The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOrdinance 021 - Aspen LakesDeschutes 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 November 3, 2008 DATE: October 27, 2008. FROM: Peter Gutowsky Community Development Department 385-170°) TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Board deliberation of Ordinance 2008-021, Amending Title Chapter 18.113.025, of the Deschutes County Code to Exempt Existing Cluster Subdivisions from Certain Destination Resort Requirements If Converting to a Destination Resort. File No. TA -07-7. PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? No BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The applicant, Aspen Investment LLC proposes a text amendment to the Deschutes County Code ( Title 18) to change destination resort requirements, permitting cluster development approved prior to February 7, 1992 to expand as a destination resort. Sections changed by this proposal include 18.113.025 A and B (Application to Destination Resorts). These changes would exempt setback and lot density requirements when a cluster development approved prior to February 1992 converts to a destination resort. For Aspen Investment LLC, the text amendments: • Provide a process for converting their cluster development to a destination resort; • Allow them to count existing residential units as a component of a destination resort; and, • Provide a process that enables them to build overnight accommodations. The Board closed the public hearing for oral testimony on September 17, 2008, while leaving the written record open until October 10, at 5:00 p.m. The Board then afforded the applicant a seven-d.iy rebuttal period, closing on October 17, at 5:00 p.m. Given the planning commission recommendation, Exhibit B (findings) of Ordinance 2008-021 is n at being presented. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Allowing such conversions will allow additional development to build or finance overnight lodging. The Board will need to discuss the policy of whether financial assurances are sufficient to guarantee the building of overnight lodging for cluster developments in light of the Board's public statements that it is unlikely that the Board will use the financial assurances to actually build the overnight lodging. RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Deliberate and recommend denial of Ordinance 2008-021 because the Planning Commission, Oreg �n Department of Land Conservation and Development, and County staff cannot recommend the adol tion of the text amendment. ATTENDANCE: Legal Counsel, Peter Gutowsky DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS: Peter Gutowsky Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Div sion WeSSONRANN 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1')25 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ STAFF REPORT DATE: October 27, 2008 TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner RE: Aspen Lakes LLC Text Amendment / Deliberation MTG DATE: November 3, 2008 at the Deschutes Service Center, starting at 10:00 a.m. The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (Board) on November 3, 2008 will begin deliberating Ordinance No. 2008-021 and the text amendments proposed by Aspen Lakes LLC to amend Deschutes County Code (DCC) 18.113.025 (A) and (B) allowing cluster developments approved prior to 1992 to convert to a destination resort (Attachments 1 and 2). A. Public Hearing / Continuance The Board closed the public hearing for oral testimony on September 17, 2008, while leaving the written record open until October 10, at 5:00 p.m. The Board then afforded the applicant a seven-day rebuttal period, closing on October 17, at 5:00 p.m. B. Written Testimony Listed below is the written testimony entered into the record from September 18 to October 10.1 1. Kancler 2. Deggendorfer 3. Leach 4. Smith 5. Carlson 6. Bora 7. Powell 8. Williams 9. McGregor 10. Stotts 11. Whitman 12. Leeper 13. Knott 14. Nowak 15. Andrews 16. Bolduc 17. Casey 18. Cyrus 19. Dewey 20. Grenfell 21. Knott, K 22. Mayes 23. Mitchell 24. Moore 25. Schertzinger 26. Stotts 27. Swearingen 1 www.deschutes.orq\cdd. Select "Pending and Adopted Code Amendments." Then, select "Destination Resort Code Proposed Changes - Aspen Lakes (TA -07-7)." Then, scroll down to the bottom of the page for a list of written testimony from September 18 to October 10. Quality Services Performed with Pride Richard Whitman, Director of the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) submitted an October 8 letter into record, affirming the department's earlier position that, "lands in a proposed destination resort may not include individual lots or units that have already been sold to a person other than the owner of the proposed (destination resort) development unless the required number of overnight lodging units (at least 50) has already been constructed. This restriction applies to any lots or units that are proposed to be included as a part of a destination resort." (Attachment 3) C. High Value Crop Area Information During the September 17 public hearing, the Board asked if there is a high value crop area in close proximity to Aspen Lakes.' Statewide Planning Goal 8 (Recreational Needs) protects sites with 50 or more contiguous acres of unique or prime farm land identified and mapped by the Soil Conservation Service and lands that are within three miles of farm lands lying with a High value crop area. No areas in Deschutes County have unique soils. There are numerous soils considered as prime farm land when irrigated. Attachment 4, produced by county staff illustrates the irrigated commercial farms within three miles of Aspen Lakes.3 However it is important to underscore that commercial agricultural designations for a farm parcel are used for analyzing non-farm dwelling applications. By definition High Crop Value areas consist of a concentration of farms capable of producing crops or products with a minimum gross value of $1,000 per acre per year. When the County adopted the destination resort ordinance in 1992, a finding was made that no such areas exist in Deschutes County (Attachment 5).4 Bruce Andrews, working on behalf of the Aspen Lakes LLC also responded to the Board's interest in high value crop area, submitting an October 8 letter into the record, disputing its applicability to an area already mapped as eligible for a destination resort (Attachment 6). D. Applicant Rebuttal Representatives of Aspen Lakes LLC entered a rebuttal into the record on October 17, which acknowledged Bruce Andrews' written testimony (Attachment 7).5 The rebuttal interprets the DLCD Whitman letter differently, "Significantly, Mr. Whitman does not support or otherwise affirm the position that the proposed text violates the statute. In fact, he expressly acknowledges that it 2 http://www.leq.state.or.us/ors/197.htm1 See ORS 197.435(2) and 197.455(b)(B). 3 The controlling variable for defining commercial agriculture on a farm parcel in Deschutes County is keyed to the number of irrigated acres typically found on commercial farms in each Exclusive Farm Use subzone (EFU). The commercial agriculture threshold for the EFU Sisters/Cloverdale subzone is 63+ irrigated acres and 23+ irrigated acres for the EFU Tumalo/Redmond/Bend subzone. 4 Ordinance 92-002, Exhibit B, Pages 7-9 cite findings that demonstrated Deschutes County does not contain "High Crop Value Areas" as defined in ORS 197.455(b)(B). As highlighted on page 8, the Board found that 1) potatoes are the only field crop produced commercially in Deschutes County that yields a gross value of at least $1,000; and 2) that there was not a concentration of commercial farms growing potatoes in the County. 5 Attachment 7. Page 3. 2 may be possible for existing developments to meet the statutory requirements if the lots which were already sold were excluded from the land area within the proposed resort boundaries." D. Findings Based on legal issues, the Aspen Lakes LLC text amendments violate Goal 8 and ORS 197.445. Viewed narrowly, the text amendments to DCC 18.113.025 (A) and (B) apply to lot size and setbacks for existing development and clarify timing for providing resort facilities. However, as the record shows: • Lands in a proposed destination resort may not include individual lots or units that have already been sold to a person other than the owner of the proposed (destination resort) development unless the required number of overnight lodging units (at least 50) has already been constructed. Fact: Overnight lodging has not been constructed. • The proposed lot size and setback amendments in Title 18.113, the Deschutes County Destination Resort Zone, pertain to existing residential development in a 1992 cluster development. Fact: Amending 18.113.025 (A) and (B), which exempts existing development in a cluster development from lot size and setback requirements at the time a destination resort is approved, conflicts with the statutory requirement that lots, already sold must be excluded from the land area within a proposed resort boundary. If previously sold lots must be excluded, there is no legal justification for putting the setback and lot size exemptions in Deschutes County Code. Attachments: 1. Ordinance No. 2008-021 2. Exhibit A — Text amendment 3. Richard Whitman - Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development letter 4. Irrigated Commercial Farm map 5. Ordinance 92-002, Exhibit B 6. Bruce Andrews — High Value Crop Area letter 7. Aspen Lakes LLC rebuttal 3 REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL For Recording Stamp Only BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Amending Chapter 18.113.025 of the * Deschutes County Code to Exempt Existing Cluster * Subdivisions from Certain Destination Resort Requirements If Converting to a Destination Resort. ORDINANCE NO. 2008-021 WHEREAS, Aspen Investments, LLC (Aspen Lakes) has proposed a Text Amendment to Chapter 18.113.025, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, to make changes to destination resort requirements, permitting cluster development approved prior to February 7, 1992 applying for conversion to a destination resort to be exempt from certain destination resort requirements; and; WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Planning Commission held a duly noticed pubic hearing on March 27, 2008, and on June 12, 2008 denied the proposed changes to Title 18 as described in Exhibit "A"; WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") held a duly noticed public hearing on August 8, 2008; now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC 18.113.025, Destination Resorts Zone— Application to Existing Resorts, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with new language underlined and language to be deleted in strip. /// PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2008-021 (11/03/2008) Section 2. FINDINGS. The Board adopts Exhibit "B" to Ordinance 2008-021, and incorporated herein by this reference, as its findings to support this Ordinance. Dated this of , 2008 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ATTEST: DENNIS R. LUKE, Chair TAMMY (BANEY) MELTON, Vice Chair Recording Secretary MICHAEL M. DALY, Commissioner Date of 1st Reading: day of , 2008. Date of 2"d Reading: day of , 2008. Record of Adoption Vote Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused Dennis R. Luke Tammy Melton Michael M. Daly Effective date: day of , 2008. ATTEST: Recording Secretary PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2008-021 (11/03/2008) 18.113.025. Application to Existing Resorts and Cluster Subdivisions. Expansion proposals of existing developments approved as destination resorts or proposals to convert subdivisions or portions thereof platted as cluster development approved prior to February 7, 1992 and which include at a minimum, an .18 -hole golf course and dining facilities, hereinafter "cluster subdivision," shall meet the following criteria: A. Meet all criteria of DCC 18.113 without consideration of any existing development; or B. Meet all criteria of DCC 18.113 for the entire development (including the existing approved destination resort development or cluster development and the proposed expansion area), except that as to the area covered by the existing developments, compliance with setbacks and lot sizes shall not be required. C. If the applicant chooses to support its proposal with any part of the existing development, applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed expansion will be situated and managed in a manner that it will be integral to the remainder of the resort. D. When new facilities are required to bring existing developments into compliance with current destination resort law, those facilities shall be provided, or where allowed, financially assured, prior to any other development in an expansion area. (Ord. 2008-021 § 1, 2008; 92-004 §13, 1992) PAGE 1 OF 1 - EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2008-021 (08/04/2008) regon Theodore R Kulongoski, Governor October 8, 2008 Department of Land Conservation and Development 635 Capitol Street, Suite 150 Salem, Oregon 97301-2540 Phone: (503) 373-0050 Fax: (503) 378-5518 http://www.oregon.gov/LCD Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97701 RE: Proposed Text Amendment Local File TA 07-01 Dear Mr. Gutowsky: Thank you for the opportunity to provide additional comments on the proposed amendments to Deschutes County Code (DCC) section 18.113. Please enter this letter, along with our letter dated February 28, 2008, into the record of these proceedings. The current DCC section 18.113.025 provides as follows: Brilimabalase 18.113.025. Application to Existing Resorts. Expansion proposals of existing developments approved as destination resorts shall meet the following criteria: A. Meet all criteria of DCC 18.113 without consideration of any existing development; or B. Meet all criteria of DCC 18.113 for the entire development (including the existing approved destination resort development and the proposed expansion area), except that as to the area covered by the existing destination resort, compliance with setbacks and lot sizes shall not be required. If the applicant chooses to support its proposal with any part of the existing development, applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed expansion will be situated and managed in a manner that it will be integral to the remainder of the resort. (Ord. 92-004 §13, 1992) The proposed amendment would alter this section as indicated below: 18.113.025. Application to Existing Resorts. Expansion proposals of existing developments approved as destination resorts or proposals to convert subdivisions or portions thereof platted as cluster development approved prior to February/. 