In this scenario, development would follow closely that outlined in the
existing Metropolitan Plan within the urban growth boundary (UGB). Some
of the highest valued wetlands would be protected (for example, the two
Metropolitan Plan natural resource areas, Willow Creek and Bertelsen Slough).
Also, some additional higher value wetlands would be protected where rare
plants or other significant environmental values would have been identified.
Lower value wetlands would be developed. Most wetland mitigation would occur
outside the UGB.
Criteria used in developing this scenario place a high emphasis on achieving
development to reflect past commitments. Emphasis was given to developing
wetlands:
a. within the urban growth boundary
b. where wetlands were of small size (under 10 acres)
c. where an improved subdivision existed with streets, water, and
sewers already in place, or where water or sanitary sewer lines were proximate
to the site (within 300 feet).
d. where the wetland is on a disturbed agricultural site
e. where the average value in the WET analysis was below the mean
for the study area,
f. where wetlands abut an existing improved street or road, consideration
was given to developing that portion of the property (about 300 feet deep)
abutting the road, and
g. where the wetland was created by human activity (for example, a
log pond).
Assumptions associated with this scenario are as follows:
Development would parallel closely the designations in the Metropolitan
Plan.
Willow Creek and Bertelsen Slough would continue to receive the protection
now granted them under the Metropolitan Plan.
Wetlands containing rare plants would be protected.
Some, but not all, Deschampsia prairie grasslands would be protected.
Agricultural wetlands adjacent to major waterways would be protected
by a 100-foot-wide buffer.
The advantages of this scenario are that development could continue in a
more compact manner (compared to Scenarios B and C). Mitigation that provides
replacement functions and values for lost wetlands could be constructed
to provide contiguous wetlands outside the UGB. The expenditures for public
facilities could be better utilized than in the other scenarios, saving
private and public dollars. Since most mitigation would occur outside the
UGB, land acquisition costs would be lower than in the other scenarios.
The disadvantages of this scenario are that state and federal law place
high value on existing wetlands over newly created ones. The first step
in mitigation is to avoid the development in a wetland unless there is demonstrated
need. State law, but not federal law, recognizes the comprehensive plan
as one test for meeting the need criterion for wetlands mitigation. If a
new wetland is created, policy favoring on-site replacement of the same
type displaced is preferred over creating a wetland off-site and of a different
type. There remains skepticism that created wetlands can replace lost functions
and values for certain types of wetlands (for example, prairie grasslands).
There is a lower probability that state and federal agencies would approve
this scenario. The environmental community is less likely to support this
scenario due to the value of many or all of the existing wetlands. Placing
more of the mitigation outside the UGB could draw opposition from rural
residents and property owners.
SUMMARY
| Acres protected | 578 |
| Acres
Developed | 792 |
| Total | 1,370 |
Return to Team Assignment 2