The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 03 Natural Resource Inventories and Protections for UGB Expansion Areas_Progress UpdateAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 5/22/2023 Meeting Type: Work Session Staff Contact/Dept.: Molly Markarian/DPW CITY COUNCIL Staff Phone No: 541.726.4611 Estimated Time: 30 Minutes Council Goals: Mandate ITEM TITLE: NATURAL RESOURCE INVENTORIES AND PROTECTIONS FOR UGB EXPANSION AREAS — PROGRESS UPDATE ACTION Review wetland, riparian, and wildlife habitat inventory results, and confirm protection REQUESTED: approaches for locally significant natural resources to inform Springfield's path forward. ISSUE Since 2020, Springfield has been working with partner agencies and stakeholders to STATEMENT: identify and assess wetlands, riparian corridors, and wildlife habitat in the areas where the City recently expanded its urban growth boundary (UGB). With the identification and assessment phase nearly complete, staff seek confirmation from the City Council on protection approaches for locally significant natural resources in preparation for further stakeholder engagement and development of draft legislative amendments for City Council consideration. ATTACHMENTS: 1: City Council Slideshow 2: Wetland and Riparian Quick Facts 3: Council Briefing Memo DISCUSSION/FIN Project Background: Since the State's acknowledgement of Springfield's UGB ANCIAL IMPACT: expansion in 2019, Springfield has been working to define a framework for development in the areas where the UGB expanded. One of several early steps to understanding where future development may be best -sited is to identify, evaluate, and protect locally significant natural resources in these areas. In 2020, this project set out to address wetlands and riparian corridors, and in 2021 the scope broadened to include wildlife habitat assessments and Water Quality Limited Watercourses. Council Involvement to Date: Early in the project, staff shared information about the project with Council in Communication Packet Memos on February 24, 2020 and July 10, 2020, including providing a link to the project's Community Engagement Plan. On September 20, 2021, staff provided a brief project update and sought Council support for the project to seek a second round of grant funding. On November 8, 2021 and January 23, 2023, staff shared information about the project's community engagement activities with the Council. Project Status: At the work session, staff will review wetland, riparian, and wildlife habitat inventory results and confirm protection approaches in advance of further stakeholder engagement and drafting updates to Springfield's Natural Resources Study for City Council review later this year. Natural Resource Inventories & Protections =for- UGB Expansion Areas SPRINGFIELD OREGON May 22, 2023 - City Council - Work Session New UGB Previous UGB •Expansion Study Areas City Limits A M IAL M o- al MfycH f.!.L4.L.�r rwo W c4wy. n . anasan a.A�larw Mocwac� n„a.�.5ci• d i'.x doCr:i ■ Employment land ■ Public land ■ Natural resource management & conservation areas IIUKrEnMPRWUMJVV I h UUUNUAKT r -AV iNNUN AMAZO 2 . / . if - � •�; f7zz/_/: 2 w;: _ »� � R� e. �•«a_ z Long -Term Comprehensive P Conceptual Master P Immediate ( Perspective) Land R DL C D SPRINGFIELD UTILITY BOARD ■ Local knowledge ♦..♦,■■■■■..,. , Community Wo. Other : Stakeholders (Current &Future) LCOG LAN CQUNCI LUF GOVERNMENTS ♦ ■ SPRINGFIELDLANE ♦ COUNTY **owns** OREGON �� i 800 i OREGON rEL?, willamalane *� Park and Recreation District all Attachment 1 Page 4 of 13 4 Get a Solid Foundation I AIk f, 4 Consider Policy Options r Contim Resour, Analys Attachment 1 Page 5 of 13 • veal v iventc go • ASse t (LVV I Where and to what exten Z ■ 30 = Total wetlands identified North it Gateway 3Y McKe�Izle River W l l lama la ne = Properties Weyerhaeuser -McKenzie Natural Area ("Oxbow") Lively Park rHurzsio�, A:�, �J'\`an'ette River MAIN ST Mill Race mP cue River �a `daeForKWillam' r ment 1 Page 6 of 13 Rivers Streets M Proposed LWI _ LWI Study Area Urban Growth Boundary City Limits Ruff Park 6 • ocai vvetiano iventory & M&ft- &ft -e As ■ Answers questions: PES it significant? Values of wetlands that help determine whether to protect: ■ Hydrologic control (water absorption & flow) ■ Water quality (pollutant trapping) P�iN May AF ■ Presence of wildlife & fish & quality of their habitats ■ Presence of unique plants ■ Educational & recreational purpose Results: ■ Water quality = most common reason ■ Hydrologic control & fish habitat = next most Attachment 1 Frapge 7 0 gn AnSWPrc ■ 24 = Riparian reaches identified North Gateway giver 3 ��enzje �illamalane roperties �S�1Pmette River ment 1 Page 8 of 13 Weyerhaeuser -McKenzie Natural Area ("Oxbow") a AIN ST v y z r 1 JASPER RU