December 3-4, 2015 - LCDC Salem <br />Agenda Item 4, Attachment H <br />660-24-00650)(OW(iii) - Bit tame ranee & migration corridors. We cannot rely on county <br />or state determinations of Goal 5 protections for rural land, to tell us whether or not a resource is <br />significant enough to warrant sacrificing farmland. That's because a county would not have <br />evaluated that question in an ESEE analysis, since rural land by definition is not going to be <br />urbanized. A county's decision to protect big game range by limiting rural parcel sizes (for <br />example), doesn't constitute a decision that the resource is so "significant" that we must avoid <br />urbanizing it forever. The proposed draft is not sufficient as a substitute for a Goal 14 ESEE <br />analysis. We suggest having cities consult with ODFW to determine the appropriate course of <br />action with these resources. <br />(iii) Big game winter range or migration corridors, when aefinding has been made by the Oregon <br />Dept. ofFish and Wildlife, in consultation with the Oregon ept. ofAgriculture, that the area <br />should not be urbanized.- <br />660-024-0065(5) - Study area adjustment. If the study area needs to be expanded, cities <br />should be directed to add any adjacent first priority lands first. <br />(5) After excluding land from the preliminary study area under section (4), the city must adjust <br />the area, if necessary, so that it includes an amount of land that is at least twice the amount of <br />land needed for the deficiency determined under OAR 660-024-0050(4): b4 T. op, eab,ie <br />1,414 ,lggd dvgPU'ibed ; gtioii (4>q. Such adjustment shall be made by <br />expanding the distance specified under the applicable section (1) or (2) and applying section (4) <br />to the expanded area. When expanding the study area, all contiguous first priority lands as <br />defined in OAR 660-024-0067(2)(a) that are within '/z mile of the preliminau study area <br />boundary must be included, before resorting to lower prioritv lands. <br />660-024-0065(6) - Adding back land to study area for park use. There should be text added <br />here to require consideration of excluded land for park use. The commission asked for this. <br />(6) For purposes of evaluating the priority of land under OAR 660-024-0067, the "study area " <br />shall consist of all land that is included in the preliminary study area described in section (2) of <br />this rule after adjustments to the area based on sections (3) through (5). Provided, however, that <br />when the UGB expansion includes land for park use: <br />(a) Land excluded from the study area under subsections (4)(a) throuh(4)(c) shall <br />nevertheless be evaluated for park use. <br />(h) The local government is not required to select land described under subsection (6)(a) <br />to meet a specific need identified in an adopted parks master plan that: <br />(A) Requires a public facility or service that the local government has determined <br />would be impracticable to extend to the land under subsection (4)(a); <br />(B) Requires a site that is not subject to a development hazard risk that the local <br />government has determined exists on the land under subsection (4)(b); or <br />