Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 635 Capitol Street, Suite 150 Salem, OR 97301-2540 
(503) 373-0050 
Fax (503) 37S-551S 
www.lcd.s ta te .or .us 
NOTICE OF ADOPTED AMENDMENT 
12/31/2008 
TO: Subscribers to Notice of Adopted Plan or Land Use Regulation Amendments 
FROM Mara Ulloa, Plan Amendment Program Specialist 
SUBJECT" Douglas County Plan Amendment DLCD File Number 002-04R 
The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) received the attached notice of adoption. A Copy of the adopted plan amendment is available for review at the DLCD office in Salem and the local government office. 
Appeal Procedures* 
DLCD ACKNOWLEDGMENT or DEADLINE TO APPEAL: Monday, January 12, 2009 
This amendment was submitted to DLCD for review prior to adoption with less than the required 45-day notice. Pursuant to ORS 197.830(2)(b) only persons who participated in the local government roceedings leading to adoption of the amendment are eligible to appeal this decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). 
If you wish to appeal, you must file a notice of intent to appeal with the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) no later than 21 days from the date the decision was mailed to you by the local government. If you have questions, check with the local government to determine the appeal deadline. Copies of the notice of intent to appeal must be served upon the local government and others who received written notice of the final decision from the local government. The notice of intent to appeal must be served and filed in the form and manner prescribed by LUBA, (OAR Chapter 661. Division 10). Please call LUBA at 503-373-1265, if you have questions about appeal procedures. 
*NOTE: THE APPEAL DEADLINE IS BASED UPON THE DATE THE DECISION WAS MAILED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT. A DECISION MAY HAVE BEEN MAILED TO YOU ON A DIFFERENT DATE THAT IT WAS MAILED TO DLCD. AS A RESULT, YOUR APPEAL DEADLINE MAY BE EARLIER THAN THE ABOVE DATE SPECIFIED. 
Cc: Cheryl Goodhue, Douglas County Doug White, DLCD Community Services Specialist John Renz, DLCD Regional Representative 
<paa> YA/email 
[ I £ 2 DLCD Notice of Adoption 
THIS FORM MUST BE MAILED TO DLCD WITHIN 5 WORKING DAYS AFTER THE FINAL DECISION PER ORS 197.610, OAR CHAPTER 660 - DIVISION 18 
DEPT OF 
DEC 2 4 2008 
LAND CONSERVATION 
AND DEVELOPMENT 
in -
Jurisdiction: Douglas County Local file number: 04-100 
Date of Adoption: 12/17/2008 Date Mailed: 12/22/2008 
Was a Notice of Proposed Amendment (Form 1) mailed to DLCD? YesDate: 5/28/2004 
• Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment IEl Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 
• Land Use Regulation Amendment E3 Zoning Map Amendment 
• New Land Use Regulation M Other: Non-Resource Determination 
Summarize the adopted amendment. Do not use technical terms. Do not write "See Attached". 
Great American Properties (GAP), request for a Plan Amendment from (FFT) Farm Forest 
Transitional to (RR5) Rural Residential-5 Acre and a Zone Change from (FG) Farm Grazing to (5R) 
Rural Residential-5 Acre, together with a Determination that the property is Non-resource land and 
not subject to the Agricultural and Forest Land goals on a 160.34 acre parcel to allow for future 
subdivision. 
Does the Adoption differ from proposal? No 
Plan Map Changed from: (FFT) Farm Forest Transitional to: (RR5) Rural Residential-5 Acre 
Zone Map Changed from: (FG) Farm Grazing to: (5R) Rural Residential-5 Acre 
Location: Melrose County Road 51B, just south of the Melrose Rural Community boundary. 
Acres Involved: 160.34 
Specify Density: Previous: 1 DU/160 AC New: 1 DU/5 AC 
Applicable statewide planning goals: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 H m D D D D D B S B I H D D D D D 
Was an Exception Adopted? • YES IEI NO 
Did DLCD receive a Notice of Proposed Amendment... 
45-days prior to first evidentiary hearing? 
If no, do the statewide planning goals apply? 
If no, did Emergency Circumstances require immediate adoption? 
[21 Yes • No 
• Yes • No 
• Yes • No 
DLCD file No. 7 
Please list all affected State or Federal Agencies, Local Governments or Special Districts: 
ODOT, ODF&W. Douglas County Fire District No. 2, Douglas Forest Protective Agency, Quest, Douglas Electric Cooperative, Avista Utilities, Umpqua Basin Water Association, Roseburg School District No. 4 
Local Contact: Jonathan M. Wright Phone: (541)440-4289 Extension: 
Address: Room 106, Justice Building Fax Number: 541-440-6266 
City: Roseburg Zip: 97470- E-mail Address: jmwright@co.douglas.or.us 
ADOPTION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS This form must be mailed to DLCD within 5 working days after the final decision per ORS 197.610, OAR Chapter 660 - Division 18. 
1. Send this Form and TWO Complete Copies (documents and maps) of the Adopted Amendment to: 
ATTENTION: PLAN AMENDMENT SPECIALIST 
DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT 
635 CAPITOL STREET NE, SUITE 150 
SALEM, OREGON 97301-2540 
2. Electronic Submittals: At least one hard copy must be sent by mail or in person, but you may also submit an electronic copy, by either email or FTP You may connect to this address to FTP proposals and adoptions: webserver.lcd.state.or.us. To obtain our Usemame and password for FTP, call Mara Ulloa at 503-373-0050 extension 238, or by emailing mara.ulloa@state.or.us. 
3. Please Note: Adopted materials must be sent to DLCD not later than FIVE (5) working days following the date of the final decision on the amendment. 
4. Submittal of this Notice of Adoption must include the text of the amendment plus adopted findings and supplementary information. 
5. The deadline to appeal will not be extended if you submit this notice of adoption within five working days of the final decision. Appeals to LUBA may be filed within TWENTY-ONE (21) days of the date, the Notice of Adoption is sent to DLCD. 
