Item C: Goal 5 Invent/S.Hills - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

COUNCIL OPTIONS The primary options available to the council related to the June 8, 2005, City Council motion are summarized below: Option 1 - Implement the June 8, 2005, City Council motion as approved. Description: As indicated in the attached memo from staff, a review of City Council action in 2003, the record for that action, and associated findings, staff concludes that the council' s action was correct with regard to application of OAR safe harbor criteria related to sensitive species. While at least two state-designated sensitive species (pileated woodpecker and northern pygmy owl) are known to occur in the South Hills, there are no extant maps of their specific habitat prepared by state or federal agencies or by qualified professionals. Maps of generalized wildlife habitat, within which a sensitive species is known or noted to occur, were judged by staff as insufficient to meet the OAR requirement of a professionally prepared map of habitat for that species. The generalized maps of wildlife habitat sites created for the Goal 5 inventory were not based on specific habitat needs that have been scientifically documented for pileated woodpecker. Based on these conclusions, staff believes no further work is needed to address the June 8 Council motion. Even if a case could be made that the existing general habitat maps could be interpreted as showing pileated woodpecker habitat, this approach would not be not very defensible from a scientific standpoint. Staff believes that, given the tenuous nature of such a conclusion, and the potential for reasonable people to disagree on many aspects of the Oregon Administrative Rules, there are better approaches to address either pileated woodpecker habitat in the South Hills or upland wildlife habitat areas in the South Hills in general (see Option 3). Also, see attached memo for additional detail on existing data on pileated woodpeckers in the South Hills. If the council disagrees with the conclusions above, and believes that staff did err in 2003, this option would direct staff to review pileated woodpecker data and revise the inventory as part of the current Goal 5 process. This option would require notification of affected property owners and a public hearing before the Planning Commission prior to coming back to the council if additional areas are added to the inventory. This would mean that the current Goal 5 work would be stopped in order to include the additional habitat area. Not only would that leave important Goal 5 resources subject to additional degredation, it jeopardizes the timeline for compliance with periodic review. Periodic review for the Lane Metro area is a partnership between Eugene, Springfield and Lane County. Springfield is on approximately the same timeline for adoption measures as Eugene was prior to the June 8 action, and Lane County has already conducted public hearings before its Planning Commission. Delaying action would jeopardize the partner jurisdictions' ability to complete periodic review. Option 2 - Direct the City Manager to review and update the Goal 5 wildlife habitat inventory for the South Hills, after completion of the current Goal 5 work program, using the safe harbor inventory methodology in OAR 660-023-0110 in light of new information concerning the presence of the sensitive species Pileated Woodpecker in substantial areas of the South Hills. Description: If the council disagrees with staff findings related to the Safe Harbor criteria for sensitive species in 2003, this option would allow the current Goal 5 process to move forward, and upon completion of that work, move forward on the review of pileated woodpecker data. L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050627\S050627C.doc