slopes 46.0 138.0 69.0 16,100.0 C Gosney-Zeta complex, 0-3% slopes 41.0 61.5 20.5 8,200.0 0 Gosney-Rock outcrop complex 0-15% 48.0 5.8 E Gosney extremely stony loamy sand, 0-3% slopes 25.0 6.3 Totals: 171.0 232.5 106 12.1 28,150.0 Utilizing the values presented in Tables 4 and 5 above, the maximum numbers of available Animal Unit Months (AUMs) for three classes of livestock are displayed in Table 6 a, b, and c below. Table 6a presents the number of animals that be supported from the NNP Property under dryland conditions, the low numbers are indicative of poor quality soils present on the NNP Property. Tables 6b and c present the AUMs available under the for the confined cattle operation for 12 months and seven months if the animals are fed on irrigated pasture during the growing season and fed purchased hay for five months during the winter months. 12 Table 6a. Available Animal Unit Months (Dryland, No Irrigation) Enterprise Productivity Available AUMs Land Use Cattle Operation Llama Operation Horse Dryland Pasture 28 47 23 Rangeland 12 20 10 Total 40 67 33 12 Month Animal Unit 3 6 3 Table 6b. Available Animal Unit Months (Irrigated Pasture) . Enterprise Productivity Available AUMs Land Use Cattle Operation Llama Operation Horse Irrigated Irrigated Pasture 106 177 88 Rangeland (not irrigated) 12 20 10 Total 118 197 98 i 7 Month Animal Unit 17 28 14 Table 6c. Available Animal Unit Months (Irrigated Hayland) Enterprise Productivity Available AUMs Land Use Cattle Operation Confined Operation Irrigated Hayland Rangeland (not irrigate~ 465 10 Total 475 12 Month Animal Unit 40 Commercial agriculture is the production of commodities (crops or animals) from a parcel of land for a profit. If a farm is incapable of generating a profit, the farm's income must be supplemented through off-farm sources of revenue. The ability of a farm to produce a commodity is governed by the inherent quality and fertility of the land itself. Maximizing the yields from the land is dependent upon the management skills of the operator and the level of inputs (fertilizer, animal breeds, adapted varieties, weed and pest control, etc.). The prices received by the farmer are subject to market forces of supply and demand, consumer attitudes, and the availability of markets and suppliers. In addition to the five farming enterprises chosen for analysis, other operations were considered but ultimately rejected for the following reasons: 13 • Horse Breeding: The recent economic downtums have released a glut of horses onto the market. At present there are too many free horses available, prices are low, and horses have been reported abandoned. • Llamas for Breeding Stock: Similar to the horse breeding market, llamas are in limited demand at present. The available supply is large and too readily available to be profitable. • Dairy: The dairying industry in Central Oregon has undergone continual retrenchment for decades. Only one large commercial dairy operation now exists in the Deschutes County area. A small scale family operation may be feasible but not commercially viable due to a lack of available processors or purchasers. • Aquaculture: The NNP Property is severely limited for aquaculture enterprises. The property lacks an appropriate year-round water source, e.g. a nearby stream or spring. A muniCipal water source is inappropriate because it contains chlorine that will kill fish and other aquatic species. Irrigation water is only available during the growing season. Aquaculture requires water temperature to be carefully controlled. The only known private aquaculture facility in Central Oregon is located in Klamath County. It relies on geothermal water to regulate the temperature of its ponds - a resource lacking on the NNP Property. Expensive concrete or lined ponds would also be needed due to the porous nature of the soils. • Fur Production: Oregon is a leading producer of mink pelts. Due to increased foreign demand, production has increased in recent years; however, the eighteen existing mink farms are located west of the Cascades. Mink production in Eastern Oregon is likely to be severely limited for the following reasons: 1. Mink are raised in cages in open-sided shelters. Mink are extremely susceptible to intense heat which makes Central Oregon a poor choice for a mink farm (especially as opposed to a location in the Willamette Valley where the climate is more temperate). 