6. In addition to sending the Notice of Adoption to DLCD, you must notify persons who participated in the local hearing and requested notice of the final decision. 
7. Need More Copies? You can now access these forms online at http://wwwJcd.state.or.us/. Please print on 8-1/2x11 green paper only. You may also call the DLCD Office at (503) 373-0050; or Fax your request to: (503) 378-5518; or Email your request to mara.ulloa@state.or.us - ATTENTION: PLAN AMENDMENT SPECIALIST. 
http://www.lcd.state.or.us/LCD/forms.shtml Updated November 27, 2006 
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 
OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, OREGON 
"ii EH'r\ -ILc-L-
2bi 
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE ) 
DOUGLAS COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AND ) ^BAMA r wifi sen COUNTY CI FRK 
ZONING MAP BASED ON A NONRESOURCE ) ORDINANCE NO. 2008- 12 -03 
DETERMINATION FOR GOALS 3 AND 4, AND A ) 
DEMONSTRATION OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE ) 
COUNTY'S 5-ACRE DESIGNATION FOR GREAT ) 
AMERICAN PROPERTIES (GAP). PD FILE NO. 04-100. ) 
RECITALS 
A. Great American Properties (GAP), request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from (FFT) 
Farm/Forest Transitional to (RR5) Rural Residential - 5 Acre, and a Zone Change from (FG) Exclusive 
Farm Use-Grazing to (5R) Rural Residential - 5 Acre, based on a Determination that the property is 
non-resource land and is not subject to the Agricultural and Forest Land Goals, and a demonstration 
of consistency with the County's 5-Acre Designation, on a 160.34 acre parcel to allow development at 
the 5R density. The property is located on Melrose County Road No. 51B, just south of the Melrose 
Rural Community and is described as Tax Lot 3500 in Section 1C and Tax Lot 1000 in Section 12 of 
T27S, R7W, W.M., Property I.D. Nos. R22241, R119882, R22265 & R22233. Planning Department File 
No. 04-100. 
B. The Douglas County Planning Commission held a hearing to consider the matter on remand from the 
Land Use Board of Appeals on August 28, 2008, deliberated to a decision on October 16, 2008 and 
subsequently recommended approval of the request in a Findings and Decision document dated 
November 20, 2008. 
C. The Board of Commissioners considered the matter on December 17, 2008, at a hearing held pursuant 
to Section 6.900.2 of the Douglas County Land Use & Development Ordinance. We affirmed the 
Planning Commission decision and ordered that the request be granted. 
THE DOUGLAS COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 
SECTION ONE: The requested Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, Zone Map Amendment and 
Nonresource Determination are GRANTED. 
SECTION TWO: The "Findings of Fact and Order" of the Board (attached, dated December 17,2008) and 
the "Findings of Fact and Decision" of the Douglas County Planning Commission (attached, dated November 
20, 2008), are ADOPTED and by reference made part of this Ordinance. 
DATED this 17th day of December, 2008. 
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 
OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, OREGON 
c h ^ x 
H:\a_staff\a_cheryl\BC ORDINANCE GAP REMAND 08 wpd 
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 
OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, OREGON 
Great American Properties (GAP), request for a 
Comprehensive Plan Amendment from (FFT) 
Farm/Forest Transitional to (RR5) Rural Residential -
5 - Acre and a Zone Change from (FF) Farm Forest 
to (5R) Rural Residential - 5 Acre, based on a 
Determination that the property is non-resource land 
and is not subject to the Agricultural and Forest Land 
Goals, and on a demonstration of consistency with 
the County's 5-Acre Designation, to allow development 
at the 5R density on a 160.34 acre parcel located on 
Melrose County Road No. 51B, just south of the 
Melrose Rural Community. The property is described 
as Tax Lot 3500 in Section 1C and Tax Lot 1000 in 
Section 12 of T27S, R7W, W.M., Property I.D. Nos. 
R22241, R119882, R22265 & R22233. 
Planning Dept. File No. 04-100. 
INTRODUCTION & PROCEDURAL FINDINGS 
1 This matter came before the Board of County Commissioners ("the Board") at a public 
hearing on December 17, 2008, in Room 216 of the Douglas County Courthouse, 
Roseburg, Oregon, pursuant to Section 6.900.2 of the Douglas County Land Use and 
Development Ordinance. 
2. The matter came before the Douglas County Planning Commission on remand from the 
Land Use Board of Appeals on August 28, 2008. The Planning Commission deliberated 
to a decision on October 16, 2008. 
3. The Planning Commission memorialized its decision in a Findings and Decision 
document dated November 20, 2008; no appeals of that Decision were filed. 
4. At the Board meeting on December 17, 2008, the public hearing on this matter was 
opened and parties were given an opportunity to speak on the Record. The Board 
deliberated to affirm the Planning Commission Decision at the December 17,2008 public 
hearing. 
FINDINGS 
1. Upon considering evidence and exhibits entered as part of the Planning Commission 
Record, including the written submittals from the applicant and parties, the written Staff 
Report and the Findings and Decision approved by the Planning Commission on 
November 20, 2008, and in consideration of evidence considered at the December 17, 
2008 Board hearing, the Board finds that the applicable decision criteria, as established 
in the Staff Report dated August 21, 2008, have been adequately addressed by the 
applicant. 
FINDINGS OF FACT 
AND ORDER 
ORDER/Great American Properties (GAP) 
December 17, 2008 
Page 2 
2. The Board finds that the relevant facts raised in this matter support the conclusions and 
decision reached by the Planning Commission in their Findings and Decision, dated 
November 20, 2008. 
3. The Board adopts the Planning Commission Findings and Decision as its own. 
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ordered by the Board of Commissioners that the 
Planning Commission Decision is affirmed and the application is GRANTED. 
DATED this 17m day of December, 2008. 
