Oregon Wetland Planning Workshop Oregon Department of State Lands Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
Outline • Introduction • Planning & Regulatory Framework • 3. Local Wetland Inventories • 4. Goal 5 Planning; Overview • 4.4 Standard Approach
Outline 4.5 Safe Harbor Approach 4.6 Choosing an Approach 4.8 Coordinating with Other Goals 4.12 Public Involvement 5. Developing a Program
Why Plan for Wetlands Point 1 Reduce uncertainty for future development Point 2 Provide adequate amounts of buildable land within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Point 3 Enhance economic benefits from wetlands
Why Plan for Wetlands Point 4 Optimize wetlands' recreational, educational, and aesthetic values Point 5 Retain flood control functions of wetlands Point 6 Maintain or improve water quality of streams & lakes
Why Plan for Wetlands Point 7 Conserve aquatic and terrestrial habitat for plants and animals Point 8 More effective resource protection than state / federal permit program alone.
Oregon Planning System • 19 Statewide Planning Goals • Oregon Revised Statutes • Oregon Administrative Rules • Local Government Process • - Comprehensive plans • - Regulations and ordinances
Wetland Planning and Permitting Mandates • Federal Clean Water Act, Section 401 andSection 404 (EPA, Corps) • Oregon State Removal-Fill Law (DSL) • Oregon Land Use Planning Goals 5, 6, 16, 17 (DLCD) • National Food Security Act (NRCS) “Swampbuster” (no role in cities)
Agency Roles and Responsibilities Wetland Planning Responsibilities Local State Federal • DSL - Technical assistance with LWIs. • DLCD - Review of comprehen-sive plans; periodic review. • ODFW - Advisory role only. • EPA - Occasion-ally provides wetland planning grants. • Corps - May authorize a special area management plan (SAMP) in concert with a WCP. • Cities and counties - Goal 5 wetland inventories,comprehensive plan policies, implementation ordinances.
Agency Roles and Responsibilities Wetland Regulatory Responsibilities Local State Federal • DSL - Permitting for removal and fill in wetlands. • DLCD - Review of fill permits in coastal zone. • ODFW - May comment on permits. • DEQ - Section 401 certification. • Corps - Section 404 permits (discharge into wetlands) & Section 10 permits (navigational impacts in waterways). • NMFS and USFWS - review permits for T&E species or habitat effects. • EPA, USFWS, NMFS - May comment on Corps permit applications even absent ESA issues. • Review wetland permits for consistency with comprehensive plans. • Send land-use notifications to DSL for wetland sites proposed for development.
What is an LWI? • Comprehensive survey of all wetlands in UGB • Description of each site • Mapping, documentation and process is specified in administrative rule • Must use same definition of wetlands as regulations • Flags future issues for both developers and city
LWI Example Disclaimer: LWIs are for planning purposes only. Wetland delineations are still necessary for development permits.
Local Wetland Inventories Process Steps • Find Funding • Public Involvement • Preliminary Mapping • Fieldwork – Onsite/Offsite • Final Mapping • DSL Review and Approval • Land Owner Notification
Oregon Freshwater WetlandAssessment Methodology (OFWAM) Elements to Assess 1. Wildlife habitat, 2. Fish habitat, 3. Water quality, 4. Hydrologic control, 5. Sensitivity to impact, 6. Enhancement potential, 7. Educational potential, 8. Recreational potential, and 9. Aesthetic quality.
Locally Significant Wetland (LSW) Criteria Include: • Highest OFWAM rank for any of the four ecologicalfunctions: • Wildlife habitat • Fish habitat • Water quality • Hydrologic control • Inhabited by any species listed by the federal or state government as threatened or endangered. • Others, including 2 optional criteria for local discretion. • See OAR 141.86 300 to 350 for complete list of criteria.
Scoping the Inventory • How much land will be inventoried? • Do lands outside the city limits but within the UGB need to be inventoried? If so, coordinate with county planners. • What Goal 5 approach will be used - Safe Harbor or the standard process? • Can other inventories(riparian or wildlife) beconducted concurrently?