2. Mink are fed fish filleting waste, by-products of poultry processing and slaughterhouse offal. The NNP Property, unlike properties in Western Oregon, is not located close to facilities that provide a reliable supply of this feed. 3. A more remote location than provided by the NNP Property (a site surrounded on two sides by a well-traveled arterial street) is needed for at least three reasons: 14 a. The security of the farmer and hislher investment are threatened by a visible location (the location of mink operations are identified on-line so that would be protesters and animal liberators are informed). b. The slaughter of animals, the processing of fat to produce mink oil and the need to dispose of the carcasses makes this use inappropriate for a rural residential neighborhood with many neighbors. c. Mink are aggressive animals that bite readily (escapees or animals released by animal rights activists). d. It would bedifficult to obtain financing to conduct this operation in such a visible location. e. Attacks and sabotage by animal rights activists disrupt production, endanger neighbors and traffic, and increase insurance costs. • Honeybees: The production of honeybees is centered on their use as pollinators of commercial crops (e.g. almonds, alfalfa, etc.). Honey production is a byproduct. Commercial honeybee operations are not conducted in Deschutes County. Honeybees are experiencing hive collapse disorder, making it difficult to obtain financing for such a startup operation. Additionally, it is not an accepted farm practice to keep a large number of hives in a single location; apiculturists typically spread hives across a number of properties in order to minimize disturbance to neighbors. This would preclude keeping several thousand hives on the NNP Property, located as it is near numerous residential properties. • Chicken Production: Recent years have seen a growing interest in free-range and pasture raised chickens. Much of this growth has been in small scale, backyard operations. A large scale, commercial operation was not deemed viable on the NNP Property due to the seasonal nature of the NNP water rights, winter conditions in the Bend area, and the need to operate in compliance with federal water and air quality regulations. Additionally, this farm use is not an accepted farm use in the area of the NNP Property. • Christmas Trees: The NNP Property currently has approximately 5 acres of Christmas trees under production. The trees have done poorly and undergone significant rodent predation. Production of Christmas trees in Central Oregon faces competition from healthier, easier grown stock in the Willamette Valley and from u-cut programs administered by the U.S. Forest Service. • Cattle Feed Lot: A feed lot was not studied as it is not a common farm practice in the area and the property is not suited for the use. The east third of the NNP Property is rocky, wooded, moderately steep rangeland unsuited for use as a 15 feed lot. The NNP Property adjoins rural residential exception areas developed decades ago with a large number of rural residences. Establishment of a feed lot in close proximity to these established residences is likely to be vigorously opposed. Further limitations include a lack of year round irrigation water rights, limitations on the use of the domestic water supply, and no low-cost water source for the winter months severely limits the NNP Property for use as a feed lot. Finally, large feed lots generate high levels of air and water pollutants. Large sites are subject to rigorous environmental air and water quality regulations. The cost of complying with these regulations and of managing these pollutants on this site will require significant capital investments. 16 FINANCIAL ASSUMPTIONS Debt service and taxes are included in each of the budgets. Unlike other fixed expenses, however, these costs are shown below the Profit/Loss line and illustrate that even without debt service and taxes considered, each of the enterprise budgets shows a loss. With debt service and taxes included, the losses for each enterprise are larger. Like feed, barns, fencing and other fixed costs, costs attributable to land ownership must be factored into the enterprise budget. Even in instances where a farm may be owned outright by a long-term family farmer, capital and operating loans are common, with the farm property and equipment used as collateral. Consequently, whether classified as a mortgage cost or debt service, a typical farmer will have to cover some level of fixed monthly payments. Whether categorized as mortgage costs or debt service, the amounts reflected below are reasonable and what a typical farmer would be expected to pay in order to operate on the property. For purposes of the present analysis, two possible