Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-09-28 L Fancher - 1st Open Record Period Comments Zone Change/Plan Amendment - Swisher Page 1 of 2 BEFORE THE PLANNING DIVISION OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON FILE NUMBERS: 247-21-000616-PA, -000617-ZC APPLICANT: Dave Swisher APPLICANT’S ATTORNEY: Liz Fancher 2465 NW Sacagawea Lane Bend, Oregon 97703 Phone: 541-385-3067 E-mail: liz@lizfancher.com PROPERTY OWNER: Don Swisher Trust Dave Swisher, Successor Trustee Carolyn J. Swisher Trust Dave Swisher, Successor Trustee MacCloskey Revocable Trust Craig and Jane I. MacCloskey. Trustees (co-owner of Tax Lot 600 only) SUBJECT PROPERTY: Tax Lot 100, Assessor’s Map 17-13-18C (“Tax Lot 100”) Tax Lot 600, Assessor’s Map 17-13-18 (“Tax Lot 600”) REQUEST: An application to change the designation of the subject property from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA) and to change the zoning of the subject property from Exclusive Farm Use – Tumalo/Redmond/ Bend subzone (EFU-TRB) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10) as the subject property does not qualify as “Agricultural Land” pursuant to State Law and administrative rules. APPLICANT’S POST-HEARING EVIDENCE I am filing, on behalf of the applicant, the following attached documents for inclusion in the record of the above-referenced case: “Rural Resource Lands Research Report” dated May 16, 2019 prepared by DLCD Public Research Lands Fellow Stephanie Campbell (part) “Agricultural Soils Assessment” webpages published by and obtained from DLCD website on 9/28/2021 Zone Change/Plan Amendment - Swisher Page 2 of 2 Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County, LUBA No. 2016-12 (relevant part) “Conservation Neighbor: Andy Gallagher,” article by Teresa Matteson dated December 29, 2020 published on Benton County Soil and Water Conservation District’s website. “Soil Survey Deschutes Area Oregon” published by USDA Soil Conservation Service December 1958 (obtained from Web Soil Survey of the NRCS)(part). Resume for Andy Gallagher “Soil Survey of the Upper Deschutes River Area” published by the USDA and NRCS (part) WebSoil Survey “Custom Soil Resource Report” for the subject property (location approximate) obtain from NRCS. ORS 215.211, Agricultural land OAR 660-033-0030, Identifying Agricultural Land OAR 660-033-0045, Soils Assessments by Professional Soils Classifiers Respectfully submitted this 28th day of September 2021 Liz Fancher Liz Fancher, OSB #812202 Cc: client Rural Resource Lands Research Report Prepared by Stephanie Campbell, Rural Lands Research Fellow May 16, 2019 Item 6 Attachment A Research Report ATTACHMENT A - Page 1 of 54 5 Rural Resource Lands Research Report 2009 The Big Look Task Force Report was released to the 2009 Oregon Legislature. Chapter 3 of the Report focuses on issues related to appropriate zoning of non- productive farm and forest land as well as the re-designation of these lands for other rural uses. The Big Look Task Force brought attention to the need to better define and set quantifiable limits for carrying capacity. As a result of The Big Look, the 2009 Legislature passed House Bill 2229. HB 2229 provided counties with a process for corrective remapping of rural land zoning to ensure sustainable development of rezoned lands and for prompting updates of natural resource protections. The bill created the structure for a regional problem-solving process that allowed counties to remap rural lands based on the results of regional problem solving. See ORS 215.788—794. 2012 Governor Kitzhaber signed Executive Order 12-07, known as the Southern Oregon Regional Pilot Project (SORPP), establishing a Pilot Program for Regional Farm and Forest Land Conservation. Douglas, Jackson, and Josephine counties began a regional process to develop a plan that allowed for regional variation in what lands must be planned and zoned for farm and forest use. The executive order focused specifically on the parameters and measures that should be used in determining what was, and was not, "nonresource land." 2016 Final SORPP reports were submitted to LCDC. Ultimately, participating counties were unable to reach consensus on the difficult topics included in the scope of the executive order, and were not able to establish a regional planning framework to address them. Existing Regulatory Framework Agricultural Land Statewide Planning Goal 3, “Agricultural Lands,” requires identification of agricultural land, use of statutory EFU zones, and review of land uses according to statute and administrative rule (OAR chapter 660, division 33) requirements. Agricultural lands are defined in OAR 660-033-0020(1): (1)(a) "Agricultural Land" as defined in Goal 3 includes: (A) Lands classified by the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as predominantly Class I-IV soils in Western Oregon and I-VI soils in Eastern Oregon; (B) Land in other soil classes that is suitable for farm use as defined in ORS 215.203(2)(a), taking into consideration soil fertility; suitability for grazing; climatic conditions; existing and future availability of water for farm irrigation purposes; existing land use patterns; technological and energy inputs required; and accepted farming practices; and (C) Land that is necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby agricultural lands. Item 6 Attachment A Research Report ATTACHMENT A - Page 7 of 54 6 Rural Resource Lands Research Report (b) Land in capability classes other than I-IV/I-VI that is adjacent to or intermingled with lands in capability classes I-IV/I-VI within a farm unit, shall be inventoried as agricultural lands even though this land may not be cropped or grazed; (c) "Agricultural Land" does not include land within acknowledged urban growth boundaries or land within acknowledged exception areas for Goal 3 or 4. The agricultural land definition includes land based on soil capability but also requires an in- depth analysis of whether the land is suitable for farm use, which typically requires the use of discretion by local decision makers. OAR 660-033-0030 provides additional guidance on identifying agricultural land and provides an option for the use of soil assessments that are more detailed than NRCS mapping. In addition, there is substantial case law which has served to further refine how suitability for farm use should be addressed. Forest Land Statewide Planning Goal 4, “Forest Lands,” seeks to maintain Oregon’s forests for tree harvesting that is consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, fish, and wildlife resources. OAR 660-006-0005(7) defines forest lands as: (7) “Forest lands” as defined in Goal 4 are those lands acknowledged as forest lands, or, in the case of a plan amendment, forest lands shall include: (a) Lands that are suitable for commercial forest uses, including adjacent or nearby lands which are necessary to permit forest operations or practices; and (b) Other forested lands that maintain soil, air, water and fish and wildlife resources. OAR 660-006-0010 provides additional requirements for identifying forest land for a comprehensive plan and zone change amendments. NRCS is the primary source for wood production capability data. If NRCS mapping is unavailable or proven to be inaccurate, alternate data sources may be considered in the following order: 1. Oregon Department of Revenue (DOR) site class maps for Western Oregon 2. USDA Forest Service plant association guides 3. Other information determined by the State Forester to be of comparable quality. The rule does not establish a minimum threshold for wood production capability that constitutes commercial forest use. In Just v. Linn County (60 Or LUBA 74 (2009)), the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) found: “Our cases suggest that land with a productivity of less than 20 cf/ac/yr may be unsuitable for commercial forest use unless there are factors that compensate for the land’s relatively low productivity. But land in a middle range from a low of approximately 40 cf/ac/yr to a high of approximately 80 cf/ac/yr is unlikely to be unsuitable for commercial forest use unless there are additional factors that render those moderately productive soils unsuitable for commercial forest use. Rural land with a wood fiber productivity of over 80 cf/ac/yr is almost certainly suitable for commercial forest use, even if there are limiting factors.” Item 6 Attachment A Research Report ATTACHMENT A - Page 8 of 54 7 Rural Resource Lands Research Report The portion of the forest lands definition that addresses maintaining “soil, air, water and fish and wildlife resources” has not been further defined in rule. LUBA has determined that a lack of Goal 5 resources in a county comprehensive plan is not adequate justification, if such lands are needed to maintain soil, air, fish and wildlife resources (DLCD v. Curry County, 33 Or LUBA 728 (1997)). Rural Resource Land Found in ORS 215.788, the current definition for rural resource lands exists in statute by the term, “nonresource land,” and is defined by what it is not: 215.788 Legislative review of lands zoned for farm and forest use; criteria. (4) A county must plan and zone land reviewed under this section: (a) For farm use if the land meets the definition of “agricultural land” in a goal relating to agricultural lands; (b) For forest use if the land meets the definition of “forest land” used for comprehensive plan amendments in the goal relating to forestlands; (c) For mixed farm and forest use if the land meets both definitions; (d) For nonresource use, consistent with ORS 215.794, if the land does not meet either definition; or (e) For a use other than farm use or forest use as provided in a goal relating to land use planning process and policy framework and subject to an exception to the appropriate goals under ORS 197.732 (2). Presently, counties may designate rural resource lands through two methods. The first, and to date only process utilized, is by identifying land that does not meet the definition of “Agricultural Land” or “Forest Land” and thus is not subject to Goal 3 or 4 protection. These lands are typically designated in the county comprehensive plan as “nonresource lands” and may be developed for residential or other uses not allowed in farm and forest zones. Counties permit creation of new parcels in nonresource land zones that are smaller than typically is allowed in EFU or forest zones. Rural resource lands are still subject to the other Statewide Planning Goals which, among other matters, preclude the establishment or extension of public sewer systems and urbanization. Uses allowed on rural resource lands must also be compliant with county adopted Goal 5 inventories (e.g. wildlife habitat, wetlands, riparian corridors). Ten Oregon counties have utilized this method to rezone land from EFU and forest. The primary purpose for nonresource designations appears to be the creation of rural residential parcels. 