Brochure 6 in IRR Series

December 22, 2003

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

"A lot or parcel is considered forest land when the predominant (more than 50%) soil or soils on the parcel have an internal rate of return of 3.5 or higher (if a single forest-rated soil is present), or composite internal rate of return of 3.5 or higher (if multiple forest-rated soils are present)."

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. Goal 11, Policy 2.B. requires either an exception to the goals or a showing that the subject lands are not lands protected by the goals. Goal 11, Policy 3.B.(1) is a definition of forest land. The county's definition cannot supercede any definition of forest land found in statute or the goals. However, the county can impose regulations that are more restrictive - i.e. that offer more protection to resource lands - than state law or regulations.

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

Woodlot to Rural Residential & Plan Amendments

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.

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).

All comprehensive plan amendments must comply with the Statewide Planning Goals. When adopting a comprehensive plan amendment, it is the local government's obligation to explain in its findings why the plan amendment complies with the goals or why arguably applicable goal standards need not be addressed and satisfied. O'Rourke v. Union County, 29 Or LUBA 303 (1995). It is well established that all plan amendments must comply with the goals.

• Foland v. Jackson County, 311 Or App 167, 807 P2d 801 (1991).

• 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Jackson County, 79 Or App 93, 718 P2d 753 (1986) rev den 301 Or 445 (1987).

• Murray v. Marion County, 23 Or LUBA 268 (1992).

• 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Washington County, 17 Or LUBA 671, 685 (1989), citing Jackson-Josephine Forest Farm Assn. v. Josephine County, 12 Or LUBA 40, 43 (1984).

• Concerned Property Owners of Rocky Point. v. Klamath County, 3 Or LUBA 182, 185 (1981).

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.

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.