ORDER 
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 
OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, OREGON 
H:\a_staff\a_cheryl\BC ORDER GAP REMAND 08.wpd 
1 
2 
3 4 5 6 7 
8 9 
10 11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, OREGON 
Re: GREAT AMERICAN PROPERTIES, request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from (FFT) Farm Forest Transitional to (RR5) Rural Residential - 5 Acre and a concurrent Zone Change from (FG) Exclusive Farm Use - Grazing to (5R) Rural Residential - 5 Acre, together with a Determination that the property is non-resource land and is not subject to Agricultural & Forest Lands Goals, on a 160.34 acre parcel to allow future subdivision of the property. The property is located on the east side of Melrose Road, County Road No. 5 IB, just south of the Melrose Rural Community boundary and is described as Tax Lot 3500 in Section 1C and Tax Lot 1000 in Section 12 of T27S, R7W, W.M., Property l.D. Nos. R22241, R119882, R22265 & R22233. The Riparian Vegetation Corridor Overlay has been applied. Planning Department File No. 04-100. Callahan Planning Advisory Committee (PAC). 
FINDINGS OF FACT and DECISION 
We adopt the following findings of fact and decision. 
INTRODUCTION 
Application 
Great American Properties, the applicant, owns a 160.34-acre parcel of land located 
northeast of the intersection of Melrose Road and Colonial Road, and south of the Melrose Rural 
Community boundary 1. The subject property is designated (FFT) Farm Forest Transitional in the 
comprehensive plan and is zoned (FG) Exclusive Farm Use - Grazing. 
The FFT designation is applied to lands which have some characteristics of both 
agricultural lands and timberlands and are therefore protected under Statewide Planning Goals 3 
(Agricultural Lands) and 4 (Forest Lands). The extensive studies provided by the applicant 
demonstrate that the subject property is neither agricultural land nor forest land as defined and 
protected under Goals 3 and 4. 
1 In the analysis of the potential of the property for agricultural and forestry use, the area is generally given as 162.8 
acres, which reflects round-off of the individual polygons in the soil study by Gary Kitzrow. 
Page 1 — Findings of Fact and Decision 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
The applicant requests a comprehensive plan amendment to change the plan designation of 
the subject property to (RR5) Rural Residential - 5 Acre and a zone change to (5R) Rural 
Residential - 5 Acre, based on a determination that the property is nonresource land and thus not 
protected by Goals 3 and 4. 
Physical Setting and History of the Subject Property 
The physical setting and history of the subject property are described in our findings of 
December 9, 2004. The chief points are as follows. 
The subject property is bordered on three sides by county roads. A north-south ridge line 
provides the principal topographic definition. The ridge line marks the watershed boundary 
between the main stem of Champagne Creek to the east and Elgarose Creek, a tributary of 
Champagne Creek, to the west. Champagne Creek cuts across the east end of the subject 
property; the slope down from the ridge line to the east is very steep. Elgarose Creek lies west of 
Melrose Road and the subject property; most of the property drains into Elgarose Creek. The 
slope down from the ridge line to the west is rocky and steep, becoming moderately sloping as 
Melrose Road is approached. 
The subject property is comprised mainly of unimproved abandoned pasture, with areas of 
exposed rock, hardwoods, native brush, and scattered conifers. A small stand of conifers is 
located on the south end of the property along Colonial Road. The property is undeveloped, 
except for a small shed and a 500,000-gallon water storage tank operated by Umpqua Basin Water 
Association. The opponents note that a barn is on the tax assessor's role; however, the barn was 
dismantled in 2004 due to its dilapidated condition. It is not physically present on the property. 
The soils of the property are generally very infertile, thin, and droughty. The primary 
Page 2 — Findings of Fact and Decision 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
reasons for the soil properties are the sandstone and siltstone bedrock, the history of erosion and 
burning, and the steep west facing slopes. The soil environment severely limits resource use of 
the subject property. No irrigation water is available. 
Historically, the subject property was farmed from 1930 to 2000 as part of a 387-acre ranch 
owned by the family of John B. Richards. The subject property formed most of the east half of the 
ranch; good level agricultural soils west of Melrose Road formed the west half of the ranch. 
From 1930 to 1982, Richards hayed the west half and ran stock alternately on the east and 
west halves. At its best, the 387-acre ranch produced 8000 bales of hay annually, mostly on the 
west half, and all the hay was fed to stock. The ranch was a marginal farm unit, requiring large 
investments of time and fertilizer, and generated a poor cash flow. By 1982 Richards stopped 
operating the ranch because of the amount of effort and money needed to make it run. The rising 
cost of vehicles, feeder animals, farm machinery, family living, farm labor, and fuel over the 
1930-82 period had outstripped the profitability of the farm. 
From 1982 to 2000, Richards rented the ranch to various tenants. The ranch's farm 
quality deteriorated substantially during this period. 
In 2000, Richards partitioned the ranch and sold the productive west half to Napier. In 
2002, Richards sold the subject property to DeCoite, and the applicant acquired it in 2003 
Procedural History 
The application in this matter was filed May 3, 2004. After a series of hearings which 
included a site visit, the commission approved the application on December 9, 2004, pursuant to 
LUDO § 2.060(3)(a) and (b). Shelley Wetherell, Janell Stradtner, and the Friends of Douglas 
County (referred to as "Wetherell", collectively or individually as the context requires) appealed 
Page 3 — Findings of Fact and Decision 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
1 1 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 22 
23 24 25 
26 
the decision to the Douglas County Board of Commissioners, who approved the application and 
denied Wetherell's appeal on February 23, 2005. 
Wetherell appealed the county's approval to the Land Use Board of Appeals. LUBA 
remanded the county's decision on September 8, 2005, to further address Goals 3 and 4. As to 
Goal 3, LUBA found the county's decision was inconsistent with DLCD rule OAR 
660-033-0030(5), which prohibited considering profitability or gross farm income in determining 
whether land is agricultural land or whether Goal 3 is applicable. 
The applicant appealed LUBA's decision to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals 
reversed LUBA in part, holding that the DLCD rule was invalid in part, Wetherell v. Douglas 
County, 204 Or App 732 (2006). The applicant appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court. On May 
24,2007, the Supreme Court ruled that DLCD rule OAR 660-033-0030(5) was completely invalid, 
and that the county could properly consider profitability in determining whether the property was 
subject to Goal 3's protection, Wetherell v. Douglas County, 342 Or 666 (2007). 
Goal 3 Issues (Agriculture) 
On August 1, 2007, LUBA remanded the decision back to the county on the following 
points concerning Goal 3. 
"OAR 660-033-0020(1 )(a)(B) defines "agricultural land" in relevant part to include: 
'"Land in other soil classes that is suitable for farm use as defined in ORS 215.203(2)(a), taking into consideration soil fertility; suitability for grazing; climatic conditions; existing and future availability of water for farm irrigation purposes; existing land use patterns; technological and energy inputs required; and accepted farming practices' 
"As framed by the parties, whether the subject property is 'suitable for farm use' and hence agricultural land under OAR 660-033-0020(1 )(a)(B) turns on whether it is suitable for grazing or for a commercial vineyard. The opponents argued that the property has a 70-year history of seasonal grazing at various levels of intensity, 
Page 4 — Findings of Fact and Decision 
1 
2 3 4 5 6 
7 
8 9 
10 11 
12 13 14 15 
16 17 
18 19 20 
21 
22 23 24 25 
26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 
and there is no reason why the property cannot continue to be used for seasonal grazing, either alone or in conjunction with nearby grazing operations. With respect to a commercial vineyard, the opponents noted evidence that 12 percent or approximately 19 acres of the property has soils, aspects and other features suitable for a commercial vineyard, and cited to the existence of a nearby, similarly-sized commercial vineyard on a 160-acre parcel with the same soils. * * * 
"In our view, remand [of the county's decision after the Supreme Court's decision] is still necessary under the first assignment of error for the following reasons. 
"First, we held that the county's conclusion that the property is not agricultural land was based on an approach that 'would be error even if OAR 660-033-0030(5) did not apply.' Specifically, we found that the county had erroneously applied a 'commercial-scale' approach that considered the property suitable for farm use only if it could support grazing or other farm uses at a relatively large scale or intensity. Neither the Court of Appeals' nor the Supreme Court's opinions disturb that portion of our decision. We continue to believe that the county erred in that regard. If 50-60 cattle can be seasonally grazed on the subject property (consistent with historic use of the property) or a small vineyard established with a reasonable expectation of yielding a profit in money, the fact that the cattle operation or vineyard and any resulting profit may be relatively small in size is not a sufficient basis to conclude that the subject property is not suitable for farm use under the Goal 3 rule. Because the county's findings repeatedly dismiss small-scale farm uses as "lifestyle" farm uses, without appearing to recognize that such small-scale uses may in fact constitute "farm use" as defined in ORS 215.203(2)(a), remand is necessary to adopt findings free of that error. 
"Second, we held in Wetherell I that the county's findings failed to adequately address OAR 660-033-0030(3), which provides that "Goal 3 attaches no significance to ownership of a lot or parcel when determining whether it is agricultural land,'" and that "[njearby or adjacent land, regardless of ownership, shall be examined" in determining whether land is suitable for farm use under OAR 660-033-0020(1 )(a)(B). Specifically, we concluded that the county erred in summarily dismissing use of the property in conjunction with the adjacent Napier property, the other half of the ranch that the subject property was part of until 2000. Further, the county failed to address conjoined use with the Mellors' property, nearby ranchers who formerly leased the subject property and who expressed interest in leasing it again for use in conjunction with their ranch operation. Again, neither the Court of Appeals' nor Supreme Court's opinions disturbed that aspect of Wetherell 1, and we continue to believe that error among others identified in the first assignment of error warrants remand." Wetherell v. Douglas County, LUBA No. 2005-045 (Aug. 1, 2007), slip opinion pages 4-7. 
Page 5 — Findings of Fact and Decision 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
On remand, the issues for the county are the following. 
1. Is the property suitable for farm use as grazing? LUBA directed the analysis to 
consider whether a small-scale grazing operation would be profitable. 
2. Is the property suitable for farm use as a small vineyard? 
3. The standard is whether a grazing or vineyard operation can be established with a 
reasonable expectation of yielding a profit in money, not necessarily at a relatively large scale or 
intensity. 
4. Is the property suitable for farm use (profit in money), in conjunction with (1) the 
adjacent Napier property, or (2) the Mel lor operation? 
The following substantial issues have been previously settled in this proceeding. (There 
are also many minor issues that have been settled, and all issues beyond Goals 3 and 4.) 
1. That the property is not predominately USDA Class I, II, III, or IV soils. (It is 
predominately Class VI and worse soils.) 
2. That the property is not necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on 
adjacent or nearby agricultural lands. 
3 That the property is not part of a larger farm unit (it is not part of the Napier or Trent 
farms, for example). 
4. That the property is not suitable for farming, other than the possibility of grazing or 
a vineyard. 
It is the county's intent in this decision to leave all settled issues settled, not to reopen any 
issue that has already been decided or waived, and not to open any new issue except as legally 
required. No evidence or argument is considered or intended to be considered in this decision 
Page 6 — Findings of Fact and Decision 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 10 
1 1 
12 
13 
14 15 
16 17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 23 24 
25 26 27 
28 29 
with respect to the settled issues. 
Goal 4 Issues (Forestry) 
LUBA remanded the county's decision on Goal 4 issues in 2005. The Goal 4 part of 
LUBA's 2005 decision was not disturbed by the Supreme Court case. 
LUBA's guidance concerning Goal 4 was as follows. 
First, LUBA clarified its two earlier cases that had discussed the 80 cubic feet/acre/year 
language in the county comprehensive plan as a standard for commercial forest lands protected by 
Goal 4. 
