HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-10-05 C Macbeth (COLW) - Letter re Record Submissions1
Kyle Collins
From:Carol Macbeth <carol@colw.org>
Sent:Tuesday, October 5, 2021 3:01 PM
To:Kyle Collins
Subject:Fwd: Record for 247-21-000616-PA Swisher PA & ZC
Attachments:DCC 22.24.140.pdf; 247-21-000616 COLW Oct. 5, 2021.pdf
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Please forward to Hearings Officer Marshal at your earliest convenience.
Thanks!
Carol
---------- Forwarded message ---------
De : Carol Macbeth <carol@colw.org>
Date: mar. 5 oct. 2021 à 14:54
Subject: Re: Record for 247-21-000616-PA Swisher PA & ZC
To: Liz Fancher <liz@lizfancher.com>
Cc: Kyle Collins <Kyle.Collins@deschutes.org>
Kyle,
DCC 22.24.140 is attached.
Section D provides:
"If at the conclusion of the initial hearing the Hearings Body leaves the record open for additional written
evidence or testimony, the record shall be left open for at least 14 additional days, allowing at least the first
seven days for submittal of new written evidence or testimony and at least seven additional days for response to
the evidence received while the record was held open. Written evidence or testimony submitted during the
period the record is held open shall be limited to evidence or testimony that rebuts previously submitted
evidence or testimony."
Our September 28, 2021 comments were submitted during the open record period in precise accordance with
Hearings Officer Marshall's instructions, and are open record period submissions.
Please find attached for your convenience LandWatch comments dated today, October 5, 2021. These
comments, as indeed all of our comments, are in conformance with DCC 22.24.140. They are "evidence or
testimony that rebuts previously submitted evidence or testimony." DCC 22.24.140(D).
LandWatch's previous comments additionally qualify as testimony that may be submitted today, October 5,
2021.
The September 28, 2021 and today's submissions are both in precise accordance with Hearings Officer
Marshall's submission procedure. Our comments cannot be disqualified because they are too responsive.
2
The staff person who accepted our September 28, 2021 comments accepted them with our instruction to give
them to you, which they agreed to do. If they did not, that was not within LandWatch's control.
Please include the attached in the record for this proceeding. Please include this correspondence in the record
for this proceeding.
Best regards,
Carol Macbeth
Le mar. 5 oct. 2021 à 13:51, Liz Fancher <liz@lizfancher.com> a écrit :
Dear Carol and Kyle:
As I understand Ms. Macbeth’s e-mail and letter, read together, COLW is willing to agree that the applicant be
allowed a period of seven days from today to respond to materials it misidentified and filed in the record of the
wrong land use application on September 28, 2021 if its materials are included in the record of the Swisher
applications.
I note, however, that Ms. Macbeth is also arguing that the September 28, 2021 and its attachments are
appropriately filed as rebuttal.
The materials do not, however, rebut any of the materials filed by any party during the post-hearing comment
period. According to DCC 22.24.140.D.,
“Leaving record open. If at the conclusion of the initial hearing the Hearings Body leaves the
record open for additional written evidence or testimony, the record shall be left open for at
least 14 additional days, allowing at least the first seven days for submittal of new written
evidence or testimony and at least seven additional days for response to the evidence received
while the record was held open. Written evidence or testimony submitted during the period the
record is held open shall be limited to evidence or testimony that rebuts previously submitted
evidence or testimony.”
The “previously submitted evidence or testimony” that may be rebutted by COLW is evidence or testimony
submitted during the prior, first post-hearing open record period. This is made clear by the fact that the second
seven-day period is provided to respond to evidence received while the record was held open after the
hearing. COLW has filed the applicant’s post-hearing comments but has not explained why what it attempted
to file as post-hearing comments in any way rebuts what the applicant’s submittals. In fact, the letter makes
claims about hearings testimony – something off limits during rebuttal. If the hearings officer does not agree
to allow the applicant to respond to the recently filed COLW documents, the applicant requests they not be
accepted as rebuttal evidence or as timely filed post-hearing evidence.
3
Please include this e-mail in the record of the above-referenced Swisher applications.
Thank you,
Liz Fancher
Liz Fancher, Attorney
2465 NW Sacagawea Ln
Bend, OR 97703
541-385-3067 (telephone)
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this electronic mail transmission is confidential. This information is
intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately
by return email and you are hereby notified that any use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution (other than to the addressee(s)),
copying or taking of any action because of this information is strictly prohibited.
From: Carol Macbeth <carol@colw.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 1:20 PM
To: Kyle Collins <Kyle.Collins@deschutes.org>
Cc: Liz Fancher <liz@lizfancher.com>
Subject: Re: Record for 247-21-000616-PA Swisher PA & ZC
Kyle,
Please add this correspondence to the file as well. I attach our comments as received by the County on
September 28, 2021, and the corrected cover page.
Materials were received by the County within the Open Record period
I submitted these on September 28, 2021, within the Open Record period, to the staff person at the County
planning desk, and in response to a question from that person said the materials were to be given to Kyle
Collins. The person responded that you had said to be on the lookout for them. I also told the person accepting
them to tell you that it is very important that all the color photographs be transmitted to the Hearings Officer in
color. Whatever the subject line says, there are 70 pages of comments that I delivered to Kyle Collins at his
offices on September 28, 2021, to the person designated to accept them. LandWatch filed the comments in
strict accordance with Hearings Officer Marshall's submission procedure for the seven day open record period.
4
Materials were received by the County within the Rebuttal Period
Moreover, though these materials were submitted in accordance with the procedure for the open record period,
the materials themselves respond to and rebut materials submitted prior to the close of the open record period.
They may therefore be equally included as either rebuttal materials, or open record materials.
In either case, there is no legal basis for a conclusion that they ought not to be in the record. They are wholly
responsive in nature. They respond to the application itself and to statements made in the hearing, and to
nothing else. They have now been submitted not once, but twice: once within the open record period, and once
within the rebuttal period.
LandWatch has no objection if the Hearings Officer wishes to provide the applicant more time to respond. I
attach a letter so stating.
Best regards,
Carol Macbeth
Le mar. 5 oct. 2021 à 10:40, Liz Fancher <liz@lizfancher.com> a écrit :
Kyle:
Given the fact that today is the deadline for me to file rebuttal to these materials Ms. Macbeth just properly
filed with the County, I must object to inclusion of them in the record of the Swisher matter at this time. The
date-stamped letter Ms. Macbeth filed on September 28, 2021 shows that Ms. Macbeth’s claim that the
County misfiled the letter is erroneous. The County correctly filed the document in the file she indicated in
her September 28, 2021 letter. The heading of the letter says “re: File No. 247-21-000666-CU; request to
establish a personal use airstrip in the EFU-TRB zone.”
The documents filed on September 28, 2021, attached, provide the County with any identifying information
that would link it to the Swisher file. The materials do not contain any of the following information that
might identify it as such:
1. Correct case file number
2. Correct description of application as a plan amendment and zone change application
5
3. The name of the applicant or property owner
4. The name of the applicant’s attorney
5. The name of the hearings officer considering the application
6. The name of the staff planner assigned to review the land use application
The late filing of these materials has prejudiced the applicant because there is insufficient time for the
applicant to prepare a response to the new facts contained in the large stack of documents belatedly filed by
Ms. Macbeth. Furthermore, Ms. Macbeth chose not to send a copy of her request to me – further reducing the
amount of time provided for rebuttal. This matter will be heard by the Board of Commissioners at which time
Ms. Macbeth can file this information. Receiving it now will only handicap the applicant in making its case
to the hearings officer.
Please include my response in the record of 247-21-000616-PA and -000617-ZC and include a copy of it to
Hearings Officer Marshall to address in her decision.
Thank you,
Liz Fancher
Liz Fancher, Attorney
2465 NW Sacagawea Ln
Bend, OR 97703
541-385-3067 (telephone)
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this electronic mail transmission is confidential. This information is
intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately
by return email and you are hereby notified that any use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution (other than to the addressee(s)),
copying or taking of any action because of this information is strictly prohibited.
From: Kyle Collins <Kyle.Collins@deschutes.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 9:58 AM
To: Liz Fancher <liz@lizfancher.com>
Subject: RE: Record for 247-21-000616-PA Swisher PA & ZC
6
Liz,
Apologies for the 11th hour response here, but it looks like there was a mix up with the first open record
period comments.
Carol Macbeth of Central Oregon LandWatch did in fact submit a much larger series of comments on
September 28 as a hard copy to our office.
Unfortunately, those comments included an incorrect file number and description in the heading, and thus I
did not receive a copy of those items until this morning.
We are in the process of correcting the erroneous file numbers in our records, but I wanted to be sure to pass
along what was originally filed by Carol on September 28.
The attached document contains both the original submittal, a corrected submittal with updated file
numbers/project description, and an email from Carol describing what transpired.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns at this time.
Regards,
Kyle Collins | Associate Planner
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
117 NW Lafayette Avenue | Bend, Oregon 97703
PO Box 6005 | Bend, Oregon 97708
Tel: (541) 383-4427 | www.deschutes.org/cd
Let us know how we’re doing: Customer Feedback Survey
Disclaimer: Please note that the information in this email is an informal statement made in accordance with DCC 22.20.005 and shall not be deemed
to constitute final County action effecting a change in the status of a person's property or conferring any rights, including any reliance rights, on any
person.
From: Liz Fancher <liz@lizfancher.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2021 5:15 PM
To: Kyle Collins <Kyle.Collins@deschutes.org>
Subject: RE: Record for 247-21-000616-PA Swisher PA & ZC
7
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Kyle:
Thank you so much. I greatly appreciate your help in avoiding legal malpractice!
Liz Fancher
Liz Fancher, Attorney
2465 NW Sacagawea Ln
Bend, OR 97703
541-385-3067 (telephone)
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this electronic mail transmission is confidential. This information is
intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately
by return email and you are hereby notified that any use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution (other than to the addressee(s)),
copying or taking of any action because of this information is strictly prohibited.
From: Kyle Collins <Kyle.Collins@deschutes.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2021 4:59 PM
To: Liz Fancher <liz@lizfancher.com>
Subject: RE: Record for 247-21-000616-PA Swisher PA & ZC
Liz,
No additional comments or materials were submitted beyond those items provided to you earlier this week.
Should any items that come in during the rebuttal period not be uploaded by next Tuesday (10/5), I can
certainly pass them along to you via email.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions or concerns.
8
Regards,
Kyle Collins | Associate Planner
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
117 NW Lafayette Avenue | Bend, Oregon 97703
PO Box 6005 | Bend, Oregon 97708
Tel: (541) 383-4427 | www.deschutes.org/cd
Let us know how we’re doing: Customer Feedback Survey
Disclaimer: Please note that the information in this email is an informal statement made in accordance with DCC 22.20.005 and shall not be deemed
to constitute final County action effecting a change in the status of a person's property or conferring any rights, including any reliance rights, on any
person.
From: Liz Fancher <liz@lizfancher.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2021 4:57 PM
To: Kyle Collins <Kyle.Collins@deschutes.org>
Subject: Record for 247-21-000616-PA Swisher PA & ZC
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Kyle:
I am writing to confirm that no additional documents beyond those attached (the ones you sent me on
Tuesday) were filed in the record prior to the close of the open record period by any party, including Carol
Macbeth of COLW. None of these documents and earlier documents I filed have yet been uploaded. As a
result, I am wondering whether you would be willing to send me copies of documents filed during the rebuttal
period on Wednesday after the record closes.
Thank you!
Liz Fancher
9
Liz Fancher, Attorney
2465 NW Sacagawea Ln
Bend, OR 97703
541-385-3067 (telephone)
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this electronic mail transmission is confidential. This information is
intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately
by return email and you are hereby notified that any use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution (other than to the addressee(s)),
copying or taking of any action because of this information is strictly prohibited.
From: Kyle Collins <Kyle.Collins@deschutes.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 1:40 PM
To: Liz Fancher <liz@lizfancher.com>
Cc: Dave Swisher <dave@daveswisher.com>
Subject: RE: Record for 247-21-000616-PA Swisher PA & ZC
Liz,
Apologies for the delay in document uploads.
Our administrative assistant is quite busy and I cannot guarantee exactly when those documents will appear
on Accela/Dial.
For your convenience, I have attached all the documents received by our office prior to the hearing, the day of
the land use hearing, and up until today.
This does not include the comments from public agencies, as those comments are quoted in full within my
staff report for reference, and I believe they are available via Accela/Dial as well.
If any additional materials come through before the 5PM open record period deadline, I will pass along those
items as well.
Please let me know if you need anything else.
Regards,
10
Kyle Collins | Associate Planner
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
117 NW Lafayette Avenue | Bend, Oregon 97703
PO Box 6005 | Bend, Oregon 97708
Tel: (541) 383-4427 | www.deschutes.org/cd
Let us know how we’re doing: Customer Feedback Survey
Disclaimer: Please note that the information in this email is an informal statement made in accordance with DCC 22.20.005 and shall not be deemed
to constitute final County action effecting a change in the status of a person's property or conferring any rights, including any reliance rights, on any
person.
From: Liz Fancher <liz@lizfancher.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 1:32 PM
To: Kyle Collins <Kyle.Collins@deschutes.org>
Cc: Dave Swisher <dave@daveswisher.com>
Subject: Record for 247-21-000616-PA Swisher PA & ZC
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Kyle:
Documents filed prior to and the day of the land use hearing a week ago are still not posted on DIAL for the
Swisher PA & ZC case. You indicated that you would be willing to send documents via e-mail if this was
still the case today. Would you please do so tomorrow for those documents and all documents filed during
the post-hearing comment period? If that is not possible, would you please let me know when all documents
filed through the close of business today will be available for in-person review at the County. I’ve been told
that when the file gets sent scanning, it is not available for public review and that it may not be complete
(missing e-mails sent to the assigned planner).
Thank you,
Liz Fancher
11
Liz Fancher, Attorney
2465 NW Sacagawea Ln
Bend, OR 97703
541-385-3067 (telephone)
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this electronic mail transmission is confidential. This information is
intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately
by return email and you are hereby notified that any use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution (other than to the addressee(s)),
copying or taking of any action because of this information is strictly prohibited.
