Wetlands Categorization and Protection Determinations

Once inventoried and evaluated, wetlands needed to be categorized to help determine what future course of action would be appropriate. The ultimate categorization of west Eugene wetlands involved a three-step process based on the identification, delineation and assessment steps discussed previously. These paved the way for the third step of determining wetlands to be protected or developed. This was accomplished through a categorization and criteria process.

Once the evaluation information was available, three scenarios, mapped and accompanied by criteria, were presented to the public: a) protect most of the wetlands, b) develop most of the wetlands, and c) a balanced approach protecting about 75% of the wetlands and allowing about 25% to be filled and developed. Surveys allowed citizens and property owners to comment on the data behind each wetland rating. The Technical Advisory Committee reviewed the results as well as the public.

This categorization process went relatively smoothly. Most wetlands fell easily into the "protect" or "develop" category based on a relative rating process and criteria developed to place values on wetlands. There were only a half dozen wetland sites out of 64 that were debated. Eventually the process led to four plan map designations in the adopted plan: (a) wetlands to be protected; (b) wetlands to be restored or enhanced; (c)wetlands suitable for fill and future development, and (d) uplands to be protected as connections between wetlands and along stream courses.

By the time the West Eugene Wetlands Plan was adopted, seven wetland alternatives for protection and development had been presented to the public. These alternatives originally included a status quo alternative, an avoidance alternative, and three alternatives which depicted varying amounts of wetlands to be protected and developed. From comments received on these alternatives, a Preliminary Staff Recommendation, Alternative #6, was developed and presented. From further comments received on this alternative, a seventh alternative was developed, which became the recommended alternative contained in the draft Wetlands Plan. The alternatives are summarized in Figure 9 below. In the final alternative analysis, the adopted Plan, is treated as Alternative #8.

Significant to the process was the development of criteria for designating sites for protection or development. Originally, wetlands planning staff tried to use size as a criteria (i.e., a wetland of less than 5 acres would be more likely to be developed). However, public comments were negative regarding this criteria. It was decided that each wetland deserved consideration for protection, and that wetland significance should not be based on size. The final criteria used as a basis for the adopted plan were:(1)

Criteria used to Identify sites suitable for and deserving protection:

• presence of rare plants
• site has Metropolitan Plan designation of Natural Resource
• site is within the 100 year floodplain
• site is near a perennial waterway
• site is connected geographically or hydrologically to other wetlands or waterways
• site contains a high diversity of wildlife habitat or contributes to the diversity of wildlife within the region
• protection of site would further the goals and objectives of this plan
• presence of unique Willamette Prairie Grassland plant community

Criteria in evaluating sftes for possible development:

• prior to the adoption of the WEWP, the site has an approved wetland impact permit from the Oregon DSL and Army Corps of Engineers, or an approved Final Environmental Impact Statement
• the site is relatively isolated or disconnected from the larger system of wetlands and waterways
• the site is served by existing streets, roads, sanitary sewers and municipal water
• the site is adjacent to or surrounded by existing development
• the site has frontage on a major highway or street

In summary, the categorization and protection determination process resulted in over 1,000 acres of wetlands recommended for protection, restoration or enhancement, and 288 acres recommended for development. These recommendations are mapped on Exhibit 5. Another 115 acres of wetlands outside the UGB were excluded due to uncertainty of value and their status under the 1989 Federal Delineation manual where the off-site methodology was used. Under Oregon's land use planning system, these wetlands are not in jeopardy from urban developmen without an Urban Growth Boundary amendment.

(1) it should be noted that these were criteria, not standards, used for categorization. A balance was found through the use of maps to look at overall effects.