County reviews updated agricultural‑land maps, consultant to refine boundaries before public outreach

A consultant for Walla Walla County told commissioners on Nov. 25 that updated maps based on soil classifications and rainfall data show substantial portions of land currently designated as agricultural resource lands likely do not meet state criteria. Clay White of Kimley‑Horn said the county will refine boundaries with additional data and conservation‑district input before taking a proposed map to the public.

White framed the work as a countywide analysis required by the Washington Administrative Code implementing the Growth Management Act and said the team applied USDA and NRCS datasets to identify areas that meet or fail the criteria. "We just wanted to regroup with you a little bit today on the agricultural land study," White said. He described using NRCS land capability classes and overlaying prime and unique farmland soils to flag parcels that may not qualify for long‑term commercial agricultural designation.

The consultant said the baseline map removes class‑6 through class‑8 soils and overlays NRCS prime farmland layers; where the combined layers show nonconformance, the team will add additional natural boundaries and discretionary criteria to create larger, contiguous blocks suitable for public review. "We're gonna meet with the conservation district and then apply some additional criteria so we clean up boundaries of the map," White said, adding that the goal is to arrive at a map the board can nod to for community engagement.

Commissioners pressed technical choices. One commissioner suggested testing a 15‑inch rainfall threshold—noting that some recrop wheat systems need about 15–16 inches—after White reported that the state datasets used a 20‑inch line. "We can look at the 15 inches as well as we kind of finalize," White said, acknowledging the commissioners' point and promising to test the lower threshold in final maps.

The presentation also compared current PA‑40 (agricultural resource) and RR‑40 (rural remote 40) zoning. White said lands that might be redesignated out of agricultural resource status would most likely be shifted to an RR‑40 designation with updated use tables to preserve agricultural activity. He noted a key statutory difference: conversion of more than 1 acre of designated agricultural land to non‑agricultural use is limited by state statute for each lot. "That would be the primary difference for folks," White said, describing how the rezone would affect conversion limits and permitted uses.

County Planning Commission member R.L. McFarland asked whether the RR abbreviation meant "rural residential" or "rural remote." White responded that the county intends RR to mean rural remote and that staff would refine zone definitions and permitted uses to avoid confusion prior to public outreach.

Staff recommended returning to the board in a few weeks with cleaned maps and documented criteria, then engaging the public as part of the comprehensive plan update and environmental impact statement (EIS). Commissioners expressed general support and directed staff and the consultant to proceed with the next steps.

Next steps: staff and the consultant will meet with the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the conservation district, finalize map cleanup and applied thresholds (including testing 15‑inch rainfall), and return to the board with a proposed map for public comment as part of the comp‑plan EIS.