land values were considered: real market value and assessed value. Both values are considerably less than the purchase price paid by the current owner and the debt service amounts factored into this analysis are far below the debt service amounts actually paid by the property owner. Both scenarios antiCipate a 30% down payment and a 5% interest rate on a 30-year loan. These figures are rather conservative given that commercial loans typically include shorter loan periods and higher interest rates. In each scenario, present taxes for the property have been amortized over a 12-month period. Real Market Value vs. Maximum Assessed Value Oregon law requires the assessor to value all property at 100 percent of its real market value (RMV). RMV is typically the price real property would sell for in a transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller on January 1 of the assessment year, the assessment date for the tax year. On the other hand, a property's maximum assessed value (MAV) is the taxable value limit established for each property under the Oregon Constitution. The first MAV for each property was set in the 1997-98 tax year. For that year, the MAV was the property's 1995-96 RMV minus 10 percent. MAV is subject to a maximum 3% increase each year, or other limited adjustments for specific reasons. RMV is typically much higher than MAV due to the 3% limitation. Although the subject property could be sold for a value close to RMV, both RMVand MAV were used in the enterprise budgets in order to show a range of values on the property and the corresponding debt service associated with those values. 17 I I I Table 7. Mortgage Costs Real Market Value Assessed Value Value $1,975,290.00 $1,083,314.00 . Down Payment @ 30% $592,587.00 $324,994.20 Amount Financed $1,382,703.00 $758,319.80 Interest Rate 5% 5% Monthly Payment $7,422.64 $4,070.82 Taxes (per month) $1,208.40 $1,208.40 Total Monthly Payment $8,631.04 $5,279.22 Total Yearly Payment $103,572.49 $63,350.65 The second highest fixed costs are usually those associated with capital improvements and machinery. Upfront costs are usually highly variable depending if equipment is purchased new or used, buildings are built by the operator or contracted out, and the period of depreciation. Interest rates are higher if older, used equipment is purchased. Representative costs associated with these expenditures are included within each budget scenario. Periods of depreciation typically range from 5 to 15 years. The following table exhibits the average Oregon prices for cows, steers, and heifers for the period 2000 to 2008. These are the prices illustrate the variability exhibited by the cattle market. Cattle prices exhibit great volatility, subject as they are to consumer demand, feed costs, and variable inputs. Current market prices4 for steers are $130. per hundredweight (cwt), heifers $135.1cwt. The cow/calf enterprise budget utilizes current market prices; however, a prudent operator would base their long term planning on the average cattle prices. Table 8 below presents average cattle prices reported between 2000 and 2008. I 4 Capital Press. May 10,2013. Fann Market Reports, Livestock Auctions, Madras, OR Auction Yard. 18 Table 8. Average Recent Cattle Prices Cattle Prices (steers & heifers) (sell prices) Year June July August 2000 $84.30 $83.60 $84.00 2001 $84.50 $84.40 $84.90 2002 $73.00 $72.50 $70.50 2003 $80.00 $81.00 $85.00 2004 $100.00 $101.00 $101.00 2005 $108.00 $99.00 $98.00 2006 $101.00 $102.00 $99.00 2007 $93.00 $91.00 $93.00 Average 2008 $93.80 $95.50 $95.00 Average $90.84 $90.00 $90.04 $90.30 per cwt Minimum $73.00 $72.50 $70.50 $72.00 per cwt Maximum $108.00 $102.00 $101.00 $103.67 per cwt Cattle Prices (calves) (purchase ;>rice) Year October November December 2000 $92.00 $90.90 $90.20 2001 $89.10 $86.50 $86.60 2002 $79.00 $82.50 $87.00 2003 $99.50 $100.00 $100.00 2004 $113.00 $110.00 $110.00 2005 $117.00 $121.00 $124.00 2006 $114.00 $104.00 $99.00 2007 $104.00 $101.00 $101.00 Average 2008 $85.00 $88.00 $86.00 Average $99.18 $98.21 $98.20 $98.53 per cwt Minimum $79.00 $82.50 $86.00 $82.50 pet cwt . I Maximum $117.00 $121.00 $124.00 $120.67 (Source: 2000-2008 Agricultural Prices Summaries, Agricultural Statistics Board, NASS, USDA) 19 I f I I BUDGET ANALYSES RESULTS A series of detailed enterprise budget analyses are presented below. The results are displayed as tables in Appendix A. Each budget is based upon reasonable assumptions for variable and 'fixed costs, necessary inputs to produce a crop or raise livestock, and the revenue from expected returns. Neither the cost