1992 and which include ata minimum, an 18 -hole golf course and dining facilities, hereafter "cluster subdivision," shall meet the following criteria: A. Meet all criteria of DCC 18.113 without consideration of any existing development; or B. Meet all criteria of DCC 18.113 for the entire development (including the existing approved destination resort development or cluster subdivision and the proposed expansion Peter Gutowsky October 8, 2008 Page 2 of 3 area), except that as to the area covered by the existing developments destinatien-resect, compliance with setbacks and lot sizes shall not be required. C. If the applicant chooses to support its proposal with any part of the existing development, applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed expansion will be situated and managed in a manner that it will be integral to the remainder of the resort. D. When new facilities are required to bring existing developments into compliance with current destination resort law, those facilities shall be provided, or where allowed, financially-assured,prior to any other development in an expansion area. (Ord. 92-004 §13, 1992; ) Regardless of the desirability of allowing existing subdivisions platted as cluster developments to convert to destination resorts (which may or may not be a policy outcome the county or the state want to achieve), the department believes that it is questionable whether state statutes allow the conversion of existing subdivisions to destination resorts at all. Further, even if a conversion is theoretically possible, under the statutory standard for destination resorts a platted subdivision could be converted to a destination resort only in the unusual circumstance where none of the lots in the subdivision have yet been sold (or, where there are units in common ownership, where none of the units have been sold). The reason for this limitation lies in ORS 197.445. That statute expressly requires, in pertinent part, that: "A destination resort is a self-contained development that provides for visitor -oriented accommodations and developed recreational facilities in a setting with high natural amenities. To qualify as a destination resort under ORS 30.947, 197.435 to 197.467, 215.213, 215.283 and 215.284, a proposed development must meet the following standards: (4) Visitor -oriented accommodations including meeting rooms, restaurants with seating for 100 persons and 150 separate rentable units for overnight lodging shall be provided. However, the rentable overnight lodging units may be phased in as follows: (b) On lands in eastern Oregon, as defined in ORS 321.805: (A) A total of 150 units of overnight lodging must be provided. (B) At least 50 units of overnight lodging must be constructed prior to the closure of sale of individual lots or units. (C) At least 50 units of the remaining 100 required overnight lodging units must be constructed or guaranteed through surety bonding or equivalent financial assurance within five years of the initial lot sales. (D) The remaining required overnight lodging units must be constructed or guaranteed through surety bonding or equivalent financial assurances within 10 years of the initial lot sales. (E) The number of units approved for residential sale may not be more than 21/2 units for each unit of permanent overnight lodging provided under this paragraph. * * * *" (emphasis added). Under this statute, the lands in a proposed destination resort may not include individual lots or units that have already been sold to a person other than the owner of the proposed (destination resort) development unless the required number of overnight lodging units (at least 50) has already been constructed. This restriction applies to any lots or units that are proposed to be included as a Peter Gutowsky October 8, 2008 Page 3 of 3 part of the destination resort. We note that by excluding individually -owned lots or units from the area within a proposed destination resort, it may be possible to meet the statutory requirement) t We hope this information is useful to the county in its deliberations on this matter. If you have questions concerning these comments, please contact Doug White at 541-318-8193. cc: Tia Marie Lewis (by fax) Paul Dewey (by fax) Yours truly, Qat_ Richard M. Whitman Director The resort would still need to meet the other statutory requirements, including the requirement to contain at least 160 acres of land. In addition, we note that the language in the first paragraph of the statute ("a proposed development * * *") creates some doubt whether existing developments may be included in a new destination resort at all. We express no view on that question at this time. Finally, we also note that this circumstance provides a good illustration of the difficulty created by placing detailed requirements for these developments in state statute (rather than in administrative rules). 0108 1302 EXHIBIT B Goal 8 and its codification in state law, found at ORS 197.435 et seq. (hereafter collectively referred to as Goal 8) require that counties adopt a map showing where on rural resource lands destination resorts can be sited. The map adopted by Deschutes County as part of its comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance is shown on the county -wide map labelled "Land Available for Destination Resorts in Deschutes County" and the series of 8 large scale maps covering portions of the county -wide map in greater detail (collectively referred to as "Phase I destination resort map") accompanying this text. Goal 8 requires that a county's Goal 8 map not include certain areas of natural resource significance. Those areas include sites having significant farm soils or highly productive farms; sites of high forest productivity; sites with inventoried Goal 5 resources that the County has chosen to fully protect; and areas of especially sensitive big game habitat as identified by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Department. Counties have the option to go further than the restrictions of Goal 8 and exclude additional areas from consideration for destination resort siting. To aid in developing the County's Goal 8 map, a series of reference maps was produced showing exception areas where destination resorts are currently allowed, showing the location of resource lands that under Goal 8 can not be considered for destination resort siting, showing lands in public ownership and showing other lands that for policy reasons the Board of County Commissioners determined either should not be considered further for destination resort or on which a decision would be deferred to a later date. The information on these reference maps, such as zoning boundaries, soils boundaries, and land ownership boundaries, was digitally scanned from source maps onto the reference maps. These maps were produced by Wilsey & Ham Pacific, a contractor retained by Eagle Crest Partners, Ltd. Eagle Crest's desire to site a destination resort through the Goal 8 process precipitated the legislative Goal 8 process. The Board finds that the technology used in preparing these maps is state of the art. The Board finds that, based on the technology employed by the contractor that the accuracy of these maps meets or exceeds hand drawn maps. The only challenge to the accuracy of these maps during the hearing process was a question as to whether the maps could be trusted to be objective and unbiased given that they were prepared by development interests. Planning staff spot-checked the maps and found the information presented was an exact representation of the County's current data base. Based upon this information, the Board has no reason to believe that these maps are biased in any way. These maps were all made a part of the record and will be referred to hereafter by the Exhibit number given them in the public hearing process. 3 - ORDINANCE NO 92-002 0108 1303 Phased Mapping Sequence and Deferral of Decision on Certain Lands For reasons that will be discussed below, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that the mapping of areas where destination resorts are permitted should occur in a phased sequence. In Phase I, completed in February 1992, the County has reviewed the desirability county -wide of siting destination resorts in the following areas: privately owned lands in the F-1, EFU-320, EFU-80, OS&C, RSR -5, RSR -M, AD, RSC and RI zones. In addition, the County has reviewed the desirability county -wide of siting destination resorts on resource land within one (1) mile of established urban growth boundaries in the county. Finally, the County has determined the desirability of siting destination resorts on certain EFU-20 and EFU-40 lands. These lands include unirrigated farm lands (so called "dry lands") and irrigated lands having less than 40 contiguous acres in irrigation, or non-contiguous irrigated acres in the same ownership having less than 60 irrigated acres. The Board has determined that at this time it should defer consideration of the County's F-2 and F-3 forest lands and on the irrigated farm lands not considered in the first phase. The reasons for this decision relate to the County's ongoing periodic review process and will be discussed further on in these findings. There was much public discussion as to whether it is permissible for the County to complete its Goal 8 destination resort map in a phased process. The Board finds that the County has developed a data base on a county -wide basis to identify land areas that under Goal 8 are off limits to destination resort siting. As is discussed further below, the only Goal 8 exclusions applicable to Deschutes County are the requirements concerning farmland and wildlife habitat areas. These areas have been identified on reference Maps 3 and 9. The areas so mapped have not been included in the Phase I destination resort map and will not be included in any revised maps resulting from County consideration of the F-2 and F-3 forest lands and the remaining EFU-20 and EFU-40 lands. Having identified the lands required by Goal 8 to be excluded, nothing in the Goal precludes the County from dividing the County's lands on a county -wide basis into several different classes and deferring consideration of destination resort siting for certain of those land classes. The Board finds that a destination resort map produced in phases satisfies Goal 8 as to those areas mapped so long as (1) the Goal 8 areas have been excluded, and (2) the map is sufficiently detailed to determine from the map a site's eligibility without need of any further map refinement. The Board finds (1) that the Goal 8 areas have been excluded, as is further discussed below, and (2) that the Phase I destination resort map will allow destination resort siting without requiring further refinement. The Phase I map includes maps of a scale that will clearly show which parcels are included. Furthermore, by its terms, the zoning ordinance adopted as part of this package will 4 - ORDINANCE NO 92-002 0108 1304 allow destination resorts to be sited only on lands designated by the DR zone. Exception Areas The County currently allows destination resorts to be sited in areas within certain exception areas - MUA-10 and RR -10 - on the County's rural lands. The County proposes to continue to allow destination resorts in such areas. These areas already have an exception from the resource land goals under the County's acknowledged comprehensive plan and the use of such lands for destination resorts need not be justified under the Goal 8 process. These areas were depicted on reference Map #6, labelled "Rural Residential Zoning." They are shown on the Phase I destination resort map, and are therefore available for destination resort siting. Other exception areas are generally found in and near the County's rural service centers, such as Tumalo, Alfalfa, and Terrebonne. Destination resorts historically have not been allowed in these areas, and the County finds no reason why this policy should be changed. Consequently, those areas, referenced on Map #5, are not shown on the Phase I destination resort map and are therefore not available for destination resort siting. Publicly Owned Lands Much of the rural resource lands in the County lie in public ownership, mostly federal land administered by the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management. The County has limited regulatory jurisdiction over such lands. In addition, these lands are not generally available for private development on the scale of destination resorts. Accordingly, these lands were excluded from further consideration. These lands were mapped on Map #2, "Deschutes County Public Land Ownership," and do not show on the Phase I destination resort map. Resource Lands The Board of County Commissioners made a policy choice to not include other lands for further consideration as possible destination resort sites. These lands include lands whose zoning classifications denote them as having special resource values, including all lands within the F-1, EFU-320, EFU-80 and OS&C zones. The F-1 zone is composed of the prime forest areas of the County, virtually all of which is in public ownership. The EFU-320 lands are range lands in the eastern part of the County, most of which is involved in large grazing operations on BLM-owned lands. They also include areas having significant wildlife values for antelope and sage grouse. The EFU-80 lands are composed of the best farm lands in the County or of riparian areas. These lands are shown on Map #4 and do not appear on the Phase I destination resort map. 5 - ORDINANCE NO 92-002 0108 1305 Lands Adjacent to Urban Growth Boundaries Other lands excluded from further consideration as a matter of discretionary policy include all lands within one (1) mile of the Urban Growth Boundaries of the Bend, Redmond and Sisters urban areas except those in existing MUA-10 or RR -10 exception areas. The Planning Commission expressed concerns that the location of destination resorts on resource lands adjacent to urban growth boundaries could have negative impacts on the orderly expansion of the County's urban areas and recommended that consideration of destination resorts in these areas be deferred pending further study. The Board of County Commissioners shares the concerns of the Planning Commission. The Board finds that a one -mile buffer area around existing urban growth boundaries is reasonable to safeguard the orderly expansion of the County's urban areas. Accordingly, the Board finds as a matter of policy that it does not wish to allow destination resort siting on resource lands in these areas. These resource areas are mapped on Map #9A and do not appear on the Phase I destination resort map. The