Scoping the Inventory • What staff resources are available to conduct the inventory? Are consultants needed? • What funding sources are there for the project? Are grants available? Is there a required local match? • Should a wetlandconservation plan beprepared instead?
Tips for a Successful LWI Product • Define needs and objectives. • Obtain Council or Commissioner support • Educate and involve the public • Dedicate staff • Conduct fieldwork in the spring • Secure citizen cooperation and site access • Employ experienced wetland scientists • Keep study area manageable (split if necessary)
Oregon’s Wetland Planning Process - Using Goal 5 • Planning Context and History • Goal 5 Management Options • Goal 5 Process - Standard Process/Safe Harbor • Wetland Conservation Plans • Choosing an Approach • Coordination with Other Goals • Special Circumstance
For Counties Only: • LWIs not required outside of UUCs and UGBs • Use current acknowledged inventories and regulations or adopt the SWI to notify DSL of applications affecting mapped wetlands • County must follow the wetland planning process in rule to develop new inventories and determine significant wetlands (cannot use NWI) • Coordinate planning with cities as required
Standard Process or Safe Harbor • Standard Process -Review each resource • Safe Harbor -Prescribed set of standards
Standard Goal 5 Process • Identify the impact areas • Examine conflicting uses • Analyze the ESEE consequences: • Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy • Incorporate conclusions in final plan inventory • Adopt local regulatory program Standard Approach
Impact Areas "...the geographic area within which conflicting uses could adversely affect a significant wetland”(OAR 660-023-010). • Community may define impact areas • Be specific - measurable and mappable • Document reasons • Justify it scientifically - use soil type, slope, and vegetation - be consistent • May vary based on location, for example: • - Developed areas - adjacent properties • - Floodplain - across many properties Standard Approach
Impact Area Examples • Uniform distancebuffer • Identifiable topo-graphic features • Adjacent properties • Drainage basins or sub-basins • The area around a wetland that could have supplemental zoning for environmental protection • A combination of methods Standard Approach
Impact Area Matrix • List zoning and lot for the wetland resource and the impact area Standard Approach
Land Uses: • Zoning which allows new development • Building a house or constructing a street Activities: • Excavating and grading • Alterations changing the quantity or quality of wateraffecting the wetland • - new impervious surface • - removal of vegetation • - changes to drainageways, discharges, & shading Conflicting Uses A land use or other activity that "could adversely affect”a significant wetland (OAR 660-023-010). Standard Approach
Conflict Reductions Existing plans or regulations may reduce thenumber of conflicts: • Programs for Goals 6, 7, or 15 through 19 • Regional protection - Metro Title 3 • Clean Water Services in Washington County • NMFS 4(d) rule response Standard Approach
Conflicting Use Steps 1. Review local planning and zoning codes - allowed outright - conditional uses 2. Review land management activities - excavation and grading - herbicide and pesticide application - vegetation removal 3. Planned Improvements - public facilities plans - transportation system plans - capital improvement plans - park and recreation master plans 4. Property Owner Plans Standard Approach
Conflicting Use Matrix Standard Approach
Overview of ESEE Consequences Analysis • Economic • Social • Environmental • Energy Determine whether conflicts should be: • Prohibited • Allowed • Limited Standard Approach
ESEE Example Address: • Positive and negative ESEE consequences • Wetland site and impact areas Example: Allowing a residential use on a wetland site • Economic: Higher return on owner investment • Social: Effect on urban amenities, density, loss ofaesthetic views • Environmental: New impervious surfaces acceleraterunoff, loss of flood control function, loss of wildlife habitat • Energy: More efficient use of land and transportation routes Standard Approach
ESEE Matrix Standard Approach
Two-Part ESEE Approach Part One - Generic ESEE Analysis • Apply to similar sites • Address protection options by conflicting use categories • Develop ESEE consequences list • Use text or matrix Standard Approach