"At best our references to the 80 cf/ac/yr comprehensive plan language [in two earlier LUBA cases involving Douglas County's forest element] was dicta. 
"We ... disagree ... that the county has in fact defined 80 cf/ac/yr as the threshold for Goal 4 protection. * * * 
[T]he cited comprehensive plan language does not adopt a 80 cf/ac/yr threshold for Goal 4 protection, and the county's interpretation to that effect cannot be affirmed." Wetherell v. Douglas County, LUBA No. 2005-045 (Sept. 8, 2005), slip opinion pages 27-28. 
Then LUBA added the following. 
"Neither Goal 4 nor the Goal 4 rule set forth a precise methodology for determining whether land is 'suitable for commercial forestry.' * * * 
"...Goal 4 requires some measurement of productivity for unrated soils when determining whether land is forest land, and the goal does not permit counties to simply assume that unrated soils have zero or near zero productivity. 
". . .OAR 660-006-0010 ... requires that local governments inventory 'forest lands' and include a 'mapping of forest site class.' Significantly, '[i]f site information is not available then an equivalent method of determining forest land suitability must be used.' Thus, in inventorying forest lands, local governments must map 'forest land suitability' using a 'forest site class' method. The absence 
Page 7 — Findings of Fact and Decision 
I 
2 3 4 5 
6 
7 
8 9 
10 
11 
12 13 14 15 
16 17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 23 24 25 
26 27 
28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 
36 
37 
of data requires use of an 'equivalent method.' While OAR 660-006-0010 pertains to the inventory of forest lands, it again shows that LCDC is concerned that determinations of'forest land suitability' be made based on empirical methods, and that counties cannot simply assume from the fact that no NRCS productivity ratings exist for certain soils that such soils are nonresource soils." Wetherell v. Douglas County, LUBA No. 2005-045 (Sept. 8, 2005), slip opinion pages 28-34. 
In rejecting the applicant's quantitative analyses of timber productivity capability, LUBA wrote 
"[The quantitative] analyses are based on the erroneous premise that 80 cf/ac/yr is the county's acknowledged threshold for Goal 4 lands. Remand is necessary for the county to reconsider whether the subject property is 'suitable for commercial forestry' without that premise. 
"First, [Wetherell et a!.] offer no focused challenge to the county's conclusion that the 56.1 acres of Dickerson and Nonpareil soils that currently support trees cannot support full stocking levels. Second, [Wetherell et ah] offer no focused challenge to the county's conclusion that the 71.5 acres of Dickerson and Nonpareil soils that have not supported trees for at least the past 50 years cannot in fact produce any trees. As far as [Wetherell et al.] have shown, both of those conclusions are supported by the record. 
"Second, although [Wetherell et al.] do not assign error to this aspect of the analyses, we note that under the third and fourth analyses the forestry consultant averaged the cf/ac/yr data across the entire parcel. Because slightly less than half of the 162-acre subject property, 71.5 acres of Dickerson and Nonpareil soils, have essentially zero productivity, the overall average productivity per acre is relatively low, as low as 48.5 cf/ac/yr. Goal 4 does not specify how such calculations are made. However, as explained above, the comprehensive plan element implementing Goal 4 describes what kinds of lands may be included in two types of Goal 4 plan designations. As relevant here, both plan designations include lands that 'predominantly' consist of specified cubic foot site classes. On remand, the county may wish to consider whether, in light of the standards for placing lands within these two Goal 4 plan designations, the approach taken by the consultant in calculating the average productivity of the parcel is the correct approach, or whether calculating the productivity or cubic foot site class of the predominant portion of the subject property is more consistent with the comprehensive plan Goal 4 element." Wetherell v. Douglas County, LUBA No. 2005-045 (Sept. 8, 2005), slip opinion pages 34-35 (emphasis original). 
On remand, the issues for the county are the following. 
1. Is the property suitable for commercial forest uses? 
Page 8 — Findings of Fact and Decision 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
2. Does the county have a standard for determining whether land is suitable for 
commercial forest use as protected by Goal 4? 
3. Does Goal 4 require or allow the county to use either or both the average 
productivity or the predominant productivity in determining whether the property is protected by 
Goal 4? 
4. Is the determination of whether the property is suitable for commercial forestry use 
based on a quantitative analysis which complies with methodology prescribed by the Oregon 
Department of Forestry? 
The following substantial issues have been previously settled in this proceeding, and are 
intended to be left settled. 
1. That the property is not protected by Goal 4 as "adjacent or nearby lands which are 
necessary to permit forest operations or practices and other forested lands that maintain soil, air, 
water, and fish and wildlife resources." 
2. That the 56.1 acres of Dickerson and Nonpareil soils that currently support trees 
cannot support full stocking levels. 
3. That the 71.5 acres of Dickerson and Nonpareil soils that have not supported trees 
for the past 50 years cannot in fact produce any trees for commercial forestry purposes. 
4. That the methodology of averaging tree productivity across the property on an area 
basis complies with Goal 4. Applicable Standards and Criteria 
At this point in the proceeding, the applicable criteria under Goal 3 are whether the 
property is suitable for farm use, and under Goal 4 are whether the property is suitable for 
Page 9 — Findings of Fact and Decision 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 23 
commercial forest uses. 
OFFICIAL NOTICE 
The commission takes official notice of the constitutions of the United States and the State 
of Oregon, the Douglas County Comprehensive Plan (the comprehensive plan), the Douglas 
County Land Use and Development Ordinance (LUDO), and the applicable maps and supporting 
documents pertaining to the foregoing. We also take official notice of the software commonly 
used to read computer files, such as Adobe Acrobat, Microsoft Office 2007 Word, and Excel. 
In addition, the commission takes notice of the decisions and the record of LUBA, the 
Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court of Oregon in this matter. 