3 Between 2008 and 2018, DLCD identified 24 zone changes associated with nonresource designations. These zone changes did not require an exception from Statewide Planning Goals 3 or 4. Two zone changes were to rural commercial zones. Twenty-two zone changes were from EFU or forest zones to zones that list single-family residential dwellings as an outright allowed use. Residential minimum parcel sizes varied between 5, 10, and 20 acres. 3 Clatsop, Crook, Deschutes, Douglas, Jackson, Josephine, Klamath, Linn, Lane, Wasco Item 6 Attachment A Research Report ATTACHMENT A - Page 9 of 54 8 Rural Resource Lands Research Report The second path to rural resource land designation, which has not been used by counties, requires a more comprehensive evaluation and direct DLCD participation. Found in ORS 215.788 – 794, this option was created in 2009 as a result of the “Big Look.” If used, this process would provide counties with an opportunity for corrective remapping of rural lands while considering the carrying capacity of those lands for development. To begin the Big Look process, a scope of work for the reacknowledgement must be approved by DLCD. The process would then proceed as a legislative review of county lands to determine whether lands currently zoned farm and/or forest are consistent with the definitions of “agricultural lands” or “forest lands” as stated in the respective goals. Lands which are subject to a goal exception under ORS 197.732 must also be reviewed. After making determinations regarding what farm and/or forest lands do and do not meet the definition and analyzing carrying capacity, counties must submit findings to DLCD which will then be reviewed by LCDC in coordination with ODA and ODF. Rural resource land designations do not require a goal exception from Statewide Planning Goals 3 or 4. However, the land is still subject to compliance with the other Statewide Planning Goals unless an exception is taken. For example, Goal 11 (Public Facilities and Services) prohibits extension of sewer service to rural areas, including rural resource lands, without an exception. Analysis and Findings A robust rural resource lands policy will consider: capability, suitability, and carrying capacity. Capability refers to the ability of the land to produce an agricultural or forest product. This factor is primarily governed by soils and water availability. 4 Agricultural land capability class and forest productivity thresholds are useful tools for determining at what level of capability an agricultural or forest operation is deemed feasible. Suitability, another significant factor, refers to the ability to conduct viable farm or forest operations and is intimately related to the size and position of the operation’s land base in relation to surrounding uses as well as accompanying infrastructure.5 Carrying capacity refers to the level of use which can be accommodated and continued without impairment of natural resources productivity, the ecosystem and the quality of air, land, and water resources.6 Additionally, carrying capacity, in relation to rural resource lands, should account for impacts to water supply, energy use, transportation facilities, risk and cost of wildfire, cost of public facilities and services, and the fiscal health of local government as outlined in ORS 215.791. Finally, state land use policy ensures that rural lands remain sparsely settled and are not utilized for urban levels of development and services consistent with Goals 11 (Public Facilities and Services), 12 (Transportation), and 14 (Urbanization). The following section of the report will address the above considerations through a (1) Farm and Forest Resource Evaluation and (2) Carrying Capacity Evaluation. To begin, the Farm and Forest Resource Evaluation considers what lands might qualify as rural resource lands based upon the land’s potential agricultural capability and woody biomass productivity. The Carrying 4 Johnson, J. Oregon Department of Agriculture. (2007). Identification and Assessment of the Long-Term Commercial Viability of Metro Region Agricultural Lands. < https://multco.us/file/27992/download>. 5 Ibid. 6 Department of Land Conservation and Development, Statewide Planning Goals: Definitions. Item 6 Attachment A Research Report ATTACHMENT A - Page 10 of 54 Agricultural Soils Assessment • Climate Change • Comprehensive Plan Updates • FARM AND FOREST o Agricultural Soils Assessment o Agritourism o Farmland Protection o Forestland Protection o Multi-County Code Update o Non-Resource Land o Transfer of Development Rights • Measure 49 • Natural Hazards • Natural Resources and Renewable Energy • Oregon Coastal Management Program • Rural Planning • Transportation and Growth Management Program • Urban Planning • × Close this menu Oregon has some of the most productive soil in the world. Soil mapping done by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is the most common tool used for identifying the types of soils in an area. The NRCS provides a rating for each soil type that indicates how suited the soil is for agriculture. Oregon’s land use laws help keep the best soils for crop cultivation and agricultural use. Soils that are less productive have more opportunities for development than higher quality soils. NRCS does not have the ability to map each parcel of land, so it looks at larger areas. This means that the map may miss a pocket of different soils. DLCD has a process landowners can use to challenge NRCS soils information on a specific property. Owners who believe soil on their property has been incorrectly mapped may retain a "professional soil classifier…certified by and in good standing with the Soil Science Society of America" (ORS 215.211) through a process administered by DLCD. This soils professional can conduct an assessment that may result in a change of the allowable uses for a property. Applicability and Process Soil capability is a measure the soil's productivity potential for farm crops and forests. The rules for an assessment of a soil's productivity apply to land zoned exclusive farm use or for mixed farm and forest use (OAR 660-033-0045). They also apply to rezoning forestland for non-resource use when the applicant relies on alternate soils information to show that the land should not be agricultural. The rules can apply to other changes as well, including those for comprehensive plan designations, zoning, non-farm land divisions, and certain dwellings. DLCD maintains a list of soils professionals who are qualified to help landowners prepare a property-specific soil assessment. Other soil consultants may be qualified but are not allowed to take part in the program unless they apply to DLCD. A property owner must select a professional from the list below in order to use non-NRCS soils data in a land use application. The soils professional conducts a site investigation and prepares a soils assessment for review by DLCD. DLCD will review the soils assessment upon receiving a completed application form and the $625 fee. Occasionally soils assessments are audited by a DLCD soils consultant who may need to go to the subject site to investigate. The owner's soils professional is given an opportunity to correct any issues identified by DLCD. DLCD does not submit a soils assessment to a local government without applicant consent and a completed Soils Assessment Release Form. Soils Professionals Landowners who desire to use non-NRCS agricultural soil capability data in a land use application must retain a certified professional from the table below. This listing is not an endorsement, and those requesting a soil assessment should get references and bids from more than one person. Name Company Address Phone Andy V. Gallagher Red Hill Soils PO Box 2233 Corvallis, OR 97339 541-740-9508 add Brian T. Rabe Cascade Earth Sciences 3511 Pacific Blvd SW Albany, OR 97321 541-812-6639 add Gary A. Kitzrow PO Box 96 Harrisburg, OR 97466 541-817-4749 add Name Company Address Phone Gary A. Kitzrow 946 SW Veterans Way #102 Redmond, OR 97756 458-292-6442 add Paul Kennedy 2468 Crestview Ave Roseburg, OR 97471 541-673-0538 add Michael Sowers Cascade Earth Sciences 2902 W Main St Visalia, CA 93291 559-972-9282 add Local Government's Role A soils assessment is usually part of a larger