Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No. 20296 ORDINANCE NO. 20296 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE GOAL 5 INVENTORY WITHIN THE EUGENE CITY LIMITS; UPDATING THE INVENTORY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section L The criteria attached as Exhibit A are hereby adopted as the City's additional criteria for determining the significance of riparian corridor sites and stream corridors within upland wildlife habitat sites as provided in OAR 660-023-0030(4)(c). The criteria for determining the significance of upland w~ldlife habitat sites, excluding stream corridors, are the "safe harbor" criteria at OAR 660-023-0110(4)~ Section 2. The list and map (which consists of four tiles) entitled ~Goal 5 Riparian and Upland Wildlife Habitat Sites Within the Eugene Urban Grov,~h Boundary" attached as Exhibit B are hereby adopted as a part of the inventory of significant Goal 5 resources for those areas listed/depicted thereon that, as of the date this Ordinance is passed by the City Co~xncil, axe located within the City limits of the City of Eugene. Section 3. In addition to the portions of the list and map referred to in Section 2, the inventory of significant Goal 5 resources within the City of Eugene shall include, and be limited to, the resource sites shox;m for that area on the fotloMng documents: the April 12, 1978 Sand and Gravel Working Paper, the April 12, 1978 Scenic Sites Working Paper, the April 12, 1978 Willamette River Greenway Working Paper and the April 12, 1978 Archeological Sites Working Paper, the December 1, 1976 list of historic land marks and the West Eugene Wetlands Plan. Ordinance Section 4. Although not part of this Ordinance, the City Council adopts the Legislative Findings set forth in the attached Exhibit C in support of this action. Section 5~ Notwithstanding the ef~:~ctive date of ordinances as provided in the Eugene Charter of 2002~ this Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from the date of its passage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor~ or upon the date of its acknowledgment as provided by ORS 197.625, whichever is later. Passed by the City Council this 28~ day of July, 2003 Recorder Approved by the Mayor 'this Ordinance - 2 Goa 5 S gmfieanee Ch?erin parmn C°rr dor S tes and [ pland Stream Corridors A hparian corridor site or an upland wildlife habitat stream corridor site shall be included on the list of S!guifie~t resource sites if(in addition to consideration of the criteria at ©~ 660;023~0090(4) for riparian co=id0r sites andto those at OM 660~023~0! I0(3) for 'uPland witdlif~ habi;at S~eam comdor sites) it is described in at least one of the following Tier One Criteria and if its listing is consistent with b°th of the following Tier Two Criteria: T~er One Criteria: ~eas mapped as wetland on the State/National Wetland Inventory (S/N~I). 2. S~eams and other water bodies identified by the ODF or ODFW as fish,bearing streams. 3. Undeveloped areas that contain natural vegetation (non,cultivated, including forests, natural prairies, and meadowS) and are within sites larger than one acre. 4. Undeveloped natural areas that are contiguous with a water feature. 5. ~eas that are undeveloped, and which in their natural state are un-vegetated (e.g., rock outcrops, ~avet bars). LocatiOns ofP!ants listed as threatened Or endangered, or considered official candidates to be listed as threatened or endangered by state or federal government. 7. Doc~ented habitat ofanima!s!isredas t~eatened or endangered, or considered official Candidates to be liSted as threatened or endangered by state or federal government~ Native plant communities within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)floodway and t00~year floodplain. 9. Eco!ogical!y significant areas identified by local expels in the natural resource sciences, such as wildlife biology, botany, fisheries, hYch-ology, and landscape architecture. T~er Two Criteria: 1. At the time of inventory adopfi0n~ areas that have been filled or subst~fia!!y altered to the degree that they no longer meet any of the Tier 1 criter4a shall be removed from the Goal 5 inventory. 