December 3-4, 2015 - LCDC Salem <br />Agenda Item 4, Attachment H <br />1 ~(i) Federally designated Ecritical khabitat for a species listed by a stpAe e <br />2 federal agency as threatened or endangered; <br />3 (ii) Core habitat for Greater Sage Grouse; <br />(iii) Big game winter range or migration corridor when a finding has been made <br />by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, in consultation with the Oregon <br />Department of Agriculture, that the area should not be urbanized; <br />9 (B) Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers and State Scenic Waterways, including Related <br />10 Adjacent Lands described by ORS 390.805, as mapped by the applicable state or federal <br />11 agency responsible for the scenic program; <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />(C) Designated Natural Areas on the Oregon State Register of Natural Heritage <br />Resources; <br />(D) Aquatic areas subject to Statewide Planning Goal 16 that are in a Natural or <br />Conservation management unit designated in an acknowledged comprehensive plan; <br />(E) Lands subject to acknowledged comprehensive plan provisions that implement <br />Statewide Planning Goal 17, Coastal Shoreland, Use Requirement 1; <br />(F) Lands subject to acknowledged comprehensive plan provisions that implement <br />Statewide Planning Goal 18, Implementation Requirement 2; or <br />(d) The land is owned by the federal government and managed primarily for rural uses. <br />~(5) After excluding land from the preliminary study area under section (4), the local government <br />must adjust the area, if necessary, so that it includes an A-mout# „4'land- t'hA4 ils At lemst twie°at <br />least the amount of land needed 4w-to meet the deficiency determined under OAR 660-024- <br />0050(4). The city may add back lands excluded under (4), expand the study area <br />boundary to include additional land, or both r 0r m. <br />reserves before resorting to lower priority lands. <br />30 (6) For purposes of evaluating the priority of land under OAR 660-024-0067, the "study area" <br />31 shall consist of all land that is included in the preliminary study area described in section (2) of <br />32 this rule after adjustments to the area based on sections (3) through (5). Provided, however, that <br />33 when the UGB expansion includes land for park use: <br />Comment [14147]: Critical habitat is a creature of <br />the feds. Oregon doesnt' have this as an official <br />mapped thing. <br />Comment [14148]: This may be OK if there are <br />no conflicts with farmland <br />Comment [14149]: Where are these areas, and <br />where could their preservation push development <br />onto farmland? We already know Prineville is a <br />possibility- are there others? This needs to be <br />changed to exclude only those lands where a <br />determination has been made that the resources is <br />so significant that urbanization must be completely <br />prevented. This is definitely NOT all of these areas. <br />For example, the Deschutes comp plan does not <br />prohibit development in deer corridors, it just limits <br />it. See 23.104.030(3): "In the Bend/La Pine deer <br />migration corridor identified in the comprehensive <br />plan resource element, new land divisions, where <br />the underlying zone is Rural Residential - 10, shall <br />be cluster developments." <br />This suggested change is to have ODFW make the <br />call of whether or not it can be urbanized. <br />Comment [MN10]: We have been unable to <br />find the state essential habitat mapping. But OARS <br />say Category 1 is the only type of state essential <br />habitat that requires avoidance. Category 2 can be <br />mitigated, andCategory 3 is not in limited supply. <br />Comment [MN11]: We understand that <br />Springfield wants to include these becuase of <br />municipal well heads. We are not sure if excluding <br />all Goal 6lands makes sense in every situation, and <br />do not know the extent of Goal 6 resources. Maybe <br />there is another way to do this? <br />Comment [141412]: The proposed 200 percent <br />of the need remaining in the study area after all <br />exclusions isn't enough to medicate a too-small <br />study area or overly broad exclusions. In fact, it <br />gives a false sense of security. There's nothing to <br />ensure that higher priority lands won't still be <br />excluded from the 200 percent area, because there <br />is no requirement that when adding back lands to <br />reach 200 percent, that higher priority areas be <br />chosen first. For example, the preliminiary study <br />area might include only prime farmland, but not be <br />200 percent of the need. If the city could just add <br />back more prime farmland to get to 200 percent - <br />what have we achieved? <br />ALSO - cities should not be forced to study <br />genuinely unsuitable lands, just because they can't <br />come up with 200% of the need. Such as <br />Springfield. What if they need an industrial site, <br />and there just isn't enough suitable land in <br />existence? What's the point of making them study <br />(and potentially have to select)unsuitable land? <br />