application for land use permit or zone change. Local governments do not have to agree with the results of a DLCD-approved soils assessment and it is the applicant's responsibility to address local government requirements during the land use proceeding. Listing Your Soil Service with DLCD DLCD welcomes applications from Certified Professional Soil Classifiers and Certified Professional Soil Scientists (CPSS) who want to be listed as an approved soils professional. Applications from CPSSs will be reviewed by an independent panel of soils professionals for adequate education and experience in soil classification and mapping. To apply, please contact the Farm/Forest Specialist for details on the application process. You will be provided with a Soils Professional Application and the Professional Experience forms. When completed, return the forms to the DLCD Farm & Forest Lands Specialist. Professionals on the list must maintain good standing with SSSA. CENTRAL OREGON LANDWATCH, Petitioner, v...., 2016 WL 4585288... © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.1 2016 WL 4585288 (Or Luba) Land Use Board of Appeals State of Oregon CENTRAL OREGON LANDWATCH, Petitioner, vs. DESCHUTES COUNTY, Respondent, and ANTHONY ACETI, AND STEVE MULKEY Intervenors-Respondents. LUBA No. 2016-012 REMANDED August 10, 2016 FINAL OPINION AND ORDER Appeal from Deschutes County. *1 Carol Macbeth, Bend, filed the petition for review and argued on behalf of petitioner. No Appearance by Deschutes County. Dan Terrell, Eugene, filed the response brief and argued on behalf of intervener-respondent Anthony Aceti. With him on the brief was the Law Office of Bill Kloos, PC. Steve Mulkey, Bend, represented himself. HOLSTUN, Board Chair; BASSHAM, Board Member, participated in the decision. RYAN, Board Member, did not participate in the decision. You are entitled to judicial review of this Order. Judicial review is governed by the provisions of ORS 197.850. Opinion by Holstun. NATURE OF THE DECISION Petitioner appeals amendments to a county comprehensive plan map and zoning map and the adoption of an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 14 (Urbanization) for two tax lots located between the cities of Bend and Redmond, next to Highway 97 at Deschutes Junction. MOTIONS FOR REPLY BRIEF Petitioner moves to file a reply brief. The motion is unopposed and the motion is granted. FACTS CENTRAL OREGON LANDWATCH, Petitioner, v...., 2016 WL 4585288... © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2 Intervenor-Respondent Anthony Aceti (intervenor) owns the subject 21.59 acres. The decision challenged in this appeal changes the comprehensive plan map designation for the property from Agriculture to Rural Industrial and changes the zoning from Exclusive Farm Use Tumalo/Bend Subzone (EFU) to Rural Industrial Zone. The challenged decision also approves an irrevocably committed exception to Goal 14. The subject property consists of tax lots 201 and 104. A map of the property is attached as an appendix to this opinion. Tax lot 201 makes up the bulk of the property. Southbound Highway 97 on-off ramps and approach form the northern boundary of the subject property. The subject property is bordered by Highway 97 on the east. Tumalo Road bisects tax lot 201 and passes over Highway 97. The property to the west is improved with a school. The subject property is spotted with sparse stubble left from a failed hay crop fifteen years ago. A recent site-specific soil survey determined that subject property has predominantly poor quality soils. The property is generally level with an existing warehouse and gravel parking lot located on the northern part of Tax Lot near Tax Lot 104 and the intersection of the Highway 97 on-off ramps and Tumalo Road. On October 1, 2015, a hearings officer issued an eighty-one page decision recommending approval of an irrevocably committed exception to Goal 14 and the comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments. The board of county commissioners held a de novo public hearing on the application, and on January 6, 2016 approved the Goal 14 exception and amendments to the plan and zoning map, and incorporated the hearings officer's decision as findings. FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR *2 OAR 660-033-0020(1) defines “Agricultural land,” as that term is used in Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands), to include land that is (1) classified by the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as predominantly Class I-VI soils in Eastern Oregon, (2) land in other soil classes that is suitable for farm use, considering several specified factors, (3) land required to allow farm practices to be carried out on adjacent or nearby agricultural lands and (4) land that is adjacent to or intermingled with lands with soil capability classes I-VI within a farm unit.1 OAR 660-033-0030(2) clarifies that in making the first determination (predominant soil classification) the appropriate focus is on the 21-acre property, but in determining if land that falls outside the requisite soil classifications is nevertheless suitable for farm use (OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B)) or “necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby agricultural lands” the focus is broader than the individual property under consideration.2 The county determined that the subject property does not qualify as agricultural land: “Substantial evidence in the record supports a finding that the property is not Agricultural Land as it consists of predominantly Class VII and VIII soils and is further unsuitable for farm use considering profitability and factors in the Goal 3 administrative rule, including, among other things, difficulties associated with irrigating the property, impacts of nearby heavy traffic and transportation, the bisection of the property with the construction of Tumalo Road, surrounding commercial and industrial uses, and the relatively small size of the parcel.” Record 58. Petitioner argues that the county erred in a number of ways when it determined that the subject property is not agricultural land. LUBA's standard of review is set out at ORS 197.835(9).3 Before turning to petitioner's specific arguments, we note that petitioner generally appears to argue that there is evidence a reasonable decision maker could have relied on to conclude that the subject property is made up of Class I through IV soils and therefore qualifies as agricultural land under OAR 660-033-0020(1) (a)(A). See n 1. That is not the issue on appeal. In deciding whether the county's decision must be remanded under ORS 197.835(9)(a)(C), because it is “not supported by substantial evidence in the whole record,” the question is whether the evidence the county relied on to conclude the property is not made up of Class I through IV soils is supported by substantial evidence, i.e., evidence a reasonable person would believe. Dodd v. Hood River County, 317 Or 172, 179, 855 P2d 608 (1993); Younger v. City of Portland, 305 Or 346, 358-60, 752 P2d 262 (1988). If we conclude that the county's conclusion is supported by substantial evidence, it does not matter whether the evidentiary record also includes substantial evidence that would support a decision that county did not adopt. Heceta Water District v. Lane County, 24 Or LUBA 402, 427 (1993). We also note that petitioner either argues or comes very close to arguing that LUBA should reweigh the evidence regarding the quality of the soils on the property. CENTRAL OREGON LANDWATCH, Petitioner, v...., 2016 WL 4585288... © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3 As intervenor correctly notes, in performing substantial evidence review under ORS 197.835(9)(a)(C), LUBA may not reweigh the evidence. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Marion County, 116 Or App 584, 588, 842 P2d 441 (1992). A. The Property's Predominant Soils Classification *3 As noted above, in Eastern Oregon, “[l]ands classified by [NRCS] as predominantly Class * * * I-VI soils” are considered “Agricultural Land.” OAR 661-033-0020(1)(a)(A). See n 1. Petitioner's first subassignment of error begins on page 12 of the petition for review and continues to the top of page 21 of the petition for review. In this subassignment of error petitioner challenges the county's finding that the subject property is predominantly Class VII and VIII soils and therefore is not agricultural land under OAR 661-033-0020(1)(a)(A). Petitioner argues that the decision is not supported by substantial evidence because the NRCS soil survey identifies the subject property as predominantly Class VI soils, which are Class III soils when irrigated. Petitioner advances four arguments under this subassignment of error: (1) the property's history of irrigated agriculture shows it is agricultural land, (2) there has been no change in the irrigated status of the property, (3) there has been no change in the soils, and (4) the Borine Study which the county relied on does not establish that the property is predominantly Class VII and VIII soils. We consider petitioner's fourth argument first. 