--
Carol Macbeth
Staff Attorney
Central Oregon LandWatch
--
Carol Macbeth
Staff Attorney
Central Oregon LandWatch
--
Carol Macbeth
Staff Attorney
Central Oregon LandWatch
Protecting Central Oregon’s Natural Environment And Working For Sustainable Communities
2843 NW Lolo Dr., Ste. 200 | Bend, OR 97703
Phone: (541) 647-2930
www.colw.org
October 5, 2021
Hearings Officer Marshall
c/o Kyle Collins
Deschutes County Community Development
117 NW Lafayette Avenue
Bend, OR 97703
re: File No. 247-21-000616-PA, -617 ZC; Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change
designation from Agricultural to Rural Residential Exception Area; Zone Change to
rezone from Exclusive Farm Use to Multiple Use Agricultural
Dear Hearings Officer Marshall:
On behalf of Central Oregon LandWatch, thank you for the opportunity to comment on
the above application. We respectfully urge the Hearings Officer to deny the application.
The fallowed subject property is classified as Class III and Class VI land by the NRCS and so is
agricultural land by definition. An exception to Goal 3 is required. Because no exception has
been justified, the application must be denied.
Applicant's theory of the case is erroneous for three main reasons. First, the Oregon Court
of Appeals has already determined that additional detail such as that provided by the applicant's
paid report has no effect on whether land determined by the NRCS to be Class I-VI in eastern
Oregon is agricultural land. Such data are relevant only to whether land not comprised of the
specified classes determined by the NRCS is also agricultural land. Second, the paid report is an
"Order 1 survey." Application, 7. Order 1 surveys, by definition, do not affect the NRCS land
capability classifications of the official soil survey, which here are Class III and Class VI. Third,
the applicant misinterprets the meaning of "accurate" and the relationship between detail and
accuracy, and thus confuses the significance of the paid report, an Order 1 survey. Each of these
reasons is explained in more detail below.
2
Additional information is relevant only to whether lands not comprised of Class I-VI as
determined by the NRC^S are also agricultural land
The land on the fallowed subject property is agricultural land because the NRCS official
soil survey has identified the land as Class III irrigated and Class VI not inigated. OAR 660-033-
0020:
"Agricultural land as defined in Goal 3 includes: A) Lands classified by the U.S. Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as predominantly Class I-IV soils in Western
Oregon and I-VI soils in Eastern Oregon"
Goal 3, OAR 660-015-0000(3) provides:
,,Agricultural land in eastern Oregon ... is land of predominantly Class I, II, ilI, IV, V
and VI soils as identified in the Soil Capability Classification System of the United States
Soil Conservation Service."
The applicant's land is predominantly 38B according to the official survey of the NRCS.
Att. 1. The land is classified by the NRCS as a "farmland of statewide importance." Id. The same
388 land is shown to be in use across Deschutes County for inigated crop production. Figures l-
t2.
The Court of Appeals has interpreted Goal3 to mean land comprised of the specified
classes I-Yl is per se agricultural land. Any additional information, such as the applicant's paid
report, is relevant only to whether land which is not predominantly comprised of such soils is
also agricultural land. 1000 Friends of Oregonv. LCDC,85 OrApp 18, 22-23,735P.2d
645 (1987). While applicant correctly noted that more detailed information may be used, the
purpose of such information is to identi$ whether more land may qualiff as agricultural land in
addition to the lands identified as Class I-VI by the NRCS.
The Oregon Court of Appeals decision accords with the legislative history of Goal 3. The
legislative history leading to the adoption of the NRCS land capability classifications as the
applicable legal standard is summarized in Edward Sullivan's law review article on the history of
protection of Oregon farmland. Edward Sullivan and Ron Eber, The Long and Winding Road:
Farmland Protection in Oregon 196l-2009. San Joaquin Agricultural Law Review, 18, 1 (2009)
(excerpt, Att.2):
Protecting CeniroJ Oregon 's Nolurol Environmenl And Working For Suslcrinob/e Communilies
J
"As adopte d, in L97 5, Goal 3 incorporated the approach first proposed by OSPIRG during
the I9T3legislative session to identiff and define agricultural lands using the Soil
Conservation Service soil capability ratings, rather than merely'prime farmlands,'
preferring protection of all suitable agricultural lands. It defined "agricultural land'
differently for two distinct regions of the state (East and West): those lands
pre-dominantly composed of Class I-IV soils in western Oregon and Class I--VI soils in
eastern Oregon, as well as other lands suitable for farm use and other lands necessary to
permit farm practices on adjacent or nearby lands. These are the lands required to be
inventoried and preserved. "
As the article further explains, the underlying assumption of the Oregon program to
protect agricultural lands is that long-term resource decisions should not be based on short-term
economics or finances.Id.Here, the applicant's lack of interest in farming is irrelevant to
Oregon's agricultural land use policy to preserve the state's agricultural industrial land base for
future generations of farmers.
Farm after farm in Deschutes County is shown in the attached Figures l-12 tobe
producing irrigated crops and pasture using the same 38B the NRCS examined and reported to
comprise the applicant's land. Figures 1-12. There is no reason, except will, that the applicant
cannot do the same. By definition, the land is protected for farm use by Goal3 and an exception
to Goal3 is required.
The Court of Appeals decision in 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC, the legislative
history of the definition of agricultural land in Oregon, and the plain language of both Goal3 and
OAR 660-033-0020 mean that agricultural land include all lands classified by the NRCS as Class
I, II, III, IV, V, and VI in eastern Oregon, and thus include the fallowed subject property.
Order 7 saweys have no effect on NRCS land cupability classitications
The applicant's paid report is an Order 1 survey. By definition an Order 1 survey does not
affect the land capability classifications of the NRCS soil survey.
The NRCS invented Order 1, Order 2, Order 3, Order 4, and Order 5 surveys. The Upper
Deschutes River Survey is an Order 2, intensive survey. It is the customary, usual order for
NRCS soil surveys.
Proleclingt Cenlrcsl Oregon's Noturol Environmenl And Working For Susfoir-rc-rb/e Conrrnunilies
4
The NRCS explains in the attached official published document from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture that an Order I Survey has no effect on the results of the NRCS
survey. Att. 3:
"Order I soil surveys and site-specific data collected are supplements to the official soil
survey, but they do not replace or change the official soil survey."
An Order I survey is used to support a determination of whether a manure storage
facility, or other highly specialized land use, can be placed on land like the applicant's land that
is currently lying fallow. Id.The Hearings Officer is not presiding over a determination of
whether a manure storage facility can be placed on the subject property. The evidence presented
by the applicant is supplemental to, but does not change, the official NRCS survey information.
Applicant's paid report provides detailed, but irrelevant, data for this inquiry.
The legal theory of the applicant is based on a false premise. It would be disingenuous for
the applicant to try to mislead the Hearings Officer into believing that use of an Order 1 survey
replaces or changes the official soil survey that is the correct legal standard since, by definition,
it does not. Att. 3 (Order 1 surveys do not replace or change the official soil survey).
The applicant's only evidence that no exception to Goal 3 is required does not address the
applicable legal standard. The applicant's evidence, an Order 1 survey, by definition has no
effect on the official soil survey.
Goal3 defines agricultural land as land in classes I-VI in eastern Oregon as determined
by the official NRCS soil survey. The applicant's evidence is not directed at this legal standard,
and has no effect on it. The land is agricultural land by definition, an exception to Goal 3 is
required, and the application must be denied.
Applicant misinterprets the nature of map units and the effect of more detail
The crux of applicant's legal theory is that the applicant's paid report should preferentially
be relied upon in a determination of whether land is agricultural land because its greater detail
makes it more accurate. This is incorrect. See Application, 7, 18.
First, according to the NRCS soil mapping units are already the most detailed soils
information for determining land capability class. The NRCS invented the concept of soil map
units and of land capability class. The subject property is predominantly map unit 38B, which is
Protecting Cenlral Oregon 's Nniurol Environmenl And Working For Susfcrinclb/e Comrnunllies
5
Class III irrigated and Class VI unirrigated. Mapping units are the basis for all interpretive
groupings of soils: "They furnish the information needed for developing capability units, forest
site groupings, crop suitability gtoupings, range site groupings, engineering groupings, and other
interpretive groupings. The most specific management practices and estimated yields are related
to the individual mapping unit." Att. ,USDA SCS, Agricultural Handbook No. 210 (1961). The
necessary level of detail is present in the official soil survey of the Upper Deschutes River Area.
Second, the applicant misinterprets the word "accurate," which means "free from error."
It is not the case that a more detailed map is more accurate. A more detailed map is simply more
detailed. A map cannot be more "free from error." A map that correctly porhays how to get from
one house to a neighbor's house is accurate. Additional details such as the layout of the rooms in
the houses does not affect the map's accuracy. As misinterpretation of the word "accurate" is the
fundamental premise on which the applicant bases its position that the paid-for report is relevant
to the legal standard for this application andthat no exception to Goal 3 is required, the
application must be denied.
Land is classifted based on whether irrigation water is available
Farm after farm in Deschutes County is shown in Figures l-I2 to be irrigating crops and
pasture using the same 38B the NRCS examined and documented on the applicant's fallowed
land. There is no reason, except will, that the applicant cannot do the same.
As shown in Att. 5, the property is within the boundaries of the Central Oregon Irrigation
District. Thus irrigation water is fully available. The applicant may not choose to irrigate, but
irrigation water is available as surface water through the irrigation district or as groundwater.
Land capability classifications consider whether lack of irrigation or other constraints are
permanent or can be remedied. Here, the subject property's unirrigated state can be remedied.
The land is wholly within the boundaries of the Central Oregon Irrigation District and even if it
were not, the applicant could irrigate using groundwater upon acquiring water rights from a
water broker as is common practice in the region.l
I e.g. Water Right Services LLC, https://oregonwater.us/, "Water Right Services, LLC helps secure and manage
water rights for properties with simple uses like small pastures or ponds up through 100,000+ acre ranches and
communities with overlapping, multi-use water rights."
Protecting Cenfro/ Oregon 's Nofuicr/ Environmenl And Working For Susfoinob/e Cornmunilies
6
The applicant's arguments regarding the current inigation stahrs are irrelevant because
irrigation water is availablc and that is the basis for land capability classifications. It is further
irrelevant that there is no history of farm use. That information is not directed at the correct legal
standard, which is the definition of agricultural land in Goal 3.
Exceptions to Goals 3, 11, and 14 are required by DCCP 3.3
The application must be denied because it is inconsistent with the express language of the
County's acknowledged comprehensive plan. The acknowledged plan provides at section 3.3
that as of 2010, thus at this time, any new Rural Residential Exception Area designation must be
justified through taking exceptions to farm (Goal 3), public facilities (Goal 11) and urbanization
(Goal 14) regulations pursuant to Goal2. DCCP, 3.3. The applicant is proposing a new Rural
Residential Exception Area. Therefore exceptions to Goal 3, Goal 11, and Goal 14 are required
as a matter of law. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan (DCCP) 3.3:
ln 1979 the County assessed that there were over 17,000 undeveloped Rural Residential
Exception Area parcels, enough to meet anticipated demand for new rural housing. As of
2010 any new Rural Residential Exception Areas need to be justified through taking
exceptions to farm, forest, public facilities and services and urbanizationregulations, and
follow guidelines set out in the OAR.
The applicant did not attempt to justifu exceptions to Goal 3, Goal 11, or Goal 14, and
would not qualiS for exceptions if it did. Therefore, as a matter of law, the application must be
denied.
Applicant is in error in arguing the County's comprehensive plan does not mean what it
expressly says. It is untenable to argue this property can be designated a Rural Residential
Exception Area without exceptions to Goals 3,ll, and 14 when the acknowledged
comprehensive plan states there are already 17,000 undeveloped rural residential parcels that are
enough to meet anticipated demand for new rural housing, and no more such housing will be
approved without the required exceptions. The comprehensive plan cannot plausibly be
interpreted to mean anything except that any new proposals for Rural Residential Exception
Areas must qualiff for exceptions to Goals 3,ll, and 14.
A comprehensive plan is not a guideline that may be followed or disregarded at will.
Rather, a comprehensive plan is analogous to legislation that gtants rule-making power but
Proleciirrg Centrcr/ Oregan 's Noiuro/ Environmenl And Working For Susfoinobie Communiltes
7
establishes the power for which and the limits within which that power may be exercised. Baker
v. City of Milwaukie,2Tl Or 500, 506 n6, 533 P2d 772 (1975). The DCCP is the controlling land
use planning instrument for Deschutes County. The acknowledged comprehensive plan, DCCP
3.3, governs the requested change in plan designation to "Rural Residential Exception Area."
The only way the applicant can obtain the requested designation is to comply with the
requirements for that designation as outlined in the acknowledged comprehensive plan.
It is hard to imagine how the language of the count5r's comprehensive plan could be more
clear. The comprehensive plan is acknowledged as in compliance with Goals 3, 11, and 14, in
part because the acknowledged comprehensive plan will not allow the proposed use for a rural
residential exception area without exceptions to the goals.
Comprehensive plans must be adopted and amended in compliance with the 19 Oregon
statewide planning goals, which were enacted to protect the public interest. ORS
197.175(2)(a),(d).2 It would make a mockery of the legislature's intent in passing ORS
I97.175(2) if the express language of the County's comprehensive plan, having been
acknowledged as in compliance with the applicable goals, could be disregarded at will when it
does not suit the financial objectives of an applicant. The application is incomplete for its failure
to include exceptions pursuant to Goal2 for Goal 3, Goal I l, or Goal 14 as expressly required by
the acknowledged DCCP, and must be denied.