Board finds that destination resorts and rural subdivisions are currently permitted in RR -10 and MUA-10 committed exception areas adjacent to urban growth boundaries. The Board finds no evidence that the existing designations would create a significant problem and will allow destination resorts to continue to be sited in these areas adjacent to the counties urban growth boundaries. Goal 8 excluded areas Wildlife Areas Goal 8 requires exclusion of all areas of especially signficant big game habitat mapped by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) in July of 1984, as further refined by local comprehensive plans implementing this requirement. The County's Phase I destination resort map does not include any such areas. The 1984 Fish and Wildlife Map shows four areas of the County as areas of especially signficant big game habitat. The areas mapped by ODFW include the Tumalo deer winter range, a portion of the Metolius deer winter range and two areas of antelope winter range east of Bend near Horse Ridge and Millican. The LCDC Destination Resort Handbook states that the especially sensitive areas mapped by ODFW are much less extensive that the areas designated as big game habitat in acknowledged plans. The ODFW map notes that the location of the denoted wildlife habitat is generalized and is subject to local refinement. The County's comprehensive plan includes specific deer winter range areas that cover more area than those shown on the ODFW map. These areas have been designated as a wildlife area combining zone in 6 - ORDINANCE NO 92-002 0108 1306 the County's zoning ordinance. In addition to covering the ODFW mapped deer winter ranges, the WA zone encompasses the antelope range hear Horse Ridge and most of the Millican antelope range. Reference map #3, "Deschutes County Wildlife Overlay Zone," shows these wildlife zones. These mapped areas are not included in the Phase I destination resort map. The remainder of the Millican antelope area shown on the ODFW map coincides with EFU-320 zoning and has already been excluded from destination resort siting by the Board's decision to not site destination resorts on EFU-320 lands. Farm lands Goal 8 protects sites with 50 or more contiguous acres of unique or prime farm land identified and mapped by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and lands that are within three miles of farm lands lying within a High -Value Crop area. No areas were identified as having unique soils. In Deschutes County, numerous soils are considered to be prime farm land when irrigated. A list of those soils is included in the record. After excluding the wildlife areas and all other excluded areas, the occurrence of each of these soil types on EFU-20 and EFU-40 lands and in non -resource lands (MUA-10 and RR -10) was mapped by digitally scanning SCS maps and then transferring that information onto a county zoning map. (Reference maps 6 and 8 depict the EFU-20, EFU-40, MUA-10 and RR -10 land base on which soil information was obtained.) The occurrence of all prime soils in these areas was mapped regardless of whether the prime soils occurred in areas of less than 50 contiguous acres. The prime soils map reflecting this information is shown on reference Map #9. The Board finds that EFU-20 and EFU-40 lands with prime soils have not been included on the County's Phase 1 destination resort map. The Board finds that by adhering to the Phase I destination resort map, the County will not allow destination resorts to be sited on any prime soils on those resource lands.' The Board finds that the zoning ordinance implementing Goal 8 adopted as part of this Goal 8 package permits siting of destination resorts only on lands actually mapped and zoned for destination resort use. Consequently, even if a parcel located on resource lands has prime soils on one portion and a destination resort designation on another portion, the prime soils will not be available for destination resort siting. By definition High Crop Value areas consist of a concentration of farms capable of producing crops or products with a minimum gross 1 With respect to the non -resource lands, the Board has already found that destination resorts should continue to be recognized as appropriate uses in such areas. 7 - ORDINANCE NO 92-002 0108 1307 value of $1,000 per acre per year.' The Board finds that no such areas exist in Deschutes County. The Board finds from OSU Extension Service annual commodity reports that potatoes are the only field crop produced commercially in Deschutes County that yields a gross value of at least $1,000. In 1983 potatoes could yield $1,890 per acre, when 700 acres of potatoes were harvested in Deschutes County. In 1991, only 350 acres were harvested, with a value of $2237 per acre. The Board finds from the evidence that it is reasonable to conclude that the lower figures in 1991 as compared to 1984 represents a general decline rather than a low point in a cyclical pattern. The evidence shows that potato production in Deschutes County was 300 acres in 1989 and 300 acres in 1990. This conclusion is corroborated by testimony that the Fred Hodecker Potato Company in Redmond went out of business in recent years. Peppermint is the only other field crop of signficance; however, according to Extension Service data, the value of peppermint was $720 per acre in 1983 and $960 per acre in 1991. The County finds that there is not a concentration of commercial farms growing potatoes in the County. Only a few individual growers in the County produce potatoes; they are isolated from one another and not of sufficient concentration to qualify any area as a High Value Crop areas. Furthermore, the County finds that the stated purpose of the High -Value Crop Areas is to minimize conflicts in resort siting. The Board finds that the relatively few number of acres in potato production tend to in and of itself minimize conflicts. According to extension data, the acreage total is relatively small and the dollar value of potatoes constitutes less than 5% of the County's aggregate agricultural produce value. The County recognizes that llamas are achieving increasing importance as an agricultural commodity in the County. However, the production of livestock is not by the Goal 8 definition a high value crop, unless such production is concentrated in the form of feed lots. Furthermore, llama producers are scattered throughout the County and not concentrated sufficiently to qualify any llama producing areas as High Value Crop areas. Based upon the above analysis, the Board finds that it is not ' The Board makes no determination at this time on whether the $1,000 figure must be expressed in 1984 dollars or in 1991 dollars. Goal 8 is ambiguous on this point. For the purposes of this analysis, the Board need not makes this determination, since it is clear from the data presented below that whether 1984 or 1991 is used as the benchmark, only potatoes qualify as a high value crop. 8 - ORDINANCE NO 92-002 0108 1308 necessary to identify any High Value Crop Areas in Deschutes County for exclusion. The Phase I Destination Resort Map therefore does not include any High -Value Crop Areas. Goal 5 Protected Areas Goal 8 requires exclusion of all areas fully protected by a County under the Goal 5 administrative rule (so called "3A" sites) in an acknowledged comprehensive plan. Fully protected Goal 5 sites do place limitations on the conflicting land uses and resources to the extent that there are no conflicts with the Goal 5 resource. No sites currently inventoried as Goal 5 sites in Deschutes County are fully protected under Goal 5. The treatment of all such sites under the County's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances either fully protects the land use or resource in conflict with the Goal 5 resource (e.g., surface mining site 251) or limits both the conflicting use or resource and the Goal 5 resource (e.g. surface mining site 294). Other Goal 8 Protected Areas Other areas required to be excluded by Goal 8 by their terms do not apply to Deschutes County. No part of the County is within 24 air miles of an urban growth boundary with an existing population of 100,000 or more. The County has no forest lands classified as predominantly Cubic Foot Site Class 1 or 2. The County is not within the Columbia Gorge. Deferred Areas The County has chosen to proceed with the destination resort mapping in a phased process. The County's forest lands will not be considered for destination resort zoning until such time as the County completes its implementation of the LCDC forest rule. The forest rule does not allow Counties to amend their comprehensive plans concerning their forest lands prior to implementation of the rule. Consequently, the Phase I Destination Resort Map does not reflect decisions on the county's forest lands. The Planning Commission had made a recommendation for discussion purposes defining "impacted forest areas" and "non -impacted forest areas" and recommended that destination resorts be sited only on as yet unmapped impacted forest areas. The Board finds that it is more appropriate that this issue be addressed during the implementation of the forest rule and thereafter. Therefore, the Board declines to take further action at this time. The County has also chosen to defer consideration of certain EFU-zoned lands in the EFU-20 and EFU-40 zones. These lands are those composed of lands in contiguous ownership containing 40 or more acres of contiguous irrigated land or 60 or more acres of non- contiguous irrigated land in the same ownership. These lands were referred to by the Planning Commission in their recommendation to the 9 - ORDINANCE NO 92-002 0108 1309 Board of County Commissioners as "other important agricultural areas." The Planning Commission expressed concerns about the potential impacts on agricultural communities and commercial agriculture if such lands were designated for destination resort siting. The Board expresses no opinion on the Planning Commission's concerns. Because of uncertainties surrounding what constitutes commercial agriculture in the County, the Board finds that it would be prudent to await the results of a farm study currently being undertaken as part of the periodic review of the County's comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances before considering these lands for destination resort siting. The Board attaches no signficance of any kind to the Planning Commission's "important agricultural areas" label, and will conduct an independent analysis of the deferred areas as part of the periodic review process. Summary of Process The Phase I Destination Resort Map represents the County's compliance with Goal 8's mapping requirement in this first phase of destination resort mapping and reflects other discretionary local decisions. The map represents the County's final mapping decision county- wide on all privately -owned F-1, EFU-320, EFU-80, OS&C, RSR -5, RSR -M, AD, RSC, and RI zones. In addition, the map represents the County's final mapping decision on all private resource land within 1 mile of the County's urban growth boundaries. Finally, outside the 1 -mile buffer, the map represents final zoning destination resort zoning decisions on a portion of the County's privately owned EFU-20 and EFU-40 lands that have less than 40 contiguous acres of irrigation in the same ownership or that have less than 60 non-contiguous acres of non -irrigated lands in the same ownership. The map does not include any area that Goal 8 excludes from destination resort siting. The map does not represent County destination resort mapping decisions on privately -owned forest lands nor does it represent County destination resort zoning decisions on privately -owned EFU-20 or EFU-40 lands in contiguous ownership containing 40 or more acres of contiguous irrigated land or 60 or more acres of non-contiguous irrigated land in the same ownership. In succeeding phases of the county's destination -resort zoning process the County will proceed to consider whether destination resorts should be sited on its privately -owned forest lands and on privately -owned EFU lands not considered for destination resorts in this first phase. TTC-47-- NPS DNy1N 10 - ORDINANCE NO 92-002 Andrews & Associates October 8, 2008 Deschutes County Commission c/o Peter Grutowsky Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 Re: TA -07-7; High value crop issue Dear Commissioners: RECEIVED OCT 10 2008 Deschutes County CDD I with to respond to several points raised by opponents to the Aspen Lakes Resort application. It seems that a numbers of opponents have raised the issue of high- value crops being grown on or near the proposed Aspen Lakes Resort. 1,000 Friends' "Central Oregon Advocate," Carol Macbeth, opined that the price of hay today means that this crop is "high value," as that term is used in ORS 197.435(2), which defines "high value crop area." Ms. Macbeth, cited ads in the Bend Bulletin for hay sales and included information from potential yields from Oregon State University Extension Service research material dated 1977. The relevant statute specifically defines "high value crop area" as follows: (2) "High value crop area" means an area in which there is a concentration of -.acommercial farms capable of producing crops or products with a minimum gross value of $.1,000 per acre per year. These crops and products include field crops, small fruits, berries, tree fruits, nuts or vegetables, dairying, livestock feedlots or Christmas trees;;as: these terms are used in the 1983 County and State Agricultural Estimates prepared t} r: tae Oregon State University Extension Service. The "high value crop area" designatig i� used for the purpose of minimizing conflicting uses in resort siting and does not wym the requirements of an agricultural land goal or administrative rules interpreting the ak`' �� This definition is limited to those crops which are specifically listed and specific, those terms are used in the 1983 County. and State Agricultural Estimates (2007 ed which is the same format as 1983 edition, copy attached). Alfalfa hay and orchard grask, the two crops cited by Ms. Macbeth, are not crops included in the definition. As you will see from the attached document, the commodities are broken down into categories, with the specific crops included in that category listed below the commodity heading (see pages 19 - 13). Field crops specifically include potatoes, peppermint for oil, hops, sugar beets for sugar, dry field beans, canola oil, sugar beets for seed, vegetable and flower seed,' ' other field crops. Alfalfa hay and orchard grass are forage crops, not field PDV).13903/143843/TM L/30078212 Agriculture & Business Development 3228 Journeay Court West Linn, OR 97068 work.503.742.0160 mobile.503.510.2632 fax.503.723.936 i, Andrews & Associates crops, and comprise a distinctly separate commodity category, which is not included in the definition of high value crop area. Furthermore, the section of the statute cited by Ms. Macbeth applies to the "Siting of Destination Resorts" for mapping purposes. The phrase "high value crop area" is not used or defined in the Deschutes County Code (DCC). DCC 18.113.010 states the purpose of the Destination Resort Zone "is to establish a mechanism for siting destination resorts to ensure compliance with LCDC Goal 8 and the County Comprehensive Plan." Since the subject property is already mapped as eligible for a Destination Resort by the County, the County does not revisit mapping decisions. Finally, the "high value crop area" definition — "capable of producing crops or products with a minimum gross value of $1,000 per acre per year" — does not refer to a one-time event or to a glass ceiling that, once broken, forever renders hay a "high value crop." By its very nature, a "high value crop" should consistently be able to produce a value in excess of $1000 per acre. If 2008 proves to be a big year for hay, so much the better. However, the definition is specifically limited to the identified crops. Forage crops such as hay and alfalfa grass are not included in that definition. Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments. e ectful AIR.. Bruce Andrews Andrews & Associates Enclosure: 2007 County and State Agricultural Estimates, OSU Extension Service PDX/113903/143843/TML/3007821.2 Agriculture & Business Development 3228 Journeay Court West Linn, OR 97068 work.503.742.0160 mobile.503.510.2632 fax.503.723.936 -: , < s f e- _ Deschutes County Hay production and value Alfalfa* 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Acres 9000 8000 8000 8500 8000 Yield 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.6 Prod/ Tons 39600 36800 36800 39950 36800 Value of Sales $ 2,356,000.00 $ 2,254,000.00 $ 2,834,000.00 $ 3,775,000.00 $ 3,864,000.00 Value /acre $261.78 $281.75 $354.25 $444.12 $483.00 Other Hay* Acres 15000 15000 15000 14500 15000 Yield 2.6 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.1 Prod/ Tons 39000 43500 46500 46400 46500 Value of Sales $2,408,000.00 $2,686,000.00 $3,476,000.00 $4,494,000.00 $5,350,000.00 Value/ acre $160.53 $179.07 $231.73 . $309.93 $356.67 * note; all numbers'and values taken directly from OSI! Commodity Data Sheet "Hay" March 2008, August 2006 and August 2005 2006 & 2007 Combined GFS* $8,269,000.00 $9,214,000.00 Combined Acres 23000 23000 all hay* Value/acre $359.52 $400.61 * note; numbers from 2007 Oregon county and State Agricultural Estimates 2007 Oregon County and State Agricultural Estimates Special Report 790-07, revised February 2008 Oregon State S Extension UNIVERSITY Service 2007 Oregon County and State Agricultural Estimates Oregon Agricultural Information Network (OAIN) Extension Economic Information Office Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics Oregon State University This report provides a quick overview of Oregon's recent crop and livestock production. The following pages include 2007 preliminary estimates for production and value and revised estimates for 2005 and 2006. Preliminary or first estimates are revised as needed when updated Information Is received. All data reported here were In our database as of January 22, 2006. We collect only farmgate level estimates. No marketing charges or govemment payments are included in our price estimates. At our website—http://oregonstate.edu/oain—you can review and download the publicly available numbers that are periodically updated in our database. This publication, and earlier versions, also are on that website; click on AG SUMMARIES (SR 790) on the right side of our homepage. Click CHARTs for statewide and county charts. To see any of the public portions of the database, on the homepage dick OAIN DATABASE. No usemame or password is required; just dick on NEXT below the login boxes. You then can bring up formatted reports on the menu provided or click on USER DEFINED REPORT/QUERY to create your own tables. Our intent is to protect confidential data within the database by combining them with other commodities in county, regional, or statewide summaries. Our definition of confidentiality is similar to that of the Oregon Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA: any data that represent fewer than three producers or one producer with 60 percent or more of the identified production are confidential. The estimates we provide are obtained from a team of about 70 OSU Extension & Research faculty, statewide, who are knowledgeable about selected crop and livestock production in the counties that they serve. These numbers reflect their best judgment on commodity production, prices, and usage patterns over time. The estimates represent overall annual values. We recognize that their choices for aggregating data may shift the gross farm sales ranking of specific commodities and sectors. Some commodities—for example, livestock forages—frequently are produced for on-farm use. A single price estimate is made for each county's production regardless of whether it is sold in an open market or consumed in producing other commodities. The estimated value of production reflects the entire value of the commodity, whether it is sold or consumed on-farm. The percent of sales for the commodity Is also estimated. That percentage is multiplied by the estimated value of production to derive the estimated value of sales. Thus, for commodities that are primarily consumed on-farm in other enterprises, the value of production would be significantly higher than the value of sales. We acknowledge the special efforts of Robert Clark, Dixon Creek Software, Corvallis, OR. He created the GAIN system software which allows us to collect and disseminate data electronically. Mr. Clark continues to provide technical support and upgrades. Agricultural Commodity Sales Oregon, 2007p Vegetables & truck crops 5% Tree fruit & nuts 6% Other specialty products 3% Small woodlots & Christmas trees 7% Cattle 15% Dairy products 9% Poultry 2% Other animal products 2% Grains 8% Small fruit & berries Hay& forage 3% 8% Nursery& greenhouse crops 17% All Crops 72% All Livestock 28% Field crops 5% Grass & legume seeds 10% 2007p Sales ($000) by Commodity Field Crops Grains Grass & Legumes Hay & Forage Nursery & Greenhouse Crops Small Fruit & Berries Small Woodlots & Christmas Trees Other Specialty Products Tree Fruit & Nuts Vegetables & Truck Crops All Crops 231,579 370,750 507,734 370,673 901,588 136,744 340,356 148,110 287,531 225,861 $3,520,926 Cattle & Calves 710,959 Dairy Products 443,313 Other Animal Products 101,511 Poultry 116,533 All Livestock $1,372,316 All Crops & Livestock $4,893,242 p=preliminary. Values are In thousands of dollars (e.g., 10,000 = $10,000,000). Source: Oregon Agricultural Information Network (GAIN), Extension Economic Information Office, Oregon State University. 1 Gross Farm & Ranch Sales ($000) by District & County, 2007p District & County All Crops All Animal Products Total Sales Benton Clackamas Lane Linn Marion Multnomah Polk Washington Yamhill Willamette Valley Clatsop Columbia Coos Curry Lincoln Tillamook Coastal Douglas Jackson Josephine Southwestern Gilliam Hood River Morrow Sherman Umatilla Wasco Wheeler North Central Baker Malheur Union Wallowa Eastem Crook Deschutes Grant Hamey Jefferson Klamath Lake South Central State Total 97,801 353,421 107,020 237,549 479,784 79,321 117,131 330,470 254,673 2,057,170 13,789 56,492 31,984 57,466 134,944 2,855 42,884 20,837 41,432 402,683 111,590 409,913 139,004 295,015 614,728 82,176 160,015 351,307 296,105 2,459,853 5,567 11,184 16,751 28,323 4,002 32,325 38,366 16,890 55,256 28,889 3,500 32,389 10,474 1,833 12,307 4,993 115,316 120,309 116,612 152,725 269,337 59,622 21,979 81,601 59,444 22,574 82,018 18,467 11,273 29,740 137,533 55,826 193,359 27,558 10,022 37,580 67,679 1,200 68,879 177,419 144,974 322,393 43,416 2,974 46,390 292,039 66,389 358,428 69,622 6,998 76,620 3,791 10,174 13,965 681,524 242,731 924,255 17,869 49,279 67,148 129,639 131,646 261,285 56,534 16,563 73,097 25,622 17,896 43,518 229,664 215,384 445,048 18,602 21,702 40,304 15,092 10,441 25,533 6,913 40,397 47,310 19,408 50,884 70,292 44,586 9,855 54,441 157,497 140,824 298,321 36,327 28,864 65,191 298,425 302,967 601,392 $3,520,928 $ 1,372,316 $4,893,244 p=preliminary. Values are in thousands of dollars (e.g., 10,000 = $10,000,000). Source: Oregon Agricultural Information Network (OAIN), Extension Economic Information Office, Oregon State University. 2 Gross Farm & Ranch Sales by Commodity Group 2007p, 2006r, & Percentage Change 2007p Commodity Group ($000) '2006r ($000) Percentage Change Grains Hay & Forage Grass &Legumes Field: Crops Tree Fruit,& Nuts. Small Fruit & Baines Vegetables & Truck Crops Specialty Products' All Cut s Cattle & Calves Dairy Products ioulq_ .. then An mal Pn All Livestock & :Poultry Total Sales' 370,750 214,466 72.87 370,673 312,512 18.61 507,734 482,531 5.22 231,579 213,540 8.45 287,531 277,006 3.80 136,744 127,172 7.53 225,861 333,395 -32.25 1,390,055 1,308,639 6.22 3,520,927 3,269,261 7.70 710,959 636,081 11.77 443,313 325,274 36.29 116,533 107,952 7.95 101,511 93,468 8.61 1,372,316 1,162,775 18.02 4,893,243 4,432,036 10.41 p=prellminary, r revised. Values are in thousands of dollars (e.g., 10,000 = $10,000,000) 1Crops included In Specialty Products are nursery, bulbs, greenhouse, tun', miscellaneous specialty crops, farm forest products (smell woodkts), Christmas trees, hybrid poplars, end flee hurting and recreation. Source: Oregon Agricultural lntbrmatlon Network (OA/A1), Extension Economic information Office, Oregon State University. 3 Oregon's Leading Agricultural Commodities Ranked by 2007p Gross Farm Sales ($000) Rank Commodity 2007p 2006r 2005r 1 Nursery Crops 2 Cattle 3 Dairy Products 4 Wheat 5 Farm Forest Products 6 Alfalfa Hay 7 Tall Fescue 8 Perennial Ryegrass 9 Greenhouse Crops 10 Potatoes 11 Christmas Trees 12 Other Hay 13 Winter Pears 14 Annual Ryegrass 15 Chicken Eggs 1.6 Dry Storage Onions 17 Wine. Grapes 18 Blueberries 19 Sweet Cherries 20 Broiler Chickens 21 Com for Grain 22 Apples 23 Hazelnuts 24 Grass & Grain Straw 25 Cranberries 26 Hops 27 Peppermint for Oil 28 Fresh Market Vegetables 29 Processed Snap Beans 30 Horses and Mules 31 Vegetable & Flower Seed 32 Bartlett Pears 33 Kentucky Bluegrass 34 Hogs & Pigs 35 Marion & Other Blackberries 36 Sheep & Lambs 37 Bulbs 38 Strawberries 39 Processed Sweet Com 40 Orchardgrass 41 Barley 42 Tomatoes 756,524 679,326 619,396 710,959 636,081 619,491 443,313 325,274 340,062 304,628 185,989 171,553 226,026 253,644 281,433 207,741 182,503 151,258 184,225 164,119 109,197 160,540 167,069 146,510 145,064 136,749 133,447 125,579 114,006 116,301 114,330 121,360 123,563 113,590 83,675 64,377 69,371 71,679 56,905 66,472 64,414 51,301 63,422 56,812 50,009 61,438 131,567 77,964 55,825 48,621 36,537 53,422 42,216 23,819 53,272 69,140 38,021 52,890 50,774 46,770 45,864 14,911 11,815 40,889 34,299 37,896 38,556 26,698 39,536 35,089 34,260 26,646 31,523 20,592 15,138 29,203 23,194 20,488 24,609 25,132 25,975 24,518 -- - 24,130 19,216 22,832 22,740 22,354 22,740 22,535 17,502 12,528 22,370 20,774 17,976 21,311 20,567 14,616 20,693 16,082 9,875 20,556 26,397 27,779 19,341 19,525 19,104 18,777 18,560 19,404 18,120 19,490 13,359 17,368 19,677 16,415 16,654 13,538 8,284 15,418 8,921 11,659 12,383 10,244 12,052 p=prelfninary, r -revised. = commodity category not used. Values are In thousands of dollars (e.g., 10,000 = $10,000,000). Source: Oregon Agricultural Information Network (OAIN), Extension Economic Information Office, Oregon State University 4 Oregon's Leading Agricultural Commodities Ranked by 2007p Gross Farm Sales ($000) (continued) Rank Commodity 2007p 2006r 2005r 43 Sugarbeets for Sugar 44 Red Clover 45 Creeping Bentgrass 46 Squash & Pumpkins 47 Chewings Fescue 48 Watermelons 49 Fresh Sweet Com 50 Fee Hunting & Recreation 51 Com Silage 52 Turf Sod 53 Hay Silage 54 White Clover 55 Red Raspberries 56 Red Fescue 57 Other Onions 58 Oats 59 Sugarbeet for Seed 60 Peaches 61 Honey & Beeswax 62 Black Raspberries 63 Fresh Snap Beans 64 Cantaloupe & Muskmelons 65 Alfalfa Seed 66 Crimson Clover 67 Poa Trivialis (Roughstalk Bluegrass) 68 Garlic 69 Boysenberries 70 Evergreen Blackberries. 71 Rabbits 72 Lima Beans 73 Colonial Bentgrass 74 Dry Field Beans 75 Asian Pears 76 Hard Fescue 77 Walnuts 78 Goat Meat 79 Meadowfoam Seed Other Statewide Commodities Total Gross Farm Sales 11,204 10,908 10,341 15,290 9,244 9,339 12,438 7,574 7,375 9,486 20,466 13,334 9,168 7,446 3,861 9,093 8,273 6,229 8,910 13,461 12,302 8,685 8,908 7,887 7,559 6,723 7,295 7,425 5,495 5,383 6,483 5,183 6,119 5,736 7,335 6,375 5,484 6,476 6,471 5,432 3,182 2,336 5,390 4,140 3,490 4,675 4,388 3,099 3,542 4,431 4,560 3,234 3,447 2,653 3,215 3,045 2,802 3,212 2,690 5,890 3,188 3,459 3,462 3,140 2,983 2,902 3,091 3,147 3,809 2,844 2,313 2,381 2,653 2,580 2,628 2,606 3,179 6,895 2,234 4,973 3,300 2,160 4,272 3,362 1,994 1,977 1,946 1,859 2,174 1,579 1,676 2,016 2,016 1,658 2,078 1,343 1,556 1,362 1,183 1,493 1,015 700 1,450 1,409 802 1,144 - - 1,138 1,830 543 • 206,894 4,893,236 227,358 213,175 4,432,038 4,043,530 p=Preliminary, ,rrevised. A'-' = commodity category not used. Values am in thousands of dollars (e.g., 10,000 = $10,000,000). Source: Oregon Agricultural information Network (OM), Extension Economic information Office, Oregon State University. 5 Oregon Agricultural Estimates for Selected Commodities, 2007p c 7 c O 1 '0 c) Q a E 8 8 O CO CO 0 CO eTCO OOT O OCr) M OT 1,- T (0Gp 4/ N N O O N S N0 (0 .1 hp ^ pF- S [ 1-( S El ;71 O) COv v a O P. o W_n F p O 4. r: M f` T O .4* 0, N T N O A mf O O cop Oet NT et a 01 1 T T ) e 0 a R liagERP.Oornc5oX, t iin.3.?rP. : 8888 88888 aa a q 1l 1l M COCNA •- 0 Is. CD CO 7q. 1-0-a-iCiDODIPCNICaltier ON O C'7 S O If! S O O M a- N CO EN Is. ul 01 CO. O ON M O CA M r CO CO to R N N Nf0 49 r ~ M N r N O o co CO O to Cn r- 01 N T et CO CO r r r to r N r CO CO r co M N r h T r N O Is cON ^ c C f0 p O T O X^ v S 1r r A O M T M 8 CA fA ^ R'OOCGOXC fG 1n M N et H CA N O V f: CO f� T O CM 1n N CC; fp CA d T. M `.- N CO O tp N S cO m dl ma. a m0 8 110 1n O CTO . = az f0 N ' . to CO M CO M M M10 7 0T O)) N m M T T t - T N 0 OD N 82 a p - c0N O O co O) coO w 1p CN O Fn cc;N CNV `� N et T co. co. CA O N f` N N T CO ef O b N T c0 T T T N a° 4 1n O cc? Y^ g W 10O N CO T T 1n CO C0 CO el CV c0 �% C '0 T ou N CO N O 10 CO CO CO 10 ' l- CO T In O az et N- N a- 0. 