Wallowa County commissioners on Thursday reviewed a draft agricultural lands study prepared as part of the county’s 2026 periodic comprehensive‑plan update and asked staff to refine the analysis and expand outreach before proposing any map or zoning changes.

The county’s community development director, Lauren Prentice, opened the briefing by telling the board that “this is a state mandated, update of the comprehensive plan,” and that staff had focused the day’s presentation on an agricultural lands study that had not been updated in roughly 27 years.

The study, presented by Clay White of consultant Kimley‑Horn, applies state criteria to identify lands that meet the definition of “agricultural lands of long‑term commercial significance.” White said the initial filter — applying the U.S. Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service soil capability classifications and NRCS prime‑and‑unique‑farmland datasets — reduces the acreage that currently carries an agricultural designation. “Currently, there are about 717,000 acres that are zoned with that designation,” White said; “by applying those two criteria, there’s about only about 209,000 that actually meet those criteria.”

White and staff stressed that the draft is a first‑cut based on largely objective, soil‑based data and that the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) allows counties to apply additional, discretionary criteria — for example, parcel size, proximity to markets or urban growth areas, historic settlement patterns, tax status and natural boundaries — when deciding whether to reclassify parcels.

Commissioners and staff discussed practical differences between lands designated as rural and lands designated as agricultural of long‑term commercial significance. Prentice said both designations are outside urban areas and can be farmed, but agricultural designation carries extra constraints under state law — notably a prohibition on converting more than one acre of designated ag land to a nonagricultural use without a countywide analysis. White summarized the practical effect: changing a designation could allow additional nonfarm uses on a property, but it would not eliminate site‑specific reviews such as critical‑areas, septic, water or building permits.

Commissioners asked for finer detail and additional filters the study could apply. One commissioner asked whether rainfall or irrigation patterns could be used as a criterion; another asked about preserving natural boundaries rather than creating patchwork changes. White and Prentice said staff would incorporate additional datasets and clarify how different options would be implemented.

Prentice and White outlined four broad next‑step options for the board to consider: take no action now and keep the report on file; pursue limited, small‑area changes where the data clearly supports reclassification; implement countywide changes guided by the draft study; or implement countywide changes but apply additional weighted criteria and natural boundaries to reduce gaps and conflicts. Commissioners voiced support for an approach between limited changes and more sweeping revision — to refine the draft with additional criteria (rainfall was suggested explicitly) and then return with a clearer map and public‑engagement plan.

The board also heard a public comment before the briefing. Shane O’Neil, identifying himself as an applicant and representing Clover Planning & Zoning, asked staff to complete a separate 2024 comprehensive‑plan amendment and said, “we’re gonna hit the 2 year mark pretty soon,” urging the department to finish the pending decision.

No legislative action or zoning changes were taken at the meeting. Staff said the study is part of the county’s periodic update and that any future map or zoning changes would be a separate legislative process with public hearings and state‑law review. Commissioners directed staff to refine the report with additional filters (including rainfall data and natural boundary adjustments), prepare clearer comparison materials showing permitted uses in rural versus agricultural zones, and develop targeted outreach materials and frequently‑asked‑questions for affected landowners and stakeholder groups.

The briefing is scheduled to produce a revised draft study and maps for the commissioners’ review; any decision to advance changes to the comprehensive plan or zoning would come in later public, legislative steps and is not preordained by the current study.