CONCLUSION
A paid report that is an Order 1 survey is the objective of the applicant's evidentiary
showing in this case. Because that evidence is directed at the wrong legal standard, it is irrelevant
to this proceeding. Land that is classified by the NRCS as Class I-VI like the fallowed subject
property is per se agricultural land. I 000 Friends, 85 Or App at 22-23 . The application is based
on three false premises. First, that Goal 3 and OAR 660-033-020 do not define agricultural land
2 ORS I97.175(2)Pursuant to ORS chapters 195,196 and I97, each city and county in this state
shall: (a) Prepare, adopt, amend and revise comprehensive plans in compliance with goals
approved by the commission.'r*'rd) If its comprehensive plan and land use regulations have been
acknowledged by the commission, make land use decisions and limited land use decisions in
compliance with the acknowledged plan and land use regulations.
Prolecting Cenlro! Oregon's Nolurol Environmenl AncJ Working For Su.sloinclble Cornmunilies
8
as land in land capability classification I, II, III, IV, V, and VI as determined by the NRCS;
second, thatanOrder I soil survey affects the official NRCS land capability classification; and
third, that a more detailed study is more "accurate." The Hearing Officer lacks the authority to
approve a change in plan designation that violates the express language of the acknowledged
comprehensive plan.
Thank you for your attention to these views.
Best regards,
ls/ Carofn4ac6et6
Carol Macbeth
Staff Attorney
b"'-Protecting Central Oregon's Noiurol Environmenl And Working For Suslqinoble Cornrnunilies
l4uA',ilnq'$i I
l,,tsDA
-
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
FP
-[L
ln cooperation with
United States Department
of Agriculture, Forest
Service; United States
Department of the lnterior,
Bureau of Land
Management;and Oregon
Agricultural Experiment
Station
Soil Survey of
Upper Deschutes
RiverArea,
OfegOn, inctuding parts
of Deschutes, Jefferson, and
Klamath Gounties
Attachment L
Map Unit Description: Deskamp-Gosney complex, 0 to I percent slopes--Upper Deschutes
River Area, Oregon, Parts of Deschutes, Jefferson, and Klamath Counties
Upper Deschutes River Area, Oregon, Parts of
Deschutes, Jefferson, and Klamath Counties
38B-Deskamp-Gosney complex, 0 to 8 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 247q
Elevation: 3,000 to 4,000 feet
Mean annualprecipitation; 10 to 12 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 47 to 50 degrees F
Frost-free period: 70 to 90 days
F armland classification; Farmland of statewide importance
Map Unit Gomposition
Deskamp and similar so/s: 50 percent
Gosney and similar so/s: 35 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of
the mapunit.
Description of Deskamp
Setting
Landform: Lava plains
Landform position (tuo-dimensional) : Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional) : lnterfluve
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-s/ope shape : Concave
Parent materiaf Volcanic ash over basalt
Typicalprofile
Hl - 0 to 10 inches; loamy sand
H2 - 10 to 17 inches.' loamy sand
H3 - 17 to 32 inches; gravelly loamy sand
H4 - 32 to 42 inches.' unweathered bedrock
Properties and qualities
S/ope;0toSpercent
Depth to restrictive feature: 20lo 40 inches to lithic bedrock
D rai n ag e c/ass.' Somewhat excessively d ra i ned
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat); High to
very high (5.95 to 19.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table; More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 3.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (inigated) : 3e
Land capability classification (noninigated) : 6e
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Ecologicalsde; R010XA009OR - JUNIPER SHRUBBY PUMICE
FLAT 10.12PZ
I.JSDA
-
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9t21t2021
Page 1 of2
Map Unit Description: Deskamp-Gosney complex, 0 to 8 percent slopes--Upper Deschutes
River Area, Oregon, Parts of Deschutes, Jefferson, and Klamath Counties
Hydric soilrating: No
Description of Gosney
Setting
Landform: Lava plains
Landform position (two-d imensionar.' Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional) : lnterfl uve
Down-slope shape : Concave
Across-s/op e sh ape : Concave
Parent material: Volcanic ash over basalt
Typicalprofile
Hl - 0 to 2 inches: stony loamy sand
H2 - 2 to 14 inches; loamy sand
H3 - 14 to 24 inches.' unweathered bedrock
Properties and qualities
S/ope;0toSpercent
Depth to restictive feature: 10 to 20 inches to lithic bedrock
Drainage c/ass.' Somewhat excessively drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High to
very high (5.95 to 19.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 1.6 inches)
lnterpretive groups
Land capability classification (inigated) : 7 e
Land capability classification (nonirigated) : 7 e
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
Ecologicalsde; R010XA023OR - JUNIPER SHRUBBY LAVA
BLISTERS 10-12P2
Hydric so/ ratrng: No
Data Source lnformation
Soil Survey Area: Upper Deschutes River Area, Oregon, Parts of Deschutes,
Jefferson, and Klamath Counties
Survey Area Data: Version 17, Sep 14,2020
T}SDA
-
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9t21t202'l
Page 2 ol 2
t"0IIit,aI!1-lr 1..Deschutes County GIS I City of Bend, OR, MaxarSubject PropertyPredominantly 388 according to NRCS official soil survey data imported to Deschutes County GISIT,iIt
fttfi<-AndNr fo
SAN JOAQUIN
AGRICULTURAL LAW REVIEW
VOLUME I8 2008-2009 NUMBER I
THB LONG AND WINDING ROAD:
FARMLAND PROTECTION IN
OREGON r96t -2009
Edwtrd Sullivtn' tnd Ronald Ebe r"
Dedicated to Hector Macpherson
For his vision tnd commitment to the preservdion of Oregon's
farmhndl
* 8.A., St. John's University (N.Y.). 1966; J.D.. Willamette University, 1969; M.A.
(History), Portland State University, 1973: Urban Studies Certificate, Portland State
University, 1974; LL.M., University College, [.ondon, 1978; Diploma in Law. Univer-
sity College, Oxford, 1984; M.A. (Polirical Thought). University of Durham, 1998.'* B.A. (Ceography). San Fernando State College (now California State University at
Northridge), l97l ; M.U.P., University of Oregon, I 975; "Administrative Law and Proce-
dure," Willamette University. 1982. Agricultural Lands policy specialist for the Oregon
Department of Land Conservation and Development, I976 to 2008 and Special fusistant
to Ann Squier, Governor Barbara Robert's Natural Resources Policy Advisor, 1993.
The authors gratef'ully acknowledge the invaluable contributions, particularly Alexia
Solomou, L. L. B. with French Law, University College, London, (expected 2fi)9), and
also Aren Hinely, B. A., Linfield College,2001; J. D. Lewis and Clark, 200E: and Kellie
Walters. B.A. DePaul University, 2001; J.D., John Marshall Law School, 2006: LL.M.
Lewis and Clark Law School, 2008, in thc initial research and preparation of this article.
The authors also acknowledge the constructive comments and assistance of Sy Adler,
Blair Batson, Richard Benner, Hanley Jenkins, Jim Johnson, Henry Richmond, Carrie
Richter and the staff at the Department of [^and Conservation and Development: Dale
Blanton, Robert Cortright, Katherine Daniels, Rob Hallyburton and Cliff Voliva. Finally,
a special thank you to Jennifer Bragar of Carvey Schuberr Barer, for her diligent assis-
tance with editing, formatting and coordinating the publication of this article with the
editors of this Journal. lt would no( have been possible without her.
1
t8 San Joaquin Agricultura,I l-aw Review [Vol. l8
Goal 3 has always complemented these policy statements by declaring:
'?gricultural lands shall be preserved and maintained for farm use, con-
sistent with existing and future needs for agricultural products, forest and
open space and the state's agricultural land use policy expres.red in oRS
2 I 5.243 and 2 I 5.700." (Emphasis added ).'rp
B. Defining Agricultural Lands
oregon's earlier efforts to protect lgricultural lands using optional
EFU zoning and tax incentives did not wnrk because those efforts left to
each local jurisdiction not only the decision about whether to protect
such lands but also the choice of the t-vpe of lands it should protect.
Goal 3 is significant in its approach bec'ause it provides a relatively clear
definition of the lands to be protected. This has been one of the most
controversial parts of Oregon's progranr because it declares a state inter-
est in all land used or suitable for agricultural use and not merely "prime
farmlands."lro
As adopted in 1975, Goal 3 incoqporared the approach first proposed
by OSPIRG during the 1973 legislative session to identify and define
agricultural lands using the Soil Conservation Service soil capability
ratings, rather than merely "prime farnr lands," preferring protection of
all suitable agricultural lands.rrr It defiued "agricultural land" differently
for two distinct regions of the state (llast and west): those lands pre-
dominantly composed of class I-IV soils in western onegon and class I-vI soils in eastern oregon, as well as other lands "suitable for form usc"
and other "lands necessary to permit I'arm practices" on adjacent or
nearby lands.rrz These are the lands required to be inventoried and pre-
served.rrr This definition is broader and includes more land than covered
by the earlier definitions of "prime farmland" proposed by Rep. Day in
1967 and OSPIRG in 1973, in part because farmers in western and east-
na Id,
ttw See OR. ADMIN. R. 660-015-00m(3) (197.51 (amenderl 1993, 199-5); On. Aounr. R.
660, Div. 33 (1993)(amended 1994).tttt See Hector Macpherson, Oregon's True land IJse Story, MEDFoRD Me,lL TRls.,
February 19, 199-5; seealso lexl accompanying nol,es 67-75.t" see AAMoDT, supro note 69 (osPlRGreCornnrended protecting ail crass l, ll and Ill
soils.). On. AourN. R.660-01.5-0000(3) (19?5) (amended t993, l99S)."' See On. AnurN. R.660-015-0000(.3) (t975) (amended 1993, t99.5). See generally
Wetherell v. Douglas County. 160 P.3d 614 (Or. l00Z) (LUBA No. 2009-004, April 30,2fi)9 (remanded)); DLCD v. C-urry Counry, 888 P. 2d -592 (Or. App. t99-5); DLCD v.coos County,844P.zd 907 (or, App. 1992); 100() Friends v. Benlon county, 57s p.2d
6-51 (Or. App. 1978); Meyer v. Lord, 586 p. 2d 367 (Or. App. 1978); Kaye/DLCD v.
Marion County, 23 Or. LLIBA 452 (1992\.
"3 See On. Anulru. R. 660-01-5-0000(3) (1975) (amended 1993, 199.5)
2008-20091 Farmland Protection in Oregon 196l-2009 r9
ern Oregon urged a broader definition for their regions of the state.rr4
LCDC recognized that Class I and II soils could not be protected without
also protecting the Class III and [V soi]s intermingled with them in a
farm operation.tr5
About 15.5 million acres are zoned EFU based on the definition of
"agricultural land" under Goal 3.rro This is much broader than the l.l
million to 4.3 million acres of "prime farmland soils" identified by
United States NRCS (depending upon whether the soils are drained, pro-
tected from flooding, or irrigated).r17
The breadth of the agricultural lands definition and its use of clear and
objective standards, Ied to much controversy over its implementation at
the local county level from citizens, planners and elected officials.rrs
Implementation of Goal 3 in the Willamette Valley led to over 300,0(X)
acres of land to be down zoned from rural development zones to an EFU
zone (l6Vo of all EFU zoned land in the Valley).'re However, the broader
approach chosen by LCDC was fully consistent with both the state's
agricultural land policy and the federal approach to identifying "prime"
lands used by the United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA"/
National Resources Conservation Service ("NRCS"). The state policy
encourages the protection of "large blocks" of agricultural land.'20 The
federal government's approach was not merely to inventory the "nation's
most productive" or "prime farmlands" but also provide states with the
opportunity to establish farmland categories of "statewide" and of "lo-
cal" importance.r2r This is essentially what Goal 3 did.'22
Since the SB l0 statutory goal of protecting "prime farmlands" was
superseded by Goal3, the term "prime," or reference to "prime farm
land," was not used until the 1992 federal list of soils rated "prime" was
incorporated into the LCDC definition of "high-value farmland" under
tta See Rtcttvoxn & HoucxrN, supra note 14, at 15.tts Id.
, r16 DEp'T. or,'LnNo Coxs. & Dev., GIS ZoNlNc Dnraanse.
"7 U.S. Dep'r. on Acnlc., OxRcon PRrue Fenuuuo Acnseoe, NRCS NASIS
DnrnBnse, Ponrlnxo, OnecoN (Mnncx 2, 2OO9'). Seventy-seven percent (77Vo) or
915,387 of the l.l million acres of the prime soils are in the Willamette Valley.t'B Minutes and exhibits of the .ILCLU work session and hearings on the Agriculrural
Lands Goal, lnterim Sess. (June 12, 29 and 30. I t78) (Oregon State Archives).rro Memorandum from DLCD on Resource Lands Protected After Review by LCDC
(September 16, l9t8) (on file with authors).
'' OR. RBv. Srnr. g 215.243(2) (200t).r2l Memorandum from SCS Land lnventory and Monitoring (LlM-3), Background
Paper: Prime, Unique and Other Farmlands (October 16, D7 5) (on file with authors).t22 Se-e lrtter from Jack P. Kanalz, State Conservationist, USDA Soil Conservation
Service, to James F. Ross, Drector of DLCD (May 12, 1983) (on file with authors).
20 San Joaquin Agriculturul l-aw Review [Vol. l8
the Goal 3 rule (OR. ADMIN. R. 660-033,(180(1) in 1992),t23 In 1993, the
Legislature agreed with this new approach, called for better protection of
the state's more productive resource land and added its own definition of
"high-value farmland" into Ot. Rsv. STA,I. Chapter Zis-tu ..prime"
soils only comprise a portion of the land defined as "high-value" farm
land under On. Rrv. Srnr. g 215.710.'t,'
The significance of these definitions lies in the fact that they are pri-
marily based on objective, scientific field dara, not on current trends in
the agricultural economy or the individual management skills of the
farmer. Although these definitions are rclatively clear, they did not end
the debate over whether land is good or rnarginal or whether an individ-
ual can make a living by undertaking agricultural production.r25 This has
been made very clear in a recent set ol'I..LIBA and court decisions that
have opened the door for the consideration of profitability when deter-
mining whether land is suitable for farnr use.r2t what this approach over-
looks and why the state protects more r-han just its "prime" farmlands is
that state and local agricultural economies not only depend on the best or
prime farmlands but need the lower capability lands as well since many
crops like orchards, wine grapes, grass seed, alfalfa, and hay grow very
well on lower quality soils.'18
The underlying assumption of the Oregon program to protect agricul-
tural lands is that long term resource decisions should not be based on
short-term economics.r2e oregon requires an inventory of all farmlands
primarily based on the land's resource capability, not a farmer's man-
agement.
r'3 OR. Aprvln. R. 660-033-080(l) (1993); See a!.so On. Rev. Srnr. g lg7.23O (1973);
On. Rev. Srer. g 215.-5.I-5 (1969) (amended 1973) repea[ed b1, Acr of July 26,1977, ch.