0. et S CO e a- yr upOT 0) 10f)_ ^ N 8 1N M (.??. N tMA to M T f+) N Q M N T O (0 M c0 0) Ch ec 0) T^ cp r 10 (0 (0 N 1C) M C) C4 N eh I, -T T (0 N CO T N 0 n O) Cr) CD O T T T M 6 Oregon Agricultural Estimates for Selected Commodities, 2007p (continued) O UJ 0) 0 07 co cis it LD. CD Q Q a 03 v Q s Z I CO10 10 c00 N CI Cj C0 ti in AA ▪ O 00 N N CC) M ti CO 10 N 10 4. N N N T Ch CV N' Co) 49. 110 M N CO110 Ce)COM CO CV N ® O O O p O p O p p O w' 0) 0) N O 0 N 0) 0 CO CO O) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CA O 0. 00 I)(0 � C PI 14).0 ` g (0 10 ctiN(M M r- 00( 10 00 0 CO4. N N T M p N 4— T 1 M CV COO In C) M Off! (44N r. Co 0) N h 10 N. T r r �. . T T C7 CO N (0 T r C h h T O T 10 v v v C h 1A O N O tD C'7 C71 v 9' • 1p CV M T CV O O = t Q1 N t, CV c(1'pQ O e.OD 0 T M M 0 CO M 4 N 1�i a a T ^ v o v v ao X X C ^M v, 00 0) t rn rn N X g 10 T T T co o) M M tp O �' O 2 T f00 t(j N C` T T Qi T 1n �' N T A N 1n g a a X^ X^ C xU) • 0C 5<- • 388 • m O 0 (h N COO • N • N T T N ) 0 0 0 0 8 CO N T 10 P S po 1A T N O) O O if)O h O O erIsoh N - N C1 O 10 0) T CO O Cr) C' LO CO N N O CO M N CO v 00 T Q) Ch N CO CO C M Q M N O CV N CV N O 'a 0 CO 1 1- N N COD 7 m O� n 0 0 p e 8 Oregon Agricultural Estimates for Selected Commodities, 2007p (continued) S r W N 0 4 Of S Z,-):223253 ) 'O )N ts O O Com+) C) O co ..- co O Cr) T cotT CO r CO 1� r O {'; co OD 1n co' vi O 1� m Cr) Il') N w7 co N T r- T N N to r V C. T N CO r O T N 1s T N T T P1 N p 1 Cr) 1 •' 0 0 0 0 0 1 . 0 0 0 0 o) O OD () % O O C) O O C) O ,C, O CO O) co C) O O C) O O Of c O O O co O co O T T 1- ,itDT T T T T a a 0. N N 1.11 to co c O CO^CC Cf V - C COO_ Q 1� 00 CO CO O ( ) CI • 2pp pp C) N N T • T N 41. T(V T Cr) CA T (�V T T p� cm�S) v =0601,- a X � 'e N P N c X X X �C X '.'4)g);88 tD 57-a N a grE Z T� i E 8 8 T m 0. X X X X§XE os 49 A 0 4215 42 cr, 4.11 R 41 li'A o 0 X X .X X 42 X X X X m X X CV O CD T N O O O N T T r O CO O N N pp�� Ip O O O CO O N ^ O N^ CO 1� Cr) Cr) 0 CA O) 10 CD CSD O 19 ID X � X? N V ,f 1 C? CD < N T 4215 N Nr CO N <' N T CO C) T N N u < T co- ef T T T CO 8 Oregon Agricultural Estimates for Selected Commodities, 2007p (continued) v 0 B C O O M M O N CD tCJ O r` 0 CO OC1)Oa N r` V CO *Pt 0) CD r) C? CO a r` N r M� ce {ppp9 00O to N•- 4 IN CMD N C M 4 c0 g"-ligM CCC m t pp.c9 g o M rn r: r` 0o of ao � o T' C')O N Tr r` N co M • �. ; N I L co CO CO CO O N f� N *" C S O *" MC N 10 2 N .N N 9 Oregon Gross Farm Sales ($000)-, 2007p gg m a •i 1 PARMA Rk :2mi:11R; sing --re, .-12m 7.1N.-=)'00 2 1.6 W L Ci 4 CCO iillEMEE !MP! NA�OAe-Ne7V� N OUO0(0 '0 ct0.,4 O OfO 2& 0m . o{N0 A N iYgUR V N0o00.-10ni mO W rn o N .- N .—.— N m m m m Elm 0a-10 OO N 10 00 I00.—A R1N+).r ONt+OppppaSN OV'1d ig .-R(0NN1(0(01100 [V m . N—fl co. co N 4N Y m .-A10NOM N�Nnim V•mgas m A N O N -44N ' 101 N ' ' ' ' 1'=10Q UMW 1iri0)TOim2 0'0 • NN4118NVN�O0D�tt10D0O7 M 1pp.N4W 1010108 0- 1ND�rn e d m A N V' 10 10 a1 N(^ONM1�. 1hN10 ma - � N 1.47N 04 t„,_6 1p 10 m of Erci spzag (0mm 1t7 00 MIMMF 'S ' N r 10171.- AN1? 1-Nmd 100.- OOm NNlOV aO•al0 AmV0ON(0)N3OOO mpm4mAN�(N1f� �f ilgggivo n EI ' 100 ' 2 8'4 ' 0 aNpil rn 1D p0 NO. -O 1O'). OA .— m •-1) 0)NA{—r� V'WN0.-1f pAo 1mqD � 1') 111') 1141')-1O') O 10 1 O 1010 .- *Na110NO O Nr Al<p N4.1apA 1O.. � 0')))ooO aoDappDaOqq� N:ftsoi NO m 1')OOm N' 1+0 0A.-ON1-10N ID1.ID.-Na 0) N ni - ('1. O . . . . M11 10 1i 10 0 '682848 1 �1D D1O �i0 14. in Nm1 VNrnm m1 CV O NO M "P82'8° morn rn m n m.= p�(�pp O ' ' 0: (St ' 0. 0 N CO (1)) I . I I ' . 4tir .S. 1. m N242 D1r10 P.N10PN 4)m.MW A 1.01* N 44a ' p ' O '8"2 . }' 17S 10 pm N 51001115 NO M*N m�1V WmA (O NAN {{qqq1yyD 1rD1A OOrn�AfO WO"' ma CICO ' • N ' N CO m ' ' O ' N ' ' N 1N. 1) N 0 0)) N M N Yf 117 ' cwi Mm m m 17 N Im• V co a e '2322 NW mo I m a v 4 A 238,287 1,372,317 4,893,244 CO 1D 0 8 O m ✓ � 10*0)1. N.- V 10 6m niu N2 1-LLZ (0( r+) N aN� O(00') P. N Mr0m(q(00)0)1 0 N(+>N((0pp (0(0 r(09r N(0�,MN0 kpagEsR1n (8�044 o �gCs1,0 ad(pV?8R wN,OR r0OM0 NrNNcO� (0Nf§.§ (0P (COAMORN .om(f)ON�(O t9x OMfOM.om r (� r r 1i 1l. 1 1g 1! aa r FAMOka C'1(0 V V N M V g • 0 000 r mm -MIO U)r2N a ,,(0 1 1 1 0 M MNN • rM10 10(1)p p- D )p m aD AOVN--VMUD r(V(daer HAMANcw! O P.O(0()N0 evve++�� Nm ( a(7V"L N - M O M N V$ a 4a gkraciAni r N(+0)NNUS i`] N,G NNO mA(000(0 U)(+) NVU)CD N - - 0 0)r IA 00 0 -1V886 -QE � (n�o(c�rvg M( 0 1 1 1 (1) arzaa VMRrNO �r O tV r N M (c) ai m C (0(N.(y M(+)rN Mr"OO) 0h (N�(pp( (OrN1 1 1 HAMM ;;.(2,74g((7� 10 ��(�Vpp7}'Nn �yyCpp� ((pp ((pp (O C~O-ONPat��C(1 2m 11110: vraaDln�va(d�'i � (N�pp(0 ro (p , 8 N N N m (7 M (1)0) O OMD.0 V, 0 V l )1 r (0�� v v 1 g 4 O N 00 N r N M r0ID0)0V V U) (1.10(00(0r r0 O N O m.- 7. 0". O.-O�4r0m ✓ � ' 00OQ)(�N COD O m m 000.v..0 N YF (U)WNW U)0'MO MN rC90m( rN(0)(20r ama p(ppp 0((��N(A0(O(0000 tONN?�j • ,m0Rp)04 (M442mrCrONOND 3 4a0(80) R(1U)0p(MaDm *0) .-' NM(n CDNN • 01nr o , (O(A(0NNOOS N • M O in 1 m 1 16) CD 81M000 0000 G V-InpM°'N adr�' (n r MUMfi1nnc1Ur�( ;O ►,�p� '74.°f N��N 0) 0 (> m4 cats - 10 .-r (mgr •-N ;012803 r U) r 0)0000 1-Rmm 7 M m 1 1 1 M. N (00)'4`S 1 N 010 r r ONmN COO u 0000 0. r M CDU) O 1Q$�1LON CO 0 1 121,r • O 1- • V 111 • 0, SSS f0 NN 1 m N dm) (+• m1 N 1 1 (0 N 2288% • g. ' N .V1111 v N U) r r COON' 01 Nor p'p(0(0 pR0 'Cry 1ff U�f (RgO IN V Y 0O. -COO) 10 (1) K N (O U) h "i g ,11-�rn VV v—NrNmCO VN -0 0) 03 N • m ' 0 , 0 r o(0.g M (O 0 N0 VINmf1n, (nNS101(p� 10rN0 N: Nr g N m N 1` N '001000 (0N(Or N ,000)100 CNP (OM( (0 .-CDr M, 110(' 8F 1 0 N m N W CD CO 160,206 1,162,776 187,114 3,289,257 636,081 I M H N r al m m m 214,464 312,510 482,530 213,541 277,007 127,172 11 Harvested Acreage Summary, by County, 2OO7p 2007p Grass & Tree Vega= Acreage District Hays & Legume Field Fruits Small table Specialty Not Total & County Grains Forage Seeds Crops & Nuts Fruits Crops Products .Disclosed Acres Benton Clackamas Lane Linn Marion Multnomah Polk Washington Yamhill Willamette Valley Clatsop Columbia Coos Curry Lincoln Tillamook Coastal Douglas Jackson Josephine Southwestern Gilliam Hood River Morrow Sherman Umatilla Wasco Wheeler North Central Baker Malheur Union Wallowa Eastern Crook Deschutes Grant Harney Jefferson Klamath Lake South Central Total Undisclosed State Total 2,700 13,350 37,990 2,040 916 335 3,091 - 2,845 63,267 1,800 17,900 10,020 800 4,560 3,545 2,041 2,358 43,024 2,050 29,250 29,385 3,250 4,715 370 1,617 430 1,088 72,155 8,700 36,000 198,980 7,130 2,170 790 4,225 480 3,956 262,431 2,200 18,900 85,720 9,250 8,997 6,623 - 1,660 24,112 155,462 650 4,900 300 230 729 80 2,652 9,541 4,350 12,900 55,073 1,960 6,557 565 - 650 2,301 84,356 12,650 13,350 39,130 380 7,808 3,310 1,700 310 1,086 79,724 4,450 19,550 52,690 1,313 13,497 1,207 210 3,027 95,944 39,550 184,100 509,288 26,123 49,450 17,474 10,633 5,861 43,425 865,904 5,000 10 30 72 5,112 6,600 - - - 90 2,713 9,403 - 30 1,675 10 - 13,120 14,835 2,150 - 1,020 - 173 3,343 1,700 - 20 - 30 1,750 7,150 - - - - 20 40 7,210 22,600 • 30 2,895 40 140 16,148 41,653 - 35,900 - 1,603 46 602 210 1,637 39,998 1,100 19,000 70 7,507 - 1,280 20 - 28,977 100 10,600 - 785 - 445 20 50 12,000 1,200 65,500 70 9,895 48 2,327 250 1,687 80,975 100,500 1,550 - 410 102,460 1,700 - - 13,347 - - 285 15,332 190,500 35,400 3,445 16,280 251 - 5,500 8,706 280,082 107,650 450 - - - - 262 108,362 301,550 20,380 15,189 19,845 4,115 80 10,415 17,777 389,351 53,600 - - - 8,000 - - 11,881 73,481 150 6,000 - 120 - - - - 8,270 753,950 65,480 18,634 36,245 25,713 80 15,915 39,321 955,338 6,700 75,800 - 3,040 - - 450 85,990 50,300 89,240 3,130 16,170 - - 11,350 1,040 171,230 32,250 38,200 10,306 12,100 350 - 2,871 95,877 13,650 48,700 1,210 64 - - - - 63,824 102,900 251,940 14,648 31,374 350 - 11,350 4,161 416,721 1,150 38,000 147 976 405 192 40,870 23,000 448 700 24,148 - 44,500 - - 108 44,608 2,550 127,000 200 140 129,890 7,150 24,350 9,725 4,667 445 500 46,837 19,150 94,500 5,230 575 119,455 3,100 133,000 - - 136,100 33,100 484,350 10,072 11,321 - 850 - 2,215 541,908 1,830 24,320 2,478 5,977 935 804 84,977 5,838 108,957 932,530 1,078,290 555,186 111,040 86,373 20,899 108,092 12,089 108,957 Z902,499 Calculations may not balance due to rounding. = the data may not exist or mey not be displayed due to confidentiality nrles. PSpropminary. The tot disclosed' values = sum of row/ column - ' hidden values. Source: Oregon Agricultural Information Network (OAMN), Extension Economic Information Office, Oregon State University. 12 Harvested Acreage Summary, by County, 2006r 2006r District & County Hays & Grains Forage Grass & Tree Legume Field Fruits Seeds Crops & Nuts Vege- . Acreage 3rna11 table , Specialty • . • Not Total Fruits • Crops `;rtedpcts Disclosed Acres Benton Clackamas Lane ' Linn Marion Multnomah Polk Washington Yamhill Willamette Valley Clatsop Columbia Coos Cuny Lincoln Tillamook Coastal Douglas Jackson Josephine Southwestern Gilliam Hood River Morrow Sherman Umatilla Wasco Wheeler North Central Baker Malheur Union Wallowa Eastern Crook Deschutes Grant Harney Jefferson Klamath Lake South Central Total Undisclosed ?State Total 2,500 2,200 2,300 9,300 3,600 1,050 4,000 10,950 4,000 39,900 1,150 50 1,200 94,600 157,000 117,000 292,050 67,550 550 728,750 7,000 48,350 35,700 14,800 105,850 550 200 2,700 5,560 26,800 2,600 38,410 13,350 17,850 29,350 36,000 16,700 4,650 12,800 13,450 20,700 164,850 37,630 9,960 29,385 202,400 81,250 250 61,435 40,165 56,840 519,315 2,140 760 3,250 8,697 9,600 1,100 400 366 26,313 831 4,503 4,607 2,033 8,744 235 6,141 7,511 12,732 47,337 301 3,361 348 775 6,181 763 525 3,085 1,140 16,4Y9 3,056 4,365 1,580 4,136 3,620 1,770 328 2,720 875 22,450 1,945 430 400 1,520 80 620 280 • 210 5,485 3,578 632 1,550 3,960 24,921 1,119 3,252 1,945 4,820 45,775 5,000 10 30 72 6,400 - - - 80 2,383 - 30 1,680 10 - 13,120 2,150 - 1,000 - 175 1,600 - - 40 6,500 - - - 20 40 21,650 30 2,680 20 130 15,830 35,000 20,500 10,600 66,100 1,700 1,700 46,200 500 28,950 3,700 8,000 90,750 75,700 97,510 38,000 48,450 259,660 38,500 23,000 44,500 127,400 23,150 90,000 128,500 475,050 6,850 29,750 920,960 1,107,810 70 70 1,635 7,557 725 9,917 13,547 3,645 15,280 286 14,733 18,492 3,476 8,000 18,378 33,772 25,309 4,100 3,910 19,120 10,960 11,115 370 2,010 - 16,880 34,335 370 425 931 374 200 - 9,686 4,017 5,900 10,311 11,222 2,981 5,360 567,935 111,002 38 38 539 1,225 418 2,182 2,700 5 9,760 5 12,460 - 11,250 11,250 210 20 20 250 1,850 50 1,900 1,768 275 14,752 282 11,821 17,831 110 46,839 845 1,536 2,381 63,384 45,576 72,800 267,701 156,136 9,917 90,201 80,506 101,683 887,904 5,112 8,863 14,840 3,325 1,640 6,560 40,340 39,272 30,522 11,863 81,657 98,068 15,522 239,863 117,782 379,287 97,081 8,660 956,263 86,800 180,985 97,681 65,260 430,726 300 242 40,948 100 690 24,164 123 44,823 140 130,440 540 329 43,282 485 123,185 131,100 2,009 537,942 5,847 114,734 940 978 602 62,366 83,941 19,804 111,668 11,712 114,734 2,934,832 Calculations may not balance due to rounding. - = the data may not exist or may not be displayed due to con/ldentrald'y rules_ mrevised. The 'not disclosed" values = sum of row/ column '--"hidden values. Source: Oregon Agricultural information Network (GAIN), Extension Economic Information Office, Oregon State Universfty. 13 © 2008 Oregon State University. This publication may be photocopied or reprinted in its entirety for noncommercial purposes. This publication was produced and distributed in furtherance of the Acts of Congress of May 8 and June 30, 1914. Exten- sion work is a cooperative program of Oregon State University, the U. S. Department of Agriculture, and Oregon counties. Oregon State University Extension Service offers educational programs, activities, and materials—without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, age, martial status, disability, and disabled veteran or Vietnam -era veteran status—as required by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1984, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Oregon State University Extension Service is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Published Fpbniary 2008 Commodity Data Sheet Hay Extension Economic Information Office Oregon State University 219 Ballard Extension Hall Corvallis, OR 97331-3601 Commodity numbers -crop year: 2110, 2160-07• (541)737-1436 March 2008 Item and area Unit 2003 2004 2005 2006. 2007 Oregon Acreage harvested Alfalfa 1,000 acres 480 480 400 430 400 Other 1,000 acres 620 650 600 620 600 All hay 1,000 ages 1,100 1,130 1,000 1,050 1,000 Yield per acre Alfalfa Tons 4.60 4.30 4.40 4.40 4.10 Other Tons 2.20 2.40 2.30 2.20 2.20 All hay Tons 3.25 3.21 3.14 3.10 2.96 Production Alfalfa 1,000 tons 2,208 2,064 1,760 1,892 1,640 Other 1,000 tons 1,364 1,560 1,380 1,364 1,320 All hay 1,000 tons 3,572 3,624 3,140 3,256 2,960 Stocks on farms (May 1) 1,000 tons 340 371 362 210 180 Total supply 1,000 tons 3,912 3,995 3,502 3,466 3,140 Farm price baled Alfalfa Dollars/ton 94.00 108.00 118.00 131.00 150.00 Other Dollars/ton 77.50 95.50 105.00 127.00 162.00 All hay Dollars/ton 88.50 105.00 114.00 130.00 153.00 United States Production, all hay Oregon 1,000 tons 3,572 3,624 3,140 3,256 2,960 California 1,000 tons 9,485 9,220 9,206 9,640 9,422 Idaho 1,000 tons 4,950 5,350 5,382 5,720 5,430 Washington 1,000 tons 3,603 3,392 3,210 3,113 3,461 Other states 1,000 tons 135,975 136,661 130,079 120,607 129,031 United States total 1,000 tons 157,585 158,247 151,017 142,336 150,304 *Shaded areas of map represent the major areas of production for this commodity. Sources: USDA/NASS (National Agricultural Statistics Service) and other government reports Electronic access to this publication is available at: httpl/oregonstate.edu/oaln/. Click the Commodity Data Sheets button. Hay: Production, by type and county, Oregon, 2005-2007 Alfalfa hay Other hay 2006r 2007p 2005r 2006r 2007p Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons District 8 county 2005r Tons Benton Clackamas Lane Linn Marion Multnomah Polk Washington Yamhill Willamette Valley Clatsop Columbia Coos Curry Lincoln Tillamook - Not disclosed Coastal Douglas Jackson Josephine South Westem Gilliam Hood River Morrow Sherrnan Umatilla Wasco Wheeler Not disclosed North Central Baker Malheur Union Wallowa Eastern Crook Deschutes Grant Hamey Jefferson Klamath Lake South Central 1,800 1,800 1,800 23,100 24,200 24,200 7,425 8,800 9,350 34,500 37,500 37,500 3,800 3,800 3,800 57,200 57,200 57,200 9,200 9,430 9,200 60,000 60,000 60,000 7,650 9,350 10,450 23,750 26,600 26,600 1,250 1,375 1,650 9,890 10,750 11,250 4,500 3,850 2,750 20,000 18,000 18,000 5,000 4,125 3,575 20,000 16,000 16,000 7,500 7,700 6,875 36,000 32,000 30,000 44125 50,230 49,450 284,440 282,250 280,750 900 1,400 1,200 900 1,400 1,200 7,200 7,200 7,200 11,000 10,000 7,500 22,300 22,400 - 3,780 3,780 3,780 3,080 3,200 3,400 4,000 3,750 - 26,525 51,360 50,330 48,405 5,600 10,000 12,500 60,300 60,000 57,380 17,820 20,000 20,000 34,860 32,000 29,000 22,110 22,000 20,000 23,420 30,000 32,500 117,270 114,000 106,380 2,700 3,750 3,375 228,750 272,000 150,500 2,200 2,170 1,890 187,500 