December 3-4, 2015 - LCDC Salem <br />Agenda Item 4, Attachment H <br />1 Release 3.2 Geodatabase published by the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral <br />2 Industries (DOGAMI) December, 2014, provided that the deposit or scarp flank in the <br />3 data source is mapped at a scale of 1:40,000 or finer; <br />4 (B) Flooding, including inundation during storm surges: the land is within the Floodway <br />5 or Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) identified on the applicable Flood Insurance Rate <br />6 Map (FIRM); <br />7 (C) Tsunamis: the land is within a tsunami inundation zone established pursuant to ORS <br />8 455.446. <br />9 <br />~(c) The land consists of a significant scenic, natural, cultural or recreational resource <br />10 <br />described in this subsection: <br />Comment []RV2]: Per section 7, subsection 4 of <br />HB 2254, "the commission by rule shall determine <br />the circumstances in which and the resources to <br />11 <br />(A) Lands that are designated on an acknowledged comprehensive plan prior to initiation <br />which this exclusion will apply to°. ODFW supports a <br />12 <br />of the UGB amendment <br />or that are mapped on a published state or federal inventory at a <br />city having an opportunity to exclude the resources <br />, <br />listed in this section, especially given the potential <br />13 <br />scale sufficient to determine its location for purposes of this rule, as: <br />conflict when a development action is proposed. <br />However, there are situations where these <br />resources (i.e., critical/essential habitat, <br />14 <br />(i) Critical or essential habitat for a species listed by a state or federal agency as <br />state/federal scenic waterways, scenic/recreation <br />areas), may be within a UGB is they remain <br />15 <br />threatened or endangered; <br />protected. ODFW's concern is a city not excluding <br />and then assuming that these resources/habitats <br />are 100% buildable or compatible with urban uses. <br />16 <br />(ii) Core habitat for Greater Sage Grouse; or <br />ODFW still strongly recommends an opportunity for <br />a second screen with coordination of appropriate <br />agencies, where a city may further evaluate these <br />17 <br />(iii) Big game winter range or migration corridors. <br />resources for compatibility and make the <br />determination to exclude prior to finalizing their <br />UGB expansion area, or accounting for the <br />18 <br />(B) Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers and State Scenic Waterways, including Related <br />reduction in buildable land capacity. It seems this <br />19 <br />Adjacent Lands described by ORS 390.805, as mapped by the applicable state or federal <br />second screen for excluding the listed resources (as <br />proposed in e60-038-0170(5)(b)), would be <br />20 <br />agency responsible for that scenic program; <br />consistent with the direction in HB 2254 for the <br />commission to determine the circumstances in <br />which the exclusion will apply to. <br />21 <br />(C) Designated Natural Areas on the Oregon State Register of Natural Heritage <br />22 <br />Resources; <br />23 (D) Aquatic areas subject to Statewide Planning Goal 16 that are in a Natural or <br />24 Conservation management unit designated in an acknowledged comprehensive plan; <br />25 (E) Lands subject to acknowledged comprehensive plan provisions that implement <br />26 Statewide Planning Goal 17, Coastal Shoreland, Use Requirement 1; <br />27 (F) Lands subject to acknowledged comprehensive plan provisions that implement <br />28 Statewide Planning Goal 18, Implementation Requirement 2. <br />29 (d) The land is owned by the federal government and managed primarily for rural uses <br />