HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous Miscellaneous 12/2/2008
"
Community Benefit Assessment Analysis
Release of Wetland Mitigation Areas on 30th and Commercial Street, Springfield
Hyland Construction Company
I. Introduction
In February 2002, the leffParker Subdivision was approved (City of Springfield 10. No.
2001-10-0204), providing land for light-medium industrial and medium density
residential development. The approved subdivision included a penn it from the Oregon
Department of State Lands to fill and mitigate 3.86 acres of wetlands within the
subdivision (Permit No. 31129FP issued October 2003). In exchange for allowing
wetland sites within the subdivision to be developed, two parcels totaling 6.36 acres were
set aside by deed restrictions as "Wetland Mitigation Areas." Further, the two parcels
were enhanced with special grading and planting to promote wetland functionality that
exceeded that of the original wetland site5 that were to be filled.
Since 2002, a large multi-family residential development has been completed, providing
affordable housing for more than 400 families. The industrial portion of the leffParker
Subdivision is less developed, with a single construction storage yard being completed.
The owner of that yard, Hyland Construction Company, purchased additional lots within
the subdivision, including the wetland mitigation parcels.
Subject Sites and Wetlands
(~
Tax Lot 4900
'Wetland Mitigation Area"
Tax Lot 5000
.;;;;;;;;Ion Are'"
Commercial 51.
J
Il
_I
-!
...:
(Jl
J:
l-
e
M
I
I
I
I
Hyland ESEE Analysis
December 2, 2008
Date Received: (1- &:/ 6(
Planner: MM ~ \.---1
Hyland Construction i5 requesting that the City consider releasing the deed. restrictions on
the two "Wetland Mitigation Area5" that are part of the Jeff Parker Subdivision for the
purpose of allowing development within those area5. The5e mitigation areas are located
within tax lot5 4900 and 5000. The request is contingent upon the agreement of the
Oregon Department of State Lands and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to revise their
2003 wetland fill permits to allow such development to occur.
At an October 9, 2008 meeting with staff from the City of Springfield, Hyland
Construction presented their request in concept to gauge staff support for their proposal
to relea5e the wetland mitigation areas for development. The proposal included a
conceptual drawing showing how portions of the two wetland mitigation parcels would
be developed. About XX acres within these mitigation areas would. be preserved and
enhanced as higher functioning wetland areas. The total acreage preserved would still be
in excess of the original wetland acreage that was filled under the DSL permit.
At issue for the City of Springfield is whether supporting a permit request to allow
development of the wetland mitigation areas is in the best intere5t ofthe community.
How can the intere5t of the community be determined?
WETLAND SITES "M06" AND "M25"SIGNIFICANCE AND THE ESEE ANAL YS\S
OAR 660-023 requires cities to identify wetland resource sites, determine which wetlands
are "locally significant" and to prepare a prograin for protecting significant sites.
Determining which sites are "5ignificant" is a proce5s which uses state dictated method
called the Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology (OFW AM). The
subject site includes portions of wetlands M25 and M06.
M25 is the southern terminus of the Q Street Channel. It meets OFW AM standards for
significance. M25 is also listed as a water quality limited water course that is protected
under separate provisions of the Springfield Development Code from that addressing
.wetland and riparian protection.
The subject of this analysis is a wetland complex that existed within the Jeff Parker
Subdivision. It i5 identified by'the Springfield Local Wetland Inventory identification
number "M06." The OFW AM analysis that .was applied to site M06 determined .that the
site was not a locally significant wetland. \
A much more detailed analysis ofM06 was conducted by Scoles and Associates in
conjunction with DSL, as part of the Jeff Parker Subdivision Joint Permit Application for
wetland fill. The findings of that analysis using a newer methodology called the
Hydrogeomorphic Assessment (HOM) confirmed that the 3.8 acres of wetlands was low
functioning. Table I, below is an excerpt from the DSL "Physical Mitigation Project
Form" for the Parker Subdivision. The table shows that each of the wetland functions
measured for the impacted (existing) wetlands were "Low" or non-existent. It was
anticipated that the Wetland Mitigation Areas, once built and planted, would function at
least a "Moderate" level.