208,000 131,250 19,575 17,760 2,100 2,100 4,000 18,500 442,825 505,780 309,515 108,900 261,500 88,000 65,360 523,760 90,000 36,800 63,900 181,300 59,125 275,400 175,150 881,675 138,600 286,825 103,400 63,755 592,580 92,500 39,950 65,250 182,780 62,700 261,600 169,500 874,280 69,300 243,000 96,800 61,600 470,700 92,500 36,800 58,000 181,300 68,475 275,000 174,000 886,075 200 - - 6,800 6,800 6,800 29,250 33,750 31,500 270 600 750 6,500 7,000 7,300 1,500 - 13,300 12,600 10,000 28,080 18,450 57,820 88,830 74,800 98,400 98,400 49,200 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 41,600 36,800 95,325 92,120 86,580 273,725 272,120 212,580 77,000 70,000 68,250 46,500 46,400 48,500 84,000 75,000 60,000 93,600 93,600 62,400 52,875 52,875 53,550 90,000 100,750 105,000 122,400 122,400 127,500 566,375 561,025 523,200 State total 1,920,705 2,054,270 1,749,440 1,350,990 1,368,555 r - revised, p - preliminary. A indicates the data may not exist or may not be displayed due to confidentiality rules. values are the sum of all values hidden by the dashes and any county not listed. The Extension Economic Information different methods than USDA/NASS to set these estimates. Source: Oregon Agricultural lnformatloa Network (OAIN), Extension Economic Information Office, Oregon State University 1,246,115 The not disclosed" Office uses Hay: Acreage harvested, by type and county, Oregon, 2005-2007 AIlfa hay Other hay . District & county 2005r ,2006r 2007p 2005r 2006r 2007p Apes Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Benton 450 450 450 11,000 11,000 11,000 Clackamas 1,650 1,600 1;700 15,000 15,000 15,000 Lane 950 950 950 26,000 26,000 26,000 Linn 2,300 2,300 2,300 30,000 30,000 30,000 Marion 1,700 1,700 1,900 9,500 9,500 9,500 Multnomah 250 250 300 4,300 4,300 4,500 Polk 900 700 500 10,000 9,000 9,000 Washington 1,000 750 650 10,000 8,000 8,000 Yamhill 1,500 1,400 1,250 18,000 16,000 15,000 Willamette Valley 10,700 10,100 10,000 133,800 128,800 128,000 Clatsop - 4,000 4,000 4,000 Columbia • 300 400 400 5,500 5,000 5,000 Coos - - 11,150 11,200 - Curry 2,100 2,100 2,100 Lincoln 1,400 1,600 1,700 Tillamook 1,600 1,500 - Not disclosed - - 12,850 Coastal 300 400 400 25,750 25,400 25,650 Douglas _ 1,600 2,000 2,500 30,150 30,000 30,200 Jackson 4,050 4,000 4,000 16,600 16,000 14,500 Josephine - 10,050 10,000 10,000 South Western 5,650 6,000 6,500 56,800 56,000 54,700 Gilliam 1,350 1,500 1,350 200 - Hood River - 1,700 1,700 1,700 Morrow 30,500 32,000 21,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 Sherman 400 350 300 150 150 150 Umatilla 25,000 26,000 17,500 1,000 1,000 1,000 Wasco 4,350 3,700 - 1,000 - - Wheeler 1,000 1,000 1,000 7,000 7,000 5,000 Not disclosed - - 3,700 - 16,600 7,500 North Central 62,600 64,550 45,350 15,550 30,950 19,850 Baker 33,000 33,000 33,000 41,000 41,000 41,000 Malheur 52,300 52,150 45,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 Union 22,000 22,000 22,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 Wallowa 15,200 15,550 15,400 30,750 32,900 33,300 Eastern 122,500 122,700 115,400 127,750 129,900 130,300 Crook 18,000 18,500 18,500 22,000 20,000 19,600 Deschutes 8,000 8,500 8,000 15,000 14,500 15,000 Grant 14,200 14,500 14,500 30,000 30,000 30,000 Harney 49,000 49,400 49,000 78,000 78,000 78,000 Jefferson 10,750 11,400 12,450 11,250 11,750 11,900 Klamath 51,000 54,500 55,000 30,000 32,500 35,000 Lake 56,500 56,500 58,000 72,000 72,000 75,000 South Central 207,450 213,300 215,450 258,250 258,750 264,400 • State total 409,200 417,050 393,100 617,900 629,800 622,900 r - revised, p - preliminary. A Indicates the data may not exist or may not be displayed due to contldentlalily rules. The 'not disclosed" values are the sum of all values hidden by the dashes and any county not listed. The Extension Economic information Office uses different methods than USDA/NASS to set these estimates. Source: Oregon AgAculturel Information Nehwork (GAIN), Extension Economic information Office, Oregon State University Hay: Yield per acre, by type and county, Oregon, 2005-2007 Alfalfa hay Other hay District & county 2005r 2006r 2007p 2005r 2006r 2007p Tons/acre Tons/acre Tons/acre Tons/acre Tons/acre Tons/acre Benton 4.00 4.00 4.00 2.10 2.20 2.20 Clackamas 4.50 5.50 5.50 2.30 2.50 2.50 Lane 4.00 4.00 4.00 2.20 220 2.20 Linn 4.00 4.10 4.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Marion 4.50 5.50 5.50 2.50 2.80 2.80 Multnomah 5.00 5.50 5.50 2.30 2.50 2.50 Polk 5.00 5.50 5.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 Washington 5.00 5.50 5.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 Yamhill 5.00 5.50 5.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 Willamette Valley 4.50 4.97 4.94 2.10 2.20 2.20 Clatsop - 1.80 1.80 1.80 Columbia 3.00 3.50 3.00 2.00 2.00 1.50 Coos 2.00 2.00 - Curry - - 1.80 1.80 1.80 Lincoln 220 2.00 2.00 Tillamook - 2.50 2.50 Not disclosed - - - 2.06 Coastal 3.00 3.50 3.00 • . 2.00 2.00 1.90 Douglas 3.50 5.00 5.00 2.00 2.00 1.90 Jackson 4.40 5.00 5.00 2.10 2.00 2.00 Josephine - .2.20 2.20 2.00 South Western 4.15 5.00 5.00 2.10 2.00 1.90 Gilliam 2.00 2.50 2.50 1.00 Hood River - - - 4.00 4.00 4.00 Morrow 7.50 8.50 7.00 6.50 7.50 7.00 Sherman 5.50 6.20 6.30 1.80 4.00 5.00 Umatilla 7.50 8.00 7.50 6.50 7.00 7.30 Wasco 4.50 4.80 - 1.50 - Wheeler 2.10 2.10 4.00 1.90 1.80 2.00 Not disclosed 5.00 - 1.70 2.46 North Central 7.07 7.84 6.83 3.70 2.90 3.80 Baker 3.30 4.20 2.10 2.40 2.40 1.20 Malheur 5.00 5.50 5.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 Union 4.00 4.70 4.40 2.50 2.60 2.30 Wallowa 4.30 4.10 4.00 3.10 2.80 2.60 Eastern 4.28 4.83 4.08 2.10 2.10 1.60 Crook 5.00 5.00 5.00 3.50 3.50 3.50 Deschutes 4.60 4.70 4.60 3.10 3.20 3.10 Grant 4.50 4.50 4.00 2.80 2.50 2.00 Harney 3.70 3.70 3.70 1.20 1.20 0.80 Jefferson 5.50 5.50 5.50 4.70 4.50 4.50 Klamath 5.40 4.80 5.00 3.00 3.10 3.00 Lake 3.10 3.00 3.00 1.70 1.70 1.70 South Central 4.25 4.10 4.11 2.20 2.20 2.00 State total 4.69 4.93 4.45 2.20 2.20 2.00 r - revised, p - preliminary. A Indicates the data mey not exist or may not be displayed due to confidentiality riles. The 'not disclosed' values are the sum of all values hidden by the dashes and any county not fisted. The Extension Economic information Office uses di ferent methods than USOA/NASS to set these estimates. Source: Oregon Agricultural Information Network (OAIN), Extension Economic Information Office, Oregon State University Hay: Value of sales, by type and county, Oregon, 2005-2007'/ Alfalfa hay Other hay District & county 2005r 2006r 2007p 2005r 2006r 2007p 1,000 dollars 1,000 dollars 1,000 dollars 1,000 dollars 1,000 dollars 1,000 dollars Benton 243 306 360 2,079 2,662 3,630 Clackamas 1,114 1,540 1,683 3,795 4,875 5,625 Lane 513 646 760 5,434 7,722 8,580 Linn 1,380 1,603 1,840 5,400 8,100 9,000 Marion 1,148 1,683 1,881 784 1,037 1,277 Multnomah 188 241 297 1,088 1,398 1,688 Polk 169 154 124 340 382 495 Washington 750 660 644 850 680 880 Yamh ill 1,125 1,232 1,238 1,530 1,360 1,650 Willamette Valley 6,628 8,085 8,826 21,300 28,216 32,824 Clatsop - 153 153 18Q Columbia 54 105 151 396 450 630 Coos - 269 314 Curry 23. 26 43 Lincoln 106 96 136 Tillamook 30 32 - Not disclosed - - - - 556 Coastal 54 105 151 977 1,071 1,546 Douglas 848 1,650 2,312 3,788 3,900 8,607 Jackson 3,220 3,500 4,000 4,124 3,840 5,075 Josephine - - 1,837 2,640 3,000 South Westem 4,088 5,150 6,312 9,749 10,380 16,682 Gilliam 308 428 481 15 15 Hood River - - 68 68 68 Morrotiv 21,731 29,920 24,983 2,340 3,544 5,040 Sherman 220 234 397 16 42 71 Umatilla 17,812 22,880 21,788 488 665 1,168 Wasco 1,801 1,705 64 - Wheeler 126 126 240 565 630 500 Not disclosed - 2,414 - 176 1,298 North Central 41,998 55,293 50,303 3,555 5,139 8,144 Baker 2,940 4,158 3,015 369 369 295 Malheur 8,891 12,907 15,795 110 110 160 Union 2,350 3,929 8,422 1,120 1,165 2,650 Wallowa 5,621 6,376 7,392 4,337 6,135 7,221 Eastern 19,802 27,370 34,623 5,938 7,779 10,326 Crook 5,850 8,117 9,019 2,772 4,172 4,832 Deschutes 2,834 3,775 3,864 3,476 4,494 5,350 Grant 2,460 2,900 3,167 722 791 866 Ramey 14,957 15,765 17,677 702 749 686 Jefferson 4,878 6,348 7,190 4,071 5,515 6,161 Klamath 30,074 29,783 43,120 7,200 10,473 18,522 Lake 17,655 19,832 23,490 3,917 4,896 7,650 South Central 78,708 86,520 107,526 22,860 31,090 44,068 State total 151,258 182,503 207,741 64,377 83,675 113,590 r - revised, p - preliminary. 1/ Totals may not add due to rounding. A indicates the data may not exist or may not be displayed due to confidentiality rules. The not disclosed' values are the sum of all values hidden by the dashes and any county not listed. The Extension Economic Information Office uses different methods than t1SDA/NASS to set these estimates. Source: Oregon Agricultural Information Network (GAIN), Extension Economic Information Office, Oregon State University Hay: Acreage, yield, production, price and value of production, Oregon, 1940-2007'1 Acreage Yield per Price per Value of Year harvested acre. Production ton production 1,000 acresTons 1,000 tons Dollars 1,000 dollars 1940 1,087 1.73 1,876 10.30 19,323 1950 1,020 1.69 1,721 25.00 43,025 1960 1,029 1.91 1,969 23.10 45,483 1970 1,017 2.22 2,256 26.00 58,656 1978 1,075 2.58 2,773 49.00 135,877 1979 1,060 2.42 2,568 64.00 164,352 1980 1,070 2.78 2,978 79.50 236,751 1981 1,060 2.72 2,888 60.00 173,160 1982 1,070 2.77 2,967 75.00 222,525 1983 1,110 2.81 3,121 75.00 234,075 1984 1,105 2.82 3,112 73.00 227,176 1985 1,080 2.77 2,989 76.50 228,659 1986 1,110 2.82 3,134 65.00 203,710 1987 1,050 2.68 2,818 68.00 191,624 1988 1,035 2.56 2,652 76.00 201,552 1989 1,050 2.75 2,890 88.50 245,710 1990 1,020 2.77 2,826 92.00 253,062 1991 1,075 2.75 2,955 92.50 249,195 1992 925 2.64 2,440 85.00 194,060 1993 1,040 2.95 3,066 97.50 262,794 1994 1,010 2.81 2,840 99.00 255,480 1995 1,100 3.00 3,300 99.50 303,615 1996 1,070 3.03 3,244 104.00 313,336 1997 1,035 3.16 3,266 117.00 361,020 1998 970 3.48 3,374 104.00 337,698 1999 1,076 2.93 3,150 89.32 281,379 2000 1,067 2.80 2,992 92.75 277,469 2001 1,023 2.87 2,932 102.58 300,764 2002 1,045 2.87 2,994 96.35 288,434 2003 1,043 2.92 3,042 89.44 272,046 2004 1,025 3.07 3,146 91.12 286,708 2005r 1,027 3.19 3,272 97.86 320,156 2006r 1,047 3.27 3,423 111.07 380,179 2007p 1,016 2.95 2,996 146.66 439,333 r - revised, p - peliminary. 1/ 1940-1998 data from USDMNASS. USDA/NASS uses estimated marketings of alfalfa and other hay as weights to calculate all hay price. The Extension Economic Information Office uses different methods than USDA/NASS to set these estimates. Sources: Oregon Agricultural Information Network (GAIN), Extension Economic Information Office, Oregon State University and USDA/NASS (National Agricultural Statistics Service) Oregon State UNIVERSITY Extension Service . Oregon State University Extension Service offers educational programs, activities, and materials - without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, age, marital status, disabfity, and disabled veteran or Vietnam -em veteran status -as required by Title VI of the CMI Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and Section 504 of the Rehabilita- tion Act of 1973. Oregon State University Extension Service is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Commodity Data Sheet Hay Extension Economic Information Office Oregon State University 219 Ballard Extension Hall Corvallis, OR 97331-3601 Commodity numbers -crop year: 2110, 2160-05* (541)737-1438 August 2006 Item and area Unit 2001 200. 3003 2004 2005 Oregon Acreage harvested Alfalfa 1,000 acres 460 495 480 480 400 Other 1,000 acres 565 620 620 650 600 All hay 1,000 acres 1,025 1,115 1,100 1,130 1,000 Yield per acre Alfalfa Tons 4.30 4.30 4.60 4.30 4.40 Other Tons 1.90 2.20 2.20 2.40 2.30 All hay Tons 2.98 3.13 3.25 3.21 3.14 Production Alfalfa 1,000 tons 1,978 2,129 2,208 2,064 1,760 Other 1,000 tons 1,074 1,364 1,364 1,560 1,380 All hay 1,000 tons 3,052 3,493 3,572 3,624 3,140 Stocks on farms (May 1) 1,000 tons 241 183 340 371 362 Total supply 1,000 tons 3,293 3,676 3,912 3,995 3,502 Farm price baled Alfalfa Dollars/ton 116.00 101.00 94.00 108.00 121.00 Other Dollars/ton 97.00 97.50 77.50 95.50 103.00 All hay Dollars/ton 112.00 100.00 88.50 105.00 116.00 United States Production, all hay Oregon 1,000 tons 3,052 3,493 3,572 3,624 3,140 California 1,000 tons 8,775 9,774 9,485 9,220 8,935 Idaho 1,000 tons 4,938 5,288 4,950 5,350 5,382 Washington 1,000 tons 3,088 3,336 3,603 3,392 3,210 Other states 1,000 tans 136,563 127,576 135,975 136,661 129,923 United States total 1,000 tans 156,416 149,467 157,585 158,247 150,590 *Shaded areas of map represent the major anus of production for this commodity. Sources: USDA/NASS (National Agricultural Statistics SeMce) and other government reports Electronic access to this publication is available at httpi/oregonstale.edu/oaln/. Click the Commodity Data Sheets button. Hay: Acreage harvested, by type and county, Oregon, 2003-2005 Alfalfa hay Other hay District & county 2003r 2004r 20054p 2003r 2004r 2005p Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Benton 450 450 450 11,000 11,000 11,000 Clackamas 1,200 1,600 1,650 20,000 15,000 15,000 Lane 950 950 950 27,500 27,000 26,000 Linn 2,500 2,300 2,300 30,000 30,000 30,000 Marson 1,700 1,650 1,700 10,000 9,500 9,500 Multnomah 250 250 250 4,500 4,300 4,300 Polk 1,000 1,000 900 12,500 12,000 10,000 Washington 2,000 2,000 1,000 12,000 12,000 10,000 Yamhill 2,000 2,000 1,500 19,500 19,000 18,000 Willamette Valley 12,050 12,200 10,700 147,000 139,800 133,800 Clatsop 4,000 4,000 4,000 Columbia 350 300 7,000 6,000 5,500 Coos - 15,500 9,450 11,150 Curry 2,000 1,800 2,100 Lincoln - 1,400 1,400 1,400 Tillamook 1,500 1,200 1,600 Not disclosed 400 - - - Coastal 400 350 300 31,400 23,850 25,750 Douglas 1,750 1,600. 