766,1977 Or. Laws 745.ru oR. Rev. Srer. g 215.710 (1993); on. AnvrN. R. 660 div. 33 (t994). The fuil story
about the development of HB 3661 and the lrgislative'showdown over Oregon's efforts
to prctect farmland between Housc Republicans, .Scnale Democrats and the Govcrrnor's
Clffice is yet to be written and is one worthy of being told.r25 OR. Rev. Srnr. 215.710 (2009): On. Anrrlm. R. 660-033-020(8) (2009) (detining
"high-value fhrmland" and the additional non-prinre soils and lands included); On. Rgv.srnr. 195.300(10) (2007) (a revised and updated definition used for the purposes of
Measure 49).tx See infraPafl lIl.C.
t27 See generally Wetherell v. Douglas Counr,y. 160 p.3d 614 (Or.2007) (LUIIA No.
2009-004, April 30, 2009 (remanded)). The 200!) I-.egislature considered obviadng thisdecision hut failed to adopt ir. See H.B. 3ZZZ, available at
http://www.leg.state.or. us/bills_laws/ (lasr visited June 24, 2009).r* OR. REv. SrA'r. g 215.710 (1993); Acr of Seprcmber 8, 1993. ch.i9Z.Or. Laws 243g(H.8. 3661); OR- ADMTN. R. 660div. 33 (1994).r2'r OR. Rev. Srnr'. $ 2l-5.243(2) (2009).
a-., rrt-l '--l -!Lf Y : )
USDA [satura[ R.esounces ComsenvatEon Senvf,ce
ffisolxs
United States Department of Agriculture,EfiE
-Aboutrlrs ,l ,Soll:Sur.vey Relsases_ | National Centers
-,1t'\ _ nfW,rr^t Ni-j
-,4t,i4.t'. ': BrowseByAudience I
I State Websites
lfYS
l* {;: t":
A-Z lndex I Help
You are Here: Home / Technical References / TSSH Part 629 *$ illl, i:, W
TSSH ft 629
Onsite Soil Investigations
Background (629,O0)
The National Soil Survey Handbook, Part 655.01(c), provides the following description
Site-specific soil investigations, testing, interpretation, and evaluations are services that support the
design and installation of works and structures or the implementation of agricultural practices, or that
test and evaluate research predictions. These technical soil services are part of NRCS technical
assistance to individual cooperators or units of government that have signed agreements specifying
the services. The intention of services to individual cooperators is usually to help apply a conservation
plan. These are described in general terms in district agreements with NRCS, These services are very
site specific and often result in design and practice specifications.
Onsite investigations are not intended to provide information for program eligibility (see site-specific evaluation,
NFSAM 512.03).
When site-specific investigations are appropriate (629.01)
NRCS technical soil services for site-specific investigations are done:
> on agricultural lands for USDA program purposes when requested by USDA program participants; or
: through Federal, State, or local forms of government where there is a memorandum of understanding or a
cooperative agreement that lists the services to be provided. For more information, see the National Soil Survey
Handbook, Patt 655.
GM-43O - Titl€ 43O - Soil Survey
402.6 Limitations on Use and Distribution of Soil Survey Information
A. Soil surveys seldom contain detailed site-specific information and are not designed for use as
primary regulatory tools in slte-specific permltting decisions, but are useful for broad regulatory
planning and application. Official Soil Survey Information is public information and may be interpreted
by organizations, agencies, unlts of government, or others based on their own needs; however, users
are responsible for the appropriate applicatlon of soll survey information, NRCS will not accept
reassignment of authority for decisions made by other Federal, State, ot tocal regulatory bodres, ATRCS
wlll not make changes to Official Soil Suruey Information, or of any supplemental soil mapping, for
purposes related solely fo Stafe or local regulatory programs.
The General Manual, Title 430, Section 402,5F states
Supplemental mapping provides more detailed soil maps and information for areas of limited extent as
a result of more intensive onsite investigations. It is considered a separate soil map developed for
specific needs and is maintained for improved documentation of the reliability of the delineations and
attribute data of the Official Soil Survey Information, More detailed supplemental soil maps are not
considered changes to the Official Soil Survey Information.
Supplemental mapping should only be done to support official NRCS activities, including the implementation of Farm
Bill programs and/or Conservation Technical Assistance, It should not be done simply because a cooperator (who
has a conservation plan) has a personal need, such as hoping for a better soil potential rating for purposes of selling
property.
How site-specific investigations are done (629.02)
Generally, soil survey information is not adequate for site-specific investigations, and point sampling must be done
to collect data for a specific use at a speciflc location. For example, for a manure storage facility, information on
depth to the water table and restrictive layers is very important at the location of the proposed facility. Therefore,
soil descriptions and interpretations are needed only at the location of the proposed facility.
It is important to understand what data are needed to make the appropriate interpretations for the proposed usebefore conducting site-specific investigations, This knowledge can facilitate sampling design and ensure that theappropriate data are collected. For information on the characteristics that are important for a conservation practice,refer to the conservation practice standards in the Field office Technical Guide.
When assisting other units of government with site-specific soils information, consult with the agency to seewhether guidelines and criteria are in place. Make any recommendations regarding the soil characteristics that maybe important for interpretation for the proposed use if there are no guidelines or criteria or if thcy are incomplete.
order 1 soil surveys and site-specific data collected are supplements to the official soil survey, but they do notreplace or change the "official" soil survey. In many cases, mapping at an order 1 level or collecting point data mayreveal inclusions within map units of soils that were not named in the official soil survey as well as use-dependentsoil properties that are different from the typical soil properties listed for map units in the ..official,, soil survey,
Any change to the official and published soil survey can be made only when the survey area is designated as beingan MLRA soil survey update (NSSH Part 610). The resource soil scientist provides documented evidence ofthe soilcharacteristics, including pedon descriptions and any transect notes (geospatially located), to the MLM.projectoffice Leader. Ifthe onsite investigation is conducted in a non-MLRA project area (e.g., for conservation planning),the findings are also provided to the State Soil Scientist and can then be used to document the need for a futuresoil survey update. The field determination of HEL oTNHEL is provided to the DC and sc,
It is important that any data collected during site-specific investigations be properly captured for multiple and futureuses through Pedon Pc and uploaded into NAsIs where appropriate. Copies of reports should go to the State soilScientist.
a.
t.
t:
i
i.
t..
Ii:
NRCS Home I USDA.gov I Site Nap I Civil Rights I rOIA I plain Wr itirrg I Accessibitity Statement
and Links Non-Discrimination Statement WhiteHouseInformationUSA.
fl-r-t Actlncr'"rf
L_I h h A R:i:-f VED
TJAND.CAPAtsITITY
CLASSIFICATION
t0c T1st96,
Ilrt:W ;!:,j.jr:tt
. , _.r,t !l-
!I/.t/ e- -
-q**_-i',l,JH
I .,r!! l.-,{rJir:r:
Agrriculture Hondbook No. 210
SOIIr CONSERVATION SERVICEU.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICUIJTURE
(((I \
Iil
Grawth Through Agricultural Progress
1962
For sale by the superintendent of Documents, u.s. clovern:nent printing ofrce'IVashington 25, D.C. - price 15 cents
FOREWORD
Siuce goil surv€ys cne bqsed ou qll ol the cborccleristicg of aoilg thcl inlluence thelr
use qad mcmolgemenL luterprelcrtions crre needed Ior Each of the mcuy uses. Among
tbese iaterprelclioas the grouping oI soils into cclrcrbillty units, subclcsses, csrd clqsses
ls one oI the most import<mt. This groupingi serves as au lntroducliou ol lbe eoil mcrp
to lcnuers qad other lcnd users developiag conservcrtiou plons.
Ae qre hcve gcrined experience in lhis grouping, lhe dslinitisns of the ccteEories hcve
improved. It is the purpoge of this publiccrtion to sel lorth tbese deliritions. Iu ueing
the ccpcrbility elcrssificclion, lhe reqder must eoatinucrlly reccll lhct lt ls <rr iaterpretatiou-
Li&e other inlerpretcrlioas, it depeuds oa the probable interqctiong between tbe kind
of soil cmd the qlteraqtlve syslems of mccrcgement. Our moacgenenl systemn qt€ con-
tlnuolly chcrnging. Ecoaomic conditious chcmge. Our knowledge growe. Lcrud users
cne coutiauclly being ofiered aew thlags, such qs aew mqchinsg, ch6ml6alq, od plcrnt
vqrletieE.
The new lechnology cppll. es uneveDly to lhe vcrious Linds oI soil. Thus the grouping
of cmy oue kiad of goil doeg aol stcy the same with cbcrngres Xn techaology. That ls,
a6w cornbinclioDs of practces lncreqse the productivity oI some goils more lhqn olhers,
so 6ome cre going up in lhe scale wherecrs oihers are Eolog dowu, relcrtively. Some
oI our most productive soils oI todcry were considered poorly suited to crops q lew yecns
dfto. Oa the olher hcrnd, Eonre olher soik that were once regcrded cs good lor cropplng
qre rrow beiag used Eore productively lor growiag pulpwood. These fqcts in no wcy
Euggest thct we should aot mqke interpretalions. ln lcrct, they become increcrsingly
inportcmt qs lechnoloq'y gttows. Bul these facls do mecn lhqt soils need to be reia-
lerpreted crnd reErrouped qlter sigrailicsnt chcnges in economic condiiious cnd technology.
Besides tbe ccrpcbllity clcssiliccrtioa explcined ln this publicction, other iuportot ia-
terpretclions crre mode of soil 6urveys. E:t-ples include groupings of soils crccordi:rg
to crop-yield predicEoas, soodlqad suitcbility, rcrnge potenticlity, $rildli{s bcbitat, sutl-
cibillty lor specicrl crops, cmd enEineeriag behovioe Mcny other kinds oI speciql group-
lqgs qre used lo help meet locql needs.
Crrnnr,ss E. Krr,r,ooo
Asslstcnl Admluishclor lor Soil Survey
Soil Cousenqlion Servlce
ru
CONTENTS
Assumptions
Copobility classes.
Lrond suited to cultivotion and other uses. . .Land limited in use-genercrlly not suited to eultivation
Copobility subclasses
Capcbility units.
Otherkinds of soil gzoupings .;....
Criteria for plocing soils in capcrbility classeE
Arid srrd serniorid stony, wet, soline-sodicr and overflow soils
Climotic lirnitations .
Wetness lirnitotions
Toxic solts
Slope and hozqrd of erogion... .
Soil depth
Previous erosion
Avcriloble rnoisture-holding ccpocity . .
Glosscry
ago
3
o
6I
t0
10LU
T2
l3
14
15
l6
l6
T7
18
t8
I8
18
P
Issued September 196l
v
AThCg*nr', ^t
IrAND-CAPABIt'ITY
CT,ASSIFICATION
By A. A. Klingebiel and P. H. Montgomery, soil scientists, Soi,I Conseraation
Seruice
The standard soil-survey map shows the different kinds of soil that are
significant and their location in relation to other features of tJre landscape.
Thgse maPs are intended to meet the needs of users with widely different
problems and, therefore, contain considerable detail to show important
basic soil differences.
The information on the soil map must be explained in a way that has
meaning to the user. These explanations are called interpretations. Soil
maps can be interpreted by (1) the individual kinds of soil on the map, and(2) the grouping of soils that behave similarly in responses to management
and treatment. Because there are many kinds of soil, there are many in-
dividual soil interpretations. Such interpretations, however, provide the
user with all the information that can be obtained from a soil map. M*y
users of soil maps want more general information than that of the individual
soil-mg.pping unit. Soils are grouped in different ways according to the
specifi.c needs of the map user. The kinds of soil grouped and the varia-
tion permitted within each group differ according to the use to be made
of the grouping.
The capability classification is one of a number of interpretive groupinp
made primarily for agricultural purposes. fu with all interpretive groupings
the chpability classification begins with the individual soil-mapping units,
which are building stones of the system (table 1). In this classification the
arable soils are grouped according to their potentialities and limitations for
sustained production of the common cultivated crops that do not require
specialized site conditioning or site treatment. Nonarable soils (soils un-
suitable for longtime sustained use for cultivated crops) are grouped ac-
cording to their potentialities and limitations for the production of perma-
nent vegetation and according to their risks of soil damage if mismanaged.
The individual mapping units on soil maps show the location and extent
of the different kinds of soil. One can make the greatest number of precise
statements and predictions about the use and management of the individual
mapping units shown on the soil map. The capability grouping of soils is
designed (l) to help landowners and others use and interpret the soil maps,
(2) to introduce users to the detail of the soil map itself, and (3) to ma^ke
possible broad generalnations based on soil potentialities, limitations in use,
and management problems.
The capability classification provides three major categories of soil group-
ings: (1) Capability unit, (2) eapability subclass, and (3) capabilityclass.