Date Received'
Planner: MM
Hyland ESEE Analysis
December 2, 2008
2
In the years following the approval Of the subdivision and the creation of the wetland
mitigation areas, little of the enhancement plantings are evident, especially the tree
species. The mitigation areas have been mowed and maintained, but problems with
blackberry infestation, transient camping, drug use and trespassing have detracted from
the intended benefits of the wetland mitigation parcels.
,
Table 1. Summary Table of Hydrogeomorphic (HGM)-based Assessment
Functional Capacity (Judgemental Method) of Existing Wetlands to be Impacted
I Functions Impacted Mitigation Comments
Wetlands Wetland
Water Storage Low Moderately Impacted wetlands solely supported by
and Delay Low precipitation. Mitigation area wilLreceive small
amounts of upgradient runoff from railroad right-
of-way.
Sediment Low Moderate Mitigation area will have equal sediment trapping
Stabilization & and phosphorous uptake potential as highly
Phosphorus dew.aded impacted wetlands.
Retention
Nitrogen Low Moderate Mitigated area will have greater vegetative
Removal diversity than highly degraded impact wetlands,
allowing for greater nutrient uptake.
Primary Low Moderate Impacted wetlands have very little vegetative
Production diversity. Mitigation wetland provides greater
production via subtle microtopography and
diverse vegetative communities.
Invertebrate None Moderate The impacted wetland is surrounded by urban
Habitat development, lacks connectivity to other wetland
Support system5, and lacks desired/appropriate habitat for
invertebrate species.
Amphibian and None or Moderate The impacted wetland has no woody debris nor
Turtle Habitat Incidental appropriate habitat, plus it i5 surrounded by urban
development. The mitigation area provides
greater potential for shelter and baskinp'_ areas.
Songbird None Moderate The impacted wetland contains no-woody plant
Habitat species (due to annual mowing) and is surrounded
Support by urban development. Mitigation wetland will
have vertical structure composed of various tree
and shrub plantings.
Waterbird None Moderately The impacted wetland is surrounded by urban
Support Low development, lacks desire food species (mowed
grasses), and lacks suitable shelter.
Support of Low Moderate The impacted wetland has very little plant
Characteristic diversity and is surrounded by urban development:
Vegetation The mitigation area has subtle microtopography
, and greater plant diversity.
Hyland ESEE Analysis
December 2, 2008
Date Received'
Planner: MM
3
II. ESEE Analysis
The Springfield Natural Resources Study (NR Study) adopted in 2005, used the ESEE
analysis process established under OAR 660-023-040 to weigh and balance the various
levels of protection for "locally significant" wetlands. An ESEE analysis is an evaluation
of the positive and negative economic, social, environmental, and energy (ESEE)
consequence5 that could result from a deci5ion to allow, limit,.or prohibit a conflicting
use (i.e. development) to impact a wetland or other Statewide Planning Goal 5 natural
resource.
Under OAR-660-023-0100, only "locally significant" wetlands must be evaluated for.
protection using the ESEE process. The NR Study includes a site specific ESEE analysis
for each locally significant wetland. M06 was determined not to be a significant local
wetland using the Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology (OFW AM)
tool. For that reason the City did not complete a site-specific ESEE analY5is for the site.
While not required, the ESEE analysis is.a useful tool to use in answering the question
posed above~ls it in the best interest of the community to: I) fullv nrotect the mitigation'
areas (not allow any development); 2) oartiallv nrotect the mitigation areas (allow some
development); or 3) not orotect the mitigation areas (allow them to be fully developed).
In answering that question, the ESEE looks at the economic, social, environmental and
energy impacts of each of those three levels of protection. .