1. The Borine Study Petitioner recognizes that the county relied on the site-specific Borine Study, which concluded the property is predominately Class VII and VIII soils, but argues that that study is simply incorrect, since the NRCS has not identified any acreage of capability Class VII and Class VIII soils in the entire irrigated farmland base of the NRCS Upper Deschutes subbase hydrologic unit. According to the NRCS that unit includes Classes III, IV, and VI soils. Based predominantly on the NRCS determinations and past irrigation and farming practices on the property, petitioner asserts that the county's findings that the soils are Class VII and VIII are defective because they are inconsistent with the NRCS evidence in the record. Specifically, at oral argument, petitioner stressed that the evidence it relies on supports its position that it is highly unlikely that the soils are Class VII or worse because no rational person would irrigate and attempt to grow hay on soils that are so poor they would not appreciably benefit from irrigation. If we understand petitioner correctly, since it is not disputed that the property has been irrigated in the past, and hay crops were raised on the property, petitioner contends that it follows that the property could not be predominantly Class VII and VIII soils. Intervenor responds that notwithstanding NRCS's determination, the Borine Study is substantial evidence to support the county's determination that the subject property is not agricultural land. The Borine Study consists of a site-specific soils analysis that included 43 soil data points,4 five transects5 and 276 site observations. The study was prepared by Roger Borine, a certified professional soils classifier. The Borine Study concluded that approximately eighty percent of the subject property is Land Capability Class VII and VIII soils, and twenty percent is Land Capability Class III - VI soils. Accordingly, Borine determined that the subject property is not predominantly Class I through VI soils. Intervenor notes that OAR 660-033-0030 permits the use of more detailed data on soil capability than provided by NRCS soil maps to define agricultural land.6 Further, the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) certified the Borine Study. Record 1373. Intervenor also points out that even if owners of the property were able to grow some hay on the property in the past in conjunction with a larger haying operation on a much larger farm unit, that does not necessarily mean the Borine Study's conclusions are not substantial evidence that the soils on the 21-acre property are predominantly Class VII and VIII. *4 We agree with intervenor. The Borine Study is evidence a reasonable person would rely on and the county was entitled to rely on it. As intervenor notes, the NRCS maps are intended for use at a higher landscape level and include the express statement “Warning: Soil Ratings may not be valid at this scale.” Record 316. Conversely, the Borine Study extensively studied the site with multiple on-site observations and the study's conclusions are uncontradicted, other than by petitioner's conclusions based on historical farm use of the property. This study supports the county's conclusion that the site is not predominantly Class VI soils. 2. History of Irrigation/No Change in Irrigation Status CENTRAL OREGON LANDWATCH, Petitioner, v...., 2016 WL 4585288... © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.4 The property apparently has between 15 and 19 acres of water rights, and has held those water rights since at least 1968. As recently as 1996, the property was irrigated to produce hay. In its second and third arguments under this subassignment of error, petitioner argues this history establishes that the subject property qualifies as agricultural land. Petitioner argues the county erroneously found that there has been a change in irrigation status when it determined that “[t]he land has not been irrigated since the overpass was constructed and cut through the established irrigation system.” Record 44. Petitioner argues that there is no reason that the land cannot be irrigated because it was irrigated until at least 1996. Intervenor responds that the decision actually identifies a number of changed circumstances that make irrigation of the subject property problematic and of questionable value: “[W]hile petitioner's quoted findings implies that there was only one change in circumstance, the findings actually contain two pages of specific findings regarding historic changes to the near-by irrigation system * * *. Those findings include, among other things: the practical destruction of the closest irrigation pond due to ODOT widening Highway 97 in 1991; the creation of the replacement irrigation pond located downhill and half a mile away on Half Mile Lane, the refusal of the seller or new property owners of Tax Lot 1100 to [grant] an easement to convey water to the subject property in 2006 when the Barretts sold the land on which the new pond is located; the lack of an easement across Tax lot 1200 abutting the subject property; the Intervenor's failed 2003 attempt to construct a new irrigation pond on the subject property; the reduction of irrigation rights from 21.4 acres in 1995 to 16 acres in 2015 and the construction of the approach to the Deschutes Junction Overpass across the subject property making it necessary to use hand lines rather than wheel lines, even if water is available. * * *” Intervenor-Respondent's Brief 24-25. We agree with intervenor that there is substantial evidence in the record that irrigating the subject property would have to overcome a number of obstacles and would not likely produce enough in the way of increased production to make such irrigation practical. More to the point, intervenor argues the Borine Report shows that the predominant Class VII and VIII soils on the property remain Class VII and VIII soils even if they were irrigated. Record 1329 (Table 2-Order 1 Soils Survey Map Units and Interpretations). In other words, even with irrigation, the subject property would not qualify as agricultural land under OAR 661-033-0020(1)(a)(A). Petitioner's irrigation arguments do not establish that the county erred in finding that the subject property does not qualify as agricultural land under OAR 661-033-0020(1)(a)(A). 3. No Change in Soils *5 Petitioner's make one additional argument under this subassignment of error: “In order for the soil quality on the subject property to drop from irrigated Class III, suitable for crop cultivation, to Class VII and Class VIII, not capable of improvement by irrigation, the soils on the property must have undergone a radical change for the worse. However, there is no evidence of any such change in the interval since the land was last used for irrigated agriculture.” Petition for Review 17. Petitioner's final argument under this subassignment of error is essentially a contention that because NRCS rates the soils on the property as Class III with irrigation and because the property has been used for irrigated crop production in conjunction with adjoining property in the past, only a change in the physical characteristics of the soils could explain the Borine Study conclusion that the soils are predominantly Class VII and VIII, and that there is no evidence of such a physical change in the soils. As we have already explained, the differences between NRCS and the Borine Study with regard to their conclusions about the classification of the soils on the property is explained by the high level nature of the NRCS data and the more detailed nature of the Borine Study. Petitioner assigns far too much significance to the historical use of the 21-acre property when it was part of a much larger farm unit. Petitioner's first subassignment of error is denied. CENTRAL OREGON LANDWATCH, Petitioner, v...., 2016 WL 4585288... © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.5 B. Land In Other Classifications That are Suitable for Farm Use or Adjacent to or Intermingled With Agricultural Land Petitioner's second subassignment of error, petition for review 21-23, is based on two legal theories. First, under OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B), even if land does not qualify as agricultural land under OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(A), because it does not meet the predominantly Class I-VI test, land may qualify as agricultural land “taking into consideration,” the factors set out at OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B), which include “accepted farming practices.” See n 1. Second, under OAR 660-033-0020(1) (b), lands in other classification must be inventoried as agricultural land if they are “adjacent to or intermingled with land in capability classes * * * I-VI within a farm unit * * *.” Id. We address those legal theories in order. 1. Other Than Class I-VI Lands Taking Into Consideration Farming Practices. In Wetherell v. Douglas County, 62 Or LUBA 80, 83 (2010), LUBA explained: “The ‘suitable for farm use’ test in OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B) refers to the definition of ‘farm use’ at ORS 215.203(2)(a), which in relevant part means ‘the current employment of land for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money’ by engaging in a number of listed agricultural pursuits, including the ‘feeding, breeding, management and sale of, or the produce of, livestock.’ For purposes of determining whether land is agricultural land under OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B), a factor that a local government may consider in addition to the seven factors listed in the rule is whether a reasonable farmer would be motivated to put the land to agricultural use, including grazing, for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money. See Wetherell v. Douglas County (Great American Properties), 342 Or 666, 160 P3d 614 (2007) (invalidating an administrative rule that prohibited consideration of profitability). See also Wetherell v. Douglas County (Garden Valley Estates), 60 Or LUBA 131, 137-147 (2009), aff'd 235 Or App 246, 230 P3d 976 (2010) (describing limitations on the analysis of profitability).” *6 In three pages of analysis, the county determined that based on the listed factors, the subject property is not agricultural land under OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B). Record 58-60. Petitioner argues that the county only provided a cursory analysis of accepted farm practices, and erred in failing to consider what accepted farm practices neighboring farmers may use to cultivate their own soils for irrigated agriculture, where such neighboring farmland includes similar soils identified by NRCS that are also located on the subject property. The county's findings on accepted farming practices are: “The applicant states the following in the burden of proof statement: “‘It is not an accepted farm practice in Central Oregon to irrigate and cultivate poor quality Class VII and VIII soils--particularly where, as here, those soils are adjacent to rural industrial uses, urban density residential neighborhoods that complain about dust and chemicals and to high traffic counts on the surrounding roads and highways. Irrigating rock is not productive.’ “Substantial evidence in the record shows that the subject property does not constitute ‘agricultural land’ under the Goal 3 administrative rule factors first because it is comprised of Class VI and VII soils, and second, based on a consideration [of] each of the following factors, addressed by the Borine report: soil fertility, suitability for grazing, climatic conditions, existing and future availability of water for farm irrigation purposes, existing land use patterns, technological and energy inputs required, and accepted farm practices.” Record 60-61 (original italics omitted). Intervenor further points to evidence in the record demonstrating that area farmers have considered and rejected using the subject property as part of a farming operation for growing crops and raising cattle, citing testimony of Wierbach (Record 807), Galazzo (Record 811) and Juhl (Record 804-806). The county's findings regarding OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B) are adequate and supported by substantial evidence. The county determined that commercial agricultural uses in the vicinity are limited, and found that it is not an accepted farm practice to CENTRAL OREGON LANDWATCH, Petitioner, v...., 2016 WL 4585288... © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.6 irrigate and cultivate Class VII and VIII soils. Those finding are supported by the record and are sufficient to explain why the county concluded the subject property need not be inventoried as agricultural land under OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B). 2. Land Adjacent To or Intermingled with Lands in a Farm Unit Under OAR 660-033-0020(1)(b), lands that do not qualify as Class I-VI agricultural lands must nevertheless be inventoried as agricultural land if they are “adjacent to or intermingled with land in capability classes * * * I-VI within a farm unit * * *.” The county found that “the subject property is predominantly class VII and VIII soils and would not be considered a farm unit itself nor part of a larger farm unit based on the poor soils and the fact that none of the adjacent property is farmed.” Record 62. Petitioner asserts that the subject property was managed as part of a farm unit for almost a century and just because intervenor ceased to manage the parcel as farmland for some time that does not mean the subject property does not qualify as land that is adjacent to or intermingled with agricultural land within a farm unit. *7 Intervenor disputes petitioner's assertion that the property has been managed as part of a farm unit for almost a century, noting that petitioner only cites its own testimony in support of that position, and that there is conflicting evidence in the record, including evidence that irrigation water was not supplied to the property until 1968. Citing Riggs v. Douglas County, 167 Or App 1, 1 P3d 1042 (2000), intervenor argues that although a property may have once been used for farming in conjunction with other parcels as part of a larger farm unit, under the same or different ownership, that does not necessarily mean the property is presently part of a farm unit. Intervenor argues the purpose of the OAR 660-033-0020(1)(b) farm unit requirement is to preserve and protect large blocks of land for agricultural use. DLCD v. Curry County, 132 Or App 393, 398, 888 P2d 592 (1995). Intervenor contends that the property is comparatively small for eastern Oregon at 21.59 acres, and there is a major highway bisecting the parcel that makes it much more difficult to put to farm use. Intervenor contends that the property never contributed significantly to any of the larger farming operations it was a part of in the past. Finally, and most importantly, intervenor points out the subject property is not adjacent to or intermingled with any property that currently constitutes a farm unit. We agree with intervenor. Petitioner has not shown that the county erred in determining that the property does not qualify as agricultural land under OAR 660-033-0020(1)(b). This sub-assignment of error is denied. The first assignment of error is denied. SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR Petitioner argues that the county erred by approving an irrevocably committed exception to Goal 14 for the subject property. A. Waiver Intervenor initially responds that petitioner waived its right to raise the Goal 14 issues presented in the second assignment of error, because it failed to raise the issues to the county board of commissioners. Intervenor notes that LUBA's scope of review at ORS 197.825(2)(a) provides that LUBA jurisdiction ““[i]s limited to those cases in which the petitioner has exhausted all remedies available by right before petitioning the board for review[.]” As clarified in Miles v. City of Florence, 190 Or App 500, 510, 79 P3d 382 (2003), the ORS 197.825 exhaustion requirement works in conjunction with the “raise it or waive it” provision at ORS 197.763.7 Because the county board adopted the hearings officer's decision, intervenor argues petitioner was required to present to the board the Goal 14 exception issue that it raises in its second assignment of error. Intervenor argues petitioner failed to do so. Citing Lowery v. City of Portland, 68 Or LUBA 339 (2013), petitioner argues that a petitioner adequately raises an issue under ORS 197.763(1) and ORS 197.835(3) by either citing the relevant legal standard, presenting argument that includes the operative 9/23/21, 10:38 AM Conservation Neighbor: Andy Gallagher - Benton SWCD https://bentonswcd.org/conservation-neighbor-andy-gallagher/1/4 Read More Dirt Categories  Home / The Dirt / Conservation Neighbor: Andy Gallagher Conservation Neighbor: Andy Gallagher By Teresa Matteson | December 29, 2020 For two years, we studied soils’ unique contribution to site ecology to help inform planning and implementation of conservation practices on prairie restoration sites. Funded by NRCS, the Prairie Soils for Sustainable Restoration (PSSR) project has allowed us to assess soil characteristics in rare and declining upland prairie habitats. Through the comparison of remnant prairies’ soils to those of restoration sites, analyses and mapping have identified soil characteristics that may be helpful in the selection of future restoration sites. According to project partner, Andy Gallagher, “Harvesting the knowledge embodied in the prairie remnants depends on getting to knowledge before it is lost. Gaining this knowledge will take vision, cooperation, money, hard work, and time. It seems as if the last item, time, is of the essence for these prairies and for these soils. Timing is critical, and it is imperative that this work be done soon, before this source of knowledge and these communities are lost forever. We like to think we understand soils and prairies but until we understand them together, interacting and indivisible, we don’t and can’t really know them fully.” Andy Gallagher is one of 47 people who contributed to the Prairie Soils project, although his involvement with Benton SWCD reaches back over a decade. Below, Andy describes his ties to the District. “I first came to Benton SWCD looking for conservation-minded people in the Willamette Valley. I just showed up at one of the monthly Board meetings. In my years as Associate and District Director, I worked to create an Education and Outreach Program, which I felt was critical to the District’s mission. Our major accomplishment toward that goal was sponsoring two RARE volunteers who helped lay the groundwork for our program and the eventual hiring of Teresa Matteson. “Another thing I am proud of is working alongside Tom Bedell, Cliff Hall, and others to get the tax base on the 2004 ballot. It was successfully passed by the voters. It is amazing how far the District has come since those years. 9/23/21, 10:38 AM Conservation Neighbor: Andy Gallagher - Benton SWCD https://bentonswcd.org/conservation-neighbor-andy-gallagher/2/4 Andy and Logan characterizing prairie soils. 