of debt serviCing for the purchase of the land nor the cost to lease the land are initially factored into the enterprise budgets. There is no charge for family labor although it represents a lost opportunity cost. In all budgets, it was assumed that at least one member of a farm family would be principally engaged in the farm use of the land without compensation unless the operation generates net income. Costs for capital improvements e.g. barns, fenCing, irrigation equipment etc. are depreciated over a specified time period. Livestock numbers are based upon the maximum potential animal units that can be supported on NNP Property through careful husbandry and the application of the requisite inputs. Crop production is assumed to utilize the available water rights. Even with land costs factored out, and even with a very conservative estimate of the productivity of the property, none of the farm operations are profitable. Horse Boarding Enterprise The first is a horse boarding enterprise for 14 horses. Revenues 'from this enterprise are highly variable depending on the level of care and training provided. Based on AUMs, the NNP Property can support up to 33 horses if horses are confined to the bam and 8 horses if the pasture is irrigated and used for grazing. A confined horse boarding operation is not an accepted farm operation and would not attract boarders. Horses require exercise to remain fit and healthy. Boarders expect to be able to ride their horses in pastures on the property where their horses are boarded. As a result, it was assumed that hay would be purchased for feed. The purchase of hay and other factors allowed an increase to 14 horses beyond the 8 horses that could be fed using hay grown on the subject property. This budget includes the assumption that the owner/operator will be a horse trainer and that aU horses boarded will hire the owner/operator to train their horses. Horse training and lessons supply the majority of income for the horse boarding operation. The income is generated by personal labor that is not tied to growing crops or raising livestock on the land. Llama Ranch The second is a llama enterprise consisting of 28 llamas raised for the pet market, breeding females, and wool production. The numbers of llamas raised is based on the 20 number of AUMs that could be produced by the NNP pastures with intense management. Cow/Calf Operation The third is a standard cow/calf operation. This is a full year operation that retains a mother herd of fertile cows which are bred to produce a crop of calves which are then either sold as steers or heifers to supply the stocker trade or as replacement heifers for breeding purposes. Based upon the soil productivity values established above, the NNP Property can be expected to support 40 animal units in a confined operation fed on the hay raised on the irrigated 103 acres of the property. The animals will be in confinement for 12 months. This type of cattle operation was selected as it is believed to have the best chance of being successful and profitable on the NNP Property. Grass Crop Establishment The fourth enterprise examined is the establishment of a grass (rough bluegrass) crop for seed. This enterprise is an example of a field crop operation. It analyses the first (or establishment) year of a multi-year crop rotation. Alfalfa Hay Production The fifth enterprise examined is irrigated alfalfa hay production utilizing the 103 acres of available water rights. Production is limited to the irrigated farmland (103 acres). It requires the purchase of equipment necessary to a cropping enterprise. This includes: a tractor, tillage equipment, swathers, and balers. The construction of a hay storage shed or building is required. Hay is marketed throughout the central and western Oregon. No animals will be fed on the farm. CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS The enterprise budgets analyzed represent a sampling of typical agricultural operations feasible in the Bend area. The budgets are based on the best available data for inputs and returns and represent a conservative approach. Returns and costs are summarized in Table 9 below. The losses shown below do not include costs associated with debt service. 