a' SUB N411fiE� _ ;!;4Acca �Jfo:erhnd�e; �ilia�tette River - oyK Water Ways Rivers Draft Riparian Areas LWI Study Area Streets City Limits Urban Growth Boundary Lively cedo,ck Ruff Parkn Park 1-G THURSTON RD 8 M Mill Ra _ .atof Water Ways Rivers Draft Riparian Areas LWI Study Area Streets City Limits Urban Growth Boundary Lively cedo,ck Ruff Parkn Park 1-G THURSTON RD 8 Answers ■ Possible scores 0-100. Scores of 17 or higher = significant. Scores ranged frnm 7R-qn- Values of riparian corridors that help determine whether to protect: ■ Water quality (purity) ■ Flood management (ability to store water during storms) ■ Presence of protected species (plants, animals) ■ Wildlife considerations: ■ Amount of human disturbance ■ Wildlife survival/habitat components (food, water, cover) related to type, quality, amount PER Attachment 1 Page 9 of 13 I :k Policy Evaluati' EFUL;dl PU11L;Y L;11U1L;(d tmnrr parameters specified by the � State Y • - f 'r• - V. n �J■ r State Rule - Goal 5 Protect wetlands, wildlife habitat & riparian areas, etc. Springfield Policy Natural Resources Study • Economic, Social, Environmental & Energy Analysis • Limit "conflicting uses" aaaroach State Rule - Goal 6 Protect air, water & land quality Springfield Policy Stormwater Quality Management Program Policy Implementation Springfield Development Code & Development Review • Water quality protection • Surface water management • Natural resource protection with development setbacks ■ Protection approaches for newly -identified significant resources Standard Method VS Safe Harbor Method (current protection approach) Attachment 1 Page 12 of 13 Standard Method (required approach) �. Gƒ'k � 'I. Ll } » �'��:: fes,! \ ; 3� X7.-- rw: ,� . . . ,-m. _ _ Ar. WETLANDS & RIPARIAN CORRIDORS WHAT ARE THEY? WHAT DO THEY DO? WHY DOES THIS MATTER? ; ,.M d. =y s P� °`f%trima • Equip us to handle flood emergencies: Wetlands and riparian corridors can act like sponges and absorb floodwater. An acre of wetland can store between 1-1.5 million gallons of floodwater. • Enhance water quality: The vegetation in these areas reduces erosion of areas along the bank (especially riparian areas) because of roots in the soil. Both the underground and aboveground parts of a plant keep waste and other residue like sediment out of water when it flows to a stream or river after the rain. Wetlands act as filters and purifiers because they absorb and hold water before it soaks into the ground. Wetlands can remove as much as 90 percent of solids in water. • Provide various species places to live: The strips of land that follow the river are critical travel corridors because they allow animals to move freely. Shade from trees and other plants cools water to a temperature that allows aquatic -based life to survive. The waterbodies themselves serve as habitat that allows for shelter to hide, breed, or sleep. Although wetlands only make up about 5 percent of the land surface in the contiguous United States, wetlands are home to 31 percent of our nation's plant species. • Boost aesthetic & property values: Market prices can sometimes reflect the "quality of life" or amenity values provided by wetlands and riparian corridors. For residential development in urban areas, the market price of properties with views of natural areas is often greater than the price of similar properties without these views. • Offer spaces for recreation & education: These areas allow for great places to enjoy and learn about the outdoors. Opportunities for recreation include parks and trails. Here, classes and tours can also interact up -close with the featured educational topic. MEMORANDUM City of Springfield Date: 5/22/2023 To: Nancy Newton, City Manager COUNCIL From: Jeff Paschall, Community Development Director BRIEFING Molly Markarian, Senior Planner Subject: Natural Resource Inventories & Protections for MEMORANDUM UGB Expansion Areas ISSUE: Since 2020, Springfield has been working with partner agencies and stakeholders to identify and assess wetlands, riparian corridors, and wildlife habitat in the areas where the City recently expanded its urban growth boundary (UGB). With the identification and assessment phase nearly complete, staff seek confirmation from the City Council on protection approaches for locally significant natural resources in preparation for further stakeholder engagement and development of draft legislative amendments for City Council consideration. COUNCIL GOALS/ MANDATE: Council Goals: Mandate BACKGROUND: Existing Natural Resources Regulatory Framework Oregon Regulations Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces) directs local governments to protect locally significant wetlands, riparian areas, and wildlife habitat while Goal 6 (Air, Water and Land Resources Quality) requires that