9/23/21, 10:38 AM Conservation Neighbor: Andy Gallagher - Benton SWCD https://bentonswcd.org/conservation-neighbor-andy-gallagher/3/4 Andy Gallagher and his son volunteering at the Native Plant Sale. “My most recent involvement with the District has been through several grant projects managed by Benton SWCD, and funded by Western SARE, EPA, and NRCS. During those opportunities, I consulted on soil classification projects related to soil quality. Each year, I volunteer at the District’s Native Plant Sale because I love it and, now, I bring my boys who like to help out, too.” Explore More Basic soil health principles View Post Apply Your Soil Science! View Post 9/23/21, 10:38 AM Conservation Neighbor: Andy Gallagher - Benton SWCD https://bentonswcd.org/conservation-neighbor-andy-gallagher/4/4 Private: Cover Crop Cost Benet Analysis View Post About the Author Teresa Matteson In 2001, I uprooted my family and moved to Corvallis to pursue a Master’s in Soil Science at OSU. Food waste composting research married with scholarly escapades into soil physics, chemistry and biology prepared me to be a member of the Benton SWCD Team. My passion is to revive regard for soil. Explore More #conservation neighbor #partner community #soil 9/23/21, 10:32 AM vineyards www.redhillsoil.com/resume.html 1/2 ANDY GALLAGHER 6320 NW Mountain View Drive Corvallis, Oregon 97330 (541) 745-7878 E-mail: avg@redhillsoil.com PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Soil Scientist and Consultant. Red Hill Soils, Corvallis, Oregon. (March, 1997- Present) Research Soil Scientist. Union Camp Corporation, Prattville, Alabama. (1995- 1997) Soil Research Assistant. Department of Soil Science, University of Wisconsin- Madison. (1991 - 1994) Aquatic Resources Education Coordinator. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin. (1990-1992) Groundwater Inspector. Wisconsin DATCP, Madison, Wisconsin. (April, 1991 - August, 1991) Soil Scientist. McHenry County SWCD, Woodstock, Illinois (1987 - 1990) Soil Scientist. Marion County Soil Survey and USDA-SCS, Salem, Illinois. (1986 - 1987) EDUCATION: M.S. Soil Science. 1994. University of Wisconsin-Madison. B.S. Natural Resource Management. 1985. University of Wisconsin- Stevens Point. CERTIFICATION: ARCPACS-Certified Professional Soil Classifier/Soil Scientist PUBLICATIONS Gallagher, A.V., N.C. Wollenhaupt, and A.H. Bosworth. 1996. Vegetation management and interrill erosion in no-till corn following alfalfa. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 60:1217-1222. Gallagher, A.V., and N.C. Wollenhaupt. 1997. Surface alfalfa residue removal by earthworms Lumbricus Terrestris L. in a no-till agroecosystem. Soil Biology & Biochemistry. 29:477- 479. Gallagher, A.V., G. Ice and W. Megahan. (In Press) Handbook of Control and Mitigation Measures for Silvicultural Operations. National Council for Air and Stream Improvement. Gallagher, A.V. 1999. Soil quality and land health, soil and geology maps. Chapter 9/23/21, 10:32 AM vineyards www.redhillsoil.com/resume.html 2/2 5 in: Marys River Watershed PreliminaryAssessment, Ecosystem Northwest, Corvallis, Oregon. MEMBERSHIPS and AFFILIATIONS: Associate Director, Benton Soil and Water Conservation District Soil Science Society of America Oregon Society of Soil Scientists Oregon Winegrowers Association–Service Member Home United States Department of Agriculture A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Upper Deschutes River Area, Oregon, Parts of Deschutes, Jefferson, and Klamath Counties Natural Resources Conservation Service September 23, 2021 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map..................................................................................................................8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................12 Map Unit Descriptions........................................................................................12 Upper Deschutes River Area, Oregon, Parts of Deschutes, Jefferson, and Klamath Counties..............................................................................14 36A—Deskamp loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes....................................14 38B—Deskamp-Gosney complex, 0 to 8 percent slopes............................15 58C—Gosney-Rock outcrop-Deskamp complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes...16 References............................................................................................................19 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report 6 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. Custom Soil Resource Report 7 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 9 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 48843004884400488450048846004884700488480048849004885000488510048852004884300488440048845004884600488470048848004884900488500048851004885200642500 642600 642700 642800 642900 643000 643100 642500 642600 642700 642800 642900 643000 643100 44° 6' 22'' N 121° 13' 14'' W44° 6' 22'' N121° 12' 41'' W44° 5' 51'' N 121° 13' 14'' W44° 5' 51'' N 121° 12' 41'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84 0 200 400 800 1200 Feet 0 50 100 200 300 Meters Map Scale: 1:4,670 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Upper Deschutes River Area, Oregon, Parts of Deschutes, Jefferson, and Klamath Counties Survey Area Data: Version 17, Sep 14, 2020 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: May 7, 2020—Jun 2, 2020 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background Custom Soil Resource Report 10 MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 11 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 36A Deskamp loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes 0.0 0.0% 38B Deskamp-Gosney complex, 0 to 8 percent slopes 78.2 96.0% 58C Gosney-Rock outcrop-Deskamp complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes 3.2 3.9% Totals for Area of Interest 81.4 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or Custom Soil Resource Report 12 landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. Custom Soil Resource Report 13 Upper Deschutes River Area, Oregon, Parts of Deschutes, Jefferson, and Klamath Counties 36A—Deskamp loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2472 Elevation: 3,000 to 4,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 12 inches Mean annual air temperature: 47 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 70 to 90 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Deskamp and similar soils:85 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Deskamp Setting Landform:Lava plains Landform position (two-dimensional):Summit Landform position (three-dimensional):Interfluve Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Volcanic ash over basalt Typical profile H1 - 0 to 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 Slope:0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature:20 to 40 inches to lithic bedrock Drainage class: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: Low (about 3.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R010XA009OR - JUNIPER SHRUBBY PUMICE FLAT 10-12 PZ Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 14 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 annual precipitation: 10 to 12 inches Mean annual air temperature: 47 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 70 to 90 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Deskamp and similar soils:50 percent Gosney and similar soils:35 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Deskamp Setting Landform:Lava plains Landform position (two-dimensional):Summit Landform position (three-dimensional):Interfluve Down-slope shape:Concave Across-slope shape:Concave Parent material:Volcanic ash over basalt Typical profile H1 - 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 Slope:0 to 8 percent Depth to restrictive feature:20 to 40 inches to lithic bedrock Drainage class: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: Low (about 3.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R010XA009OR - JUNIPER SHRUBBY PUMICE FLAT 10-12 PZ Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 15 Description of Gosney Setting Landform:Lava plains Landform position (two-dimensional):Summit Landform position (three-dimensional):Interfluve Down-slope shape:Concave Across-slope shape:Concave Parent material:Volcanic ash over basalt Typical profile H1 - 0 to 2 inches: stony loamy sand H2 - 2 to 14 inches: loamy sand H3 - 14 to 24 inches: unweathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 8 percent Depth to restrictive feature:10 to 20 inches to lithic bedrock Drainage class: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) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 7e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: R010XA023OR - JUNIPER SHRUBBY LAVA BLISTERS 10-12 PZ Hydric soil rating: No 58C—Gosney-Rock outcrop-Deskamp complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 24d9 Elevation: 3,000 to 4,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 12 inches Mean annual air temperature: 47 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 70 to 90 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Gosney and similar soils:50 percent Rock outcrop:25 percent Deskamp and similar soils:20 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Custom Soil Resource Report 16 Description of Gosney Setting Landform:Lava plains Landform position (two-dimensional):Summit Landform position (three-dimensional):Interfluve Down-slope shape:Concave Across-slope shape:Concave Parent material:Volcanic ash over basalt Typical profile H1 - 0 to 2 inches: stony loamy sand H2 - 2 to 14 inches: loamy sand H3 - 14 to 24 inches: unweathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature:10 to 20 inches to lithic bedrock Drainage class: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) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 7e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: R010XA023OR - JUNIPER SHRUBBY LAVA BLISTERS 10-12 PZ Hydric soil rating: No Description of Rock Outcrop Typical profile R - 0 to 60 inches: unweathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature:0 inches to lithic bedrock Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8 Hydric soil rating: No Description of Deskamp Setting Landform:Lava plains Landform position (two-dimensional):Summit Landform position (three-dimensional):Interfluve Down-slope shape:Concave Across-slope shape:Concave Parent material:Volcanic ash over basalt Custom Soil Resource Report 17 Typical profile H1 - 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 Slope:0 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature:20 to 40 inches to lithic bedrock Drainage class: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: Low (about 3.