Agenda Item 4 - UGB Rulemaking <br />December 3-4, 2015 - LCDC Meeting <br />Page 41 of 56 <br />Subsection (b): The city may exclude land if it is subject to significant development hazards, due <br />to three defined "risks", landslides, flooding and Tsunamis. The statute provides these in general <br />but does not define them. This subsection proposes definitions for each. They include landslides, <br />land subject to flooding or inundation during storm surges, and land within a tsunami inundation <br />zone. <br />With regard to landslide mapping, the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries <br />(DOGAMI) has advised the department that all land on the Statewide Landslide Information <br />Database for Oregon (SLIDO) should be considered at risk due to landslides. Under ORS <br />197A.320, the rules must authorize cities to exclude landslide areas. A commenter has <br />maintained that land inventoried in SLIDO should not be considered at risk unless the city makes <br />a separate determination that building codes cannot ensure the safety of the land. DOGAMI has <br />indicated that, first, such individual determinations would be extremely expensive or impossible, <br />but moreover, that the intent of the SLIDO is for definitive State of Oregon mapping of landslide <br />risks and the map should be considered determinative. <br />Subsection (c): ORS 197A.320 indicates that cities may exclude land from the UGB study area <br />where the long-term preservation of significant scenic, natural, cultural, or recreational resources <br />requires limiting or prohibiting urban development of the land. The statute requires LCDC to <br />provide more specificity about such lands. This has not been an easy task, in part because of the <br />broad nature of Goal 5 and related rules. These rules provide a detailed process for determining <br />at least 16 categories of significant resources, and that process does not easily convert to a <br />simplified process. By their very nature, Goal 5 inventories involve complexity, cost and time, <br />since (1) there is a great variety of "resources" under Goal 5; and especially (2) each one of these <br />requires detailed site specific determinations. Resources are, in many cases, inadequately <br />inventoried by counties outside of UGBs at this time - many inventories in acknowledged plans <br />have not been revised since the early 1980's. Many of the 16 categories of resources could be <br />adequately accommodated and protected in a UGB. The statute requires exclusion only of such <br />areas that must be excluded in order to protect the resources. <br />There has been considerable discussion between the department and the Oregon Department of <br />Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and Division of State Lands (DSL) with regard to this requirement <br />and RAC discussion as well. As a result of those discussions, the department has proposed <br />certain limited resource area exclusions, for areas mapped on an ODFW Inventory as either: (1) <br />Critical or essential big game winter range or big game migration corridors, and (2) critical <br />habitat for a species listed by a state or federal agency as threatened or endangered, (3) Core <br />habitat for Greater Sage Grouse; or (4) big game winter range or migration corridors. Providing <br />these exclusions based on ODFW mapping rather than local plan mapping is in recognition that <br />agency inventories are, for many areas, the only up-to-date inventories. Many counties have not <br />updated their corresponding inventories since the county plans were acknowledged in the mid <br />1980's, and as such, basing this measure only on local plans would not provide proper <br />consideration of more up to date inventories provided by ODFW. <br />This broad category of possible exclusion areas (from the preliminary study area) also includes <br />coastal resources under Goals 16, 17, and 18. The draft proposes exclusion of certain coastal <br />