Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society
|
Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society |
|
TOP IRR
RATED AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Brochure 4 in IRR Series December 22, 2003
__________ Top 12 IRR Rated Soils 7 Are Agricultural Soils In total the Brown Report1 rated 56 soils of the county’s 111 soils. Twenty (20) of the rated soils (38%) were agriculture soils as defined by the Soil Survey2 (pages 178 - 181, Table 5). Top 12 IRR Rated Soils Seven of the top 12 IRR rated soils with an IRR 4.0 or greater (58%) were agricultural soils as defined by the Soil Survey. All these agricultural soils had a capability class rating from II - IV irrigated through Class VI unirrigated. The average IRR rating for all seven agricultural soils was 4.63. The average IRR rating for the five soils with capabilities Class IV irrigated and nonirrigated and Class VI nonirrigated was 4.7. The internal rate of return (IRR) system for analyzing soils is part of the Josephine County Comprehensive Plan and code.3 The Hugo Neighborhood Association has concerns with the application of the IRR system.4 More Information Agricultural Soils The Soil Survey identified 46 agricultural soils that with a high level of management were suitable for alfalfa hay, grass hay, pasture, and corn silage (pages 178 - 181, Table 5).
Non Rated Soils LUBA has ruled that designation of land as agricultural land does not, of itself, mean the land is not also suited to protection as forest land. Westfair Associates Partnership v. Lane County, 25 Or LUBA 729, 737 (1993). It has further ruled that a NRCS non-rating provides no information, quantitative or otherwise, pertinent to the statutory test of whether a soil is capable of producing defined levels of wood fiber (ORS 215.750; Carlson v. Benton County, 34 Or LUBA 140, 149 (1998). 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. 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. 2. United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service. December 1983. Soil Survey of Josephine County, Oregon. Presently the Natural Resources Conservation Service. 3. Goal 11. Josephine County. October 2000. The Comprehensive Plan For Josephine County. Grants Pass, OR; Article 46. Josephine County. Revised October 2001. Josephine County Rural Land Development Code. Grants Pass, OR. 4. Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society. 2003. Woodlot Resource To Non-Resource Lands. Grants Pass, OR; Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society. 2003. Evaluation: Internal Rate of Return - IRR. Grants Pass, OR. |
|
© 2012 Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society |