2. Sites with a Wildlife Habitat Assessment (WHA) rating of 17 or greater shall be included on the Goal 5 inventory. P:\G©AL 5\Council 7-28-035ORD-EXA CRIT 7-03.wpd(07/21/03) E×HIBIT B GOAL 5 RIPAR~IAN AND UPLAND WILDLIFE HABJTAT SITES W~TH~N THE EUGENE UP, BAN GROWTH BOUNDARY Ju~y 2003 ............. ' -- Tier I Significance Crite~;ia ~i-~r 2 Criteria ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ Ir ~ ~ ~ ~ O'5 Tier 2 WHA ~ ~ -- , e ~ ~ ~ Score ~'-~a~n Channel NaturaFUrban ~ yes yes ~lyes .... ~o yes no p~'~""~0 yes 50-6~ 2 E35~{Eugene Upl~ild~ife Habitat U pa~'"" ~ y&s ~yes ~o no Ino no ~ yes 59-61 - 34.9 ~ ~ Stream Corr dors ~ E35 A i U no no ~es fes no no--1 no no no ~ 59-61 7.5 iE35 B Strea~ Corrdor~ ...... no yes lyes no no no no no yes ' '~1 11,3 ~ U ~no-- no yes i/e~ ........... ~o no no ~ yes 59-6I ~,1 E35 D U ~no no ye~ /es no no n~ -- ~ no yes ~ 2~4 E35 E - Stream Corridor E ~n0 no y~"m~es ~o no n~ .... ~ no yes ~-61 4~7 E35 F~ U )a~ no yes fes no no ....... ~ no yes--' ~-~ 4~2 E35 G ~tream Cordd~- U no ~o yes yes no ~o no 'no no y%~ 59-6t 1,0 E35 H Str U n~ .... ~ Yes yes no no--~-~ no yes ~61 0~4 E35 ~ ~am Corridor I U yes no - yes yes no no no - ~ :~0 yes 59~8I -'3E~7 Southwest Hill Uipa~ pad yes ye~no n0 no Ino ~--~ 66~68 ~i3,7 Hab tat S~eam Co~ dots E37~ S[reamCorridorA ~o pa~ yes yes n~"--~-" no ~no ~no yes --~ 3,2 - ~ ~ 'S~'~e~ Corridor B ~ ~ no part yes yes n~ ~o no ;,no yes 66-68 2.4 E~7 c Stream Corddo~ U no part- yes~ yes no no no no ~no yes 66-68 ~3~0 E37 D Stream Corrido~ U no part- yes~ les no no no 'no [no -- ~es 66-68 3.0 E37 E -- ~'r E U ~~ yes yes no no no ~,~o yes 66~68 ..... E37 F ~ U no ~ yes yes no no no no n~ yes 66-6~ 0~ - 7 E37~S{~C0rrid0rG U no '~ ~es yes ~o no n~ ....... ~no yes 66~68 ~9 - ~ Stream Corridor H U no part' y~s yes no no no n~ ....... ~ yes 66-68 10,~ ~ E37 I Stream Corridor I U no ~Pa~ ~ ye--~"'-yes no no n0 n0 ~ ~es 66-68 2.3 ~ E37 J Stream CorrCdor J ....... U no pa~ ~yes yes ~o no-- n~ n~ no yes 66-68 ~6,2 --E37K -U no ~a~ yes yes no no n0 no no ..... ~ ~68 ~ 17,6, E37 L Stream Corrdor L U no pa~ yes yes no no no no no yes 66-68 ~ 152 E37 M Stream Corndor M U no I part i yes yes ~ no no no no yes 66-68 ¢ E3~N Stream Corridor N U no pa~ yes yes ~ n~.~ no ~n° ~ yes ~ 66-68 E37 O Stream Corridor O , U no pa~ yes yes no no no no no yes ~-68 ~ ~ orrd0rP '' U no ~a~ ~es yes no ]no no no no yes ~:88 3,7 E37Q Stream CorridorQ ~ U no pa~ yes yes "~ '~'~--~o no [ yes ~ 66-68 ~ E37 ~ U no -~es yes '~0 'no no no no y~'~"'~ I 3 E37 S-- St U-- n'~ pa~-- yes yes ~o no no no no _ ~ yes ~ ~8 ..... 5.3 E37 T ,Stream CorridorT U no part yes yes no no no ne no ' yes ~'~ 0.5 E38 Laurel Hi l Upland W~ldhfe Habitat U no no yes yes no no no no no yes ~8~ 35~9 ~Stream Corridors ~ ~8 ~ ~tream Corridor A U no no yes yes no no [no no no yes 59-6~ ~ ~E38 B ~Stream Corrdor B U no no yes lyes no no ~no ~o no yes 59-60 ~ ~E38 C :,Stream CorridorC U no no yes ~yes no no no no no yes 59-60 ~ ' E38 D Stream Corridor D U no no yes ~yes no no ~ no no n'~ ........ '~ ~1 _iE38"~'"'"" : Uno no yes ~yes no no ~no no no ...... ~'' E38¢ Stream Corridor F - -- ~ ~'~ '~* yes 'yes no no no no no Yes 59-60 3,0 ~ Stream Corridor U--~no no yes 'yes n~ no no no no - ye 59-6~ ~ ....... E38 ~ ....... Stream COrridor H U' ~o no yes yes no no ~ '~ n0 yes ..... 59-60 0,6 ~ d Slough R~yes ~ yes yes no no no '89 . no yes 46-47 ~ ~ve~ront Park R~ yes Y~&--' ~e% ~ ~o no -[pa~ 'no y~ ~ ~ 7 E42 AIt, on Bake~R~'~ ..................... ~'iyes yes yes yes no no no iPa~ ',no yes 80.61 101.9 ~ Ascot Park ~ ~ ~ yes ~ /es no no ~o ~ yes 22-23 9 E48a B'~n~ ............. R ~o yes yes yes no no ~ --yes ~ 4;5 10 E48b Ayres Pond/Dodson Slough R yes yes yes yes no no no )a~ [no ~- 38 39,4 tl E50 DebriCkSIough R yes no yes yes no no no ~)art ]no Yes-~ 17~2 ~ E56 River Loop No. I R yes no yes yes no no no yes ~ no yes - ~ 3,4 ~ E57 -- a Clara Wate~ay R yes no yes yes n0 no no pa~ no ~ ~8 27,3 14 E58 Spring Creek R yes no yes yes no no no pad no yes 22-23 ............ 17,7 ~ 15 E59a~ ~'( Creek ....... R yes no yes yes no no no "~'"' no yes 38 t8,0 ~6 E60_ _.