21 Table 9. Budget Scenario's Costs and Returns Budget Scenario No. of Animals/yield Total Revenues Total Costs Net Returnl Loss 1 14 Horses Boarding $115,080.00 $119,437.71 ($4,357.71) 2 28 Llama Pet Market $38,780.00 $70,998.05 ($32,218.05) 3 40 Cow/Calf $29,218.25 $49,985.93 ($20,767.68) 4 Blue Grass Establishment $109,695.00 $116,422.15 ($6,727.15) 5 Alfalfa Hay (3 cuttings) $61,800.00 $72,173.98 ($10,373.98) I The conclusions drawn from the historical record, field observations, a review of soil productivity data, and the budget analyses are that: I • Under the budget analyses conducted the NNP Property cannot be operated profitably for representative agricultural operations. • The losses are far greater when mortgage and capital expenditures are included. • Climate and poor soils limit feasible production to pastureland and hayland. The poor soils found on the property will not support the commercial production of any other crops. • Of the numerous budget analyses conducted, none showed a positive cash flow or positive return on investment as an agricultural enterprise. 22 PROFESSIONAL AUTHENTICATION AND LIMITATIONS This report utilizes generally accepted practice standards for care and diligence as employed by recognized consulting firms undertaking similar studies. This report presents our professional judgment based upon data and findings identified in this report and on data reported by independent analytical services and governmental agencies. This report reflects the interpretation of such data based on our experience and background, and no warranty, either expressed or implied, is made. The conclusions and recommendations presented are based upon the conditions observed at the time of the site visits and as a result of the limited laboratory analysis conducted. Recommendations are subject to change if field conditions warrant or more extensive sample collection and laboratory analysis is desired and conducted. This report has been prepared and reviewed by the undersigned. This report is void if original signature is not present. Date: July 11, 2013 ~~ Stephen C. Caruana Principal Attachments: Figures Appendix A -Budget Scenarios Appendix B -Photo Set 1 Appendix C -Statement of Qualifications cc: Liz Fancher, Esq. Steve Hultberg, Esq. 23 REFERENCES USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1992. Soil Survey of Deschutes County Area, Oregon. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington. DC. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2007. 2007 Census of Agriculture. County Profile. Deschutes County. Oregon. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, DC. USGS Bend Airport 7.5 Topographic Quadrangle, Bend, OR. 1962. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, DC. 24 I 1 APPENDIX A BUDGET SCENARIOS A-I Horse Boarding Bud! et Based on Boarding: 14 Horses Time Period: 12 Months (7 months pasture, 5 months fed) ~ Years Yearly FIXED COSTS Depreciated Expense Building & facilities: Bam (14 horses) $50000.00 10 $5,000.00 Run-in shed (10 x 25 ft) $4,000.00 10 $400.00 Outdoor ridlna arena (100 x 200 ft.) $5000.00 10 $500.00 Indoor arena (60 x 120 ft.) $47000.00 10 $4,700.00 Fencing: (10000 ft.) ~h tensile Installed (51.751ft) $17500.00 10 $1,750.00 ent: Tractor (used) $8000.00 7 $1,142.86 Manure spreader (used) $1,000.00 7 $142.86 2-horse trailer (new) $7000.00 7 $1000.00 4-wheel-drive truck (new) $35000.00 7 $5,000.00 Irriaation Svstem $150 000.00 30 $5000.00 Insurancellnterest-bldas & eQuip. (4%) $12,980.00 TOTAL FIXED COSTS $324,500.00 $37615.71 Yearly VARIABLE COSTS Monthlylhorse Yearlylhorse Monthly Total Total Feed requirements: Commercial feed ($20150 Ib bag; 6 lbIhorseJdav U M~OO $12096.00 Hay /112 bale!horseJdav - 5 months $6Iba1e) $1260.00 $6300.00 SuPDIements ($1.5OIday) .00 i $630.00 $7,560.00 Salt block ($12 aa; 11horse/vT.) .00 $14.00 $168.00 i Bedding: Straw ($2.501ba1e· 314 bale/horse/day) 56.25 $675.00 $787.50 $9.450.00 Hired labor ($101hr' 25 min/horseJday) $125.00 $1500.00 $1,750.00 $21,000.00 Repair & maintenance: Vehicles ($151mo)horse) $15.00 $180.00 $210.00 $2,520.00 Pasture ($401acre) $4920.00 Building &fences ($8.00/horse/mo.) $8.00 $96.00 $112.00 $1,344.00 Utilities; Electric ($5/horse/mo.) $5.00 $60.00 $70.00 $840.00 Water ($5/horseJmo.) $5.00 $60.00 $70.00 $840.00 Replacement of supplies ($3/horseJmo.) $3.00 $36.00 $42.00 $504.00 Insurance: (highly variable) Care, custody, and control $10.00 $120.00 $140.00 $1,680.00 Riding instruction $10.00 $120.00 $140.00 $1,680.00 Commercial liability $50.00 $600.00 $700.00 $8,400.00 Workman's compensation $15.00 .00 $210.00 $2520.00 TOTAL VARIABLE COSTS $81,822.00 TOTAL COSTS $119,437.71 Yearly REVENUES Monthly/horse Monthlv Total Total . Board ($2501mo.) $250.00 $3,000.00 $3,500.00 $42,000.00 Training ($4OO1mo.) $400.00 $4,800.00 $5,600.00 $67,200.00 ! Lessons ($35Jhr.) $35.00 $420.00 $490.00 $5,880.00 • TOTAL REVENUES $115,080.00 NET RETURNs/{lOSSES) ($4,357.71) A-I