I
NTABLE l.-Relqtionship oI soil-mapping unit to ccpcbility clcrssilicqlionCopobility unitCcpcrbility subclossSoil-rncipping unitA soil mopping unit is o portion ofthe londscope'thot hos similorchqrocteristics ond guolities ondwhose limits ore fixed by precisedefinitions. Within the corto-grophic limitotions ond consider-ing the purpose {or which themop is mode, the soil moppingunit is the unit obout which thegreotest number ol precise stote'ments ond predictions con bemcrde.The soil mopping units providethe most detoiled soils informo.tion. The bosic mopping unitsore the bosis for oll interpretivegroupings of soils. They furnishthe informotion needed for de-veloping copobility units, Iorestsite groupings, crop suitobilitygroupings, ronge site groupings,engineering groupings, ondother interpretive grouPings.The most specific monogementproctlces ond estimoted yteldsore relqted to the individuolmopping unit.A ccrpobility unit is o grouping ofone or m0re individuol soil mop'ping units hoving similor Po'tentiols qnd continuing limilo'tions or hozords. The soils ino copobility unit ore su{ficientlyunilorm to (o) produce similorkinds ol cultivoted crops ondposture plonts with similor mon-Lgemenl proctices, (b) requiresimilo.r conservotion treoknentond monogement under thesome kind - ond condition olvegetotive coverr (c) hove com'poroble potentiol productivity.The copobility unit condenses qndsimpli{ies sbils in{ormotion forolonnino individuol trocis oliond, fGld by field. Copo-bility units with the closs ondsubcloss furnish lnformotlonobout the degree o{ limitotion,kind of conservotion problemsond the monogement procticesneeded.Subclosses ore groups o[ copo-bility units which hove thesctme mojor conservotionproblem, such os-e-Erosion ond runoff.w-Excess woter.s-Root-zone limitotions.c-Climotic limitcrlions.The copobility subcloss pro-vides informotion os to thekind oI conservotion problemor limitotions involved. Thecloss ond subcloss togetherprovide the mop user inIor-motion obout both the degreeof limitotion ond kind of prob-lem involved lor brood pro-grom plonning, conservotionneed studies, ond similorpurposes.Copobility clossCopobility closses ore groups oIcop<rbility subclosses or ccrpo-bility units ihot hove the somerelotive degree oI hozcrrd orlimitotion. The risks ol soildomoge or limitotion in usebecome progressively greoterfrom closs I to closs VIII.The copobilily closses ore uselulos ct meons oI introducing themop user to the more detoiledinformotion on the soil mop.The closses show the locotion,omount, ond generol suito-bility ol the soils for ogricul-turql use. Only informotionconcerning generol ogricul-turol limitotions in soil use oreobtoined ot the copobilitycloss level.
The first category, capability unit, is a grouping of soils that have about the
same responses to systems of management of common cuitivated crops and
pasture plants. soils in any one capability unit are adapted to the sarne
kinds of common cultivated and pasture plants and require similar alterna-
tive systems of management for these crops. Longtime estimated yieidsof adapted crops for individual soils within the unit under comparable
management do not vary more than about 25 percent.l
The second category, the subclass, is a grouping of capability units having
similar kinds of limitations and hazards. Four generaikinds-of limitations
or hazards are recognized: (1) Erosionhazard, (2) wetness, (3) rooting-
zone limitations, and (4) climate.
The third and broadest category in the capability classification places
all the soils in eight capability classes. The risks of soil damage or limita-
tions in use become Progressively greater from ciass f to class VIII. Soils
in the first four classes under good management are capable of producing
adapted plants, such as forest trees or range plants, and the .o**on culti-
vated field crops 2 and pasture plants. Soils in ciasses v, vI, and VII are
suited to the use of adapted native plants. Some soils in classes V and VI
are also capable of producing specialized crops, such as certain fruits and
ornamentals, and even field and vegetable crops under highly intensive
management involving elaborate practices for soil and water conservation.s
Soils in class VIII do not return o-n-site benefits for inputs of manageurent
for crops, grasses, or trees without major reclamation.
The grouping of soils into capability units, subclasses, and classes is done
primarily on the basis of their capability to produce common cultivated
crops and pasture plants without deterioration over a long period of time.
To express suitability of the soils for range and woodland use, the soil-
mapping units are grouped into range sites and woodland-suitability groups.
ASST'MPTIONS
In assigning soils to the various capability groupings a number of assump-
tions are made. Some understanding of these assumptions is necessary if
1 Yields are significant at the capability-unit level and are one of the criteria used
in establishing capability units within a capability class. Norrrally, yields are estimated
under the common management that maintains the soil resource. The main periods
for such yield estimates are 10 or more years in humid areas or under irrigation and
20 or more years in subhumid or semiarid areas. The 25 percent allowable range
is for economically feasible yields of adapted cultivated and pasture crops.tAs used here the common crops include: Corn, cotton, tobacco, wheat, tame hay
and pasture, oats, barley, grain sorghrun, sugarcane, sugar beets, peanuts, soybeans,
field-grown vegetables, potatoes, sweet potatoes, field peas and beans, flax, and most
clean-cultivated fruit, nut, and ornamental plants. They do not include: Rice, cran-
berries, blueberries, and those fruit, nut, and ornamental plants that require little or
no cultivation.t Soil and water conservation practices is a general expression for all practices
including but not limited to those for erosion control.
3507953-61-2
the soils are to be grouped consistently in the capability classification and
if the groupings are to be used properly. They are:
l. A taxonomic (or natural) soil classification is based directly on soil
characteristics. The capability classification (unit, subclass, and class)
is an interpretive classification based on the effects of combinations of
climate and permanent soil characteristics on risks of soil damage,
iimitations in use, productive capacity, and soil management require-
ments. Slope, soil texture, soil depth, effects of past erosion, perrne-
ability, water-holding capacity, tlpe of clay minerals, and the many
other similar features are considered permanent soil qualities and
characteristics. Shrubs, trees, or stumps are not considered permanent
characteristics.
2. The soils within a capabiiity class are sir''ilar only with respect to degree
of limitations in soil use for agricultural purposes or hazard to the soil
when it is so used. Each classincludes miny-different kinds of soil, and
many of the soils within any one class require unlike manag'ement and
treatment. Valid generalizations about suitable kinds of crops or other
management needs cannot be made at the class level.
3. A favorabie ratio of output to input a is one of several criteria used for
placing any soil in a class suitable for cultivated crop, granng, or wood-
land use, but no further relation is assumed or implied between classes
and output-input ratios. The capability classification is not a pro-
ductivity rating for specific crops. Yield estimates are developed for
specific kinds of soils and are included in soil handbooks and soil-survey
reports.
4. A moderately high level of management is assumed<ne that is prac-
tical and within the ability of a majority of the farmers and ranchers.
The level of management is that commonly used by the "reasonable"
men of the community. The capability classification is not, however,
a grouping of soils according to the most profitable use to be made of
the land. For example, many soils in class III or rV, defined as suitable
for several uses including cultivation, may be more profitably used for
grasses or trees than for cultivated crops.
5. Capability classes I through IV are distinguished from each other by
a summation of the degree of limitations or risks of soil damage that
affect their management requirements for longtime sustained use for
cultivated crops. Nevertheless, differences in kinds of management or
yields of perennial vegetation may be greater between some pairs of
soils within one class than between some pain of sofu from different
classes. The capability class is not determined by the kind of practices
recommended. For example, clas Ir, rlr, or IV may or may not require
the same kind of practices when used for cultivated crops, and classes I
through vrl may or may not require the same kind of pasture, range,
or r*'oodland practices,
'Based on longtime econornic trends for average farms and farmers using moderately
high level management. May not apply to specific farms aad farmers but will applyto broad areas.
4
6' Presence of water on the surface or excess water in the soil; lack of waterfor adequate crop production; presence of stones; presence of solublesalts or exchangeable sodium, or both; or hazard of overflow are notconsidered Permanent limitations to use where the removal of theselimitations is feasible.E
7. soils considered feasible for improvement by draining, by irrigating, byremoving stones, by removing saltl or exchangeable s"odiu*, J, bylro-tecting from overflow are classified according io their continuing iili;"-tions in use, or the risks of soil damage, or bJth, after the improirementshave been installed. Differences in initial costs of the systems installedon individual tracts of land do not influence the classification. Thefact that certain wet soils are in classes II, III, and rV does not implythat-they should be drained. But it does indicate the degree of th"i,continuing- limitation in use or risk of soil damage, or both, # adequatelydrained. Where it is considered not feasible tJ improve soils by^drain-
age, irrigationr-stone removal, removal of excess ,"1t, o. excirangeablesodium, or both, or to protect them from overflow, they are cla"ssifiedaccording to present limitations in use.
B. Soils already drained or irrigated are grouped according to the continu-ing soil and climatic limitations and risks that aflect their use under
the present systems or feasible improvements in them.
9. The capability classification of the soils in an area may be changed
when major reclamation projects are installed that perrnanently change
the limitations in use or reduce the hazards or risks of soil or crop
damage for long periods of time. Examples include establishing major
drainage facilities, building levees or flood-retarding structures, provid-
ing water for irrigation, removing stones, or large-scale grading of
gullied land. (Minor dams, terraces, or field conservation measures
subject to change in their effectiveness in a'bhort time are not inctuded.)
10. Capability groupings are subject to change as new inJormation about
the behavior and responses of the soils becomes available.
11. Distance to market, kinds of roads, size and shape of the soil areas,
locations within fields, skill or resources of individual operators, and
other characteristics of land-ownership patterns are not criteria f.or
capability groupings.
12. Soils with such physical limitations that common fieId crops can be cul-
tivated and harvested only by hand are not placed in classes I, II, IfI,
and IV. Some of these soils need drainage or stone removal, or both,
before some kinds of machinery can be used. This does not imply
that mechanical equipment cannot be used on some soils in capability
classes V, VI, and VII.
13. Soils suited to cuitivation are also suited to other uses such as pasture,
range, forest, and wildlife. Some not suited to cuitivation are suited
to pasture, range, forest, or wildlifel others are suited only to pasture or
6 Feasible as used in this context means ( I ) that the characteristics and qualities
of the soil are such that it is possible to remove the limitation, and (2) that over
broad areas it is within the realm of present-day economic possibility to remove the
limitation.
5
range and wildiife; others only to forest and wildlife; and a f.ew suited
only to wildlife, recreation, and water-yielding uses. Groupings of
soils for pasture, range, wildlife, or woodland may include soils from
more than one capability class. Thus, to interpret soils for these uses,
a grouping different from the capability classification is often necessary.
1"1. Research data, recorded observations, and experience are used as ttre
bases for placing soils in capability units, subclasses, and classes. In
areas where data on response of soils to management are lacking soils
are placed in capability groups by interpretation of soil characteristics
and qualities in accord with the general principles about use and ryl?n-
agement developed for similar soils elsewhere.
CAPASITITY CTASSES
Lcrnd Suited to Cultivation crnd Other Uses
Clqss l-Soils in clcss I hcrve Iew lirnitations lhat resbict their use.
Soils in this class are suited to a wide range of plants and may be used
safely for cultivated crops, pasture, range, woodland, and wildlife. The
soils are nearly level6 and erosion hazard (wind or water) is low. They are
deep, generaliy well drained, and easily worked. They hold water well
and are either fairly well supplied with plant nutrients or highly resporuive
to inputs of fertilizer.
The soils in class I are not subject to damaging overflow. They are pro-
ductive and suited to interuive cropping. The local climate must be favor-
able for growing many of the common field crops. :
In irrigated areas, soils may be placed in class I if the limilslien of the
arid clirnate has been removed by relatively permanent irrigation worls.
Such i:rigated soils (or soils potentially useful rrnder irrigation) are nearly
level, have deep rooting zones, have favorable permeabiliry and water-hold-
ing capaci\, and are easily maintained in good tilth. Some of the soils may
require initial conditioning including leveling to the desired grade, leaching
of a slight accumulation of soluble salts, or lowering of the seasonal water
table. Where limitations due to salts, water table, overflow, or erosion are
likely to recur, the soils are regarded as subject to permanent natural limita-
tions and are not included in class I.
Soils that are wet and have slowly permeable subsoils are not placed in
class r. Some kinds of soil in class I may be drained as an improvement
measure for increased production and ease of operation.
Soils in class r that are used for crops need ordinary management prac-
tices to maintain productivity-both soil fertility and soil struchrre. Such
Practices may include the use of one or more of the following: Fertilizers
and lime, cover a.nd green-manure crops, conservation of crop residues and
animal manures, and sequences of adapted crops.
6
' Some rapidly perrreable soils iu class I may havc geatle slopcs.
Clcrss tr-Soils in clcrsg II hcrve some limitcrtions thcrt reduce the choiceoI plcrnts or require modercrte conservqiion prcclices.
Soils in class II require careful soil management, including conservation
practices, to prevent deterioration or to improve air and water relations
when the soils are cultivated. The limitations are few and the practices
are easy to apply. The soils may be used for cultivated crops, pasture, range,
woodland, or wildlife food and cover.
Limitations of soils in class II may include singly or in combination the
effects of (1) gentle slopes, (2) moderate susceptibility to wind or water
erosion or moderate adverse effects of past erosion, (3) less than ideal soil
depth, (4) somewhat unfavorable soil structure and workability, (5) slight
to moderate salinity or sodium easily corrected but likely to recur, (6) occa-
sional damaging overff.ow, (7) wetness correctable by drainage but existing
pennanently as a moderate limitation, and (B) slight climatic limitations
on soil use and management.
The soils in this class provide the farm operator less latitude in the choice
of either crops or management practices than soils in class I. They may
also require special soil-conserving cropping systems, soil conservation prac-
tices, water-control devices, or tillage methods when used for cultivated
crops. For example, deep soils of this class with gentle slopes subject to
moderate erosion when cultivated may need one of the following practices
or some combination of two or more: Terracing, stripcropping, contour
tillage, crop rotations that include grasses and legumes, vegetated water-
disposal areas, cover or green-manure cropsr stubble mulching, fertilizers,
manure, and ]ime. The exact combinations of practices vary from place
to place, depending on the characteristics of the soil, the local climate, and
the farming system.
Clqss ltr-Soils ia clqss trI have severe Emitations that reduce {he
choice oI plcnts or require specicl conservcrlion prcrcEces,
or both.
Soils in class IfI have more restrictions than those in class II and when
used for cultivated crops the conservation practices are usually more difficult
to apply and to maintain. They may be used for cuitivated croPs, Pasture,
woodland, range, or wildlife food and cover.
