ICS-TT Subdivisions and Edge Development Committee/Natural Resource Plan

From Eugene Neighbors

An in-progress working paper of the ICS-TT Subdivisions and Edge Development Committee

1 Overview
2 Proposal
3 Task Team Discussion 2008.1013
4 References
5 External Links

[edit] Overview

No cohesive plan is in place to manage natural resource systems in the Eugene metro area. Current standards protect certain components of our natural resource system but do little to ensure that existing resources are identified and protected in such a way as to encourage the preservation of important contiguous habitat tracts and wildlife corridors from upland habitat to riparian corridors and other lowland areas. Continuous corridors of habitat provide conditions more suitable for maintaining biodiversity, restoring waterways and creating areas accessible for passive recreation that distribute the effects of these uses. Currently, there is a propensity towards incremental degradation of existing wildlife corridors on a taxlot by taxlot basis at the time of development that will be difficult to overcome if not addressed more holistically. It is also clear that a combination of the loss of natural areas due to typical construction practices and standard development design has the unintended consequence of extensively diminishing the effectiveness of natural stormwater systems. This pattern of replacing the functioning natural system with a constructed mechanical one leaves the community with a growing inventory of systems that continually devalue over time. In contrast, natural systems appreciate over time and become more effective as they develop to their mature state.

Natural areas that are left intact, restored and replanted in such a way as to be integrated with new development mitigates the impervious surface of the development while maintaining the character and livability of the neighborhood. The park-like amenities that are a result of this type of development further increase the value of that development and the livability of Eugene as a whole. The loss of natural resources is particularly relevant in this committee’s purview of subdivisions and edge development since much of the development in natural areas is taking place in new subdivisions and along the fringes of our urban area.

The creation of a cohesive natural resource conservation plan is necessary to meet the ICS Task Team’s Project Goal Statement (a): ”Prevent residential infill that would significantly threaten or diminish the stability, quality, positive character, livability or natural resources of residential neighborhoods It is also critical in order to comply with the state of Oregon’s planning goals and intent which state: “Local governments shall adopt programs that will protect natural resources and conserve scenic, historic, and open space resources for present and future generations. These resources promote a healthy environment and natural landscape that contributes to Oregon's livability. “(1)

[edit] Proposal

1. Follow the lead of Portland Metro in the creation of an Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (UGMFP) that recognizes natural systems as a whole and encourages development in such a way as to maintain connectivity between natural areas.

2. Utilize the applicable systems, methodologies and scientific research recently completed for the creation of Portland Metro’s Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, Title 13, Nature in Neighborhoods to create a similar code that relates directly to the UGMFP - an inclusive watershed mapping of the local natural systems that is accessible by the public and updatable. By adopting the science and methodologies of recent work for a local region with similar habitat types, Eugene’s development costs of mapping and code creation could be greatly reduced (see attachments a-e).

Metro worked with Ecotrust to create their maps utilizing a combination of image processing and geographic information systems (GIS) modeling techniques (see attachment a.). This allowed them to create 3 separate 17-class land cover maps that are updatable. The mapping process identified Class I and II Riparian and Class A and B Upland Wildlife Habitat classifications. (see attachment). Metro also developed a methodology for property owners to determine if the mapping of their site is accurate and if it is not accurate a methodology for determining what actual conditions are has been codified and revisions are applied to the base map (2). This set of criteria should be evaluated to see if it can be a model for local regulations as well.

The Environmental Leadership Program at the University of Oregon works with students who are leaders in their field of study: the creation of maps. It has been suggested that the recommended natural systems mapping would be an appropriate project for them to work on at a low cost to the city. This program recently worked with the city of Springfield to map rooftops that could efficiently house solar panels to determine how much energy could be generated by doing so.

3. Create a matrix that relates habitat value with urban growth value (determined by the mapping process) to produce a rating of low medium or high degree of protection for habitat conservation areas (3). For example, if a site has low habitat value then conservation zones are not required. If it is a high value conservation area then the amount of land to be conserved is determined by the urban development value.

Educational models have been created through the development of the Nature in Neighborhoods Program such as reduced site impact techniques for construction (4) and examples of housing developments for typical site conditions(5). This could greatly aid developers envision how a development could be created that preserves natural resources, thus reducing costs for the developers in the adoption of new concepts.

It is our recommendation that the City of Eugene include upland habitat in its protected areas as the number of acres of this important habitat type is diminishing rapidly in our community. Portland Metro decided to only include protection for upland habitat in areas incorporated into the urban growth boundary after the adoption of the ordinance, despite stated goals of preserving 75% of this habitat type, and 95% of white oak woodland, which is a subcategory of upland habitat.

4. Recommend that the City create a set of Performance and Implementation Objectives and Indicators. They could base this on Metro’s Table 3.07-13e (6) to measure if the code system is allowing them to reach their goals, and to amend the code as necessary to ensure the goals are reachable.

References:

1. Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines, Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces, OAR 660-015-0000(5) 2. Exhibit E, Ordinance No. 05-1077C Title 13 Metro Code Chapter 3.07, Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, Title 13: Model Ordinance, Pgs. 28-34: F: Basic Verification Approaches; G. Detailed Verification Approach. 3. Exhibit C, Ordinance No 05-1077C Title 13 Metro Code Chapter 3.07, Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, Title 13: Nature in Neighborhoods, pgs. 24, 25 Table 3-07-13b: Method for Identifying Habitat Conservation Areas (“HCA”) in Future Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Area. 4. ibid., Pg. 26, Table 3.07-13c. Habitat Friendly Development Practices 5. Metro Nature Friendly Development Resources http://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=23219 6. Exhibit C, Ordinance No 05-1077C Title 13 Metro Code Chapter 3.07, Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, Title 13: Nature in Neighborhoods, Pgs. 29-31 Table 3.07-13E, Performance and Implementation Objectives and Indicators.

[edit] Task Team Discussion 2008.1013

Do Portland Metro address micro systems as well as macro systems? Urban areas may have small-scale but vital natural resources.
What about maintenance? Is that part of the NR management plan? Example of problems with maintenance of bioswales.
Creative approaches to maintenance... community volunteer efforts...
Concern about unfunded mandates. Concern about enforcement only on a complaint basis. Need a funding source for enforcement.
Conceptually this is a missing piece for our community.
How hard will this be? Are there takings issues, etc.?

[edit] References

a. An Ecotrust Project Profile: Inventory and Mapping of Urban Forest Canopy, Land Cover, & Natural Areas b. River Plan / North Reach Natural Resource Inventory Update Prepared for the River Plan Committee February 20, 2007 by: River Renaissance and Natural Resources Inventory c. Exhibit C, Ordinance No 05-1077C Title 13 Metro Code Chapter 3.07, Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, Title 13: Nature in Neighborhoods d. Exhibit E, Ordinance No. 05-1077C Title 13 Metro Code Chapter 3.07, Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, Title 13: Model Ordinance e. Exhibit F, Ordinance No. 05-1077C Attachment 2, Metro’s Technical Report for Fish and Wildlife Habitat, April 2005

(Future) Attachments: