I Respondents reiterate their position that the east-west bypass complies <br />2 with all applicable transportation rules, and that the connector is not a new <br />3 addition to the Coburg TSP. Respondents assert that the general location has <br />4 not changed from the previously acknowledged TSP. In addition, respondents <br />5 argue that the fish-bearing stream petitioners identify, although in the vicinity <br />6 of Coburg, is not located within the area proposed for the bypass. <br />7 We turn first to respondents' contention that the east-west bypass <br />8 location is unchanged from the prior TSP. If that were true, we would deny <br />9 this subassignment of error because the amended TSP could not be remanded <br />10 for re-adopting a general location for the east-west bypass that was previously <br />11 adopted. Respondents asked that we take official notice of a map from the 1999 <br />12 TSP, and we do so. Comparing that map with the map from the amended TSP <br />13 that is attached to this opinion as Appendix 3, it is simply not accurate to say <br />14 that what we are referring to as the east-west bypass is depicted at the same <br />15 location on the two maps. <br />16 Turning to petitioners' arguments, it requires a creative reading of OAR <br />17 660-012-0015(3)(a) to find the "demonstration of viability" requirement that <br />18 petitioners read into the rule. Even if there is such a requirement, we reject <br />19 petitioners' suggestion that OAR 660-012-0015(3)(a) requires, at the time a <br />20 transportation facility is identified as needed in the TSP, that a local <br />21 government establish that such facilities are "viable," in the sense that all <br />22 necessary siting permits will be issued in the future if that facility is sited in the <br />Page 13 <br />