Limitations of soils in class III restrict the amount of clean cultivation;
timing of planting, tillage, and harvesting; choice of crops; or some co_mbi-
nation of -these limitations. The limitatioru may result from the effects
of one or more of the following: (1) Moderately steeP slopes; (2) high
susceptibility to water or wind erosion or severe adverse effects of past
erosion; (3) frequent overflow accompanied by some crop damage; (4)
very slow permeability of the subsoil; (5) wetness or some continuing
waterlogging after drainage; (6) shallow depths to bedrock, hardpan,
fragipan, or claypan that limit the rooting zone and the water storage;
(7f iow moisture-holding capacity; (B) low fertility not easily corrected;
(9) moderate salinity or sodium; or (10) moderate climatic limitations.' Wh.n cultivated, marry of the wet, slowly permeable but nearly level
7
soils in class III require drainage and a cropping s)'stem that maintains
or improves the structure and titth of the soil. To prevent puddling and
to improve perrneability it is commonly necessary to supply organic mateial
to such soils and to avoid working them when they are wet. In some irri-
gated areas, part of the soils in class III have limited use because of high
water table, slow perrceability, and the }razard of salt or sodic accumulation.
Each distinctive kind of soil in class III has one or more alternative combina-
tions of use and practices required for safe use, but the number of practical
alternatives for average farmers is less than that for soils in class II.
Clcrss IV-Soils in class [V hcrvE ver1' severe limitctions tbcrt resbict
the choice ol plonts, require very cc'eful mcmagemenL or
bolh.
The restrictions in use for soils in class IV are greater than those in classIII and the choice of plants is more limited. When these soils are cultivated
more careful management is required and conservation practices are moredificult to apply and maintain. soils in class IV -^yb" used for,crops,
pasturer woodland, range, orwildlife food and cover.
Soiis in class IV may be weU suited to only two or three of the commoncrops or the harvest produced may be low in relation to inputs over a
long period of time. tlse for cultivated crops is limited as a iesult of the
effects of one or more pennanent features iuch as (1) steep slopes, (2)
severe susceptibility to water or wind erosion, (3) ierrere .il".t, of past
erosion, (4) shallow.sojlg, (5) low moisture-holding capacity, (6) frequent
overflor,vs accompanied by severe crop damag., (7) excessive wetness'withcontinuing hazard _of waterlossns irtet ar"inagq (g) severe salinity or
sodium, or (9) moderately adverse climate. - ,'lvfany sloping soils in class IV in humid areas are suited to occasionalbut not regular cultivation. Some of the poorly dr"i".d, nearly level soilsplaced in class ff *: not subject to erosion bui ^r" p*rly suitla to inter-tilled crops because of the time required for the soil to dry out in the springand because of Iow productivity foi cultivated crops. Some soils in class fVare well suited to one or more of the special "ropi, such as fruits and orna-mental trees and shrubs, but this suitiUility itself is not sufficient to placea soil in class IV.In subhumid and semiarid areas, soils in class IV may produce goodyields.oj_adlRted cuitivate-d crops during years of above average rainfall;low yields d'ring I"".r of arrerag. r.i',ijt; and failures d'riig y""r, oibelow average rainfall. Dr:ring the low rainfall years the soil mrirt'be pro-tected even though there can be little or no expectancy of a marketabl" "rop.special treatments and practices to prevent,oit tt"*irrg .o*.*";;ir;.,and maintain soil prod_uctivity ^te required.. somefimes crops must tleplanted of epergency tillage 'sed fo: the primary purpose of maintainingthe soil during years of low rainfar. TGse t ""m"rrtr must be appriJmore frequently or more intensively tha.u on soils in class IIr.
8
Lcrnd Limited in Use-Genercrlly Not Suited to
Cultivation'
Clcrss V-Soils in clcrss V hcrve little or no Erosion hqzcnd but hqve
other limitcrtions imprcctical to removq that limit their use
lcngely io pcstrue, rcmge, woodlqnd, or wildli(e food cnrd
covet.
Soils in class V have limitations that restrict the kind of plants that can
be grown and that prevent normal tillage of cultivated crops. They are
nearly level but some are wet, are frequently overflowed by streams, are
stony, have climatic limitations, or have some combination of these limita-
tions. Examples of class V are ( 1) soils of the bottom lands subject to
frequent overflow that prevents the normal production of cultivated crops,
(2) nearly level soils with a growing season that prevents the normal pro-
duction of cultivated crops, (3) level or nearly level stony or rocky soils,
and (4) ponded areas where drainage for cultivated crops is not feasible but
where soils are suitable for grasses or trees. Because of these limitations
cultivation of the common crops is not feasible but pastures can be improved
andbenefits from propilmanagement can be expected.
Clcrss VI-SoiIs in clcrss VI hcrve severe limitcrtions thcrt rnqke lhem
generclly unsuited to cultivation qnd limit their use lcagely
to pcrstrue or rcDge, woodlcrnd, or wildlile lood cutd cover.
Physical conditions of soils placed in class VI are such that it is practical
to apply range or pasture improvements, if needed, such as seeding, liming,
fertilizing, and water control with contour furrows, drainage ditches,
diversions, or water spreaders. Soils in class VI have continuing limita-
tions that cannot be corrected, such as (1) steep slope, (2) severe erosion
hazard, (3) eflects of past erosion, (4) stoniness, (5) shallow rooting zone'
(6) excessive wetness or overflow, (7) low-moisture capacitn (B) salinity
or sodium, or (9) severe climate. Because of one or more of these limita-
tions these soils are not generally suited to cultivated crops. But they may
be used for pasture, range, woodland, or wildlife cover or for some combi-
nation of these.
Some soiis in class VI can be safely used for the common croPs provided
unusually intensive management is used. Some of the soils in this class are
also adapted to special crops such as sodded orchards, biueberries, or the
Iike, requiring soii conditions unlike those demanded by the courmon croPs.
Depending rrpot soil features and local ciimate the soils may be well or
poorty suited to woodlands.
t Certain soils grouped iuto classes V, \If, VfI, and VIII may be made fit for use
for crops with major earthmoving or other costly recla.mation.
I
Class W-Soils ia clcss VII have very severe limitcrtions thctt make
them unsuited to cultivcrtion cmd thct reshict their use
lcngely to gnazing, woodlqnd, or wildlife.
Physical conditions of soils in class VII are such that it is impractical
to apply such pasture or range improvements as seeding, liming fertilizing,
and water control with contour furrows, ditches, diversions, or water
spreaders. Soil restrictions are more severe than those in class VI because
of one or more continuing limitations that cannot be corrected, such as(i) very steep slopes, (2) erosion, (3) shallow soil, (4) stones, (5) wet
soil, (6) salts or sodium, (7)unfavorable climate, or (B) other limitations
that make them unsuited to cornmon cultivated crops. They can be used
safely f.or grazing or woodland or wildlife food and cover or for some com-
bination of these under proper management.
Depending upon the soil characteristics and local climate, soils in this
class may be well or poorly suited to woodland. They are not suited to
any of the cornmon cultivated crops; in unusual instances, some soils in
this class may be used for special crops under unusual management prac-tices. Some areas of class VII may need seeding or planting to protect
the soil and to prevent damage to adjoining areas. s
Class VItr---SoiIs od lcmdlorms in clcrss VIII hcrve limitctions thct
preclude their use lor comnercicl plcmt producfon cnrd
restrict their use lo recrecrtion, wildlil€r or water eupply
or to esthetic prupose*
Soils and land.forms in class VIII cannot be expected to return significant
on-site benefits from management for crops, grasses, or trees, ilthough
benefim from wildlife use, watenhed proiection, or recreation may 6e
possible.
Limitations that cannot be corrected may result from the effects of one
or more of the following: (1) Erosion or erosion hazard, (2) severe 6lima[s,(3). wet soil, (4) stones, (5) low-moisture capacity, ;;d (6) salinity or
sodium.
Badlands, rock outcrop, sandy beaches, river wash, mine tailings, andother nearly barren lands are included in class VIII. rt may be niessary
!o srr" protection and management for plant growth to soils and landforssin class VIII in order to protect other mote valuable soils, to control water,
or for wildlife or esthetic reasons.
CAPABITITY SUBCTASSES
, Subclasses are groups of capability unie within classes that have tbe sarr.ekinds of dominapl lirnilalions for agricultural use as a result of soil andclimate. Some soils are subject to erosion if they are not protected, whileothers are naturally wet and must be drained if crops -" to be Fo*D.Some soils are shallow or droughty or have other sol aunaeni"s] Still
IO
other soils occur in areas where climate limits their use. The four kindsof limitations recognized at the subclass level are: Risks of .ro*ior, d*ig-nated !r ttt" symbol (e) ; wetness, drainage, or overflow (w) ; ,ooe"s-ro""limitations (s) ; and climatic limitations (c). The subcl*, pro"iJ?* A"map user information about both the degree and kind of limitaiion. cuf"-bility class I has no subclasses.
Subclass (e) erosion is made up of soils where the susceptibility to ero-sion is the dominant problem or hazard in their use. Erosion susclptibility
and past erosion da^mage are the major soil factors for placing soils in this
subclass.
subclass (w) excess wcter is made up of soils where excess water isthe dominant hazard or limitation in their use. poor soil drainage, wet-
ne1;, high water table, and overflow are the criteria for determinin! which
soils belong in this subclass.
Subclass b) soil lirnitcrtions urithin the rooting zone includes, as thename implies, soils that have such iimitations as shallowness of rooting
zones, stones, low moisture-holding capacity,Iow fertility difficult to correct,
and saiinity or sodium.
Subclass (c) climatic limitcrtioa is made up of soils where the climate(temperature or lack of'moisture) is the only major hazard. or Iimitation
in their use.8
T,imitations imposed by erosion, excess water, shallow soils, stones, Iow
moisture-holding capacity, salinity, or sodium can be modified or partially
overcome and take precedence over climate in determining subclasses. The
dominant kind of Iimitation or hazard to the use of the land deterinines
the assignment of capability units to the (e), (w), and (s) subclasses.
Capability units that have no limitation other than climate are assigned to
the (c) subclass.
Where two kinds of limitations that can be modified or corrected are
essentially equal, the subclasses have the foliowing priority: e, w, s. For
example, we need to group a few soils of humid areas that have both an
erosion hazard. and an excess water lnzard;with them the e takes precedence
over the w. In grouping soils having both an excess water limitation and
a rooting-zone limitation the w takes precedence over the s. In grouping
soils of subhumid and semiarid areas that have both an erosion hazard and
a climatic limitation the e takes precedence over the c, and in grouping
soils with both rooting-zone limitations and climatic limitations the s takes
precedence over the c.
Where soils have two kinds of limitations, both can be indicated if needed
for local use; the dominant one is shown first. Where two kinds of problems
are shown for a soil group, the dominant one is used for summarizing data
by subclasses.
I Especially among young soils such as alluvial soils, although not limited to them,
climatic phases of soil series must be established for proper grouping into capability
units and into other interpretive groupings. Since the effects result from interactions
between soil and climate, such climatic phases are not defined the sa.ure in terms of
precipitation, temperature, and 8o on' for contrasting kinds of soil.
u
CAPABIIITY UNITS
The capabiiity units provide more specific and detailed information than
the subclass for application to specific fields on a farrn or ranch. A capabilityunit is a grouping of soiis that are nearly aiike in suitability for plant
growtJr and responses to the same kinds of soii management. That is, a
reasonabiy uniforrn set of aiternatives can be presented for the soil, water,
and plant management of the soils in a capability unit, not consideringeffecg of past management that do not haie a more or less permanent
effect on the soil. Where soils have been so changed by management that
Permanent characteristics have been altered, they are placed in different
soil series. Soils grouped into capability units respond in a simiiar way andrequire similar management although they may have soil characteristicsthat put them in different soil series.
Soils grouped into a capability unit should be sufficiently uniform in thecombinations of soil characteristics that influence their qualities to havesimilar Potentialities and continuing lirnitations or hazard.s. Th,5 the soilsin a_ capability unit shouid be suffiiiently uniform to (a) produce simiiarkinds of cultivated crop.s and pasture plants with simjiu, -"*gementpractices, { b ) require simiiar conservation ireatment and managemenT rrrrd.rthe same kind and condition of vegetative cover, and (c) ha.,rJ comparablepotential productivity. ''(Eritimated avercge yields under simil2l **"g.-ment systems shouid not vary more than a6oui 25 percent among the uia,of soil included within the unit. )
OTHER KINDS OF SOIT GROUPINGS
other kinds of. interpretive soil groupinp are necessary to meet specificneeds. Among these are groupings for range ,rr., *ooj.land use, special
crops, and engineering interpretation.
The range site is a grouping ot' sofu with a potential for producing the
saule kinds and amounts of native forage. T[e range site ior rangJlandis comparable to the capabiiity unit for-cuitivatea iaid. The pu:rp'ose of
:""1r ? grouping is to show the potential for range use and to prorriae tne
basis for which the criteria f.or determining mrrgi cond.ition "un b. estab-Iished. The soils grouped into a singie i.ng. site may be expected to
produce similar iongtime yields and respond similariy to aiternative systegs
9f management and to such practices as seeding, pitting and water spread-
itrg.
soils suitable for r,ange but not for common cultivated crops may beplaced in capability ciasses V and \II if they are capable of returning inputsfrom such management practices as seeding, fertilizing, or irrigatiog aodin class VII if they are not. ff these soiis do not give economic returnsunder any kind of management when used for cultivated crops, pasture,
woodland or range, they fall in class VIII.
Soil-woodiand site indsr correlations are essential for interpreting the po-tential wood production of the individual soil units thaf are t"pp"a.
t2
Woodiand-site indices are commonly developed for individual kinds of
soils-. Soil-mapping-units_can b9 placed in woodland groupings accordingto site indices for adapted species and other r"sponreiand liriitations sig-
nificant to woodland conservation. Such groupings do not necessarily paral-
lel those for capability units or range sites; however, in some areas ""pubilityunltl mly be grouped into range sites and woodland-suitability gto.tps.
