Eugene Ordinance Exhibit J <br />[Lane County Ordinance Exhibit G] <br />(a) Oregon Department of Forestry stream classification maps; <br />(b) United States Geological Service (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle maps; <br />(c) National Wetlands Inventory maps; <br />(d) Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) maps indicating fish habitat; <br />(e) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood maps; and <br />(f) Aerial photographs. <br />As noted previously, the standard inventory process in OAR 600-023-0030 was followed in the inventory <br />of riparian corridors for the Clear Lake and Santa Clara UGB expansion areas. In an email dated <br />December 6, 2016, Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. confirmed that the sources listed in (a) through (f) <br />above, or an equivalent, were consulted in the inventory of riparian corridors for Clear Lake and Santa <br />Clara UGB expansion areas. <br />(B) Determine the Adequacy of the information <br />660-023-0030(3) - In order to conduct the Goal 5 process, information about each <br />potential site must be adequate. A local government may determine that the information <br />about a site is inadequate to complete the Goal 5 process based on the criteria in this <br />section. This determination shall be clearly indicated in the record of proceedings.... <br />When local governments determine that information about a site is inadequate, they shall <br />not proceed with the Goal 5 process for such sites unless adequate information is <br />obtained, and they shall not regulate land uses in order to protect such sites. The <br />information about a particular Goal 5 resource site shall be deemed adequate if it <br />provides the location, quality and quantity of the resource, as follows: <br />(a) Information about location shall include a description or map of the resource area <br />for each site. The information must be sufficient to determine whether a resource <br />exists on a particular site. However, a precise location of the resource for a <br />particular site, such as would be required for building permits, is not necessary at <br />this stage in the process. <br />(b) Information on quality shall indicate a resource site's value relative to other <br />known examples of the same resource. While a regional comparison is <br />recommended, a comparison with resource sites within the jurisdiction itself is <br />sufficient unless there are no other local examples of the resource. Local <br />governments shall consider any determinations about resource quality provided in <br />available state or federal inventories. <br />(c) Information on quantity shall include an estimate of the relative abundance or <br />scarcity of the resource. <br />For the Santa Clara UGB expansion area, in its October 21, 2014 memo, PHS found that there were no <br />riparian areas. However, information taken from the acknowledged Goal 5 work that pertains to <br />adjacent land within the City's current UGB shows that there is a riparian corridor with Goal 5 <br />protections that continues from within the UGB into the Santa Clara UGB expansion area (Riparian <br />Corridor identified as E56 in the City / County 2005 Goal 5 work). In a memo from Alissa Hansen dated <br />November 28, 2016, she explains that Eugene staff have recommended that that riparian corridor E56 <br />be assigned the same protections within the expansion area that it currently has in the areas already <br />12 <br />May 2017 <br />