HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous PLANNER 7/30/2009
Quick Start for Applying Resource Protections
The Local Wetland Inventory and Riparian Resource Sites that are shown on the
Springfield Natural Resources Study Map show the approximate location of Springfield's
locallv sirnificant wetland and riparian sites. The map also shows wetlands that are part
of the Local Wetland Inventory but which do not meet the state criteria for classification
as significant. There is a corresponding list of small drainage ways and ditches that are
not shown on'the map that are riparian in character but which were not judged to be
significant using criteria developed in conjunction with ODFW, the Audubon Society and ,
other environmental groups and governmental agencies.
Statewide Planning 60al 5 places the focus oflocal planriing on locally significant
resource lands. The protections adopted by the city and incorporated into the Springfield
Development Code apply to locally significant wetlailds and riparian areas. Wetlands
that are not considered sirnificant are not without nrotection. The Deoartment of State
~ Lands and the Corns of Engineers have the'fmal authority regarding develooment that
impacts wetland and rioarian areas.
The following steps are meant to give you a quick start to assessing and applying the
adopted Goal 5 protections found in the Springfield Natural Resources Study.
Step ,1. Upon receiving a development inquiry or in preparing for a DIM or pre-
submittal meeting with a customer, check the Springfield Natural
Resources Study Map (NR Study) and or the Water Quality Limited
Watercourses (WQL W) Map for affected wetlands or riparian resources.
If a site is shown on both the WOL Wand NR Studv Mans. the
nrotections detailed for the WOL W sites described in SDC 4.3-110/115
should be aoolied to the site. If a site is affected that is not covered by
WQL W protections, apply the protections found in SDC XXX.XX. It is
Important to inform the customer of the additional protections and
processes that will affect their development as early as possible.
Step 2. Note the identification number of any affected or potentially affected site.
Tables 1 and 2 in Chapter 2.0 of this manual show the required
development setbacks for each of the sites by their Id number. SDC
XXX.XX of the Development Code provides guidance covering permitted
uses/activities within the resource land and within prescribed setbacks that
may affect your staff report and conditions of approval for projects with
resource impacts.
~tep 3) If a prop.osed .development affects.a mapped resource, file a Wetland Land
Use NotIficatIOn Form (The form IS filed under Department of State Lands
in the planning application file drawer) and continue to process the
application. The state will use the local land use decision in their permit
process as shown below.
Springfield Natural Resources Study
Implementation Manual
February 19,2008
Date Received: ljso/>o'!
I
Planner: Al
3
Basic State Permit Process
(Federal pennil process is similar)
Arc 10000tion & boundaries of any \vctl:mds on p~ccl known:
ck
$
Oblain a wetland delineation report: submit report 10
DSL for r~,'iew and approval
'J
~
Can project be located or designed (0 avoid ",.et!ands'! 1 .
No OSl. pcnnit nccd,,-d
t
~
t
Y
S,ubmit Permit Application
Interest Groups
I
f--.
jj I Re"iew and Comment Period
./
I Pc.:nnit I:\sut:d with Conditions 1
I
..
l\pplic<ltion Complete? If Yes
Resource Ag!:ncie~
+
]
.._-j C Local GoVCmmenl~
I~ -NeighboO;
Pt.TIT1it Denied
Step 4. As mentioned above, processing land use applications affecting wetlands
or riparian areas requires the application of SDC 4.3-115 CWQL W) or
SDC XXX.XX (NR Study). Once a land use decision has beenissued, it
will be used to respond whenDSLlCorpsrequests a "land use
compatibility statement" as they make their decision about a Fill/Removal
Permit. Springfield PW will not issue an LDAP (generally the frrst step in
construction) without an approved permit from the CorpslDSL.
~
-
Springfield Natural Resources Study
Implementation Manual
February 19, 2008
4
Data Received:__1#~/.J..n>?
Planner: Al
//
/"
<
/
process requires an analysis of the ESEE consequences'of allowing development to
'impact natural resource sites and leads co=unities to make one of three decisions: 1)
fully allow development; 2) prohibit any development; or 3) limit development, making
decisions about the protection of resource sites based on the assessed consequences.
Development in this instance means any land use that might conflict the healthy function
of a resource site.