Rice has soil requirements unlike those of the cornmon cuitivated crops
requiring well-aerated soils. Some fnrits and ornamentals do not require
clean cultivation. Therefore, these crops are not glven weight in the
capability grouping. Instead, special groupings of the soils for each of these
crops are made in the areaswhere they are significant.
With a good basic table of yields and practices the soils can be placedin any number of suitability groups. commonly, five groups-uniuited,f^rly suited, moderately suited, well suited and very well suited-are
sufficient.
Kinds of soil shown on the soil map are also grouped according to needfor applying engineering measures including drainage, irrigation, land
leveling, land grading; determining suitability as subgrade for roads; and
constructing ponds and small dams. Such groupings may be unlike those
made for other purposes.
CRITENuL FOR PTACING SOITS IN CAPA.BIIITY
ctAssEs
Soil and climatic limitations in relation to the use, management, and
productivity of soils .are the bases for differentiating capability classes.
Classes are based on both degree and number of limitations a^ffecting kind
of use, risks of soil damage if mismanaged, needs for soil management, and
risks of crop failure. To assist in making capability groupings, specific
criteria for placing soils in units, subclasses, and classes are presented here.
Because the effects of soil characteristics and qualities vary widely with
climate, these criteria must be for broad soil areas that have similar climate.
Capability groupings are based on specific inforrnation when available-
infor:nation about the responses of the individual kinds of soil to manage-
ment and the combined effect of climate and soil on the crops grown.
ft comes from research findings, field trials, and experiences of farmers and
other agricultural workers. Among the more corrmon kinds of information
obtained are soil and water losses, kinds and amounts of plants that can
be grown, weather conditions as they affect plants, and the effect of different
kinds and levels of management on plant response. This information is
shrdied along with laboratory data on soil profiles. Careful analysis of
this information proves useful not only in determining the capability of these
individual kinds of soil but also in making predictions about the use and
management of related kinds of soil.
Basic yield estimates of the adapted crops under alternative, defined sys-
tems of management are assembled in a table. Where data are few, the
I3
estimates should be reasonable when tested against available f.arm, records
and studies of the combinations of soil properties.
Where inJormation on response of soils to management is lacking, the
estimates of yields and the grouping of soils into capability units, subclasses,
and classes are based on an evaluation of combinations of the following:
1. Ability of the soil to give plant response to use and management as
evidenced by organic-matter content, ease of maintaining a supply of
plant nutrients, percentage base saturation, cation-exchange capacity,
kind of clay mineral, kind of parent material, available water-holding
capacity, response to added plant nutrients, or other soil characteristics
and qualities.
2. Testure and structure of the soil to the depth that influences t}re environ-
ment of roots and the movement of air and water.
3. Susceptibility to erosion as influenced by kind of soil (and slope) and
the effect of erosion on use and management-
4. Continuous or periodic waterlogging in the soil caused by slow penne-
ability of the underlying material, a high water table, orflooding.
5. Depth of soil material to layers inhibiting root penetration.
6. Salts toxic to plant growth.
7. Physical obstacles such as rocks, deep gullies, etc.
8. Climate (temperature and effective moisture)
This list is not intended to be complete. Although the soils of. any area.
may differ from one another in only a few dozen characteristics, none ca.u
be taLen for grantd,. Extreme defi.ciencies or excesses of trace elements,for examf'le, cor, be vital. Commonly, the underlying geological strata
are signifi.cant to water infiltrationr water yield, and erosion bazard.
_ Any unfavorable fixed or recurring soil or landscape features may ljrnil
the safe and productive use of the soil. One unJavtrable feature in'the
soil may 56 lirnil its use that e.rtensive treatment would be required.. Several
minor unfavorable features collectively may become a major problem and
thus lirnit the use of the soil. The combined effect of these in relation to
the usg management, and productivity of soils is the criterion for differeot
capability units.
Some of the criteria used to differentiate befween capability classes are
discussed on the following pages. The criteria and ranges in characteristics
suggested assume that the effects of other soil characteristics and qualities
are favorable and are not limiting facto$ in placing soils in capability
classes.
Arid crnd Semicnid, Stony,'\Met, Saline.Sodic, and
Overllow Soils
The capabiJity-class designations assigned to soils subject to floodingpoorry or irnperfectly drained soils, stony soils, dry soils needing supple-
mental water, and soils having excess soluble salts or exchangeabli sodi,::n
are made on the basis of continuing limitations arrd hazards after removal
of excess water, stones, salts, and exchangeable sodium.
When-assessing t}re capability class of any soil the feasibiliry of any neces-
sary land improvements must be considered. Feasible ur ,rrld here means
l{
(1) that the characteristics and qualities of the soil are such that it is possi-
ble to remove the limitation, and (2) that over broad areas it is within the
realm of economic possibility to remove the limitation. The capability
designation of these areas is determined by those practices that are prac-
tical now and in the immediate future.
The following kinds of soil are classified on the basis of their present
continuing limitations and hazards: (1) Dry soils (arid and semiarid areas)
now irrigated, (2) soils from which stones have been removed, (3) wet soils
that have been drained, (4) soils from which excess quantities of soluble saits
or exchangeable sodium have been removed, and (5) soils that have been
protected from overflow.
The following kinds of soil are classified on the basis of their continuing
limitations and hazards as if the correctable limitations had been removed
or reduced: ( 1) Dry soils not now irrigated but for which irrigation is
feasible and water is available, (2) stony soils for which stone removal is
feasible, (3) wet soils not now drained but for which drainage is feasible,
(4) soils that contain excess quantities of soluble salts or exchangeable
sodium feasible to remove, and (5) soils subject to overflow but for which
protection from overflow is feasibie. Where desirable or helpful, the present
limitation due to wetness, stoniness, etc., may be indicated,
The.following kinds of soil are classified on the basis of their present
continuing limitations and hazards if the limitations cannot feasibly be
corrected or removed: (1) Dty soils, (2) stony soils, (3) soils with excess
quantities of saline and sodic salts, (4) wet soils, or (5) soils subject to
overflow.
Climatic Limitations'
Climatic limitations (temperature and moisture) affect capability. Ex-
tremely low temperatures and short growing s-e1Pry are limitations, esPe-
cially in the very northern part of continental United States and at high
altitudes.
Limited natural moisture supply affects capability in subhumid, semiarid,
and arid climates. As the classification in any locality is derived in part
from observed perforrnance of crop plants, the effects of the interaction of
climate with soil characteristics must be considered. In a subhumid climate,
for example, certain sandy soils may be classified as class VI or class VII,
whereas soils with similar water-holding capacity in a more humid climate
are classified. as class III or IV. The moisture factor must be directly con-
sidered in the classification in most semiarid and arid climates. The capa-
bility of comparable soils decreases as effective rainfall decreases'
In an arid climate the moisture from rain and snow is not enough to
support crops. Arid land can be classed as suited to cultivation (class I,
U, ifl, ot iV; only if the moisture limitation is removed by irrigatic'n.
!vh.r.u", the moisture limitation is removed in this way, the soil is classified
according to the efiects of other P€nnanent features and hazardl that limit
its use urr'd p"t r,anence, without iosing sight of the practical requirernents of
irrigation farming.
l5
Wetness Limitctions
lVater on the soil or excess water in the soil presents ahazard,ls s1 limits
its use. Such water may be a resuit of poor roil dro;r,^ge, high water table,overflow (includes strearn overflow, ponding, and runofr *ut., from highery?t)1 an{ seepag€. _ usually soil needing drainage has some permaientiu{gation that precludes placing it in class r even after drainage.
Wet soils are classified according to their continuing soil f,mitations andhazards after drainage. In determining the capabiiity Jf wet areas emphasisis placed on practices considered practical now or in the foreseeable future.The vzut areas of marshland along the seacoast or high-cost reclarnrriooprojects not now being planned or constructed are notlhssified as class I,II, or fII. If reclamation projects are investigated and found to be feasible,the soils of the area are reclassified based or ih. continuing rimitatioru andhazards after drainage. This places the classification of wet sofu on abasis similar to that of the classification of irrigated, stony, saline, or overfl.owsoils' Some large areas of bottom land subjict to overflow a^re reclassifiedwhen protected by dikes or other major ieclamation work. There areel"mples of these along streams where livees have been constructed. Landalready drained is classified according to the continuing limitations andhazards that affect its use.
Needs for initial conditioning such T lgr clearing of trees or swamp vege-tation, are not considered in the capabiliry clussifiIation- They -J! u.-"rg::et importance, however, in making some of the land-manag.ment de-cisions. costs of drainage, likewise, are not considered direEtly in thecapabiiity classification, although they are important to the land -o."s.r.
' Toxic Sclts
Presence of soluble salts or exchangeable sodir:rn in amounts toxic to mostplants can be a serious limiting factor in land use. Where toxic salts arethe ]lmiting factor, th.e following raJlges are general guides until morespecific criteria are available:
class rr-crops slightly affected. rn irrigated areas, even after salt re-moval, slight salinity or small amounts tf rodir.- remains or is likelyto recur.
class Irtr-crops moderately affected.. rn irrigated areas, even after saltremoval, moderate salinity or moderate amonlts of sod.ium remains or islikely to recur.
classes Iv-vr-crops s_eriously affected on cultivated land.. usually onlysalt-tolerant plants will grow on noncultivated la'd. rn irrigated Leas,even after leaching, severe salinity or large amounts of sod.ir:m lsn3rinq 61is likely to recur.
class vrl-satisfactory growth of useful vegetation impossible, excel,tpossibly for some of the most salt-tolerant forirs, ,".i, ", some Atriplexesthat have limited use for grazing.
t6
Slope qnd Hczard oI Erosion
soil damage from-e1osign is significant in the use, management, and re-sponse of soil for the following reaiorrr:
1. An -adequate soil dgnth must be maintained. for moderate to high cropproduction. Soil depth is critical on shallow soils over nonrenewable
substrata such as hard rock. These soils tolerate less damage from erosionthan soils of similar depth with a renewable substrata such as the raw
loess or soft shale t\ay ganbe improved through the use of special tillage,fertilizer, and benefi cial cropping practices.
2. Soil loss influences crop yields. The reduction in yield following theloss of each inch of surface soil varies widely for d.ifferent kinds oi soil.The reduction is least on soils having little difference in texturq con-
sistence, and fertility betr,r'een the various horizons of the soil. It is lreat-est where there is a marked difference between surface layers ani sub-
soils, such as among soils with claypans. For example, ctrn yields on
soiis with dense, very slowly permeable subsoils may be reduced z to 4
bushels Per acre per year for each inch of surface soil lost. Yield reduc-
tion is n_ormally small on deep, moderately permeable soils having similartextured surface and subsurface layers and no great accumulation of
organic matterin the sur{ace soil.
3. Nutrient loss through erosion on sloping soiis is important not only be-
cause of its influence on crop yield but also because of cost of replace-
ment to maintain crop yields. The loss of plant nutrients can be high,
even with slight erosion.
4. Loss of surface soil changes the physical condition of the plow layer in
soils having finer textured layers below the surface soil. Infiltration rate
is reduced; erosion and runbff rates are increased; tilth is difficult to
maintain; and tillage operatioru and seedbed preparation are more
difficult.
5. Loss of surface soil by water erosion, soil blowing, or land leveling may
exPose highly calcareous lower strata that are difficult to make into
suitable surface soil.
6. Water-control structures are damaged by iediments due to erosion.
Maintenance of open drains and ponds becomes a problem and their
capacity is reduced as sedirnent acclrmulates.
7. Gullies form as a result of soil loss. This kind of soil damage causes
reduced yields, increased sediment damage, and physical difficulties in
farming between the gullies.
The steepness of slope, Iength of slope, and shape of slope (convex or
concave) all influence directly the soil and water losses from a field.
Steepness of slope is recorded on soil maps. Length a^nd shape of slopes
are not recorded on soil maps; however, they are often characteristic of
certain kinds of soil, and their effects on use and management can be evalu-
ated as apartof themappingunit.
Where available, research data on tons of soil loss per acre per year
under given levels of management are used on sloping soils to differentiate
between capability classes.
t7
Soil Depth
Effecti,,'e depth includes the total depth of the soil profiie favorable for
root development. In some soils this includes the C horizon; in a few only
the A horizon is included. Where the effect of depth is the limiting factor,
the following ranges are courmonly used: Class Ir 36 incho ormor.; ciassII, 20-36 inches; class III, 10-20 inches; and class IV, less than l0 inches.
These ranges in soil depth between classes vary f.rom one section of the
country to another depending on the climate. In arid and semiarid areas,
irrigated soils in class I are 60 or more inches in depth. Where other un-
favorable factors occru in combination with depth, the capability decreases.
Previous Erosion
On some kinds of soil previous erosion reduces crop yields and the choiceof crops materially; on others the effect is not gr""t.' The effect of past
erosion limits the use of soiis (l ) where subsoil claracteristics are ,rrfurror-
3b19, o1 (2) where soil material favorable for plant growth is shallow tobedrock or material similar to bedrock. In some soils, iherefore, the degree
of erosion influences the capability grouping.
Availcble Moisture-Holding Ccrpccity
lvater-holding capacity is an important quality of soil. Soils that havelimited moisture-holding capacity are likely io be droughty and have lirnita-
tions in kinds and amounts of crops that can be grown j they also presentfertility and other-_m.anagement problems. The ranges in water-hotd,ing
capacity for the soils g the capability ciasses vary to a- limited degree withthe amount and distribution of effective precipiLtion during the"growing
season. Within a capabiiity class, the range in avaiiable mo]sture--holr{ino
capacity varies from one climatic region to another.
Glosscrry
Alluvicl soils Soils.developing from_transported and relatively recentlydeposited-materi?l (alluviumj Jith little ot ro modification of tti.;Ct
33te1als by,soil-forming. processes. (Soils with w.ell-de"elopJ pi"ni"r'tfr"thave formed from a{1vigm ?Ie gloup_ed with other soils }iavirig the samekind of profiles, not with the aluvLlsois.)