~ R yes no yes yes no no no ~art no y~~ 22,7 Page I of 2 "Key: "R!' = dpadan cerrdier ,,U,, _- u~iand wii~life habitat stream corridor Ripadan corr der sites: upland wildlife habitat stream corr dot s tes: Tota~ acres: 980;8 186:5 1187;3 Page 2 of 2 R~pa~an& S~tes - T~e ~ J~Y ~5, 2003 0 0,25 UCand wildlife habitat stream c~rddors Ripadan c~rddors Urban Growth BoundaW Eugene city limits West Eugene VVettand Boundary T~ lets Miles E35 ~ E35 Ju~y 15, 2003 0 0.25 0~5 Upland wildlife habitat stream comdors, ~ Eugene city limits 1 ~ Miles NORTH Riparian c~rddors Urban Growth Boundary West Eugene Wetland Boundary Tax lots / 0 0.25 0.5 Urand wildlife habitat stream corridors L. .... ,; Eugene city ~imits Riparian corridors ~ ....... I West Eugene Wettand Boundary ~ Urban Growth Boundary Tax lots Ripadan& Habitat S~tes - T~e 4 Ju~Y 15, 2003 0 0~25 Up~and Wildlife habitat stream c~nidors Riparian c~rddors U~an Growth Boundary Eugene ci~ limits West Eugene Wetland Boundary Tax lots 1 -- ~ Miles Exhibit C Findings of Consistency With Criteria for Approval of Metro Plan Amendment The critetia for approval of a Metro Plan amendment are found in Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code at 9.7730(3): Cfitetia for Approval of Plan Amendment. The following critetia shall be applied by the city council in approving or denyqng a Metro Plan amendment application: (a) (h) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant Statewide Planning Goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission; and Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. (a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant Statewide Planning Goals. Goal i - Citizen Involvement. To develop a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The City has acknowledged provisions for citizen involvement that ensure the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process and set out requirements fbr such involvement. The adoption of these ordinances does not amend the ckizen involvement progrm, The process for adopting them complied with Goal 1 since it complied with, and surpassed the requirements of, the citizen involvement provisions. The process for adopting a Goal 5 Invemory for the area within the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary has provided numerous opportunities for citizen involvement. A public involvement plan for the Goal 5 process was reviewed ~d approved by the Joint Planning Commission Commktee in May, 2000. In Jtme 2000, two pubhc workshops were held to provide an overview of the Goal 5 process for Springfield, Eugene and Lane County within the Metro Plan boundary. J~ April 2001, a public workshop has held to review the &aft inventory and significance criteria for Springfield, Eugene and Lane County within the Metro Plan boundary. On December 17, 2002, a pubhc heating was held before the Eugene Planning Commission on the Goal 5 inventory ofripmian and upland wildlife habitat sites within the urban growth boundary. All owners of affected and adjacent properties were notified, in addition to a large list of interested parties. The Eugene Planning Commission opened the public record for additional written comments kom February 3, 2003 to February 7, 2003 and from March 17, 2003 to March 28, 2003. The Eugene Planning and Development Department staffheld a public infbrmation meeting on May 21, 2003 on the status of the Goal 5 inventory. On June 9, 2003 a public hearing was held before the Eugene City Council. In addition to public meetings and mailed notices, ptinted materials related to these proceedings were made available at Planning and Development Department offices and via the City's Intemet site prior to each meeting. As described above, the opportunities that have been provided for citizen involvement are more than adequate to achieve consistency with Goal 1. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 1. Goal 2 ~ Land Use Planning. To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to use R£land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. The Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) is the acknowledged pohcy framework document that is used as the basis for land use decisions in Eugene. The Eugene Goal 5 inventory is being adopted as an amendment to the Metro Plan. The record shows that there is an adequate factual base to support these Metro Plan amendments, as Goal 2 requires. Further, the Goal 2 coordination requirement is met. Goal 2 requires that plans be coordinated with the plans of affected governmental units and that opportunities be proxlided for review and comment by affected governmental units. To comply with the Goal 2 coordination requirement, the City coordinated the review of the amendments will all affected governmental units. Specifically, notice was mailed to: USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Division of State Lands, Oregon Department of Transportation, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality; Lane County, City of Springfield, and Eugene