waste and process discharge from future development shall not threaten to violate, or violate applicable state or federal environmental quality statutes, rules, and standards. Goal 5 establishes alternative methods for establishing protections for significant wetlands and riparian corridorsl, a "Standard" method and a "Safe Harbor" method. The "Standard" method necessitates what is called an Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy (ESEE) Analysis. This analysis formally lays out the justification for a decision to protect, 1 Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 660-023-0110(6) stipulates that local governments shall develop programs to protect wildlife habitat following the Standard method. Attachment 3 Page 1 of 3 MEMORANDUM Page 2 partially protect, or not protect a resource by looking at the consequences of not allowing, partially allowing, or fully allowing uses that may be considered incompatible with natural areas ("conflicting uses"). Springrield Policies Springfield first adopted the Springfield Natural Resource Study (NR Study) in 2002, based on a Local Wetland Inventory that was adopted in 1998. Springfield then adopted its Natural Resource Inventory in 2004 that identified riparian corridors within the UGB at that time, incorporated a Wildlife Habitat Assessment, and accounted for Water Quality Limited Watercourses2. The original NR Study used the "Standard" protection method, meaning an ESEE analysis was utilized to justify a more nuanced natural resource protection program that limits conflicting uses through development review procedures and standards. In 2011, the NR Study was updated to incorporate newly identified significant natural resources in the Glenwood area of Springfield. That update also contemplated alternative protection approaches but ultimately integrated into the City's existing regulatory framework. Protection Considerations for UGB Expansion Area Resources As noted above, alternative methods exist for establishing protections for significant wetlands and riparian corridors in the UGB Expansion Areas. The figure below identifies key aspects of each approach. Though the "Safe Harbor" method is intended to be procedurally more streamlined, it results in highly prescriptive development requirements. The "Standard" approach is more qualitative, relying on the local government to demonstrate that the proposed protection program is `adequate' by objectively balancing contending economic, social, environmental, and energy priorities. Additionally, given that Springfield has implementation provisions already in place (Development Code), efficiencies gained by foregoing the ESEE analysis would be offset by the effort needed to establish new development provisions. As such, staff recommends continuing to balance development priorities with natural resource protection by utilizing the "Standard" approach to protect significant wetland, riparian, and wildlife habitat sites in the UGB Expansion Areas. 2 Springfield currently does not have an inventory of, or clear protection implementation, for wildlife habitat in areas outside of wetlands and riparian corridors (upland wildlife habitat). Wildlife habitat is a key function of most of Springfield inventoried wetlands and riparian areas. Attachment 3 Page 2 of 3 MEMORANDUM F, Standard Method (current protection approach) Safe Harbor Method • Allow, limit, or prohibit "conflicting uses' through ESEE analysis Adopt new, rigid protections restricting • Time needed to complete the ESEE, but more flexibility possible development within wetlands in protection approach (can optfor more development potential VS However, no development setback from or more resource protection) • Code requirements already in place wetland edge Concurrent update to WCLW map needed Time needed to create additional code Standard Method (current protection approach) Safe Harbor Method Allow, limit, or prohibit "conflicting uses" through ESEE analysis • Development setback more restrictive Time needed to complete the ESEE, but more flexibility in • Limited cases where setback may be protection approach (can opt for more development potential or more resource protection) VS. larger than our existing requirements Code requirements already in place • Adopt new (State -prescribed) protections Identifies more resource sites (Mill Race area) • Time needed to create additional code Concurrent update to WQLW map needed • Identifies fewer resource sites Page 3 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Confirm that Springfield will follow the "Standard" approach for protecting significant wetland, riparian, and wildlife habitat sites in the UGB Expansion Areas in conformance with Springfield's existing regulatory framework. Attachment 3 Page 3 of 3