Uama Raising Budget Based on Raising 28 llama Time Period: U Months (7 months pasture, 5 months fed) Initial Years Yearly FIXED COSTS Investment Depreciated Expense Building & facilities: Barn (28 llamas) $50,000.00 10 $5,000.00 Fencing: 110000 ft.) 5-strand high tensile installed ($1.75/ft) $17,500.00 10 $1,750.00 i Equipment: Tractor (used) $8,000.00 7 $1,142.86 Manure spreader (used) $1,000.00 7 $142.86 Trailer (new) $7,000.00 7 $1,000.00 4-wheel-drive truck (new) $35,000.00 7 $5,000.00 Irrigation System $150,000.00 30 $5,000.00 Insurance/lnterest-bldgs & equip. (4%) $10,740.00 • TOTAL FIXED COSTS $268,500.00 $29,775.71 Monthly VARIABLE COSTS Monthly/llama Yearly/llama Total Yearly Total ! Feed requirements: Grain ($0.40/lb, 0.75 Ibs/head/day) $9.13 $109.51 $255.53 $3,066.34 Salt and Minerals (24 Ibs./hea~/yr.,$3.oo/mo.) $3.00 $84.00 $1,008.00 Hay (115 bale/llama/day - 5 months, $6/ba1e) $36.00 $1,008.00 $5,040.00 Animal OVerhead Veterinary Expenses ($25/head) $2.08 $25.00 $58.33 $700.00 Marketing Expenses (SID/head) SO.83 $10.00 $23.33 $280.00 Repair & maintenance: Pasture ($40/acre) $4,920.00 Vehicles ($lO/mo./head) $10.00 S120.00 $280.00 $3,360.00 Building & fences ($8.oo/head/mo.) $8.00 $96.00 $224.00 $2,688.00 Utilities: Electric ($5/head/mo.) $5.00 $60.00 $140.00 $1,680.00 Water (S5/head/mo.) $5.00 $60.00 $140.00 $1,680.00 Insurance: (highly variable) Commercial liability $50.00 $600.00 $1,400.00 $16,800.00 TOTAL VARIABLE COSTS $41,222.34 TOTAL COSTS $70,998.05 REVENUES Quantity Price/Unit $75.00 ~ $375.00 Yearly Total $10,500.00Wool (5Ibs./animal, $75/pelt) 5.00 Crias (90% weaning, 2% death loss) 1.00 $1,100.00 $1,100.00 $27,720.00 Culled Females (10% cull, $200/head) 1.00 $200.00 $200.00 $560.00 TOTAL REVENUES $38,780.00 NET RETURNS/(LOSSES) ($32,218.05) A-2 Cow/Calf Costs and Returns High Desert Area HenlSize: 40 Cows Time Period: 12 Months (Confined, fed completely from irriaated hayland) Initial Years I FIXED COSTS Investment Depreciated Total Per Cow Building & facilities: Bam $50,000.00 10 $5,000.00 $125.00 Cattle Equloment $7500.00 10 $750.00 $18. Fencing: (10000 ft.) $0. 5-strand high tensile installed ($1.751ft) $17500.00 10 $1,750.00 $43.75 equipment! $0.00 Tractor (used) $8000.00 7 $1142.86 $28.57 Manure spreader (used) $1,000.00 7 $142.86 $3.57 Trailer (new) $7000.00 7 $1,000.00 $25.00 4-wheel~rive truck {new} $35 000.00 7 $5000.00 $125.00 Irligation System $150000.00 30 $5,000.00 $125.00 Insurancelinterest-bldgs & equip. (4%) $11,040.00 $276.00 TOTAL FIXED COSTS $276,000.00 $30,825.71 snO.54 Quantity VARIABLE COSTS (head) Value Unit ~~ Per Cow Salt 1 Ton .00 $4.00 Minerals (custom mix) 0.2 Ton $60 .00 $3.00 Fuel & Lube, Machinery & Equipment $1,208.89 $30.22 ! Interest -Operating Capital $333.33 $8.33 R@airs, Machinery & Equipment $2,472.62 $61.82 Fence Repair Materials $450.00 $11.25 Supplies $700.00 $17.50 Utilities $900.00 $22.50 Vet & Medicine $1,550.00 $38.75 Brand InSPeCtion $100.53 $2.51 Horse Purchase 0.25 head $2,000.00 $500.00 $12.50 Bull Purchase 0.3 head $2.000.00 $15.00 Marketing Fees $13.62 Accounting $400.00 $10.00 Legal &Related Expenses $200.00 $5.00 Farm Help labor $4,000.00 $100.00 Hayland Maintenance ($40.lac.) $4,920.00 $123.00 TOTAL VARIABLE COSTS $19,160.22 $479.01 TOTAL COSTS $49,985.93 $1,249.65 Quantity .,,,'REVENUES (head) Value Unit Total Per Cow Cull Bulls 0.3 15 cwt $82.00 $369.00 Cull Cows 6 9.5 cwt $74.00 $4,218.00 $105.45 CUll Horse 0.25 1 head $500.00 $125.00 $3.13 Heifer Calves 5 4.75 cwt $135.00 $3,206.25 $80.16 YearlinQ Heifers 9 8.5 cwt $100.00 $7,650.00 $191.25 Steer Calves 20 5.25 cwt $130.00 $13,650.00 $341.25 TOTAL REVENUES $29218.25 $730.46 NET RETURNSJ(LOSSES} ($20,767.68) ($519.191 A-3 Rough Bluegrass Establishment Year Central Oregon Production: 103 Acres Initial Years Yearly FIXED COSTS Investment Depreciated Expense Building & facilities 10~00Storage shed (SO x 100 ftl $25,000.00 Equipment Implements $35,000.00 7 $5,000.00 Tractor (used) $8,000.00 7 $1,142.86 Self-propelled Equipment $15,000.00 7 $2,142.86 4-wheel-drive truck (new) R $35,000.00 7 $5,000.00 Irrigation System $150,000.00 30 $5.000.00 Insurance/interest-bldgs & equip. (4%) $10,720.00 TOTAL FIXED COSTS $31,505.71 Price VARIABLE COSTS Unit (S) Qua . Amount IS) Farm Total Herbicides Acre $40.63 1 $40.6 .89 ; Fungicides Acre $13.44 1 I $13.44 $1,384.32 I Custom Applications Acre $30.59 1 $30.59 $3,150.77 Seed Acre $14.00 1 $14.00 $1,442.00 ~"~,"'F1,. Won Acre $149.00 1 $149.00 $15,347.00 labor Acre $153.65 1 $153.65 $15,825.95 Fertilizer Acre $104.00 1 $104.00 $10,712.00 Water ~ $114.12 1 ~i Diesel Fuel $3.99 12.86 ,285.07 ~ Gasoline Gallon $3.50 1 $3.50 $360.50 Repair & Maintenance Acre $41.13 1 $41.13 $4,236.39 ~on Operating Capital Acre $34.06 1 $34.06 $3,508.18 s (Accounting, legal, Insurance) Acre $75.00 1 $75.00 $7,725.00 ! TOTAL VARIABLE COSTS $824.43 $84,916.43 i TOTAL COSTS $824.43 $116,422.15 Price REVENUE Unit 1$) Quantity Amount(S) Farm Total Grass Straw Acre $20.00 1 $20.00 $2,060.00 Rough Bluegrass Seed Pound $1.10 950 $1,045.00 I $107,635.00 TOTAL REVENUE $1 $109,695.00 NET RETURNS (LOSSES) $240.57 ($6,727.15) A-4 AIfa/fa ProcIuctIon 13 cuttlruts\ South Central Recio" PtodIIc:tIorI: lS oc:ntS Initlol Years Yearly FlXfDCQ5J5 Investmem Expense BuIdInI.fatlllt1es StOl'illl.m.d (SO. 100ft) $25000.00 10. .00 'qulpmen! Implements 7 $5.000.00 Tractor lused! $8,000.00 7 $U42.86 SeIf-propeJled Equipment $l5,000.00 7 $2.142.86 4-wheel-dr1ve truck lnewl $35.000.00 7 $5,000.00 IrtfptIon System $1SO.ooo.00 30 $5,OOCl.OO fllSlllllllCe/lnerest·b!das. eaulD. 14'" $10,720.00 TOTAL FIXED COS'IS $31,S05.71 Subtota Machlner VARIABI.E COSTS Uno1 $/Unit I Labor Y MIIIeri... Total Amount TOTAL SoiITe5t 0.0 $15. SolI Test 2 acre 00 $0.30 $0.00 $0.00 $0.30 $0.30 $30.90 Weed Control $0.00 $0.00 $38.97 $38.97 $4.013.40 Herbicide 3 pint $8.88 $26.63 Herbicide 1.5 pint $4.56 $6.84 Custom Applbtlon 1 acre $5.50 $5.50 Fertilizer $0.00 $0.00 $38.$5 $38.55 $3,970.65 pound Gypsum 400 $ S0.06 $22.00 ! pound Murated Potash 50 • $0.08 $4.OS pound Triple Ph.,.phate 50 • so.12 $6.00 Custom APDlbtlon 1 acre $6.50 $6.50 $1.55 $O.00~$5.18 $533.54Harrow Rodent Control $0.00 $5.00 $17.00 $1,751.00 Gas Pills 1 acre $5.00 $5.00 lrrlaate $0.00 $54.20 $98.20 $10,114.60 Repair & MalntQnanca 1 acre $4.55 $4.55 Electricity 1 acre $25.00 $25.00 water/Construction Charp 1 acre $24.65 $24.65 Weevil Control $0.00 $0.00 $8.84 8.8425 $910.78 Insecticide 0.5 pint $10.38 $5.19 Sticker 0.015 gallon $27.00 $0.41 CUstom Air Appbation 0.5 acre $6.S0 $3.25 Harvest $120.00 $12,360.00 Custom H3rvest 4 ton $30.00 $120.00 load Hay 9.08 9.03 8.11 $1,865.33 Storage Shed Repair & Maintenance $0.37 .87 Operating Cap!tallnterest $11.78 General Overhead $10.00 $1,030.00 Pickup = $19.34 $1,992.02 AN t= $7 $7.70 $793.10 : TOTAL VARIABLE COSTS $394.84 $40,668.26 TOTAL COSTS $n,l13.98 I Quantit REVENUE y Unit $/Unlt Total/a<. FARM TOTAL Alfalfa 3 ton $200.00 $600.00 $61,S00.00 NET RETURNS (LOSSES) $600.00 ($lo,a73.98) A-S SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Agronomic NNP PROPERTY BEND,ORAnalytics PROJECT NO. AA2013-1 Appendix B -Photo Set 1 APPENDIXC STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS Introduction Agronomic Analytics began in 1997. The object was to provide the highest level of service for developing environmentally sound and economically viable solutions to agricultural and land use challenges. We bring a solid background in agronomy, soils, ecosystem analysis, environmental marketing, soil testing, and conservation engineering to the challenges of conducting thorough and detailed analysis of soils, vegetation, and erosion processes. Agronomic Analytics has expertise in agricultural consulting, watershed restoration, project development, erosion studies and public outreach campaigns. Agronomic Analytics brings flfteen years experience with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), eleven of those years as a District Conservationist in three fleld offices in the Midwest and the Paciflc Northwest. This experience allows Agronomic Analytics to bring a complete familiarity and understanding of the soils, geology, and vegetation analysis required to complete detailed erosion and sediment studies. We bring direct experience working with endangered species and sensitive watershed issues. As the Salmon Recovery Coordinator for the NRCS the principal ofAgronomic Analytics worked closely with agencies and tribal entities to promote positive habitat improvement. Mission Statement The mission ofAgronomic Analytics is to cultivate the harmonious integration of society and the environment. Experience Land-use Studies • Agricultural economic enterprise studies: Lane, Benton, Douglas, Marion, Lincoln, and Deschutes Counties • Detennination of environmental impacts from proposed manufacturing activities. Soillnterpretation and Assessment • Thirty years experience interpreting soil surveys for agricultural, range, forestry, and land development. • Completion of hundreds of Corps of Engineers accepted wetland delineations based on field assessment of soil conditions • Conducted detailed site assessments of existing soil surveys for revision based upon on-site