PUBLIC COMMENT - DAN TERRELL & BILL KLOOS ON BEHALF OF HBA (1-4-17)

December 3-4, 2015 - LCDC Salem Agenda Item 4, Attachment H 1000 FRIENDS NOTES & SUGGESTED CHANGES - DIVISION 24 NOTE: We support all of ODA's requested changes - they are repeated at the end 660-02400065(1)(c) - Study area. Correction needed to ensure that urban reserves and non- resource lands are treated the same as exception lands. These are all first priority lands. (c) All first priority lands as defined in OAR 660-025-0067(2)(a) that are within the following distance from the acknowledged UGB provided they are contiguous ivith 1 e-,Yeep~i . 9;i,frst prioritv6^_6 4464 ;,,,.'°4_25 lands that are within the distance specified in subsection (b): 660-24-0065(4)(b)(A) - Landslides. The SLIDO database does not map known landslide risks. It maps known historic slide areas, which may have happened in prehistoric times. The SLIDO website is clear that this mapping is appropriate for regional planning only, and is not a substitute for a site specific analysis - that's what's needed to determine whether there is a real risk today. The website states that SLIDO data should not be used to make legally binding decisions. Also, many risks can be mitigated with construction techniques - there's no need to exclude the lands. Most of Springfield's Thurston Hills is on a SLIDO historic landslide, for example. Again this is where a site-specific analysis comes in. Moreover, the SLIDO database is far from complete, it is not a study of all Oregon, but a compilation of existing data. The way the rule is written now, there is no way for cities to consider real risks that are in unmapped areas, no matter how compelling the data may be. (A) Landslides: substantial evidence demonstrates that the land is subiect to risk of landslide that cannot be mitigated using commonly accepted construction techniques t _g lO a 44~4 aq 44.Q 46P rtjW4 0040-60°6 f 4- ,90) 'ge'e^°63 ' 6604 try r56 liblis' ed , t' ~ n PepaFmieiit Geol 1 14 ,4er l 4i6 , t-Fies 6906 4441) T eeeIn1„'U 2n 14 - 1 t1 44 41 wit ^ fr,iv i ° th _ ,a^ t^ ed at ^ -Pale ~ 4.- 4 0000 2f ~ ,~~U• 660-24-0065(4)(c))A)(i) - Critical and essential habitat. These terms must be clearly defined. Our understanding is that "critical habitat" is a federal concept only. State essential habitat has not been mapped statewide, but is defined in OAR 635-415-0025. However, there are three categories of essential habitat, and only one is so significant that urbanization must be avoided. Category 1 is the only type of state essential habitat that requires avoidance. Category 2 can be mitigated, and Category 3 is not in limited supply. (i) Federally designated critical habitat, or essential habitat Category 1 as defined in OAR 635- 415-0025(1),C-;t; for a species listed by as late or federal agency as threatened or endangered;