The NR Study provides a lengthy analY5is of the general ESEE impacts of protecting,
partially protecting or not protecting wetland re~ources. For the purposes of this analysis,
the general ESEE analysis contained in the Springfield natural Resources Study is
referenced and incorporated into this discussion. The NR Study also included site
specific'analysis for each of the "locally significant" wetlands in Springfield and made
determinations that affected the level of protection offered to each wetland.
As mentioned above, site M06 was not found to be significant using the OFW AM
analysis criteria. As such it is not specifically protected under the provisions of the
Springfield Development Code. The wetland i5 protected under 5tate and federal statute5
and the final authority for allowing development on site M06 rests with the Oregon
Department of State Land5 and the Corps of Engineers.
. The section below is a site 5pecific ESEE analysis of wetland "M06" using the. format
used for significant wetlands in the Springfield Natural Resources Study. ..
Site: M06
Type:
PEM,
PSS
Acres: OFWAM:
4.10
Does Not Meet
Significance Criteria
Site Description:
Wetland M06 is4.10 acres and classified as PEMIPSS. There are several wetlands in
this abandoned lot that were grouped together because of the closeness to each other
Hyland ESEE Analysis
December 2, 2008
'4
and the highly disturbed history of this site. The wetlands are located in a disturbed
field that contains the southern most section of the Q-Street Canal (an artificial canal)
that runs through the center of the t'.vt'".~j in a north/south direction. This site has
been disturbed from past agricultural and industrial uses. Direct hydrology was
observed in the canal. Hydrology was assumed to be present in the small isolated
wetland pockets based on hydrologic indicators, soils and vegetation. Soils are dark in
color and contained a lot of bark (from an historic mill and log deck) and rocks (from
fill). A small forested upland is located on the northeast comer the p.vp~' ~f. A scrub-
shrub habitat area is located on the west side in a filled log pond. The dominant
species included willow, Oregon ash, Himalayan blackberry, common snowberry,
Douglas' spirea, red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), meadow foxtail, velvet-grass,
sedge species (Carex sp.), field mint, tufted hair-grass and Scouler's popcorn flower
(Plagiobothrys scou/eri). Wetland boundaries were determined using the methodology
for disturbed sites. Wetland/upland boundaries were determined where the vegetation
changed and there were no indicators of hydrology.
Zoning
.
Tax Lot 5000
'Wetland Mitiga ion Are
~
I
~
.
t
I
~
Tax Lot 4900
'Wetland Mitigation Area"
LM
MD
I
1
I
LD f
___1-
,....:
en
:r::
l-
e
'"
--- -
Wetland Impact Summary
I Wetland acreage
I Number of parcrls affected
I Vacant acres WIthin the combined parcel area
3.86 acres I
2 parcels J
6.36 acres j
Hyland ESEEAnalysis
December 2, 2008
5
I Combined parcel acreage
6.36 acres I
Conflicting Uses by Acres and Zoning District
I Site M06
I Tax lot 4900
I Tax lot 5000
I Total Acres
Medium Density
Residential (MD)
1.28
3.31 I
4.59 I
Light Medium Industrial
(LM)
1.75
o
1.7~
Total].
Acres
3.03 I
3.31 I
6.341
EXISTING PROTECTIONS
15 the site protected by minimum development setbacks and site plan review standards
described in SDC 4.3-115 and SDC4.3-117 of the Springfield Development Code? No',
the wetland area is not protected under the Springfield Development Code other
than to require a Joint Notice for to be filed with the Corps of Engineers and the
Oregon Department of State Lands if a development proposal is received that may
impact the wetland site. .
III. Site Specific ESEE Analysis for M06
Thi5 section discu55es ESEE impacts that are specific to this particular site. For a broader.
discu55ion of the ESEE consequences of allowing, limiting or prohibiting conflicting uses
on wetlands, see the General ESEE AnalY5is found in Section 8 of the Springfield
Natural Resources Study (NR Study). Much of the detail for the ESEE analysis below
comes from the OFW AM analysis that was performed and acknowledged by the Oregon
Department of State Lands. .