Water and Electric Board. There are no Goal 2 Exceptions required for these amendments. Therefore, the amendments are consistent wifh Statewide Planning Goal 2. Goal 3 - Agricultural Lands. To preserve and maintain agricultural lands. Goal 3 is not applicable to the proposed plan amendments as the subject sites and actions do not affect any agricultural plan designation or use. Goal 3 excludes lands inside an aclmowledged urban growth boundary fi'om the definition of agricult~al lands. Since Eugene's Goal 5 Inventory is entirely within ks acknowledged urban growth boundary, Goal 3 is not relevant and the amendments do not affect Metro Plan compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 3. Goal 4 ~ Forest Lands. To conserve fbrest lands by maintaining the forest land base and to protect the state's forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure the continuous growing and ha~esting of forest tree species as the leading use on forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, and fish and witdl~e resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture. Goal 4 is not applicable to the proposed plan amendments as the subject sites and actions do not affect any forest plan designation or use. Goal4 does not apply within urban growth botmdaries and, therefore~ does not apply to the adoption of a Goal 5 inventory within Eugene's UGB (OAR 660-006~0020). Therefore, Goal 4 is not relevant and the amendments do not affect Metro Plan compliance with State-wide Planning Goal 4. Goal 5 ~ Natural Resources. To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces. The adoption of an inventory of r/parian and upland wildlife habitat sites within Eugene's Urban Growth Boundary is a specific response to the requirements of Goal 5. The inventory was conducted in accordance with the administrative rules for Goal 5 inventories for riparian corridors and wildlife habitat areas, as provided for in OAR 660-023, as detailed below. OAR 660-023-0090(4) sets out requirements for gathering infbrmation as part of a standard Goal 5 inventory for riparian corridors: (4) When following the standard inventory process in OAR 660-023-0030~ local governments shall collect information regarding all water areas, fish habitat, riparian areas~ and wetlands within riparian corridors. Local gove~ents may postpone determination of the precise location of the riparian area on lands designated for farm or forest use until receipt of applications for local permits fbr uses that would conflict with these resources. Local governments are encouraged, but not required, to conduct field investigations to verify the location, quality, and quantity of resources within the riparian corridor. At a minimum, local governments shall consult the following sources, where available, in order to inventory riparian corridors along rivers, lakes, and streams within the jurisdiction: (a) Oregon Department of Forestry stream classification maps; (b) Urfited States Geological Service (USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangle maps; (c) National Wett~ds Inventory maps; (d) Oregon Depment offish and Wildlife (ODFW) maps indicating fish habitat; (e) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood maps; and (f) Aerial photographs. The City collected information regarding all water areas, fish habitat, riparian areas and wetlands wkhin riparian condors. None of the areas affected by this adoption are designated for farm or forest use. A great deal of field investigation was performed. In addition to site visits during the application of the Wildlife Habitat Assessment, follow-up field investigations were perfo~ed on a case-by-case basis, where necessary to collect additional information on a particular site. The Goal 5 ~ventory of Riparian and Upland Wildlife Habitat Sites within the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary incorporated multiple reviews of data sources listed in (4)a-f above, during the development of the inventory. O~ 660-023-0110(3) sets out requirements for gathering information on wildlife habitat sites during fhe preparation of the inventow: (3) When gathering information regarding wildlife habitat under the standard inventory process in OAR 660~023-0030(2), local govemrnents shall obtain current habitat inventory information from the Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlifb (ODFW), and other state and federal agencies. These