1,600 30,000 30,000 30,150 Jackson 4,000 4,000 4,050 16,500 16,500 16,600 Josephine 2,000 - - 10,000 10,000 10,050 South Western 7,750 5,600 5,650 58,500 56,500 56,800 Gilliam 1,950 1,800 1,350 450 200 Hood River - - - - 1,700 1,700 Morrow 35,000 31,500 30,500 5,000 4,500 4,500 Sherman 350 450 400 250 150 150 Umatilla 23,000 22,500 25,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Wasco 5,000 4,650 4,350 600 1,000 1,000 Wheeler 650 1,000 1,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 Not disclosed - 1,100 North Central 65,950 61,900 62,600 14,950 15,800 15,550 Baker 33,000 33,000 33,000 41,000 41,000 41,000 Malheur 52,000 52,000 52,300 40,000 40,000 40,000 Union 22,000 22,000 22,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 Wallowa 15,000 14,800 15,200 30,650 27,900 30,750 Eastem 122,000 121,800 122,500 127,650 124,900 127,750 Crook 16,000 17,000 18,000 23,000 23,000 22,000 Deschutes 9,000 8,000 8,000 15,000 15,000 15,090 Grant 14,200 14,200 14,200 30,000 30,000 30,000 Ramey 47,000 48,000 49,000 76,000 77,000 78,000 Jefferson 11,400 11,000 10,750 9,000 11,950 11,250 Klamath 50,000 50,000 51,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 Lake 55,150 56,000 56,500 71,650 71,500 72,000 South Central 202,750 204,200 207,450 254,650 258,450 258,250 State total 410,900 406,050 409,200 632,150 619,300 817,900 r - revised, p - preliminary. A =' Indicates the date may not exist or may not be displayed due b confidentiality rules. The 'not disclosed' values are the sum of all values hidden by the dashes and any county not listed. The Extension Economic Information Office uses different methods than USDA MASS to set these estimates. Source: Oregon Agricultural information Network (GAIN), Extension Economic information Office, Oregon State University Hay: Yield per acre, by type and county, Oregon, 2003-2005 Alfalfa hay Other hay District & county 2003r 2004r 2005p 2003r 2004r 2005p Tons/acre Tons/acre • Tons/acre Tbns/acie . Tons/acre Tons/arae Benton 4.00 4.00 4.00 2.10 2.30 2.10 Clackamas 5.70 5.90 4.50 2.50 2.80 2.30 Lane 4.00 4.30 4.00 2.00 220 2.20 Linn 3.60 4.20 4.00 1.80 2.00 2.00 Marion 6.00 5.90 4.50 2.60 2.80 2.50 Multnomah 5.50 5.80 5.00 2.20 2.60 2.30 Polk 4.50 5.00 5.00 1.90 2.00 2.00 Washington 4.80 5.50 5.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Yamhill 4.50 5.80 5.00 1.90 2.00 2.00 Willamette Valley 4.66 5.23 4.50 2.10 2.20 2.10 Clatsop Columbia Coos Curry Lincoln Tillamook Not disclosed Coastal Douglas Jackson Josephine South Western Gilliam Hood River Morrow Sherman Umatilla Wasco Wheeler Not disclosed North Central 1.80 1.80 1.80 3.50 3.00 1.40 1.70 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.20 1.80 1.80 - 2.20 2.30 2.20 2.50 2.50 2.50 3.00 - - - - 3.00 3.50 3.00 1.30 1.90 2.00 3.50 3.50 3.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 4.10 4.30 4.40 2.00 2.00 2.10 4.00 - - 2.20 2.20 2.20 3.94 4.07 4.15 2.00 2.00 2.10 2.50 2.50 2.00 - 1.00 1.00 - - 4.00 4.00 7.50 7.00 7.50 5.60 5.90 6.50 4.20 5.50 5.50 2.00 2.00 1.80 7.50 7.00 7.50 5.50 5.90 6.50 4.80 4.80 4.50 1.70 1.70 1.50 3.50 2.30 2.10 2.00 2.00 1.90 - - 3.70 - - 7.09 6.62 7.07 3.60 3.50 3.70 Baker 3.00 3.10 3.30 2.30 230 2.40 Malheur 4.00 4.50 5.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Union 3.70 3.80 4.00 2.00 2.20 2.50 Wallowa 4.00 4.20 4.30 2.60 2.70 3.10 Eastern 3.68 3.96 4.28 1.90 2.00 2.10 Crook 4.60 4.80 5.00 2.80 3.10 3.50 Deschutes 4.40 4.60 4.60 2.60 2.90 3.10 Grant 3.50 4.50 4.50 1.30 2.50 2.80 Hamey 3.60 3.60 3.70 0.90 1.00 1.20 Jefferson 5.20 5.50 5.50 4.80 4.90 4.70 Klamath 5.20 5.50 5.40 2.70 3.00 3.00 Lake 3.10 3.00 3.10 1.70 1.70 1.70 South Central 4.06 4.20 4.25 1.80 2.10 2.20 State total 4.44 4.53 4.89 1.90 2.10 2.20 r - revised, p - preliminary. A :" Indicates the data may not exist or may not be displayed due to canlydentiallty Hulas. The not disclosed` values are the sum of all values hidden by the dashes and any county not listed. The Extension Economic Information Office uses different methods than USDAMASS to set these estimates. Source: Oregon Agricultural Information Network (GAIN), Extension Economic Information Office, Oregon State University Hay: District & county Benton Clackamas Lane Linn Marion Multnomah Polk Washington Yamhill Willamette valley Clatsop Columbia Coos Curry Lincoln Tillamook Not disclosed Coastal. Douglas Jackson Josephine South Western Gilliam Hood River Morrow Sherman Umatilla Wasco Wheeler Not disdosed North Central Baker Malheur Union Wallowa Eastem Crook Deschutes Grant Hamey Jefferson Klamath Lake South Central State total Production, by type and county, Mfa'fa hay Toru 1,800 9,440 4,085 9,660 9,735 1,450 5,000 11,000 11,600 63,770 Oregon, 2003-2005 Other hay 2004r 2003r 2004r 2005p 2003r 2005p Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons 1,800 1,800 23,100 25,300 23,100 6,840 7,425 50,000 42,000 34,500 3,800 3,800 55,000 59,400 57,200 9,000 9,200 54,000 60,000 60,000 10,200 7,650 26,000 26,600 23,750 1,375 1,250 9,900 11,180 9,890 4,500 4,500 23,750 24,000 20,000 9,600 5,000 24,000 24,000 20,000 9,000 7,500 37,050 38,000 36,000 56,115 48,125 302,800 310,480 284,440 7,200 7,200 7,200 1,225 900 9,800 10,200 11,000 15,500 18,610 22,300 2,400 3,181 3,780 3,080 3,220 3,080 , 3,750 3,000 4,000 1,200 - - - - - 1,200 1,225 900 41,730 45,411 51,360 6,125 5,600 5,600 60,000 60,000 60,300 16,400 17,200 17,820 33,000 33,000 34,860 8,000 - - 22,000 22,000 22,110 • 30,525 22,800 23,420 115,000 115,000 117,270 4,875 4,500 2,700 450 200 - - - 6,800 6,800 262,500 220,500 228,750 28,000 26,550 29,250 1,470 2,475 2,200 500 300 270 172,500 157,500 187,500 5,500 5,900 6,500 24,000 22,320 19,575 1,020 1,700 1,500 2,275 2,250 2,100 14,000 14,000 13,300 - - - 4,060 - - 467,620 40%545 442,825 53,080 55,700 57,820 99,000 102,300 108,900 94,300 94,300 98,400 208,000 234,000 261,500 40,000 40,000 40,000 81,400 83,600 88,000 32,000 35,200 40,000 60,000 62,160 65,360 79,690 75,330 95,325 448,400 482,060 523,760 245,990 244,830 273,725 73,600 81,600 90,000 64,400 71,300 77,000 39,600 36,800 36,800 39,000 43,500 46,500 49,700 63,900 63,900 39,000 75,000 84,000 169,200 172,800 181,300 68,400 77,000 93,600 59,280 60,500 59,125 43,200 58,555 52,875 260,000 275,000 275,400 81,000 90,000 90,000 170,965 168,000 175,150 121,805 121,550 122,400 822,345 858,600 881,675 456,805 536,905 566,375 1,826,205 1,838,000 1,920,705 1,215,405 1,308,326 1,350,990 r - revised, p - preliminary. A indicates the data may not exist or may not be displayed due to confidentiaNy rules. The not disclosed' values ere the sum of all values hidden by the dashes and any county not listed. The Extension Economic Information Office uses deferent methods than USDA/MSS to set these eStlmates, Source: Oregon Agricultural Information Network (OAIN), Extension Economic Information Office, Oregon State University Hay: Value of sales, by type and county, Oregon, 2003-2005" Alfalfa hay Other hay District 8 county 2003r 2004r 2005p 2003r 2004r 2005p 1,000 dollars 1,000 dollars 1,000 dollars 1,000 dollars 1,000 dollars 1,000 dollars Benton 270 216 243 1,848 2,277 2,079 Clackamas 325 614 1,114 1,125 1,134 3,795 Lane 532 490 513 6,600 5,346 5,434 Unn 1,305 1,159 1,380 5,130 5,400 5,400 Marion 495 633 1,148 585 718 784 Multnomah 111 170 188 594 805 1,088 Polk 124 144 169 380 408 340 Washington 950 1,188 750 960 1,020 1,700 Yamhill 297 418 1,125 741 808 3,060 Willamette Valley 4,409 5,031 6,628 17,963 17,916 23,680 Ciatsop - - 153 153 153 Columbia 88 54 343 332 396 Coos - 186 223 269 Curry - 14 19 23 Lincoln 92 96 106 Tillamook 28 22 30 Not disclosed 68 - - - Coastal 68 88 54 816 845 977 Douglas 919 840 848 3,300 3,600 3,788 Jackson 2,460 3,079 3,220 3,300 3,729 4,124 Josephine 697 - - 1,216 1,746 1,837 South Westem 4,076 3,919 4,068 7,816 9,075 9,749 Gilliam 556 513 308 34 15 Hood River - - - 68 68 Morrow 13,388 17,640 21,731 182 1,991 2,340 Sherman 147 248 220 . 22 15 16 Umatilla 8,798 8,032 17,812 197 204 488 Wasco 2,112 1,786 1,801 38 68 64 Wheeler 136 135 126 560 560 565 Not disclosed - - - 55 - - North Centras 25,136 28,354 41,998 1,054 2,940 3,555 Baker 3,267 3,376 2,940 354 330 369 Malheur 5,824 0,365 8,891 110 110 110 Union 2,768 2,876 2,350 768 1,144 1,120 Wallowa 4,967 4,662 5,621 6,359 6,102 4,337 Eastem 16,825 17,279 19,802 7,591 7,686 5,936 Crook 4,306 4,774 5,850 1,642 2,496 2,772 Deschutes 2,356 2,254 2,834 2,408 2,686 3,476 Grant 1,657 2,259 2,460 307 578 722 Harney 13,959 12,960 14,957 479 500 702 Jefferson 4,150 3,970 4,878 3,283 3,894 4,071 Klamath 23,400 29,700 30,074 5,164 7,200 7,200 Lake 16,510 16,632 17,655 2,802 2,735 3,917 South Central 66,337 72,549 78,708 16,084 20,088 22,860 State total 116,851 127,219 151,258 51,324 58,550 66,757 r - revised, p - Preliminary. 1/ Totals may not add due to rounding. A "-' indicates the data may not exist or may not be displayed due to confidentiality rules. The 'not disclosed' values are the sum of alt values hidden by the dashes and any county not listed. The Extension Economic Information Office uses different methods than USDA/NASS to set these estimates. Source: Oregon Agricultural Information Network (OAIN), Extension Economic Information Office, Oregon State University Hay: Acreage, yield, production, price and value of production, Oregon, 1940-20051/ Acreage Yield per Price per Value of', Year harvested acre Production ton production 1,000 acres Tons 1,000 tons Dollars 1,000 dollars 1940 1,087 1.73 1,876 10.30 19,323 1950 1,020 1.69 1,721 25.00 43,025 1960 1,029 1.91 1,969 23.10 45,483 1970 1,017 2.22 2,256 26.00 58,656 1976 1,050 2.38 2,500 63.50 158,750 1977 1,025 2.47 2,533 56.50 143,115 1978 1,075 2.58 2,773 49.00 135,877 1979 1,060 2.42 2,568 64.00 164,352 1980 1,070 2.78 2,978 79.50 236,751 1981 1,060 2.72 2,886 60.00 173,160 1982 1,070 2.77 2,967 75.00 222,525 1983 1,110 2.81 3,121 75.00 234,075 1984 1,105 2.82 3,112 73.00 227,176 1985 1,080 2.77 2,989 76.50 228,659 1986 1,110 2.82 3,134 65.00 203,710 1987 1,050 2.68 2,818 68.00 191,624 1988 1,035 2.56 2,652 76.00 201,552 1989 1,050 2.75 2,890 88.50 245,710 1990 1,020 2.77 2,826 92.00 253,062 1991 1,075 2.75 2,955 92.50 249,195 1992 925 2.64 2,440 85.00 194,060 1993 1,040 2.95 3,066 97.50 262,794 1994 1,010 2.81 2,840 99.00 255,480 1995 1,100 3.00 3,300 99.50 303,615 1996 1,070 3.03 3,244 104.00 313,336 1997 1,035 3.16 3,266 117.00 361,020 1998 970 3.48 3,374 104.00 337,698 1999 1,076 2.93 3,150 89.32 281,379 2000 1,067 2.80 2,992 92.75 277,469 2001 1,023 2.87 2,932 102.58 300,764 2002 1,045 2.87 2,994 96.35 288,434 2003r 1,043 2.92 3,042 89.44 272,046 2004r 1,025 3.07 3,146 91.12 286,708 2005p 1,027 3.19 3,272 97.86 320,156 r - revised, p - preliminary. 1/ 1940-1998 data from USDA/NASS. USDA/NASS uses estimated marketings of alfalfa and other hay as weights to calculate all hay price. Sources: Oregon Agricultural lnfomration Nehwork (OAIN), Extension Economic lnfomlation Office, Oregon State University and USDA/NASS (National Agricultural Statistics Service) Oregon State UNIVERSITY Extension Service Oregon Slate University Extension Service offers educational programs, activities, and materials - without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual o►lentetlon, national digin, 'age, marital status, disability,, and disabled veteran or Vletnam-em veteran status -as required by Me VI of the Ctivli Rights Act of 1864, lltie IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and Section 504 of the Rehabilita- tion Ad of 1973. Oregon State University Extension Service is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Hay Market News & Information - we.w.AgNetwork.com 7130108 9:56 AM ML_GR310 Moses Lake, WA tcattleYour Source nstr ore,cl �om Fri Jul 25, 2008 USDA Market News Washington -Oregon (Columbia Basin) Weekly Hay Report Tone FOB: 48,190 Last Week: 53,225 Last Year: 52,980 Year to Date FOB: 390,244 Last Week: 342,054 Last Year: 553,581 Compared to last week, Premium and Supreme Alfalfa for dairies sold firm with Good and Fair qualities Belling mostly steady. Export hay selling firm, instances up to 5.00 higher on a few select stacks. Retail/feed store/horse hay steady to 5.00 higher on all classes. Buyer demand very good for all classes of hay throughout the basin with supplies being light to moderate and staying very current with most hay being Bold within just a few days of being baled. Tons Price Wtd Avg Leat Year Wtd Avg Alfalfa Domestic Cattle 2-3 tie smell eq bales Good 30 225.00-225.00 225.00 Alfalfa Domestic Cattle Mid/Ton-3x3x8,3x4x8,4x4x8 Supreme 2,700 250.00-255.00 251.11 Premium 3,100 240.00-243.00 242.90 Good 400 220.00-230.00 227.13 135.00-135.00 135.00 Fair 300 180.00-210.00 190.00 Alfalfa Export 2-3 tie small sq bales Premium 3,200 250.00-270.00 267.97 145.00-170.00 152.11 Alfalfa Export Hid/Ton-3x3x8,3x4x8,4x4x8 Premium 24,345 240.00-260.00 251.62 130.00-150.00 135.13 • j Good 250 225.00-225.00 225.00 120.00-132.00 121.82 'e:4" `' Alfalfa Export Standing ''` Premium 1,000 200.00-200.00 200.00 TTTT uj Alfalfa Retail/feed store/horse 2-3 tie small sq bales i.. Premium 335 260.00-270.00 265.22 170.00-170.00 170.00 fi Bluegrass Straw Domestic Cattle Hid/Ton-3x3x8,3x4x8,4x4x8 Fair 300 120.00-120.00 120.00 Bluegrass Straw Export Mid/Ton-3x3x8,3x4x8,4x4x8 Good 4,400 90.00-115.00 109.32 55.00-59.00 55.36 Orchard Retail/feed store/horse 2-3 tie small sq bales Premium 30 265.00-265.00 265.00 180.00-200.00 188.00 Timothy Export 2-3 tie small eq bales Premium Dairy 3,600 245.00-245.00 245.00 190.00-190.00 190.00 Timothy Export Mid/Ton-3x3x8,3x4x8,4x4x8 Premium Horse 1,000 290.00-290.00 290.00 Premium Dairy 3,000 245.00-245.00 245.00 Timothy Retail/feed store/horse 2-3 tie small sq bales Premium 200 265.00-265.00 265.00 Other hay: None. Alfalfa hay test guidelines, (for domestic livestock use and not more than 10% grass), used with visual appearance and intent of sale Quantitative factors are approximate and many factors can affect feeding value. ADE NDP RFV TDN-100% TDN-90% CP -100% http://www.agnetwork.com/Hay-Content.asp?Content1D-239844 Page 1 of 2 Hay: Market News & Information - www.AgNetwork.com 7/30/08 9:56 AM Supreme <27 <34 >185 >62 >55.9 >22 Premium 27-29 34-36 170-185 60.5-62 54.5-55.9 20-22 Good 29-32 36-40 150-170 58-60 52.5-54.5 18-20 Fair 32-35 40-44 130-150 56-58 50.5-52.5 16-18 Utility >35 >44 <130 <56 <50.5 <16 RFV calculated using the Wis/Minn formula. TDN calculated using the western formula. Values based on 1008 dry matter, TDP both 90% and 1008. Source USDA Market News, Moses Lake, WA 509-765-3611 24 hour market information: 509-765-0311 www.ams.usda.gov/LSMarketNewa 1030p lec rlc ljw hI tor/ AwAv.agnetwork.com/Hay_Content.asplContentID..239844 Page 2 >f 2 Oregon Weekly Hay Report - Hay: Market News & Information - www.AgNetwork.com 8125108 11:11 AM O Ca1tk Store yq, aele reed dye s rvwd.e draft. CM,ISae % ae bra •w w as omme Amb rr ,ksae a IM..fiau[e as4Rwb. M ell rat Omyid,ydrxd k&arpatih w nae lrsn ye ey{e. w tryk tow ML_GR313 Moses Lake, WA f cattllestorie.lcoSupPm Fri Aug 22, 2008 USDA Market News Oregon Weekly may Report Tone FOBi 8,974 Laet Week, 5,810 Last Year: 11,785 Year to Date FOB, 139,244 Last Week: 130,270 Last Year, 197,137 Crook, Deschutes, Jefferson, Masco Counties, Tons FOB Barn/Stacks 1,426 Compared to last weak, all el f Alfalfa and retail hay sold steady to firm. Oat hay steady. Buyer demand moderate to good for all classes. Several producers had hay rained on this week. 1 Tons Price Wtd Avg Last Year Wtd Avg Alfalfa Domestic Cattle 2-3 tie small aq bales Fair 10 200.00-200.00 200.00 120.00-120.00 120.00 Alfalfa Domestic Cattle Mid/Ton-3x3x8,3x4x8,4x4x8 Premium/Supreme 900 235.00-235.00 235.00 Fair 60 200.00-200.00 200.00 Alfalfa Retail/feed store/horse 2-3 tie small eq bales Premium 30 250.00-250.00 250.00 160.00-190.00 171.67 Oat Domestic Cattle 2-3 tie small aq bales Fair 10 165.00-165.00 165.00 Orchard Retail/feed store/horse 