2.0 Program Decision to "Limit Conflicting Uses"
OAR 660-23-010 requires the consideration of three basic options for Goal 5 protection
programs to carry out the results of the ESEE analysis: (I) protect the resource site; (2)
allow conflicting uses completely; or (3) allow conflicting uses on a limited basis. The
,City may choose to apply anyone of these options to anyone of the inventoried wetland
and riparian sites. These options are briefly defmed below.
2.1 Protect the Resource Site - All Conflicting Uses Prohibited
Where the ESEE consequences offully protecting have been determined to be acceptable
to the governing body, there may,be a decision to preserve a resource site as an
undisturbed natural area. Such a resource site would be completely off limits to any
conflicting land use or activity - including passive recreational use. This report does not
reco=end full protection for any locally significant wetland or riparian resource area.
2.2 Allow Conflicting Uses Completely - Regardless of Impacts'
on Resource Site
Fully allowing conflicting uses means that none of the locally significant wetlands or
riparian areas would be preserved. In most cases, this extreme approach is unnecessary,
because locally significant wetlands can be largely preserved while allowing conflicting
uses on a given parcel.
There may be a few instances where one or more of Springfield's wetland or riparian
resources must be removed in order to allow a conflicting use. Such limited protection
(see below) sacrifice is justified where the ESEE consequences of preserving even a
portion of the resource site are 'so severe as to allow conflicting uses fully, which has the
effect of removing the resource from the local wetland or natural resource i~ventories. In
such cases, there would be no local protection, although the Division of State Lands and
or the US ~y Corps of Engineers would retain jurisdiction.
-
-
2.3 Allow Conflicting Uses on Limited Basis - Partially Protect
the Resource Site
Allowing conflicting uses on a limited basis means some development would be allowed
where the ESEE analysis warrants such development to balance the consequences of fully
protecting a site. The goal would be to retain a majority of the resource site and its
Springfield Natural Resources Study
Implementation Manual
February 19,2008
7
Date Received:~/5ol,;>n!...-
Planner: Al
/
/
/
function, while allowing some conflicting development. The "limit" option may include
partial, in extreme instances, full elimination of a resource area or its development
setback where such action is justified by the ESEE. This report does not recornmend full
elimination of any resource site.
-*
The Springfield Natural Resources Study implements. a program decision to "limit
conflicting uses" that would impact wetland and riparian resources. Keep in mind that
the study only addresses "locally sigillficant" wetlands and riparian corridors. There are
several lower auality wetlands and watercourses which are not recommended for
orotection bv this study. These sites not r..rotected by this study are still under the
jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of State Lands and _or the., COlJ's of Engineers.
These agencies will J,:ontinue to be the sole authority for issuing permits to impact
wetlands and streams.
2.4 Policy Goals for Springfield's Natural Resources Program
for Protection
To implement a "liinited conflicting uses" protection program, the Natural Resources
Study and adopting ordinances implemented the following policy goals:
1. Support of the existing protections implemented through Springfield's Stormwater
Quality Management Program. The recommended Goal 5 limited protection program
defers in part to existing Stormwater Management policies detailed in SDC 4.3-
110/115 and in particular those provisions which support the City's response to state
and federal regulations concerning surface and subsurface discharging stormwater
management systems. Sites nrotected bv the Stormwater Management Prmrram are
not recornmended for additional orotection.
2. Establishment of 25-foot development setbacks from inventoried wetlands and
riparian resource sites that are not already protected by stormwater policies. The 50
and 75 foot setbacks established by the Stormwater Quality Management Program
would be retained.
3. Protection policies would apply to new development. Developed properties would
not be required to retroactively comply with the new policies. The recently adopted
'provisions ofSDC 5.8-100-Non-Conforming Uses, provides "grandfather"
protections to existing development. Expansion of existing development would be
allowed where such expansion was outside of the resource area.
4. Site plan review would be required for all commercial, industrial andmulti-farnily
residential development within 150-feet of resource sites. SDC XXX.XX describes
the wetland and riparian protections that are applied in the site plan review process
that help reduce the impact of development. This requirement coincides With the
defined I 50-foot impact area recommended,by this study and the 150-foot site plan
review area already required for many of Springfield's resource areas by the
Springfield Natural Resources Study
Implementation Manual
February 19,.2008
8
Date ~eceived: ~/~o/i#"1
Planner: Al
/
/
Stormwater Quality Management Program. Construction of a single-family home
within an existing subdivision would not require site plan review.
