December 3-4, 2015 - LCDC Salem <br />Agenda Item 4, Attachment H <br />adverse effects cannot be avoided, the city and the appropriate wildlife <br />management agency will cooperatively develop an agreement for mitigation to <br />offset the potential adverse effects at the time the land will be subject to urban <br />development. Where the city and the resource management agency cannot <br />agree on what mitigation may be carried out, the city is responsible for <br />determining appropriate mitigation, if any, required for the urban development. <br />Additional comments/questions: <br />OAR 660-038-0020(14): ODFW understands that Goal 5 may be applied to newly <br />added lands, as stated in OAR 660-038-0180(4). However, it is still not clear when a <br />city may be required to commence periodic review and apply Goal 5 protections. <br />Can you please help to clarify at what point in the process this would occur? Can <br />you please further explain the reference to waiving periodic review, as noted on <br />page 12-13 in the DLCD staff report (dated 9/18/15) for LCDC? As ODFW <br />understands it, cities which never completed Goal 5, yet evaluated land within their <br />current UGB using Division 38 "and determined that the current UGB contains <br />sufficient buildable land", will be excused from periodic review and inventorying Goal <br />5 resources. <br />In OAR 660-038-0170, it is not clear to ODFW how Goal 14 Boundary Location <br />Factor 3 (to address comparative environmental, energy, economic and social <br />consequences) is currently evaluated and documented. Why do the Division 24 and <br />38 rules only provide clarification for "public facilities and services" and not additional <br />clarification on how to evaluate the other boundary location factors, such as <br />"environmental consequences"? <br />• OAR 660-038-0070(1) and OAR 660-038-0140(1): Recommend consistent language <br />identifying physical constraints for residential and employment land BLI. <br />Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments and recommendations for the <br />RAC and DLCD to consider. ODFW is supportive of developing a streamlined method <br />for cities to grow efficiently, while retaining the core values of the Oregon land use <br />planning program for present and future generations of the citizens of this state. It is not <br />clear how a city will determine where it should expand to avoid and/minimize Goal 5 <br />resources, without knowledge of the resources present and consideration of buildable <br />land. Therefore, ODFW continues to recommend that the draft rules provide a <br />transparent process for a city to consult with ODFW on opportunities to avoid and/or <br />minimize impacts to fish, wildlife and habitat resources of the state when cities are <br />evaluating a study area and planning for land added to the UGB. <br />ODFW HB 2254 corrunents for RAC, 10.28.15 Page 5 <br />