Avcilcble nutsient in,soils The part of the supply of a plant nutrient inthe soil that can be taken up by pL.rts at rates i-'ia in a-riounts signifiLntto plant growth.
Available wcter i:e soils The part of the water in the soil that can betaken uP by plants at rates significant to their groruth;-"sable; obtainable.
Bcse sqturation The relative degree to which soiis have metallic cations
-l!::tl.t,,fh. proportion of the .""tior,-.*.hr"s. ;b"Et,h;;l; r"r,i"i"awr.th metallrc cations.
ccrlionc.xchcurge ccgcrgtr, A measure of the total amount of exchange-abie catioru that can ne held by the soil. tt i, *fr.rr"a i" terms of miiii-
t8
equivalents per 100 grams of soil at neutrality (pH 7) or at some otherstated pH value. (Forrnerly called base-exchatge "apacity.)Clcry-mineral Naturally occurring inorganic crystalline material in soilsor other earthy deposits of clay size-p"articles iess than 0.002 mm. inolameter.
Deep soil Generalln a soil deep.er than 40 inches to rock or other stronglycontrasting material.. Also, a soil with a deep black surface layer; ^ ilit
deeper than about 40 inches to the parent material or to other.,ttcoorolid"ted
rock material not modified by soil-forming processes; or a soil in which thetotal depth of unconsolidated material, whether true soil or not, is 40 inchesor more.
Drcn"age, soil (1) The rapidity and extent of the removal of waterfrom.the soil by.runoff and flow through the soil to underground spaces.(2) 4t a conditio-n of the soil, soil drainage refen to the 1requency and
dur_ation of _periods when the soil is free of saturation. For eiample, in
well-drained soils, the water is removed readily, but not rapidly; in poorly
drained soils, the root zone is waterlogged for iong periods ind ih" r6otr o'f
ordinary crop plants cannot get enough oxygen; and in excessively drained
soils, the water is removed so completely that most crop plants suffer from
lack of water.
Drought A period of dryness, especially a long one. Usually considered
to be any period of soil-moisture deficiency within the plant root zone. A
period of dryness of sufficient length to deplete soil moisture to the extent
that plant growth is seriously retarded.
Erosion The wearing away of the land surface by detachment and trans-
port of soii and rock materials through the action of moving water, wind,
or other geological agents.
Ferlilitl', eoil The quality of. a soil that enables it to provide compounds,
in adequate a.srounts and in proper balancn,, for the growth of specified
plants, when other grovrth factors such as light, moisture, temperature, and
the physical condition of the soil are favorable"
Field ccrlracity The amount of moisture remaining in a soil after the
free water has been aliowed to drain away into drier soil material beneath;
usually expressed as a percentage of the ovendry weight of soil or other
convenient unit. It is the highest amount of moisture that the soil will hold
under conditions of free drainage after excess water has drained away
following a rain or irrigation that has wet the whole soil. For permeabie
soils of medium texture, this is about 2 or 3 days after a rain or thorough
irrigation. Although generally simiiar for one kind of soil, values vary with
previous treatments of the soil.
First bottom The normal flood plain of a stream, subject to frequent or
occasional flooding.
Pcnent matericrl The unconsolidated mass of rock material (or peat)
from which the soil profile develops.
Permealbility, soil The qualiq of. a soil horizon that enables water or air
to move through it. ft can be measured quantitatively in terms of rate of
flow of water through a unit cross section in unit time under specified
telnperature and hydraulic conditions. Values for saturated soils usuaily
l9
are. called hydraulic conductivity. The permeability of a soil may beIjmite5l by the Presence of one nearly imperrneable horizon even though
the othen are permeable.
Phase, soil The subdivision of a soil type or other classificational soilupf hav.ig variations in characteristics noi significant to the classificationof the soil in its natural landscape but significan-t to the use and managementof the soil. Examples -of the variation-s recognized by phases of sof
-t1'pet
include differences-in slope, stoniness, and thilkness blcaure of accelerltedcrosion.
ProIiIe (soiD A vertical section of the soil through all its horizons andextending into the parent material.
Rgog: (or rogelcmd) Land that produces primarily rative forase plantssuitable for grazing by livestock, including Iaird tfrut'tt"s r;;1;At'trees.
Bunoff The surface flow of water from an area; or the total volume ofsurface flow during a specified time.
Sc'line soil A soil containing enough solubli salts to impair its productivityfor plants but not containing i. e*c."s, of .*.hrog.uut.,6ai"
Series, soil -A group oJ soils that ha,,.e soil horizoru sirnilar in their dif-
:ii.i::*:g characteristics and arrangement in the soil profile, except forthe texture of the_sr5face soil, and are formed from a barticular tvoe ofparent material. Soil series is an irnportant category il i.;i;*ii'.i^ri-fication. Individual series ,re given^pr"f", ,ru*-o-lro* pr"c. "^,1ro '1*the fi''t recorded occurrence. " Thui nime* like Houstorr, c""it, nu*o,and Miami are names of soil series ft1, +pp".;;;;i ;;pl .";A;h;;"-notes a unique combination of many soil chtact"rirti.*
Sodic soil (-lLcli) Soil that contains sufficient sodium to interfere withthe growth of most crop plants; soils f* ;ht;h-tir" .*"tu"g*bi.*"di"--percentage is L5 or more.
soil. (1) Tle nat'ral medium for p9 growth.of r,and prants. (2) A dy-namic natural body-on rhe surface of thJe"rth i" *t i.h-pl;; dJi,-;;*-posed of minerat and organic materiats ""d ii;{dio'ril. tsi T}rE *li"&;"of natural bodies o."rrp"yitg prtt-;i;h";^"fr.r;f; that support prantsand.t}*t have properties a"u6 to th; t"t"grr;d ;fi.'.t "f cri,.atl'andirirgHl.r acting upon parent material, as Jonditi"".a tfr;li"f;;;F;rd;ot hme.
A soil is an individual three-dimensional body on the surface of the earthunlike the adioining bodies. ^ (Th. ar"a "r inai"iJu^i,oir, ranges from ressthan /z acre tb *otE than 300 ;";.iA kind of soil is the. collection of sJils that are alike in specified combina-tions of characteristics. Ki"ds ;i ;;il ;. gt*; ;";, ir, ,t " sptem of soilclassification. The terms "the soil', and .,soil,, are collective terms used forall soils, equival ent to rh e word ;,""g.iu ti1"; ; i;, ;i p;;;.
soil chcaqcterisric A feature of a soil that can be seen and,/or measured
T_*.^l:tg.::,: the laboratory on ,"it;;io:- il*u_pro inciude soitslope and storuness as well as the texture, stiucture, color, ana crr"*icatcomposition of soil horizons.
soil mcmcgement
- The preparation, manipuration, and treahent of soirsfor the production of planti, incruding crops, grasses, and trees.
20
Soil guclity An attribute of a soil that cannot be seen or measured directlyfrom the soil alone but which is inferred from soil characteristics and soilbehavior under defined conditions. Fertility, productivity, ancl erod.ibility
are examples of soil qualities (in contrast to soil iharacteristits).
Soil^sylvelf A general term for the systematic examination of soils in
the field and in the laboratories, their description and classification, the map-ping of .[ind1 of soil, and the interpretaiion of soils accordinf to theiradaptability f9r various crops, grasses, and trees, their behavior "under useor treatrnent for glant production or for other pu{poses, and their pro-ductivity under differenfmanagement systems.
Stsucttrre, soil The- arrangement of primary soil particles into compound
particles or clusters that are separated frorn adjoining aggregates and have
properties unlike $o9e of an geual mass of unaggregited-prlmary soil par-ticles. The principal forms of soil structure are platy, prismatic,'columnar
(prisms with rounded tops), blocky (angular or subangular), and granular.
Structureless soils are (1) single grain-each grain by itself, as-in dune
sand, or (2)- massive-the particles- adhering together without any regular
cieavage as in many claypans and hardpans. (z'Good" or "bad"-tilt[ are
tenns for the general structural condition of cultivated soils according to
particular plants or sequences of plants.)
Subsoil The B horizons of soils with distinct profiles. In soils with weak
profile development, the subsoil can be defined as the soil below the plowed
soil (or its equivalent of surface soil), in which roots normally grow. Al-
though a common term, it cannot be defined accurately. It has been carried
over from eariy days when "soil" was conceived only as the plowed soil
and that under it as the "subsoil."
Surfoce soil The soil ordinarily moved in tillage., or its equivaient in
uncultivated soil, about 5 to B inches in thickness.
Texture, soil The relative proportions of the various size groups of indi-
vidual soil grains in a mass of soil. Specifically, it refers to the proportioru
of sand, silt, and clay.
T1pe, soil A subgroup or category under the soil series based on the
texture of the surface soil. A soil type is a group of soils having horizons
similar in differentiating characterrstics and arrangement in the soil profile
and developed from a particular type of parent matenal. The name of a
soil type consists of the name of the soil series plus the textural class name
of the upper part of the soil equivalent to the surface soil. Thus Miami
silt loam is the name of a soil type within the Miami series.
Wcter tqble The upper limit of the part of the soil or underlying rock
material that is wholly saturated with water. In some places an upper,
or perched, water table may be separated from a lower one by a dry zone.
Wcter-holding ccrpcrcity The capacity (or abiiity) of soil to hold water
against gravity (see Field ccrpccity). The water-holding capacity of sandy
soils is usually considered to be low while that of clayey soils is high. It is
often orpressed in inches of water per foot depth of soil.
Wcrterlogged A condition of soil in which both large and small pore
spaces are filled with water. (The soil may be intermittently waterlogged
because of a fluctuating water table or waterlogged for short periods after
rain. )
2t
!#t U.5, GOVERNI'F'IT PRINTII'IG OFFICEI I96I
Attachment 5
I\J'!rrl \.b\ .i,Itl,;l.Tr'lla.'rthrIr"',ilrlIFigure 1-388Desch lrtes Cou ntv....-lil'
Figu re 2388Deschutes County
Figure 338BDeschutes County
t,rt.s- ilt{lii tt{i.JjJ4tr. .ItII4Fu.r'l'lt.#.hl-ti,,i*##ltltI,*Figu re 4388Desch utes Cou ntyi(source Deschutes County GIS)
LNo6loo
5i,miI
Grimm's Nursery, Class 388Same 38B soil as proposed nonfarm parcelFigure 638B
;.t?t..5 tLLgx*il IFigu re 738B
I
.n.
3iI
!j
?
tsr
*
"T
ri*']r#t
a
iI
ti
tl
lE.
lF
f,
dr
i"'te
at.t.t't
i
1
+
!t
i
I
I
i{
I
.t
i
i
.
t
t
t"
t
t
;.$
.it
{
l
,
iI
I
iia
:
ii
Pc
=oU
rnoPf
(JInoo
@o6lm
5i,miI
t
oc(f
Io
o
:
uiI
Fior rce 11 ?RR f)pcrhr rtoc Cnr rnfrr
lI[=fih ! E,rftf t*rryl*{ffintrffinrt*r(* .itHi'k* rq*Itgr il*fih3rXffi nHnn$fr4*l*fr}{lHllrrr$"#mffisMTETG}{rFigu re Lz38B*; ""S".3iffiffigDeschutes Cou nty
22.24.140 Continuances Or Record Extensions
A.Grounds.
1.Prior to the date set for an initial hearing, an applicant shall receive a continuance upon any request. If a continuance request is made after the published or mailed
notice has been provided by the County, the Hearings Body shall take evidence at the scheduled hearing date from any party wishing to testify at that time after
notifying those present of the continuance.
2.Any party is entitled to a continuance of the initial evidentiary hearing or to have the record left open in such a proceeding in the following instances:
a.Where additional documents or evidence are submitted by any party; or
b.Upon a party's request made prior to the close of the hearing for time to present additional evidence or testimony.
For the purposes of DCC 22.24.140(A)(2), "additional documents or evidence" shall mean documents or evidence containing new facts or analysis that are
submitted after notice of the hearing.
c.The grant of a continuance or record extension in any other circumstance shall be at the discretion of the Hearings Body.
B.Except for continuance requests made under DCC 22.24.140(A)(1), the choice between granting a continuance or leaving the record open shall be at the discretion of the
Hearings Body. After a choice has been made between leaving the record open and granting a continuance, the hearing shall be governed thereafter by the provisions that
relate to the path chosen.
C.Continuances.
1.If the Hearings Body grants a continuance of the initial hearing, the hearing shall be continued to a date, time and place certain at least seven days from the date of
the initial hearing.
2.An opportunity shall be provided at the continued hearing for persons to rebut new evidence and testimony received at the continued hearing.
3.If new written evidence is submitted at the continued initial hearing, any person may request prior to the conclusion of the continued hearing that the record be left
open for at least seven days to allow submittal of additional written evidence or testimony. Such additional written evidence or testimony shall be limited to evidence
or testimony that rebuts the new written evidence or testimony.
4.If the hearing is other than an initial hearing, any continuances are at the discretion of the hearings body.
D.Leaving record open. If at the conclusion of the initial hearing the Hearings Body leaves the record open for additional written evidence or testimony, the record shall be left
open for at least 14 additional days, allowing at least the first seven days for submittal of new written evidence or testimony and at least seven additional days for response
to the evidence received while the record was held open. Written evidence or testimony submitted during the period the record is held open shall be limited to evidence or
testimony that rebuts previously submitted evidence or testimony.
E.A continuance or record extension granted under DCC 22.24.140 shall be subject to the 150-day time limit unless the continuance or extension is requested or otherwise
agreed to by the applicant. When the record is left open or a continuance is granted after a request by an applicant, the time period during which the 150-day clock is
suspended shall include the time period made available to the applicant and any time period given to parties to respond to the applicant's submittal.
HISTORY
Repealed & Reenacted by Ord. 82-011 on 8/9/1982
Repealed & Reenacted by Ord. 90-007 §1 on 12/7/1990
Amended by Ord. 91-013 §9 on 2/27/1991
Amended by Ord. 95-045 §18 on 6/28/1995
Amended by Ord. 96-071 §1D on 12/30/1996
Amended by Ord. 99-031 §9 on 10/27/1999