I anticipates a need for transportation facilities to serve the NIA. The county <br />2 was not obligated to adopt findings regarding the adequacy of its inventory of <br />3 commercial and industrial lands where the acknowledged zoning district that <br />4 applies to those lands already anticipates that at least some of those lands may <br />5 be used for transportation facilities. <br />6 Petitioners' first sub-assignment of error is denied. <br />7 B. TSP Compliance with OAR 660-012-0015 <br />8 Petitioners argue in their second assignment of error that the TSP <br />9 violates OAR 660-012-0015(3)(a) which provides: <br />10 "Cities and counties shall prepare, adopt and amend local TSPs for <br />11 lands within their planning jurisdiction in compliance with this <br />12 division: <br />13 "(a) Local TSPs shall establish a system of transportation <br />14 facilities and services adequate to meet identified local <br />15 transportation needs and shall be consistent with regional <br />16 TSPs and adopted elements of the state TSP[.]" <br />17 Petitioners argue that the amended TSP will not establish a viable system of <br />18 transportation that meets the community's local needs, since the east-west <br />19 bypass cannot be built in its proposed location, because: (1) that proposed <br />20 bypass has been shown to be inconsistent with directives 3 and 4 of Goal 9 and <br />21 (2) because that bypass would cross over "fish-bearing Muddy Creek for at <br />22 least 100 feet[.]" Petition for Review 8. Since the bypass could avoid that <br />23 stream if located elsewhere, petitioners contend "it is very unlikely that any <br />24 permits would be allowed[.]" Id. at 9. <br />Page 12 <br />