Regional Industrial Wetlands / Wetlands Mitigation Project

1. Regional Industrial Wetlands /Wetlands Mitigation Project

2. Regional Industrial Wetlands /Wetlands Mitigation Project Coordinated by – Oregon Cascades WestCouncil of Governments In cooperation with – City of Adair Village City of Harrisburg City of Albany City of Lebanon City of Corvallis City of Millersburg City of Halsey City of Tangent State of Oregon With funding provided by – State of Oregon DLCD BL3 Regional Investment Board PacifiCorp

3. Overview of key findings... • What is a “wetland”? • How do wetlands impact industrial sites? • What are the issues? • What needs to be “fixed”? • How can we move forward?

4. What is a “wetland”? What about this Corvallis site? Is this Tangent site likely to be a wetland?

5. What is a “wetland”? • May not always be wet – • Seasonal • Altered (farmed, tiled, channeled) • Inundated or saturated with ground or surface water to support hydrophytes (aquatic plants)

6. What is a “wetland”? • Serve important functions – • Storm water retention • Ground water recharge • Filter contaminates • Wildlife & plant habitat • Recreation • Aesthetics • Goal 5 balancing act

7. How do wetlands impact sites? • Almost all industrial sites have areas of known or suspected wetlands • Few 10+ acre sites could be developed without impacting likely wetlands area...

8. How do wetlands impact sites?South Halsey Site Total Area of Site: @ 25.0 Acres Suspected Wetlands: @ 15.6 Acres

9. How do wetlands impact sites?Lebanon Rodeo Industrial Park Total Area of Sites: 120.1 Acres Delineated Wetlands: 73.1 Acres

10. How do wetlands impact sites?South Albany Industrial Park Total Area of Sites: 247.0 Acres Delineated Wetlands: 125.5 Acres

11. What are the issues? Phase I findings – • Uncertainty & time needed to address wetlands requirements are impediments to siting industry • Cost to meet regulations is a lesser factor for larger sites with build-to-suit developments

12. What are the issues? • Review to possible permit can take 1 year • Approval required from both - • Oregon Department of State Lands • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • 3 key definitions / hurdles - • Delineation Defines boundary of wetlands • Assessment Evaluation of wetlands values, functions, & condition • Determination Decision that a site does, is likely to, may, or does not contain wetlands

13. What are the issues? • Development proposal must work to - #1 - Avoid wetlands area #2 - Minimize impact to wetlands #3 - Compensate for impact - • Restore wetlands / create new wetlands • Same / more wetlands area • Same / enhanced wetlands functions & values

14. What are the issues? • Review cannot begin until there is a detailed, real, development plan • Site must have recent delineation • Alternatives analysis must prove non-wetlands sites aren’t possible • Developer must mediate between DSL & US ACE

15. What are we “fixing”? • Forecast future industrial land demand • Preferred & likely future • Inform local Comp Plan updates = 20 years • Understand industrial site wetlands • Address wetlands-related uncertainty & timing impediments

16. BASELINE INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT PROJECTION Broad Economic Trends State Economic Vision and Economic Initiatives The Region’s Assets Anticipated Growth and Change in Industrial Sectors REFINED ECONOMIC FUTURE – REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT PROJECTION Community Characteristics and Preferred Economic Future Evaluate Alternative Views of Industrial Land Demand DEMAND FOR INDUSTRIAL LAND

17. What are we “fixing”? • Industrial Economic Opportunities Analysis • Need inventory of @1,500 acres of vacant land to meet demand & provide market choice • Inventory requires about 84 sites - • 20 sites of 10-acres or more • 63 sites of under 10 acres (76% of demand) • Cities inventoried 3,360 acres in 108 sites • Review wetlands on “key sites” • Toured sample of 20 sites most likely to develop • 100–300 acres will need to be mitigated • Common approach is possible - • All in same Upper Willamette Basin • 97% of potential wetlands area is PEM Flats classification

18. What are we “fixing”? • Regulators prefer larger areas to individual or on-site mitigation – • Shared maintenance costs • Eased monitoring • Increased long-term success • Securing mitigation bank credits improves part of certainty issue, but... • Almost all existing & planned Upper Willamette mitigation bank credits are taken, and... • Recent Upper Willamette credit purchases averaged $93,654 ($84,500 state-wide)

19. How will we move forward? Track A: Explore & frame regional mitigation bank • A collaborative bank is feasible • Cost of bank development & long-term operating pool is @$31,000 = 1/3 of credit • Additive values & benefits could be brought into / alongside public wetlands mitigation bank • Next steps... • Outreach to partners • Seek EPA funding for next steps • Clarify interest in a “consortium” approach • Frame business plan (structure, operation, finances, etc.)

20. How will we move forward? Track B: Seek regional-level reviews • Try to move package of sites through reviews • Regional “Alternatives Analysis” • Site-by-site analysis of conditions • Work toward 80-90% certainty... • Current delineation required • Development plan review required • Next steps... • Secure US ACE cooperation = KEY! • Obtain funds for assessment & to write EPA application • Conduct assets assessment to clarify top sites • Secure EPA grant to fund site & opportunities analyses

21. Regional Industrial Wetlands /Wetlands Mitigation Project

22. Regional Industrial Wetlands /Wetlands Mitigation Project Coordinated by – Oregon Cascades WestCouncil of Governments In cooperation with – City of Adair Village City of Harrisburg City of Albany City of Lebanon City of Corvallis City of Millersburg City of Halsey City of Tangent State of Oregon With funding provided by – State of Oregon DLCD BL3 Regional Investment Board PacifiCorp