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R010XA009OR - JUNIPER SHRUBBY PUMICE FLAT 10-12 PZ Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 18 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 19 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report 20 9/23/21, 12:50 PM https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors215.html https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors215.html 1/1 215.211 Agricultural land; detailed soils assessment; fee. (1) If a person concludes that more detailed soils information than that contained in the Web Soil Survey operated by the United States Natural Resources Conservation Service would assist a county to make a better determination of whether land qualifies as agricultural land, the person must request that the Department of Land Conservation and Development arrange for an assessment of the capability of the land by a professional soil classifier who is: (a) Certified by and in good standing with the Soil Science Society of America; and (b) Chosen by the person. (2) A soils assessment produced under this section is not a public record, as defined in ORS 192.311, unless the person requesting the assessment utilizes the assessment in a land use proceeding. If the person decides to utilize a soils assessment produced under this section in a land use proceeding, the person shall inform the Department of Land Conservation and Development and consent to the release by the department of certified copies of all assessments produced under this section regarding the land to the local government conducting the land use proceeding. The department: (a) Shall review soils assessments prepared under this section. (b) May not disclose a soils assessment prior to its utilization in a land use proceeding as described in this subsection without written consent of the person paying the fee for the assessment. (c) Shall release to the local government conducting a land use proceeding all soils assessments produced under this section regarding land to which the land use proceeding applies. (3) Before arranging for a soils assessment under this section, the department shall charge and collect from the person requesting the assessment a fee in an amount intended to meet the costs of the department to assess the soils and administer this section. (4) The department shall deposit fees collected under this section in the Soils Assessment Fund established under ORS 215.212. (5) This section authorizes a person to obtain additional information for use in the determination of whether land qualifies as agricultural land, but this section does not otherwise affect the process by which a county determines whether land qualifies as agricultural land. [2010 c.44 §1; 2013 c.1 §22] 660-033-0030. Identifying Agricultural Land, OR ADC 660-033-0030 © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.1 Oregon Administrative Rules Compilation Chapter 660. Land Conservation and Development Department Division 33. Agricultural Land OAR 660-033-0030 660-033-0030. Identifying Agricultural Land Currentness (1) All land defined as “agricultural land” in OAR 660-033-0020(1) shall be inventoried as agricultural land. (2) When a jurisdiction determines the predominant soil capability classification of a lot or parcel it need only look to the land within the lot or parcel being inventoried. However, whether land is “suitable for farm use” requires an inquiry into factors beyond the mere identification of scientific soil classifications. The factors are listed in the definition of agricultural land set forth at OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B). This inquiry requires the consideration of conditions existing outside the lot or parcel being inventoried. Even if a lot or parcel is not predominantly Class I-IV soils or suitable for farm use, Goal 3 nonetheless defines as agricultural “Lands in other classes which are necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands.” A determination that a lot or parcel is not agricultural land requires findings supported by substantial evidence that addresses each of the factors set forth in 660-033-0020(1). (3) Goal 3 attaches no significance to the ownership of a lot or parcel when determining whether it is agricultural land. Nearby or adjacent land, regardless of ownership, shall be examined to the extent that a lot or parcel is either “suitable for farm use” or “necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands” outside the lot or parcel. (4) When inventoried land satisfies the definition requirements of both agricultural land and forest land, an exception is not required to show why one resource designation is chosen over another. The plan need only document the factors that were used to select an agricultural, forest, agricultural/forest, or other appropriate designation. (5) (a) More detailed data on soil capability than is contained in the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil maps and soil surveys may be used to define agricultural land. However, the more detailed soils data shall be related to the NRCS land capability classification system. (b) If a person concludes that more detailed soils information than that contained in the Web Soil Survey operated by the NRCS, would assist a county to make a better determination of whether land qualifies as agricultural land, the person must request that the department arrange for an assessment of the capability of the land by a professional soil classifier who is chosen by the person, using the process described in OAR 660-033-0045. (c) This section and OAR 660-033-0045 apply to: (A) A change to the designation of a lot or parcel planned and zoned for exclusive farm use, forest use or mixed farm- forest use to a non-resource plan designation and zone on the basis that such land is not agricultural land; and 660-033-0030. Identifying Agricultural Land, OR ADC 660-033-0030 © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2 (B) Excepting land use decisions under section (7) of this rule, any other proposed land use decision in which more detailed data is used to demonstrate that a lot or parcel planned and zoned for exclusive farm use does not meet the definition of agricultural land under OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(A). (d) This section and OAR 660-033-0045 implement ORS 215.211, effective on October 1, 2011. After this date, only those soils assessments certified by the department under section (9) of this rule may be considered by local governments in land use proceedings described in subsection (c) of this section. However, a local government may consider soils assessments that have been completed and submitted prior to October 1, 2011. (e) This section and OAR 660-033-0045 authorize a person to obtain additional information for use in the determination of whether a lot or parcel qualifies as agricultural land, but do not otherwise affect the process by which a county determines whether land qualifies as agricultural land as defined by Goal 3 and OAR 660-033-0020. (6) Any county that adopted marginal lands provisions before January 1, 1993, may continue to designate lands as “marginal lands” according to those provisions and criteria in former ORS 197.247 (1991), as long as the county has not applied the provisions of ORS 215.705 to 215.750 to lands zoned for exclusive farm use. (7) (a) For the purposes of approving a land use application on high-value farmland under ORS 215.705, the county may change the soil class, soil rating or other soil designation of a specific lot or parcel if the property owner: (A) Submits a statement of agreement from the NRCS that the soil class, soil rating or other soil designation should be adjusted based on new information; or (B) Submits a report from a soils scientist whose credentials are acceptable to the Oregon Department of Agriculture that the soil class, soil rating or other soil designation should be changed; and (C) Submits a statement from the Oregon Department of Agriculture that the Director of Agriculture or the director's designee has reviewed the report described in paragraph (a)(B) of this section and finds the analysis in the report to be soundly and scientifically based. (b) Soil classes, soil ratings or other soil designations used in or made pursuant to this section are those of the NRCS Web Soil Survey for that class, rating or designation, except for changes made pursuant to subsection (a) of this section. (8) For the purposes of approving a land use application on high-value farmland under OAR 660-033-0090, 660-033-0120, 660-033-0130 and 660-033-0135, soil classes, soil ratings or other soil designations used in or made pursuant to this definition are those of the NRCS Web Soil Survey for that class, rating or