5. Future adoption and implementation of a Low Impact Development Design
Handbook to reduce the impact of development on nearby wetlands and riparian
areas. As mentioned above, Articles 31 and 32 of the Springfield Development Code
already provide some protection for resource areas. A Low Impact Development
Design Handbook would supplement the existing protections, The Low Impact
Design Handbook will be jointly developed by the planning and public works staff
using resources that have been in use in other cornmunities as a starting point.
6. The Low Impact.Design Handbook will include a compilation of design standards
that are practical, cost efficient and flexible to enough to meet a variety of
development situations. The National Homebuilders Association generally supports
low impact design techniques, citing the reduced cost of infrastructure that has been
achieved as well as the increased value of home sites which have natural amenities.
Low impact design standards would be applied through the site plan review process
, mentioned above, where a proposed development or land division is within 150-feet
of a resource site.
7. The protection program would primarily affect vacant land and future development.
Existing uses and structures within the proposed 25-foot setbacks would be allowed
to continue. Expansion of such uses would be permitted outside the setback.
Development within 50 and 75-foot setbacks established under Springfield's
Stormwater Quality Management Program would be subject to the policies of that
program.
8. Where the proposed 25-foot setback renders a property unbuildable for the purposes
for which it was zoned, a hardship variance may be requested to 'assist the owner to
achieve a viable development design. Such a hardship variance is required under
state administrative rules (OAR 660-023-0090 (8)(d) and 660-023-0100(4)(b)(d)).
Tables 1 and 2 below summarize the protections for Springfield's significant wetlands
and riparian areas and shows those sites which are already protected by stormwater
policies.
Table 1. Goal 5 Protection* for Wetlands
I Site IDlName Program Setbacks Wetland Comments See
Decision (feet)* Acres Map#
M04--Cascade Limit 25 5.02 Specific provisions of the
Drive In Conflicting approved site plan for 3
Uses Jenna Estates will be
imolemerited.
M05-Aster Limit 25 9.0'
Street Wetland Conflicting 3,4
Uses
Springfield Natural Resources Study 9
Implementation Manual "- Date; Received;~o~ r
February 19, 2008
Plannpr' ,A.L I
-
.-
. The wetland is vegetated with Oregon ash, baldhip rose, camas and bentgrass. The wetland
limits were determined where the vegetation changed and there were no indicators of
hydrology.
Site: M35
, Type:
I Acres:
OFW AM:
PEM
4.91
Does Not Meet
Significance Criteria
Description:
Wetland M35 is 4,91 acres and is classified as PEM. It is located at the foot of Potato Hill.
Part of this wetland was'determined on-site and part was determined off-site because property
, '
owner access' was not granted. The majority of this wetland is part of residential backyards.
This dominant vegetatiqn includes Oregon ash, meadow foxtail, red fescue, creePing buttercup
and field mint. Hydrology was directly observed and soils were a dark color with mottles. The
wetland limits were determined where the vegetation changed and there were no longer
indicators of hydrology.
. Site: M36
Type:
PEM
Acres:
OFW AM:
0.75
Does Not Meet
Significance Criteria
Description:
Wetland M36 is 0.75 acre and is classified as PEM, It is located at the foot of Potato Hill. The
majority ofthis wetland is part of residential backyards. Hydrology was directly observed. The
wetland limits were determined where the vegetation changed and there were no longer
indicators of hydrology.
Site: M37
Type:
PEM
Acres:
@
OFW AM:
Does Not Meet
Significance Criteria
Description:
Wetland M37 is O.Oacre and is classified as PEM. It is located on the east side of Potato Hill.
This wetland is a drainage ditch in a pasture that empties into a culvert on the north end,
Hydrology was directly observed. The wetland limits were determined where the vegetation
changed and there were no longer indicators of hydrology.
Site: M38
Type:
PEM,
PFO
Acres:
OFW AM:
0.08
Does Not Meet
Significance Criteria
Description:
Wetland M38 is 0.08 acre and is classified as PEMlPFO. It is located at the foot of Potato Hill.
This wetland is between a residential subdivision on the west and a driveway on the east. A
ditch as been excavated parallel to the driveway to collect runoff from Potato Hill and the
bordering subdivision. The ditch is vegetated with black cottonwood, Oregon ash, Himalayan
blackberry, reed canarygrass, red fescue and creeping buttercup. Hydrology was directly
observed. The majority of this wetland is part of residential sideyards and the emergent areas
Springfield Natural Resources Study 38
Implementation Manual
February 19, 2008
Date Received: i~o/dtrUL
Planner: AL '