inventories shall include at least the following: (a) Threatened, endangered, and sensitive wildlife species habitat info~ation; (b) Sensitive bird site inventories; and (c) Wildlife species of concern and/or habitats of concern identified and mapped by ODFW (e.g., big game winter range and migration corridors, golden eagle and prairie falcon nest sites, and pigeon springs). The Goal 5 Lnventory of Riparian and Upland Wildlife Habitat Sites within the Eugene Urban Growth Botmdary incorporated m_ultipte reviews of the data sources listed in (3)a-c above, dmSng the development of the inventory. OAR 660-023-0030(3) requires that the local government determine that its inventory data is adequate: "The infbrmation about a p~icular Goal 5 resource site shall be deemed adequate if it provides the location, quality and quantity of the resource as fbllows: (a) Infbrmation aborn location shall include a description or map of the resource area for each site. The information must be sufficient to determine whether a resource exists on a particular site. However, a precise location of the resource for a particular site, such as would be required for building permits, is not necessary at this stage in the process. (b) Information on quality shall indicate a resource site's value relative to other known examples of the same resource. While a regional comparison is recommended, a comparison with resource sites within the jurisdiction itself is sufficient unless there are no other local examples of the resource. Local gove~ents shall consider any determinations about resource quality provided in available state or federal inventories. (c) Information on quantity shall include an estimate of the relative abundance or scarcity of the resource." The Eugene Goal 5 Inventory of Riparian and Upl~d Wildhfe Habitat Sites within the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary includes maps that show the location of each site with sufficient accuracy to determine whether the resource exists for each site. Co~ections to site boundaries based upon pubhc testimony were made at each stage of fhe adoption process. Each site was evaluated using the Wildlife Habitat Assessment method, which provides a nurnerical, relative rating of habitat values for each ske in the inventory against other sites within the Eugene-Springfield area. Portions of some sites were deemed significant, the rule does not require that the comparative value analysis be applied to portions of sites. Information gathered in conjunction with the inventory includes the number and acreage for all sites, including a total fbr each category, which provides an estimate of the relative abundance for each resource type within Eugene's jurisdiction. OAR 660-023-0030(4) requires that the local jurisdiction determine the si~ificance of resource sites. "The determination of significance shall be based on: (a) The quality, quantity, and location information; (b) Supplemental or superseding significance criteria set out in OAR 660-023-0090 through 660-023-0230; and (c) Any additional criteria adopted by the local government, provided these criteria do not conflict with the requirements of OAR 660-023-0090 through 660-023-0230." The inventory being adopted was developed using two sets of Goal 5 Significance Criteria that were applied based upon the type of resource(s) that a site contained. In addition to the quality, quantiW and location information, and the infon-nation gathered as required by OAR 660-023~0090(4), the City adopted additional criteria ¢onsistem with the requirements of-0090) to be applied to riparian corridors and upland wildlife habitat stream co,dom using the standard Goal 5 inventory process, The additional criteria are made -up of Tier 1 and Tier 2 criteria. Each of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 criteria applied to riparian condors and upland wildlife habitat stream corridors further addresses the quantity, quality or location of the resources. In addition to the quality, quantity and location information, and the information gathered as required by 660-023-0110(3), the City apphed the State's "safe harbor" criteria at OAR 660-023- 01 i0(4) to non*stream areas of the identified upland wildlife habitat sties. None of these habitat areas meet these criteria. As such, only those portions of the habitat sites that are stream corridors meeting the standard criteria (discussed above) are on the inventory