FINDINGS OF FACT 
The headings in this document are provided for the convenience of the reader and do not 
limit the contents. It is intended that the document stand as a whole to support the decision, and 
the location of particular text under a specific heading does not limit the findings to that heading. 
A particular passage may be applicable in support of the decision as to a topic covered under a 
different heading. In some areas the findings are set forth as alternative lines justifying the same 
conclusion. We incorporate our findings of December 9, 2004, by reference, except where the 
context here indicates they are superseded by these findings. As noted earlier, it is our intent that 
settled issues remain so. 
Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands) 
At this point in the proceeding, the issue is whether the property is "agricultural land" 
under the following criterion: 
"Land in other soil classes [other than NRCS Class l-IV in western Oregon] 
t h a t i s suitable for farm use as defined in ORS 215.203(2)(a), taking into 
Page 10 — Findings of Fact and Decision 
1 
2 3 4 
5 6 7 
8 9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
consideration soil fertility, suitability for grazing, climatic conditions, existing and future availability of water for farm irrigation purposes, existing land use patterns, technological and energy inputs required, and accepted farming practices". OAR 660-033-0020(1 )(a)(B). 
"Farm use means the current employment of land for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money by raising, harvesting and selling crops or the feeding, breeding, management and sale of, or the produce of, livestock, poultry, fur-bearing animals or honeybees or for dairying and the sale of dairy products or any other agricultural or horticultural use or animal husbandry or any combination thereof." ORS 215.203(2)(a). 
The potential use of the property for grazing was intensively studied by Paul E. Day, M.S., 
an agricultural consultant and retired associate professor of agriculture of Oregon State 
University.2 The potential use of the property to operate a small vineyard was intensively studied 
by Bruce Biehl, a vineyard consultant with 24 years of professional experience, vineyard owner 
and manager, and president of Agricultural & Resource Economic Associates Inc. 3 The studies 
were critiqued by Wetherell. Day and Biehl responded to the points Wetherell raised. 
The studies by Day and Biehl, including their rebuttals, appendices, and exhibits, are 
credible and are adopted as findings (to the extent their later statements may be inconsistent with 
their earlier statements, owing to new data and analysis, we rely on the later statements). The 
Day and Biehl studies confirm that the property is not suitable for current employment for the 
primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money by farming. 
The low soil fertility of the property is well documented. About 78% of the property soils 
: P.E. Day, "Great American Melrose Property Agricultural Profitability Estimates" (May 28, 2008); P.E. Day, 
"Appendix to Great American Melrose Property Agricultural Profitability Estimates / Livestock Enterprise Budget 
Calculator for Western Oregon" (May 28,2008); P.E. Day and S. Mountainspring, "Great American Melrose Property 
Agricultural Profitability Estimates / Rebuttal Memorandum" (Oct. 3 ,2008) . 
3 B. Biehl, "Potential Wine Grape Productivity from Melrose Property in Douglas County, Oregon / Assessor's Map 
T27S R7W Sec 12 TL 1000 / T27S R 7W Sec 1 TL 3500" (May 30, 2008); B. Biehl, "Potential W i n e Grape 
Productivity from Melrose Property in Douglas County, Oregon / Assessor's Map T27S R7W Sec 12 TL 1OOO / T27S 
R 7W Sec 1 TL 3500 / Rebuttal Memorandum" (Oct. 6, 2008). 
Page 11 — Findings of Fact and Decision 
are USDA Class VI, VII, and VIII (Dickerson and Nonpareil soil series). The remaining 21 % are 
Class III and IV soils (Speaker and Josephine soil series). 
The soils are generally thin, droughty, and infertile. The property has a predominately 
southwest aspect, lack of irrigation water, infertile sandstone bedrock, lack of saprolite, and lack of 
deep alluvial soils. The predominant soils have no true topsoil and lack argyllic (clay) horizons 
that hold water. 
Although grazing can occur on the property, it would not result in a profit in money. The 
Day reports studied grazing. The reports considered a 20-head cow-calf operation; a 100-steer 
seasonal operation; and combining the property with other operations by Napier, Mellor, and 
Trent. 
The Day reports show that the costs of fertilizer, labor, equipment, and feed at the 
operating level, and capital recovery, taxes, and insurance at the ownership level make it highly 
unlikely that the property can turn a profit in grazing. Although Day focused on cattle, his 
analysis also considered sheep, meat goats, horses, and alpacas, and arrived at similar conclusions. 
The conclusions of the Day reports are strongly corroborated by standard budgets from the 
University of California which show that cattle grazing operations similar to prospective ones on 
the subject property are predicted to lose money. 
The productivity estimates of the farm soils by the USDA are based on an assumption of a 
high level of management. A high level of management is especially necessary on poorer soils to 
yield the expected productivity. The Day reports note the cost requirements of implementing the 
high level of management. The property's low fertility and poor quality of improvement (fences, 
outbuildings, etc.) strongly weighed against profitable grazing. 
Page 12 — Findings of Fact and Decision 
1 
2 
j 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
Since the record includes a "live'' copy of the spreadsheets which Day used in his reports, 
the effect of changes to the input values may be observed. To the extent that any changes in the 
input values are justified by the findings or the record as a whole, in the way of minor revisions to 
the spreadsheets, we interpret results of such revisions which show that the prospective operations 
would yield negative net profit to be consistent with and support the general conclusion that the 
subject property is unsuitable for grazing with the intent to make a profit in money. 
Combining a grazing operation on the subject property with operations on other nearby 
properties is considered in the Day reports. The grazing operation budgets in the Day reports 
have built in to them the premise that the subject property has already been combined with other 
similar nearby operations for maximum efficiency. The budget analyses in the Day reports show 
that the subject property would be a component that would lose money for the operator of a 
combined operation. Any reasonable farmer would not include the subject property in his 
operation. This is based on the critical assumption that accepted farming practices are used. As 
the Day reports note, profit might be possible by mismanaging the operation and deviating from 
the USDA standard of a high level of management of the property. However, any such profit 
would be short-term and at the cost of the overall productivity of the subject property (e.g., 
neglecting fertilization; failing to maintain fences). Long-term damage to the property from 
mismanagement is especially likely because the thin droughty soils are unforgiving of 
management error; this likely occurred in the past on the subject property. The credibility of 
neighbors who claim they would make a profit grazing the subject property is seriously undercut 
by their failure to produce even a single budget, tax return, or financial statement showing that 
profit has occurred, is likely, or is possible. 
