3. SCENARIO B (Map No. 8)

This scenario balances natural resource protection and development interests. The most valuable existing wetlands would be protected, and mitigation and restoration of wetlands would be panned to connect with the protected, existing wetlands. Mitigation would occur within and outside the UGB. Some adjustments to the UGB would be needed to offset loss of urban lands within the UGB which are slated for wetlands protection or mitigation. Depending on the plan agreed to by local, state and federal officials, future expansions and contractions of the UGB are possible to reflect the effects of wetlands on the buildable land supply.

Unlike Scenarios A and C, fewer absolutes were used in developing this scenario (refer to Table No. 8). Instead, criteria were listed and scored with one point given if the criterion applied to the entire site and one-half point if the criterion applied to a portion of the site. Those sites with four points or more were then weighed against the development considerations in arriving at the protected/developed balance. The 300 foot buffer along waterways is larger than the 100 feet used in Scenario A, but less than the 500 foot buffer used in Scenario C.

Criteria given points for protection in this scenario were:

a. Rare plant sites,
b. Deschampsia (tufted hairgrass) prairie sites,
c. Sites with wildlife habitat rating 45 and above,
d. Metropolitan Plan natural resource designation already on site,
e. Sites with higher than the mean score on WET, this includes those with higher water quality values,
f. Sites within 300 feet of a major waterway (Amazon Channel, Willow Creek, A-3 Channel, Amazon Diversion, and Amazon Creek or "A" Channel), and
g. Size (greater than 10 acres).

Development criteria used were:

a. Proximity to and degree of existing services.
b. Frontage on an existing improved road or street.
c. Metropolitan Plan designation.

The advantages of this scenario are that the most valuable wetlands could be protected, development certainty would be reinstated within the UGB, and the protection/mitigation plan could be designed to offer a system which provides future wetlands that serve multiple functions.

The disadvantages of this scenario are that some land which has been planned for urban uses for years would be dedicated to wetlands protection and mitigation. That presents a disadvantage to individual property owners who have invested in the land based on long-standing public land use plans and have been paying property taxes and other holding costs for property before any since wetlands were discovered. A disadvantage to the community is loss of investments in existing infrastructure currently serving those areas. Under this scenario, some current agricultural uses outside the UGB would be converted to wetland use (as allowed under current state law). There would be a substitution of wetland values for agricultural values.


Summary:
Acres Protected: 860
Acres Developed: 510
Total: 1,370