Two-Part ESEE Approach Part Two - Site Specific ESEE Analysis • Apply to complex sites • - overlapping environmental issues • - subject to multiple or unusual regulation • - controversial issues • Use text or matrix • Tip: Anticipate property owner concerns andcommit to a full site-specific analysis oncontroversial sites Standard Approach
Program Decision • Either: • Prohibit Conflicts • Fully Allow Conflicts, or • Limit Conflicts Example: For a wetland in a planned town center • Severe economic consequences if conflicts prohibited • Environmental impact too great to fully allow conflicts • Limit impacts with standards Standard Approach
How Much Detail is Needed for the Analysis? • In assessing the level of detail needed, consider the following: • Are property owners objecting? • Is public concern organized? • Is there a threat of appeal? Have attorneys been involved? • Would local protection of the resource affect the amount of buildable land? • Is the decision highly complex? Does it require a trade-off of community objectives and values? Standard Approach
Standard Goal 5 Recap - Shortcuts and Tips • Narrowly define impact areas • Categorize conflicting uses • Code the ESEE analysis • Group similar sites • Provide more detail where needed Tip: Focus on Economic and Environmental Impacts Standard Approach
The Safe Harbor Process 1996 Goal 5 Administrative Rule (OAR 660, Division 23) establishes safe harbor regulations for: • Wetlands • Riparian Areas • Wildlife Habitat Areas Safe Harbor Approach
Wetland Safe Harbor Steps • Conduct LWI • Complete LSW • Adopt Inventory • Adopt Safe Harbor Program • Alternative to conflicting use and ESEE analysis Safe Harbor Approach
Wetland Safe Harbor Protection Regulatory restrictions on: • Grading • Excavation • Placement of fill • Vegetation removal Minimum and maximum provision - no greaterprotections can be imposed. 1. No flexibility is permitted in terms of allowing aconflicting use 2. No upland buffers can be applied Safe Harbor Approach
FYI: Goal 5 Riparian Safe Harbor • If a city chooses to pursue riparian safe harbor protections, significant wetlands within riparian corridors get a setback based on stream size • Applies to fish-bearing streams - see ODF and ODFW maps • Does not affect non-riparian wetlands Safe Harbor Approach
Combined Approach: Standard Process and Safe Harbor • Separate approaches are allowed for separate wetland units. • A wetland unit includes hydrologically connected wetlands • Cannot separate wetland units by political or ownership boundaries Combined Approach
Wetland Conservation Plans (WCP) • Alternative to Goal 5 or Goal 17 process • Purposes include: • - Comprehensive wetland plan that meets diverse local needs; optional local permitting • - Provides regulatory certainty for landowners, unlike Goal 5/17 which only designates protection sites • Provides better overall wetland management by providing broad context for permit decisions WCP Approach
WCP Elements • More detailed LWI (higher standards) • Functional assessment of all wetlands • Analysis of historical wetland losses • Development of WCP goals • Designation of all wetlands into categories: development, conservation or protection • Mitigation plan to cover planned impacts • Policies & implementing ordinances • Monitoring plan WCP Approach
Wetland Planning Recap - Goal 5 Options • Standard Approach • - Conflicting Use and ESEE Analysis • Safe Harbor • - Standard procedures and protection requirements • Combination - Standard Approach and Safe Harbor • Wetland Conservation Plan
Choosing an Approach: A Comparison
Goal 5 Approach Decision Checklist 1. Are there many significant wetlands? 2. Are there many potential conflicts? Are there numerous wetlands on sites plannedand zoned for development? 3. What is the level of public interest? Are they supportive of a high level of wetlandprotection? 4. Are elected officials knowledgeable and supportive? 5. Will there be adequate funding and staffing for more detailed analyses?
Coordinating with Goals 6 and 7 Goal 6 - Water, Air, and Land Resources Quality For example - water quality protection programs Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards For example - floodplain and steep slope protection Tip: Goal 6 and 7 protection measures in place can reduce conflicting uses in Goal 5 analysis Coordinating with Other Planning Goals / Programs