hnalogo.jpg (103481 bytes)

 

Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society

Home
Up
What Are Resource Lands?
Woodlot Resource To Non-Resource Lands
Evaluation: Internal Rate of Return - IRR
Top IRR Rated Agricultural Lands
Non-rated Soils & IRR System
Quasi-Judicial Plan Amendments
Compliance With Goal 3 -- Agricultural Lands
Compliance With Goal 4 - Forest Lands
Brown Report: IRR Zoning
Composite IRR

 

COMPLIANCE WITH GOAL 4 - FOREST LANDS

Brochure 8 in IRR Series

December 22, 2003

Land Use Committee
Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society
Member of the CACNA Coalition
__________

Josephine County Comprehensive Plan1 & Plan Amendments

Goal 11, Policy 3.B.(1). This comprehensive plan policy permits requests involving changes for lands from a resource designation (i.e., woodlot resource) to a non-resource designation through the internal rate of return, or IRR procedure.2

Plan Amendments. Josephine County by adopting the IRR system, has imposed requirements in addition to compliance with the Oregon Statewide goals for plan amendments relating to forest lands.

ORS 197.175(2)(a) - .Each city and county in Oregon shall prepare, adopt, amend and revise comprehensive plans in compliance with goals approved by the Land Conservation & Development Commission.

ORS 197.835(6) - The board shall reverse or remand an amendment to a comprehensive plan if the amendment is not in compliance with the goals.

The Hugo Neighborhood Association has concerns with the present application of the IRR system in the amendment process.3

Application of criteria included in an acknowledged comprehensive plan governing redesignation of resource lands does not obviate the requirement that comprehensive plan and land use regulation amendments comply with the statewide planning goals. DLCD v. Curry County, 33 Or LUBA 728 (1997); DLCD v. Curry County, LUBA No. 96-014 (1997) [December 15, 1997].

Compliance With Oregon Statewide Goal 4 - Forest Lands

Oregon Statewide Goal 4 — Forest Lands, OAR 660-015-0000(4) "Forest lands are those lands acknowledged as forest lands as of the date of adoption of this goal amendment. Where a plan is not acknowledged or a plan amendment involving forest lands is proposed, forest land shall include lands which are suitable for commercial forest uses including adjacent or nearby lands which are necessary to permit forest operations or practices and other forested lands that maintain soil, air, water and fish and wildlife resources."

The Goal 4 definition of "forest lands" requires analysis of

(1) whether the land is suitable for commercial forest uses;
(2) whether the land is necessary to permit forest operations or practices on adjacent or nearby forest lands; and
(3) whether the forested land is necessary to maintain soil, air, water and fish and wildlife resources . . .

An affirmative answer to any one of those criteria renders the land "forest land" under Goal 4. DLCD v. Curry County, 33 Or LUBA 728 (1997).

Goal 4 requires an analysis of the suitability of both the resource property (forest lands) being proposed for redesignation to non-resource lands and its suitability when considered along with adjacent or nearby land. The entire parcel, along with adjacent or nearby lands must be evaluated in terms of their suitability for commercial forest use.

Both Oregon Statewide Goals 3 and 4 apply to proposed plan amendments of forest lands to be re-designated to non-resource lands, both independently and as required by Goal 11, Policy 3.B. of the Josephine County Comprehensive Plan.

Palmer v. Lane County, 44 Or LUBA 334 (2003)
Potts v. Clackamas County, 42 Or LUBA 1 (2002)
Doob v. Josephine County, 41 Or LUBA 303 (2002)
Potts v. Clackamas County, 40 Or LUBA 371 (2001)
Dept. of Transportation v. Coos County, 35 Or LUBA 285, 294 n 5 (1998), rev’d on other grounds 158 Or App 568, 976 P2d 68 (1999)
DLCD v. Curry County, 33 Or LUBA 728 (1997)
DLCD v. Coos County, 32 Or LUBA 430 (1997)
Doob v. Josephine County, 31 Or LUBA 275 (1996)
Brown v. Coos County, 31 Or LUBA 142 (1996)
Doob v. Josephine County, 27 Or LUBA 293 (1994)
Waugh v. Coos County, 26 Or LUBA 300, 314 (1993)

More Information. Would you like to learn more about citizen involvement in land use planning? Contact a member of the Land Use Committee of the Hugo Neighborhood.

Disclaimer. This brochure is as much about providing information and provoking questions as it is about opinions concerning the adequacy of findings of fact and land use decisions. It does not provide recommendations to citizens and it is not legal advice. It does not take the place of a lawyer. If citizens use information contained in this paper, its their personal responsibility to make sure that the facts and general information contained in it are applicable to their situation. (Link)

1. Josephine County. October 2000. The Comprehensive Plan For Josephine County. Grants Pass, OR.

2. Lawrence F. Brown. 1985. Using The Internal Rate Of Return To Rate Forest Soils For Applications In Land Use Planning. Grants Pass, OR.; Michael Snider. 1999. Locational Factors Affecting Woodlot Resource Lands. Josephine County Planning Office. Grants Pass, OR.

3. Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society. 2003. The IRR Series: Woodlot Resource To Non-Resource Lands; Evaluation: Internal Rate of Return - IRR; Top IRR Rated Agricultural Lands; Non-rated Soils Versus IRR System; and Amendments. Grants Pass, OR.

Back to Top

2012 Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society