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
The OFW AM analysis concluded that M06 is a highly disturbed wetland whose water
quality and hydrologic control functions are significantly degraded. M06 is a complex of
i50lated wetlands with little or no hydrologic connection. The Hydrogeomorphic
(HGM)-based assessment used for the Parker Subdivi5ionmade the same finding5 for
M06.
Both the OFW AM analysis and the HGM study observed that the wetland provides
habitat for' some wildlife species. A review of the inventory of sensitive, threatened and
endangered species published for the City of Springfield by the Oregon Natural Heritage
Program (ONHP) indicates that there are no known sensitive, threatened or endangered
species which use or inhabit the site.
The site was judged to have some enhancement potential at the time of the OFW AM
assessment in 1999. The Parker Subdivision development agreement included.a
requirement that the subject sites, tax lots 4900 and 5000 be enhanced as wetland
mitigation areas. The expectation was that the enhancements would improve the wetland
Hyland ESEE Analysis
December 2, 2008
6
function of the site and add to its value to the community and the environment. The
enhancements installed as part of the Parker Subdivision agreement have hlld little
observable impact on the quality of the wetland function evaluated by the OFW AM and
have necessarily benefited the community.
Providing no protection for the site would mean the loss of the little habitat that now
exists, but would have little or no effect on water quality and hydrologic control functions
since the wetland area doe5 provide these functions to any meaningful extent. Partially
protecting the site could preserve the most viable habitat and still allow development to
occur. Fully protecting the site would prevent all development while protecting habitat
and wetland functions which the OFW AM analysis indicated are not significant.
SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES
M06 was judged not to be appropriate for educational or recreational purposes by the
OFW AM analysis. The wetland areas of the subject parcels are not generally considered
ae5thetically pleasing. The Nearby industrial development is a visual detractor that cannot
be removed. The 5ite is affected by unpleasant odors and traffic noise which also detracts
from its potential for educational and recreational uses.
Tax lot 5000 include5 a small forested wetland area which is aesthetically pleasing and
provides an amenity for nearby residents. City maintenance staff has reported that this
same forested wetlands provides a refuge for transients. There is evidence of illegal
dumping on the subject parcels.
Medium Density Residential (MD) zoned development near the subject site provides
affordable housing for more than 300 households. It is likely that development of the
4.59 acres of MD land on the 5ite would provide an additional 50 affordable dwelling
units.
Providing no protection of the wetland would mean the loss of a small butattraetive
community amenity. Partially protecting the site could preserve the amenity while
providing more needed housing which is in shori supply. Development of the site would
discourage the transient camping and illegal dumping that is occurring on the site in its
vacant state. Fully protecting the 5ite would likely mean the continued use of the site for
illegal camping and dumping.
ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES
Fully protecting the M06 site would mean the loss of 1.75 acres of Light-Medium
Industrial (LM) zoned land in addition to 4.59' acres of residential land mentioned above.
Employees per acre ratios were prepared for the Springfield Commercial Lands Study (pg.
B-4) that wa5 adopted in2000. The ratio is an estimate of employment capacity (not job
creation). The ratio for LM development averages about 13.4 jobs per acre. U5ing this
assumption the LM land within the subject site has the capacity for equate to about 23
jobs.
Hyland ESEE Analysis
December 2, 2008
7
The General ESEE analysis found in Section 8 of the Springfield Natural Resources
Study calculated that industrial acreage wa5 valued at about $65,369 per acre in 2004.
The economic iinpact to the property owner using the land value used in the NR Study
would be about $114,396.
The very limited hydrologic and water quality functions ofM06 could be duplicated
using engineered facilities, as part of a site develop~ent. Partially protecting the subject
site could allow continued natural function while retaining the opportunity to develop'
additional industrial and residential uses within the existing urban growth boundary. The
los5 of inventoried buildable industrial land could be reduced to XX acres..