of significant sites. The City's approach to evaluating the significance of habitat sites was approved by DLCD as being consistent with Goat 5. The following clarification was included in an email from DLCD representative Mark Radabaugh, dated July 3, 2003: "A city may divide use of the standard and safe harbor approach for a single resource sffe when it is determined through the standard process that there are significantly different on-site characteristics that would allow a clear distinction ~ong various potions of the site. For exam_pie, an upland habitat site that includes a si~ificant wildlife habitat condor(s) under the standard process, and is also identified in the safe harbor conditions called out in OAR 660-023-0110(4), could be managed under a partitioned Goal 5 approach if significant distinctions in the on-site characteristics allow defining a clear boundary between adjacent application of the standard process and safe harbor approaches, Under both approaches, the city is required to develop a resource protection program for its -upland resources." On fo~ upland wildlife habitat sites standard Goal 5 inventory process was applied to a portion of the Site and Safe harbor invento~ process was applied to the remainder of the site. The poaions where standard process was apphed were the stream corridors that flowed through the upland wildlife habitat sites. These wate~ays were identified during the standard process, and their presence clearly defines their character as different from the remainder of the upland wildhfe habitat sites where stream corridom do not exist. Eugene's application of standard and safe harbor inventory processes is consistent with both the applicable OAR (660-023-0110) and with DLCD staffs clarification as given above. The above review of administrative rules pertaining to Goal 5 indicates that this inventory was conducted consistent with apphcabte Oregon Administrative Rules, Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 5. Goal 6 - Att, Water and Land Resources' QuaIiO~. To maintain and itnprove the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. Goal 6 addresses waste and process discharges from development, and is aimed at protecting air, water and land from impacts from those discharges. Adoption of a Goal 5 inventory' will not direCtly influence such discharges or their impaCts, since there isno effect on land use, land developrnent or associated discharges solely from adoption of the inventor. Later steps in the Goal 5 process can lead to protective measures that may provide protection for air, water or land resource quality', but the adoption of the inventory will not. Therefore, the amendments do not affect Metro Plan compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 6. Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards. To protect people and property from natural hazards. Goal 7 requires that local gove~ent planning programs include provisions to protect people and property from natural hazards such as land slides. The Goal 5 inventory does not include infbrmation about natural disasters and hazards. These hazards are addressed by separate studies and protection measures. Therefore, the amendments do not affect Metro Plan compliance with Statewide Planning Goat 7. Goal 8~ Recreational Need& To satisfy the recreational needs of &e citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide fbr the siting of necessary recreational facilities inchding destination resorts. The adoption ofa Goal 5 inventor, while it may hold some potential for identifying and protecting open space that could contribute to satisfying some of the community's recreational needs, provides no actual change in the provision of recreational l~ds or services, Therefbre, the amendments do not affbct Metro Plan compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 8. Goal 9 - Economic Development. To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a varieO, of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperi~ of Oregon's citizens. Adoption of a Goal 5 natural resources inventory will not, in and of itself, have a direct impact on economic activkies. Subsequent steps in the Goal 5 process will decide whether property on the inventory will be protected, partially protected, or developed, and since the rm~ge of omcomes includes the possibility that no protections will be applied, no actual economic impact can be assigned to