Page 13 — Findings of Fact and Decision 
I 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
1 1 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
The budget analysis by Day and Biehl uses an appropriate scale for the operation. It is a 
small scale operation as would be typical in central Douglas County. The Day report considers 
20-head year-round and 100-head seasonal operations for cattle, and 100-head sheep and 140-head 
goat operations. The Biehl report uses a 20-acre vineyard, which is an average size for the area, 
and which is the largest possible on the subject property. These are the scales of operations that 
are likely, if any are, to yield a profit on the property. 
The climatic conditions of the property are similar to other areas in central Douglas 
County, The property's southwest aspect exacerbates soil infertility by increasing the effect of 
drought due to the lack of irrigation and the soil's inability to hold water; these factors significantly 
reduce the effective growing season for forage. 
Water is not available now or in the future for farm irrigation. This decreases the 
property's potential productivity. Although two small ponds are present on the property; one is 
seasonal and the other is completely inadequate to provide the amount of water needed for 
irrigation. The property does not have a suitable site for constructing a reservoir of the size 
needed to store irrigation water. The shallow depth top bedrock and droughty soils indicate lack 
of a groundwater aquifer; the steep topography, shallow soils, and soil limitations noted in the 
NRCS data preclude constructing a reservoir of any significant size; the stream crossing the 
property is closed to surface appropriation during the irrigation season to protect fishery resources. 
Application of fertilizer is not cost effective, as the Day reports show. A large amount of 
fertilizer is needed relative to the amount of productivity resulting, making fertilization very 
uneconomical. The subject property's steep, bouldery slopes and rock outcrops make appl ication 
time-consuming and expensive. Fertilizer application is made more difficult by the presence of a 
Page 14 — Findings of Fact and Decision 
I 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
fish-bearing stream which requires a buffer, scattered openings where fertilizer is needed, and 
adjacent rural residences which have to be avoided and are sources of complaints due t o drift. 
The inherently infertile nature of the soils on the subject property cannot practicably be corrected 
by fertilization, with an intent to make a profit in money, due to these factors. 
The existing land use pattern in the area is a mix of properties in rural residential use, small 
scale farm use, and larger parcels. Farming occurs to the west on good agricultural soils on flat 
land; on the poor soils on hilly ground in the vicinity of the subject property, the primary use of the 
land is rural residential. 
Inordinately expensive inputs of technology and energy are required to make the subject 
property suitable for farming. The site's steep topography, lack of maintenance of fences and 
buildings, overgrown brush, and weed invasion are additional barriers to the property's suitability 
for farming. Reasonable inputs of technology and energy would not overcome the limiting 
characteristics inherent in the subject property, such as lack of irrigation, steepness, shallow soil, 
low water-holding capacity of soils, and lack of saprolite, to make it a viable agricultural unit. 
Accepted farming practices are thoroughly discussed in the Day and Biehl reports. No 
reasonable farmer would undertake to rehabilitate the subject property to a working farm, with the 
primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money, due to the property's infertile droughty soils, lack 
of irrigation water, difficult topography, and deferred maintenance needs of pasture and 
improvements. The discipline of the budget analysis shows that grazing, reservoir development, 
fertilizer application, and other technology and energy inputs would not be accepted farming 
practices on the property because no profit would be anticipated due to the fact that the expenses 
involved would far exceed the expected return. In addition, reliance on the level of volunteerism 
Page 15 — Findings of Fact and Decision 
I 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
which Wetherell suggests is available is not an accepted farming practice, noble and laudable 
though such altruism may be when it appears on rare occasion. 
Wetherell claims that the Delfino, Green Butte, and Hillcrest vineyards are comparable to 
the subject property. The Biehl report shows that soils and other attributes of these three 
vineyards differ significantly from the subject property. We find it very significant that Biehl has 
firsthand experience on the Delfino site, and does not perceive the Delfino soils to be comparable 
to those on the subject property because the Delfino soils are significantly deeper and richer in 
saprolite. The Delfino property has a large pond which provides irrigation water; the subject 
property lacks such a comparable feature and lacks a suitable site to construct one. The Delfino 
property has a bed and breakfast operation as part of the vineyard, which provides significant 
nonfarm income. No financial data is provided to allow a comparison. 
We find it highly significant that independent enterprise budgets by university extension 
services for cattle grazing and wine grape vineyard operations directly comparable to prospective 
operations on the subject property found that operations such as those proposed on the subject 
property would generally be expected to yield operating losses and not profit. 
We have considered the seven factors of OAR 660-033-0020(1 )(a)(B), appropriate scales 
of farming, and combinations of the subject property with other operations. Because of the severe 
limitations of the property due to low soil fertility, lack of irrigation water, southwest aspect, the 
technology and energy inputs required, and limitations on accepted farming practices, no 
reasonable farmer would consider using the property for a farm operation, whether it be a small 
local scale, a large commercial scale, or some other arrangement, alone or in combination with 
other properties. In conclusion, the subject property is not suitable for farm use. 
Page 16 — Findings of Fact and Decision 
I 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
The subject property is not agricultural land protected by Goal 3. The decision complies 
with Goal 3. 
Goal 4 (Forest Lands) 
At this point in the proceeding, the issue is whether the subject property is "forest land," 
under the criterion of "lands which are suitable for commercial forest uses." 
The potential timber productivity of the property was intensively studied by Marc E. 
Setchko, M.F., a consulting forester with 32 years of professional forestry experience. 4 The 
Oregon Department of Forestry reviewed the Setchko study and found that the methodology and 
reasoning are consistent with current standards of practice of professional forestry. 