ENERGY CONSEQUENCES
None of note.
IV. Recommended Program for Protection
Partially protect the subject site retaining the most viable wetland areas, particularly the
forested wetlands on tax lot 5000. Maintain an average 25-foot development setback
from the preserved wetland resource.
IMPACT OF PROTECTION MEASURES ON VACANT ACREAGE AND BUILDABLE LAND
INVENTORY
A 25-foot setback would affect XXX acres of vacant MD and LM land. The affect ofthe
setback on buildable land could be reduced by aligning development such that required
landscaping and other open space is within the development setback. Storrllwater
management facilities required for development can be placed within the setback under
SDC Section 4.3-115.
Employing low impact development practices within.l50 feet of the remaining wetland
could reduce the impact of nearby development on the resource. Some low impact
development practices are already incorporated into the stormwater quality protection
standards found in Article 31.
'Reduction in tbe Buildable Land Inventory: .
M06 was not counted in the inventory Of buildable lands by the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area Residential Land and Housing Study. Therefore the fully protecting
the wetland acreage would not reduce the inventory. As mentioned above, the 25-foot
development 5etback may affect about XXX acres, however this area can be incorporated
into the overall development without a significant loss of buildable area.
Hyland ESEE Analysis
December 2, 2008
8
SITE DATA: 3.02 AC
EXISTING WETLAND BUFFER = 0 79 AC
EXISTING DITCH TO TOP OF BAN'K = 0 08 AC
EXISTING ACCESS ROAD = 0.15 AC .
EXISTING UPLANDS = 0 16 AC .
EXISTING WETLANDS = i .84 AC
t
~
i
i'
SCALE' 1 "=80'
--
Olson & ~
110rris ,~
3BO Q sr. SU1IE 2QO . /
. SP~t<<lflELD..OR. 97471
PHON~ (541) 102-979lI
FAX: (541) 485-J2SJ
IDL..I.I."'''''",,,,.,, ,I:IHD
Surveying &
Engineering
- -
"JO
. -ll)
I; :t. rr!
X
-"
~. CJ)
< ......
..~ ~
lO
....::...: -.
~ t.i U)
'-. ;::::.:
~ (1)
I ~ I
~. I 'J
~"' lO
j' C
~
(1)
j". U1
"Q Street D,tch"
(
.-.
NORTH
Tract A wetland
2.0 I acres
Tract A
new enhanced m,bgat,on area
.0.25 acres 1:2 ratio (0.1 2 credit)
A
::i::"=
- . -
Tract A wetland
OAG acres avo,ded
Tract A upland buffer
OAG acres
Tract A wetland Impacted
1.57 acres
Tract A
upland buffer 'mpacted
0.33 acres
TOTAL WETLAND IMPACTED: 1.57 ACRES
TOTAL BUffER IMPACTED: 0.33 ACRES
TOTAL WETLAND AVOIDED: OAG ACRES
TOTAL BUffER AVOIDED: O. I G ACRES
NEW ENHANCED WETLAND: 0.25 ACRES ,(0. I 2 ACRES CREDIT)
''''
o
100
200
~
~
~
Hyland BUSiness Park. LLC
Tax Lot 4900 Map 170231
lane County
5prln'!j'",ld.Or",<!on
,..
Soale: ~:1.200
FIGURE 6: TAX LOT 4900 PREFERRED PLAN
Olson& ~ .'
Morris /.~
,
380 Q ST. SUITE 200
Sl'llNGFIWl, OR. mn Surve}ing &
PHON~ (541) 302-97110 Enain.eering
FI\lC: (541) 485-~ b'
1DfDII1L1...I'."".I..;~ ~
.'
1- _
1 1
L-l
.. ... ~ Z --=!s. .