the mere adoption of the im, entory. Therefore, the amendments do not affect Metro Plan comphance with Statewide Planning Goal 9. Goal JO - Housing. To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. Adoption of a Goal 5 natural resources inventory will not, in and of itself; have a di'rect impact on provision of housing. Subsequent steps in the Goal 5 process will decide whether property on the inventory will be protected, partially protected, or developed, and since the range of outcomes includes the possibility that no protections will be applied, no actual impact to the supply of housing can be assigned to the mere adoption of the inventory. Therefore, the amendments do not affect Metro Plan compliance with Statewide Planning Goal t 0. Goal 11 - Public Facilities and Services. To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework fbr urban and rural development. Goal 5 invento~ sites do not curremly require public services and infrastructure. Some of the Goal 5 sites are open waterways that are part of Eugene's stormwater conveyance system. Inclusion of these and other sites in the Goal 5 inventory will not, in and of itself, preclude providing stormwater or other services to other undeveloped properties, since adoption of the inventory does not place any resections on construction of public infrastructure. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 11. Goal J2 - Transportation..To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. Adoption of a Goal 5 natural resources inventory will not significantly affect a transportation facility. Therefore, the amendments do not affect Metro Plan compliance with Statewide Plamfing Goal 12. Goal I3 - Energy Conservation. To conserve energy. Adoption of a Goal 5 inventory will not affect energy use. Therefore, the amendments do not affect Metro Plan compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 13. Goal 14 - Urbanization. To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. Goal 14 deals with the establishment of urban gowth boundaries and amendments to established urban growth boundaries, the purpose of which is to contain urban development inside the boundary. The Goal also states that the urban growth boundary shall be developed so that the "carr34ng capacity" o£the area is not exceeded. "Ca~ying capacity" refers to fhe capacity of an area to contain development while natural environmental processes continue functioning. To exceed the carrySng capacity would resuk ~n the breakdown of these processes. Adoption of a Goal 5 kwentory will contribute to the ability to plan ~%r development while ensuring that planxted development does not exceed the c~ying capacity of the environmental systems in the urban area. Therefore, these amendments are consistent with Goal 14. Goal 15 - Willamette River Greenw~,. To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the W~llamette River as the Willamette River Greenway. Adoption of a Goal 5 natural resources inventoW will not, in and of kself, have a direct impact on the Willamette Pdver Greenway. The adoption of a Goal 5 inventory, while it may hold some potential fbr identifying and protecting open space that could contribute to satisfying some elements of the Greenway Pro,am, provides no actual change in the provision of access to the Willamette River or other requirements of Goal 15. Therefore, the amendments do not affect Metro Plan compliance w/th Statewide Planning Goat 15. Goals' 16~19 ~ Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelands, Beaches and Dunes, and Ocean Resources. There are no estuarine resources, coastal shorelands, beaches, dunes or ocean resources within Eugene's jurisdiction. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goals 16 through 19 do not apply to these amendments. (b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent, Adoption of these Metro Plan amendments Mil not change any Metro Plan policies. The amendment will make changes only to back~o-und documents inco¢orated into the Metro Plan by reference. The Goal 5 natural resources inventory elements (riparian, upland) adopted will replace any previously adopted inventories of the same type, preventing any possible conflict between this and previous Goal 5 inventory maps. Given these findings and the fact that no modification to the Metro Plan text is necessary or proposed, the amendments will not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.