The Setchko study, including the rebuttal, appendices, and exhibits is credible and is 
adopted as findings (to the extent that the later statements may be inconsistent with earlier 
statements, owing to new data and analysis, we rely on the later statements). 
LUBA has required a quantitative analysis of the potential timber productivity of the 
subject property in order to determine whether it is suitable for commercial forest use. Despite 
that direction, LUBA acknowledges that state law provides no quantitative criterion to apply to the 
results of that analysis. We consider a series of reasonable standards and conclude the subject 
property fails under every one of them to be suitable for commercial forest use. 
To summarize the Setchko report, the analysis began with an estimate of the stocking 
capacity of the property, building on the premise that those portions of the property in Dickerson 
and Nonpareil soils which had not supported timber for the past 59 years are unsuitable for timber 
4 Setchko, M.E., with technical assistance by S. Mountainspring, "Potential Timber Productivity of the Great 
American Properties Parcel" (Feb. 2008) and Setchko, M.E., with technical assistance by S. Mountainspring, 
"Potential Timber Productivity of the Great American Properties Parcel / Rebuttal Memorandum" (Oct. 6,. 2008) . 
Page 17 — Findings of Fact and Decision 
] 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
production, and that areas of Dickerson and Nonpareil soils with widely scattered trees are unable 
to support fully stocked stands. 
The Setchko report conducts an aerial photographic analysis to estimate the stocking 
capacity of the areas with widely scattered trees. The analysis calculates that the areas with 
widely scattered trees have stocking capacity of 9.4% of a normal fully-stocked stand. The 9.4% 
stocking capacity value iOs confirmed by independent parallel analysis based on U.S. Forest 
Service regression equations and categorical groupings of indicator species. 
The Setchko report applies the 9.4% stocking capacity estimate to the aerial analysis to 
estimate the total stocking capacity of the Dickerson and Nonpareil soil polygons. He calculates 
the mean annual increment of growth (in cubic feet/acre/year, cf/ac/yr) for each polygon based on 
standard tables and tree core samples on site. Finally, Setchko provides an economic analysis 
which shows the net present value and the internal rate of return for using the property as a 
commercial forestry operation. 
The Dickerson and Nonpareil soils which constitute 78% of the property have potential 
timber productivity of 15 cf/ac/yr (productivity class 7) (this is termed the "predominant 
productivity"). Averaged by areally weighted polygon values, the entire parcel has overall 
average potential productivity of 38 cf/ac/yr (productivity class 6) (this is termed the "average 
productivity"). 
The net present value for the property managed as for commercial forestry shows the 
property loses money in timber production, regardless of the species planted or the rotation cycle 
selected; the average net present value is negative $133,900. This indicates the property is not 
suitable for commercial forest uses. The internal rate of return is less than 3% for timber 
Page 18 — Findings of Fact and Decision 
production of the property, which is below the generally accepted values of 4% and greater for 
property deemed suitable for timber production in a commercial enterprise. 
The Douglas County Comprehensive Plan defines commercial forest land as "forest land 
that is capable of producing crops of industrial wood, generally in excess of 50 cf/ac/yr" 
(productivity classes 1-5). Douglas County Comprehensive Plan A-3. Neither the predominant 
nor the average productivity of the subject property meets that standard. We note that it appears 
Jackson County has also adopted 50 cf/ac/yr as its standard for commercial forest land. 
The predominant productivity of the subject property does not meet the standard for 
commercial forest land which Wetherell claims applies, 20 cf/ac/yr. This standard is based on the 
Oregon Department of Forestry requirement for reforestation after logging occurs, i.e., 
reforestation is required on lands capable of producing 20 cf/ac/yr. The portions of the subject 
property at issue (the Dickerson and Nonpareil soil areas) have not been logged in the past 59 
years, nor grown trees during that period. The ODF reforestation standard is not applicable to the 
property, and is not the standard for determining whether land is protected by Goal 4 as suitable for 
commercial forestry use in Douglas County. The 20cf/ac/yr standard may be appropriate for 
eastern Oregon, but it is not the conventional commercial standard in western Oregon, where 50 
cf/ac/yr and higher values are typically used by commercial operators to determine whether 
property is suitable for commercial forestry use. To the extent that it is determined on review that 
20 cf/ac/yr is the appropriate standard, we exercise our discretion in this case to adopt the 
predominant productivity of the property as the determinant of whether the property is suitable for 
commercial forestry use. 
The economic analysis of net present value and internal rate of return are used in 
Page 19 — Findings of Fact and Decision 
determining whether land is suitable for commercial forestry use in the Josephine County 
comprehensive plan. The economic analysis of the subject property in the Setchko report 
supports and confirms the conclusion that the property is not suitable for commercial forestry use 
(a commercial forestry operation would lose money and does have an economically viable internal 
rate of return), independently of the numeric standard (cf/ac/yr) used to define commercial forest 
The subject property is not forest lands protected by Goal 4. The decision complies with 
Goal 4. 
Agriforestry 
Mixed use of the subject property for agriculture and forestry appears to be separately 
covered under Goals 3 and 4. The Day and Setchko reports address agriforestry and show that the 
subject property is not suitable for such mixed use. By mentioning the agriforesty issue in 
passing, we do not intend to open a new or settled issue. 
DECISION 
The proposed plan amendment and zone change are approved as requested. 
Date: November 20, 2008 DOUGLAS COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 
lands. 
Page 20 — Findings of Fact and Decision 
B3 
(0 
o LU a (/> H Z UJ 2 a z UJ 2 < 
UJ H 5 (0 UJ z tL U1 oc I-U) 
CNI r-o CO f-O) go; 
- < s O O UJ 
: a S to 
s £ ui C o 35 S S S e I I I s Z U U B 36 C >- © a. 2 a « £ «g o <*> 5- o ^ ui 
u g « «