SCALE' 1 "=80'
VEGETATION ~DSCAPE Bum
:-
(.f)
........
o
,
:3
:E
Cl
........
([)
,
RUNOFF FLOW DIRECTION
BID-FILTRATION SWALES
\
-
----
---
\'" 'J
... -1
:1
~. --"
= ~-~--
.== ~...
- 'I~-
I
= ~I ;.I!v-___
r:.:.:.~'i
VEGETATION LANDSCAPE
BUFFER
s:::
Cl
:1
::::l
Cl
l..Cl
:3
([) -'
::::l
........
/
,. ,. .'
. .
\ ::y . ,"-
\ .' : -: :~ rBID-SWALE
\ + ~+~
\ \ + + , + . ~. . . . . .. ,. \\"lII
~- ,.,..,..,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,..... : ~~~~-.
\ \ ,. . . . . ,. . . . . . ,......-: ;:;:------
. . '1, . ' - . . . . . . . : -~..".. -:::.::;;=--.
"4l--- ------- ..~--_.
--====-------==----
--:..-=- .:.._---......--.;;;;.-~-_.-;;;.~- ~~
! l
L....;:-1.':::--t'l.'..-.
/'
'1
l..Cl
C
,
([)
OJ
"'\:>
~
-
<Y
. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1-LLL1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I J I I I I 1-1-
Olson &
Morris ~
3BO Q Sl .f.~~~
SPRICFIEI.O SUIT[' 200 ~
l'llCNE: (54; (JR. '1'I4n
= (541))~=
,..;.I....""...,..:;l3HD
ORESTED W
ETlAND AREA'
SITE DATA: 3.34 AC
EXISTING WET
EXISTING UP~~~ BUFFER AREA = 0.87 AC
EXISTING WETLA = D.D1 AC
EXISrrNG FORES~~ = 1.97 AC
WETlANDS = 0,49 AC
~
~
-t...
_ _ _ _';:;7r-( _
. - , ,,11-
...;.
--..
--..
.
.
.
.
~
~
~_-_"V~~
. ~' . ,'.-
.'
Surve}ing &
Engineering
~
~
~
SCALE: "=80'
[J::,
@
ro1
X
(J)'
........
::J'
l.O
(/)
;=..:
([)
..,
l.O'
C
"""'I
([)
---"
o
i1@
25ft Upland Buffer:
0.21 acre Impact
25. It Upland buffer
O.GG acres aVOided
~
Prairie Restorat,on area
0.78 acre Impact
N~TH
A
--
.'
.";
}
:t
..:
~~
A'
Forested wetland
0.4 2 acres preserved
Prame Restoration area __
I.OG acres aVOided ---
/'
TOTAL IMPACTED WETlAND: 0.78 ACRES
TOTAL iMPACTED UPlAND BUFFER: 0.2 I ACRES
TOTAL AVOIDED UPlAND BUFFER: O.GG ACRES
TOTA' AVO'OW 7"'"0 A" ",,,oreo ",""'0,
--:::,.
q,.,
ut
HYLAND BUSINESS PARK, LLC
Tax Lot 5000
Map 1702 3 I
lane Cou'nty
Spr,n'ilf,eld, Ore'ilon
I .48 ACRES
100
r-'
o '00
200
F..
Scale: 1:1,200
FIGURE 11: TAX LOT 5000 PREFERRED PLAN
Olson &
::M.~rr;D'--
NlmElD OR
PHONE: (M;) . VIm
:/>:J.: (541) ~D
.'.l.,.,,,...,,,.,,,.,,..:"~
l
~
~
Surveying &
Engineering
('!.ATER QUALITY
I MANHOLE
-
U)
r-+-
o
.,
:3
::E
o
r-+-
<1>
.,
~
o
---,..$W
ai'
lO
:3
-<1>
:::l
r-+-
'1
lO'
C
,
<1>
...." .
=f>
"
c......
.CN
,