2-3 tie small aq bales Premium 126 225.00-250.00 228.17 175.00-190.00 178.54 Good/Premium 50 210.00-215.00 212.50 Orchard Retail/feed store/horse Mid/Ton-3x3x8,3x4x8,4x4x8 Premium 190 220.00-220.00 220.00 Other hays 50 Tons. Domestic Cattle Fair Alfalfa 2-3 tie small sq bales greasy 10 tons 165.00 FOB. Domestic Cattle Fair Alfalfa 2-3 tie emall sq bales rain damage 40 tons 165.00 FOB. Eastern Oregon: Tons FOB Barn/Stack, 45 Compared to last week, not enough sales of any class to test the market. .Buyer demand moderate on all classes of hay on light to moderate supplies. Tone Price Wtd Avg Orchard Domestic Cattle Mid/Ton-3x3x8,3x4x8,4x4x8 Fair 15 150.00-150.00 150.00 Timothy Domestic Cattle Mid/Ton-3x3x8,3x4x8,4x4x8 Utility 30 100.00-100.00 100.00 Other hays Hone. Harney Coantyt No confirmed sales this week as producers are occupied with harvesting. Buyer demand moderate to good on light to moderate supplies of hay. Klamath Basins Tons FOB Barn/Stacks 1,917 Compared to last week, Export alfalfa sold firm to 10.00 higher on a thin test. Retail hay not wall tested last week, however a higher undertone was noted. Buyer demand moderate to good for all classes. Some producers reporting scattered rainshowersthis week. Tons Price Wtd Avg Last Year Wtd Avg Alfalfa Domestic Cattle 2-3 tie small sq bales Good 75 200.00-200.00 200.00 Alfalfa Export 2-3 tie small aq bales Premium 500 225.00-225.00 225.00 Alfalfa Export Mid/Ton-3x3x8,3x4x8,4x4x8 Premium 450 220.00-220.00 220.00 Alfalfa Retail/feed store/horse 2-3 tie small sq bales Premium 240 210.00-210.00 210.00 Fescue Retail/feed store/horse 2-3 tie small sq bales Premium 100 180.00-180.00 180.00 Orchard Retail/feed store/horse 2-3 tie small sq bales Premium 400 215.00-215.00 215.00 200.00-200.00 200.00 Orchard/Alfalfa Mix Retail/feed store/horse 2-3 tie small sq bales Premium 52 240.00-240.00 240.00 http://www.agnetwork.com(Hay_Contentasp?ContentID=246895 Page 1 of 2 Oregon Weekly Hay Report - Hay Market News & Information - www.AgNetwork.com Timothy Retail/feed store/horse 2-3 tie small sq bales Premium 60 270.00-270.00 270.00 Other hays 40 Tons, Domestic Cattle Good Alfalfa 2-3 tie small sq bales rain damage 40 tons 180.00 FOB. Lake Countyt Tons FOB Barn/Stacks 5,586 Compared to last week, all classes of Alfalfa sold steady to firm. oat hay steady. All other classes of hay not tested. Buyer demand moderate to good for all classes. Rain has been prevalent throughout the county this past week. Tons Price Wtd Avg Last Year Wtd Avg Alfalfa (Organic) Domestic Cattle Mid/Ton-3x3x8,3x4x8,4x4x8 Premium 30 265.00-265.00 265.00 Alfalfa Domestic Cattle 2-3 tie small eq bales Premium 1,000 235.00-235.00 235.00 Good 120 190.00-190.00 190.00 Alfalfa Domestic Cattle Large Round, 5x5, 5x6 Pair 30 130.00-130.00 130.00 Alfalfa Domestic Cattle Mid/Ton-3x3x8,3x4x8,4x4x8 Premium/Supreme 1,136 230.00-235.00 234.84 Good 420 190.00-190.00 190.00 Alfalfa Export 2-3 tie small eq bales Premium 850 235.00-235.00 235.00 165.00-170.00 168.81 Alfalfa Export Mid/Ton-3x3x8,3x4x8,4x4x8 Premium 1,100 225.00-225.00 225.00 Oat Domestic Cattle Hid/Ton-3x3x8,3x4x8,4x4x8, Good 900 150.00-160.00 156.67 100.00-110.00 104.29 Other hays None. Alfalfa hay teat guidelines, (for domestic livestock use and not more than 10% grams), used with visual appearance and intent of sale Quantitative factors are approximate and many factors can affect feeding value. ADF NEW RFV TON -100% TDN-901 CP -100i -Supreme <27 <34 >185 >62 >55.9 >22 Premium 27-29 34-36 170-185 60.5-62 54.5-55.9 20-22 Good 29-32 36-40 150-170 58-60 52.5-54.5 18-20 Fair 32-35 40-44 130-150 56-58 50.5-52.5 16-18 Utility >35 >44 <130 <56 <50.5 <16 RFV calculated using the Wis/Minn formula. TON calculated using the western formula. Values based on 100% dry matter, TDN both 90% and 100%. Source - USDA Market News, Moses Lake, WA 509-765-3611 24 hour market informations 509-765-0311 www.ams.usda.gov/LSMarketNews OBOOp leo rlc ljw 8125108 11:11 AM http://www.agnetwork.comfHay_Content.asp?Contentlo..246895 Page 2 cf 2 SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT ATTORNEYS AT L A W Mill View Way Building, 549 SW Mill View Way, Suite 100, Bend, OR 97702 !Phone 541.749.40441 Fax 541.330.11531 www.schwabe.com TIA M. LEWIS Direct Line: 541-749-4048 E -Mail: tlewis@schwabe.com October 17, 2008 VIA HAND DELIVERY Deschutes County Board of Commissioners c/o Peter Gutowsky Principal Planner 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, OR 97701 Re: TA -07-1; Aspen Lakes Final Argument Dear Commissioners Luke, Melton and Daly: RECEIVED BY: )4/ OCT 1 7 2008 DELIVERED BY: C i NPS C9ktHDN Thank you for the opportunity to submit final argument in the above referenced matter. We ask that you approve the request for a text amendment to the Destination Resort Chapter for the reasons set forth herein. 1. Scope of Request The sole question before you in the present application is whether to amend the text of the Destination Resort Chapter to extend the same flexibility to a narrowly defined type of existing cluster development as exists today for existing resorts when making an application for Conceptual Master Plan (CMP) approval. Much of the opposition has focused on whether Aspen Lakes can meet the CMP criteria. The opponents speculate about everything from wildlife impacts, water and transportation issues to density, lot coverage and design issues. The present request does not contain any evidence addressing those issues because it is simply a text amendment. The proposed text amendment addresses only three issues: a) lot size for existing development b) setbacks for existing development c) clarifies timing for providing resort facilities Portland, OR 503.222.9981 1 Salem, OR 503.540.4262 1 Bend, OR 541.749.4044 Seattle, WA 206.822.1711 1 Vancouver, WA 360.694.7551 1 Washington, DC 202.488.4302 PDX/113903/ 143843/rML/3036734.1 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners October 17, 2008 Page 2 The proposal is narrowly framed so that it applies only to existing development in cluster subdivisions approved prior to February 7, 1992' which include an 18 hole golf course and dining facilities. The requested exceptions allow the applicant to do two things: 1) to not count the existing 1.5 acre lots at Golf Course Estates in.the maximum average lot size calculation thereby enabling the applicant to develop the new resort lots at a larger size with less density and 2) to exempt the existing Golden Stone Drive from the resort setback standard. The proposal does nothing more than these two things. The proposal does not approve or somehow otherwise authorize a resort or CMP application. It does not speak to or otherwise alter the requirements concerning the construction of overnight accommodations. It does not authorize an increase in density or address wildlife mitigation, open space preservation or any of the other stringent requirements necessary for CMP approval. It simply extends the same exceptions for existing development in cluster subdivisions as is currently available to existing development in resorts approved under the old resort standards. 2. Policy Reasons Supporting Approval Ultimately, the decision to extend the requested exceptions to certain cluster subdivisions is a policy decision. There are many important reasons why extending such exceptions to Aspen Lakes makes sense and is good for the County. • Aspen Lakes is a successful development with an award winning 18 hole golf course. It already contains most of the elements of a resort including the golf course, recreation center, tennis courts, dining and conference facilities. It has an established track record for quality, responsible development. Creating flexibility toallow resorts to develop incrementally puts less risk on the County to carry bonds and otherwise regulate resort development. Aspen Lakes is located in an area of rural residential land uses, primarily on 1.R-10 zoned land. Unlike many resort proposals, it is not a remote area surrounded primarily by public lands or by lands engaged in extensive farm or forest use. • Aspen Lakes is self contained with sewer and water services already in place. All water rights were allocated and obtained prior to Deschutes basin mitigation requirements = no competition for scarce mitigation credits. • Aspen Lakes Golf Course already attracts hundreds of tourists each year to Deschutes County. Approval of a resort will allow development of overnight lodging and additional amenities to serve those tourists, attract additional tourists and promote the County economy. ' The 1992 date was chosen because it is the year the DR requirements for lot size and setbacks changed, which necessitated the need for the present exceptions. PDx/ 1 1 3903/ 143 843rrM U3036734.1 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners October 17, 2008 Page 3 3. Statutory .Overnight Requirements Staff has argued that the proposal somehow violates ORS 197.445(4)(b)(A), which requires that 50 units of overnight accommodations be constructed before the sale of individual lots or units. Again, the proposal is for a text amendment, not resort approval. The proposed text does not alter or otherwise speak to those overnight approval requirements in a resort application. Initially, DLCD agreed with staff that the proposal was inconsistent with the statutory overnight accommodation provisions. However, this question was elevated to the Department of Justice level for analysis and the result is a letter dated October 8, 2008 from Richard Whitman, Director of DLCD. In this letter, Mr. Whitman takes the position that if the lots in an existing development have been sold they may not be included in a resort application because of the limitation in ORS 197.445. Significantly, Mr. Whitman does not support or otherwise affirm the position that the proposed text violates the statute. In fact, he expressly acknowledges that it may be possible for existing developments to meet the statutory requirements if the lots which were already sold were excluded from the land area within the proposed resort boundaries. 4. High Value Crop Area At the hearing before you, 1000 Friends submitted testimony and evidence on the current price of hay arguing that the Sisters/Cloverdale area meets the definition of a high value crop area as defined by ORS 197.455. In response, the Applicant submitted the letter dated October 8, 2008 from Bruce Andrews of Andrews & Associates. As confirmed by Mr. Andrews, the definition of high value crop area includes only a specific list of crops which are "field crops, small fruits, berries, tree fruits, nuts or vegetables, dairying, livestock feed lots or Christmas trees as these terms are used in the 1983 County and State Agricultural Estimates prepared by the Oregon State University Extension Services." .This definition is very specific and does not include forage crops such as hay and alfalfa. The County and State Agricultural Estimates report further substantiates this by listing commodities by category. The category of field crops includes potatoes, peppermint for oil, hops, sugar beets for sugar, dry field beans, canola oil, sugar beets for seed, vegetable and flower seed and other field crops. See 1983 Oregon County and State Agricultural Estimates, pg. 7 attached to Andrews 10-8-08 letter. Hay and Forages are listed as their own category and include alfalfa hay, other hay, corn silage, other forage and straw (pg. 6). Forage crops are not one of the crops listed in the high value crop area definition and therefore cannot be used as a basis to establish a high value crop area under ORS 197.455. Furthermore, even if hay were included in that definition, the Deschutes County hay production and value chart submitted as an attachment to the October 8, 2008 letter from Bruce Andrews shows that hay values consistently do not reach the level of high value crop area and there is no evidence that there is a "concentration of commercial farms" in the Sisters/Cloverdale area capable of producing hay or alfalfa at a minimum PDX/ 113903/143843/rML/3036734.1 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners October 17, 2008 Page 4 gross value of $1,000 per acre per year as required by ORS 197.435. In fact, that chart shows that the per acre values for hay and alfalfa production in Deschutes County have been below $500 per acre for the last five production years. In the production and marketing years of 2006 and 2007, the combined hay and alfalfa average value (sales) per acre was $359.52 and $400.61. These numbers do not support Ms. MacBeth's argument that the price of hay and alfalfa makes Sisters/Cloverdale a high value crop area. The prices for one growing season do not make a trend and certainly do not establish a concentration of commercial farms capable of producing the commodity at this price. 5. Supporting Testimony Many neighbors from the adjacent subdivision, the Rim at Aspen Lakes, oppose the development of Aspen Lakes as a resort. However, there are many community leaders and other interested citizens and neighbors who support the proposal. The Applicant submitted a petition signed by 79 neighbors and citizens supporting the proposal. There are also letters of support in the record from the Redmond Chamber of Commerce, the Economic Development Commission for Central Oregon, the Cloverdale Fire District and others. The City of Sisters was recently asked by the opponents to oppose the proposal and, after hearing testimony and deliberating, City Council chose not to oppose the present text amendment. There are substantial benefits to the County in facilitating resort development in areas where there is existing development with an established track record for quality development and a demonstrated need to develop facilities to serve the tourists and support the local economy. 6. Conclusion The present proposal is the first step in a long process for resort approval for Aspen Lakes. The proposal would provide relief from two code requirements for existing developed areas. The applicant isrequesting simply the same treatment extended to other existing developments in DR mapped areas. The ultimate result would allow Aspen Lakes to develop larger, less dense lots and grant an exception to the setback for an existing roadway which has been in existence since 1991 and which is bermed and buffered from neighboring properties. There are important policy reasons for supporting the goal of Aspen Lakes to apply for resort approval. We ask that the County approve the proposed text amendment. PDX/ 1 1 3963/ 143843/TML/3036734.1 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners October 17, 2008 Page 5 Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter. TML:bhbh P DX/ 1 1 3 903/ 143 843/TML/3036734.1