analysis. Erosion and Sediment Control • Development of post-wildfire burn assessments. • Determination of past, present, and future erosion and sediment conditions on an Idaho Ski Resort. • Administered eight separate federal cost-share programs to encourage voluntary installation of conservation treatments on private land. C-l • Supervised planting of 75,000 acres of native and introduced grasses for the Conservation Service. Modeling • Developed the Farming Systems Comparison Procedure decision analysis tool for the Soil Quality Institute and the Conservation Technology Infonnation Center. Model developed utilizing extensive Excel and Visual Basic Programming language. • Extensive experience with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE), Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP), and the Wind Erosion Equation (WEQ) • Experience and knowledge of Geographic Infonnation Systems (Arc View), Climate and Crop Modeling (CropSyst, Climgen), and the hydrology of sediment delivery. • Watershed modeling and hydrological analysis of semi-arid, forested, and urban watersheds. Project Management • Oversight of non-native vegetation removal and water quality testing for Brae Burn Creek Stream Stabilization Project. • Fonnulated the goals, workplan and strategy and developed the technical criteria for the Salmon Safe Program of the Pacific Rivers Council. • Developed technical criteria and certification standards for assessing the soil, water, and ecosystem resources of participating fanns. Watershed Analysis • Conducted hydrological analysis (TR-55 and Rational Method) of Brae Burn Creek Watershed. • Assisted Oregon's Soil and Water Conservation Districts in the fonnation of watershed councils. • Evaluated and recommended watershed assessment strategies for use by the Soil Conservation Service. • Collaborated with staff specialists of the Confederated Tribes ofthe Umatilla Indian Reservation to select suitable watersheds for restoration. Resource Assessment • Completed econometric and socioeconomic analysis of Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program proposal for the Governor's Watershed Enhancement Program. • Developed environmental impact statements in accordance with NEP A to assess archaeological, cultural, and environmental values. Credentials • B.S. -Agronomy, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon • Post Graduate Work: Landscape Architecture, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon • Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL), 2012 • OSHA 40-hour HAZWOPER, 2008 • Supplemental Training: Wetland Delineation, Archeology, Soil Interpretation and Classification C-2 Client List Agronomic Ana/ytics has provided technical consulting services for the past 15 years. Besides private individuals, we have worked with the following agencies and groups. • Edgewood Townhouse Association I• Northwest Power Planning Council • Brundage Mountain Ski Resort • USDA -Soil Quality Institute t I• Conservation Technology Infonnation Center • Oregon Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board • National Marine Fisheries Service • Environmental Protection Agency • Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics • K & A Engineering • Pacific Rivers Council • Land Use Attorneys • Private Landowners IPublications and Papers Caruana. S.C. 2013. Condit Dam Removal. Environmental Connection: International Erosion Control Association. San Diego, CA. Caruana, S.C. and D.M. Johnson. 2008. Griffrth Park Bum Area Assessment, Erosion Control, and Debris Flow Mitigation. In: StormCon: North American Surface Water Quality Conference and Exposition. Annual Conference Proceedings. Orlando, FL. Caruana, S.C. and D. Towery. 2001. Better Soils Better Yields. Conservation Technology Information Center. West Lafayette, IN. Caruana, S.C., E. Larkin, J. Eddy, and R Graves. 1996. Buck Hollow 2000: A comprehensive watershed restoration for salmonid recovery. In: The Role of Restoration in Ecosystem Management. Ed. D.L. Pearson and C.V. Klimas. Society for Ecological Restoration. Madison, WI. Caruana, S., A. Tugel, M. Norfleet, and D. Towery. 1999. Procedures to identify and assess soil quality enhancing farming systems. In: Soil and Water Conservation Society 54th Annual Conference Proceedings. Ankeny, IA. f i rAwards November 1994 Certificate of Appreciation from the Oregon Soil and Water Conservation Commission for assistance with Salmon Recovery Efforts December 1991 USDA Certificate of Merit for Sustained Superior Performance as District IConservationist at Moro, OR r f ! I C-3