December 3-4, 2015 - LCDC Salem <br />Agenda Item 4, Attachment H <br />The draft language below is slightly modified from the 9/10 draft to include the option for <br />a city to exclude "all or portions of land", as well as removing the reference to <br />Conservation Opportunity Areas (COAs). While the Oregon Conservation Strategy <br />(OCS) contains valuable data, it may be appropriate to include some areas within COAs <br />(e.g., waterways and associated riparian areas, floodplains, habitat corridors) in a UGB <br />if they are adequately protected as other natural resources should be (Goals 5, 16, 17, <br />18). ODFW encourages the use of the OCS and COAs as a tool for planning and <br />helping to direct conservation actions, but referencing a COA in its entirety for exclusion <br />from a UGB may not be appropriate without allowing for more regional coordination. <br />Below is some draft language for OAR 660-038-0160(c): <br />(3) A city may exclude all or portions of land from the study area if it determines that. <br />(c) The long-term preservation of significant scenic, natural, cultural or <br />recreational resources requires limiting or prohibiting urban development of the <br />land that contains the following resources. <br />(A) Habitat that is described and mapped by the Oregon Department of <br />Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) such as. <br />(i) Big game winter habitat or migration corridors, <br />(ii) Habitat for state or federal special status wildlife species, such <br />as Occupied Washington Ground Squirrel habitat. <br />OAR 660-038-0170: Evaluation of Land in the Study Area for Inclusion in the UGB; <br />Priorities <br />When a city is evaluating the land in the study area, ODFW recommends that this <br />section function as a "second screen" to exclude or reduce development capacity for <br />certain lands that require the limiting or prohibition of urban development to ensure the <br />long-term preservation of significant natural resources. ODFW recommends this <br />section identify an opportunity for cities to either exclude lands with identified resources <br />with zero buildable land capacity, or add the land to the UGB while accounting for <br />physically constrained lands. <br />The next recommendation is for consideration under Section (8), which will further <br />define "buildable lands". The adjustment to BLI to account for constrained lands as <br />described in OAR 660-038-0070, or language similar to OAR 660-008-005, may be <br />good templates to consider for how those lands may be excluded and/or development <br />capacity reduced to reflect the percentage of buildable land. The draft Division 24 <br />language provided by 1000 Friends and City of Eugene on 10/24 is also a good <br />template that addresses this concept of accounting for constrained lands during the <br />evaluation process. Language should be considered so that a city could adjust buildable <br />land for all categories included under Section 7, Subsection 2 of HB 2254 <br />(impracticable, hazards, Goal 5), with more specific criteria/direction for each. <br />For example, to address Goal 5 resources, perhaps consideration of language that <br />allows a city to further coordinate with ODFW, such as: <br />ODFW HB 2254 corrunents for RAC, 10.28.15 Page 3 <br />