designation. Credits Statutory/Other Authority: ORS 197.040 Stats. Implemented: ORS 197.015, 197.040, 197.230, 197.245, 215.203, 215.243 & 215.700 - 215.710 660-033-0030. Identifying Agricultural Land, OR ADC 660-033-0030 © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3 History: LCDC 6-1992, f. 12-10-92, cert. ef. 8-7-93; LCDD 5-2000, f. & cert. ef. 4-24-00; LCDD 3-2008, f. & cert. ef. 4-18-08; LCDD 4-2011, f. & cert. ef. 3-16-11; LCDD 10-2011, f. & cert. ef. 12-20-11; LCDD 7-2012, f. & cert. ef. 2-14-12; LCDD 6-2013, f. 12-20-13, cert. ef. 1-1-14; LCDD 3-2016, f. & cert. ef. 2-10-16; LCDD 6-2016, f. 3-22-16, cert. ef. 3-24-16 Current with rules filed through September 14, 2021. Some sections may be more current; see credits for details. OAR 660-033-0030, OR ADC 660-033-0030 End of Document © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 660-033-0045. Soils Assessments by Professional Soil Classifiers, OR ADC 660-033-0045 © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.1 Oregon Administrative Rules Compilation Chapter 660. Land Conservation and Development Department Division 33. Agricultural Land OAR 660-033-0045 660-033-0045. Soils Assessments by Professional Soil Classifiers Currentness (1) A “professional soil classifier” means any professional in good standing with the Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) who the SSSA has certified to have met its requirements that existed as of October 1, 2011 for: (a) Certified Professional Soil Classifier; or (b) Certified Professional Soil Scientist, and who has been determined by an independent panel of soils professionals as defined in section (8) of this rule to have: (A) Completed five semester hours in soil genesis, morphology and classification; (B) At least five years of field experience in soils classification and mapping that meets National Cooperative Soil Survey standards, as maintained by the NRCS, or three years of field experience if the applicant holds an MS or PhD degree; and (C) Demonstrated competence in practicing soils classification and mapping without direct supervision, based on published SSSA standards. (2) The department will develop, update quarterly and post a list of professional soil classifiers (henceforth ‘soils professionals') who are qualified to perform soils assessments under this rule. (a) Qualified soils professionals shall include those individuals who have either met the requirements of subsection (1)(a) of this section or the requirements of subsection (1)(b) of this section as determined by a majority vote of an independent panel of soils professionals. (A) A person must apply to the department for initial inclusion on the list described in section (2) of this rule. (B) Qualified soils professionals must reapply to the department for listing on a biennial basis. 660-033-0045. Soils Assessments by Professional Soil Classifiers, OR ADC 660-033-0045 © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2 (b) A soils assessment auditing committee as defined in section (9) of this rule will periodically reevaluate qualifications of soils professionals by auditing soils assessments, considering sample department reviews and field checks as described in section (6) of this rule and verifying continued good standing of soils professionals with the SSSA. (A) When reviewing applications for relisting, the department will consider the recommendations of the auditing committee and make final determinations as to the continued qualifications of soils professionals to perform soils assessments under this rule. (B) The department will re-approve soils professionals for listing when audits, sample reviews and field checks reveal a pattern of demonstrated competence in practicing soils classification and mapping consistent with paragraph (1)(b) (C) of this rule, and when the SSSA verifies that the soils professional is in good standing with the SSSA. (3) A person requesting a soils assessment shall: (a) Choose a soils professional from the posted list described in section (2) of this rule: (b) Privately contract for a soils assessment to be prepared; and (c) On completion of the soils assessment, submit to the department payment of the non-refundable administrative fee established by the department as provided in statute to meet department costs to administer this rule. (4) On completion of the soils assessment, the selected soils professional shall submit to the department: (a) A Soils Assessment Submittal Form that includes the property owner's and soils professional's authorized signatures and a liability waiver for the department; and (b) A soils assessment that is soundly and scientifically based and that meets reporting requirements as established by the department. (5) The department shall deposit fees collected under this rule in the Soils Assessment Fund established under Oregon Laws 2010, chapter 44, section 2. (6) The department shall review the soils assessment by: (a) Performing completeness checks for consistency with reporting requirements for all submitted soils assessments; and (b) Performing sample reviews and field checks for some submitted soils assessments, as follows: 660-033-0045. Soils Assessments by Professional Soil Classifiers, OR ADC 660-033-0045 © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3 (A) The department shall arrange for a person who meets the qualifications of ‘professional soil classifier’ in section (1) of this rule to conduct systematic sample reviews and field checks of soils assessments and make recommendations to the department as to whether they are soundly and scientifically based. (B) Within 30 days of the receipt of a soils assessment subject to review under this subsection that the department determines to be complete pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the department shall determine whether the soils assessment is soundly and scientifically based. Where soils assessments are determined not to be soundly and scientifically based, the department will provide an opportunity to the soils professional to correct any noted deficiencies. Where noted deficiencies are not corrected to the satisfaction of the department, the department will provide written notification of the noted deficiencies to the soils professional, property owner and person who requested the soils assessment. (7) (a) A soils assessment produced under this rule is not a public record, as defined in ORS 192.410, unless the person requesting the assessment utilizes the assessment in a land use proceeding. If the person decides to utilize a soils assessment produced under this section in a land use proceeding, the person shall inform the department and consent to the release by the department of certified copies of all assessments produced under this section regarding the land to the local government conducting the land use proceeding. The department may not disclose a soils assessment prior to its utilization in a land use proceeding as described in this rule without written consent of the person paying the fee for the assessment and the property owner. (b) On receipt of written consent, the department shall release to the local government all soils assessments produced under this rule as well as any department notifications provided under section (6) of this rule regarding land to which the land use proceeding applies. (8) As used in this rule, “Independent panel of soils professionals” means a committee of three professionals appointed by the department that, quarterly or as needed, reviews and makes determinations regarding the qualifications of individuals seeking to be listed as soils professionals to perform soils analyses. (a) Such panel shall consist of: (A) A member of the SSSA; (B) The Oregon State Soil Scientist; and (C) An Oregon college or university soils professional. (b) Panel members shall meet the qualifications of professional soil classifiers as defined in this rule or shall have experience mapping and teaching soil genesis, morphology and classification in a college or university setting. (c) The department's farm and forest lands specialist shall serve as staff to the panel. 660-033-0045. Soils Assessments by Professional Soil Classifiers, OR ADC 660-033-0045 © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.4 (d) In reviewing qualifications of applicants with respect to required semester hours of academic study under paragraph (1)(b)(A) of this rule, panel members may adjust for differences in academic calendars. (9) As used in this rule, “Soils assessment auditing committee” means a group of three professionals that, annually or as needed, reviews and makes recommendations to the department regarding the continuing qualifications of soils professionals to perform soils analyses under this rule. (a) Committee members shall be appointed by the independent panel of soils professionals and shall meet the qualifications of professional soil classifier as defined in section (1) of this rule. (b) The department's farm and forest lands specialist shall serve as staff to the committee. (10) As used in this rule, “person” shall have the meaning set forth in ORS 197.015(18). Credits Statutory/Other Authority: ORS 197.040 Stats. Implemented: ORS 197.015, 197.040, 197.230, 197.245, 215.203, 215.211, 215.212, 215.243 & 215.700 - 215.710 History: LCDD 7-2012, f. & cert. ef. 2-14-12; LCDD 3-2016, f. & cert. ef. 2-10-16 Current with rules filed through September 14, 2021. Some sections may be more current; see credits for details. OAR 660-033-0045, OR ADC 660-033-0045 End of Document © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.