introduction leslie kohli administrator springfield township lucas county, ohio

Introduction

Leslie KohliAdministratorSpringfield TownshipLucas County, Ohio

Swan Creek Watershed Pilot Project

Lake Erie Commission Provides Opportunity

Balanced Growth: a voluntary, incentive-based strategy to protect and restore Lake Erie, the Ohio River, and Ohio's watersheds to assure long-term economic competitiveness ecological health, and quality of life.

To promote best land use for the protection of water quality

What is Balanced Growth?

Key Aspects of Balanced Growth

• Maximizes incentive based initiatives• Focuses on ecological protection/restoration• Encourage land uses in appropriate locations

Balanced Growth is a strategy to protect and restore Lake Erie and its watersheds to assure long-term economic

competitiveness and quality of life.

About Swan Creek watershed

205 square miles of land in Lucas, Fulton, and Henry counties.

Swan Creek is 40 miles long. 200 miles of ditches & streams. 23 political jurisdictions

3 counties 13 townships 2 cities 5 villages

The Partnership

Swan Creek Committee Representatives from jurisdictions Watershed interest groups Representatives of:

Conservation

Development

Agriculture

Committee members

TMACOG staff Soil & Water Conservation district County Commissioners County Engineers Planning Commissions Consulting Engineers Municipalities Townships Park Districts Nature Conservancy Board of Realtors

Political Jurisdictions

The Partnership

Name county PopulationPercent

Population AcresPercent of Watershed support

Harding Township Lucas 724 0.64% 5,996 4.60% no

Spencer Township Lucas 1,362 1.21% 5,379 4.13% no

Village of Holland Lucas 1,306 1.16% 555 0.43% no

Amboy Township Fulton 335 0.30% 1,747 1.34% yes

Fulton Township Fulton 1,618 1.44% 17,579 13.50% yes

Pike Township Fulton 454 0.40% 3,782 2.90% yes

Swan Creek Township Fulton 5,457 4.85% 19,163 14.71% yes

Village of Delta Fulton 1,145 1.02% 581 0.45% yes

Village of Swanton Fulton 3,307 2.94% 1,525 1.17% yes

York Township Fulton       0.01% yes

Washington Township Henry 609 0.54% 2,437 1.87% yes

City of Maumee Lucas 5,228 4.65% 2,243 1.72% yes

City of Toledo Lucas 54,981 48.86% 8,289 6.36% yes

Monclova Township Lucas 6,472 5.75% 13,261 10.18% yes

Providence Township Lucas 3,005 2.67% 12,400 9.52% yes

Springfield Township Lucas 16,364 14.54% 9,679 7.43% yes

Swanton Township Lucas 3,330 2.96% 14,029 10.77% yes

Village of Waterville Lucas 2,465 2.19% 837 0.64% yes

Village of Whitehouse Lucas 2,733 2.43% 2,211 1.70% yes

Waterville Township Lucas 1,553 1.38% 8,564 6.57% yes

96.90% 90.84%

20

Jurisdictions

Plus

3

Counties

The Breakdown

• Townships• population 36%, land area 88%

• Village,Cities• Population 64% land area 12%

Grant required: 75% population 75% land area 75% jurisdictions

= 225%

We had: 97% population 91% land area 87% jurisdictions

= 275%

Swan Creek watershed – topographically very flat

Lucas County is on a nearly level plain… The Oak Openings extends northeast-southwest from Sylvania to Neapolis…the flat surface is broken by low, rounded hills, or undulations of sand. -Soil Survey of Lucas County, Ohio

GOAL: Priority Areas

Project outcome is to recommend future land use priority areas

PCAs – Priority Conservation Areas Natural areas, parks, forests, wetland or other habitat

PDAs – Priority Development Areas Areas that are attractive for Residential, Commercial,

or Industrial development

PAAs – Priority Agricultural Areas Agricultural preservation areas

Priority Areas: the process

Technical CommitteeMet monthlySelected & prioritized modeling criteriaDetermined what computer data would

identify “good” areas for conservation, development and agriculture; data sources

Prepared maps of PAAs, PCAs, PDAs, & Combined Priorities

Maps for review & comment

Priority Area Process

Brainstorm criteria affecting development, conservation, agriculture

Long list of criteria 57 items totalVoted to rank most important

But Wait……..

Why not just use existing plans?Not all areas are zoned – creates a

patchworkInconsistent from jurisdiction to

jurisdictionMost zoning – status quo, not

addressing the environment or efficient smart development

PCA: Top Conservation Priorities

WetlandsRare plants/animalsForest sizeConservation areasFloodplainRiparian corridor

Using the Criteria

Conservation Priority Index Ranking of Value Ranges

Total PossibleParameter Data Source 4 3 2 1 Weight

Presence of wetlands ODNR, GIMS Yes -- -- -- 6 24

Rare plant/animal occurrences:

density within 1 mile radius

ODNR, Natural Heritage Database

>50 per mile2

30 - 50 per mile2

10 - 30 per mile2

>0 - 10 per mile2 5 20

Forest patch size ODNR >100 acres25 - 100

acres 5 - 25 acres >0 - 5 acres 4 16

Protected conservation

areas[1]

County auditors; USGS

GAP; metroparks Yes -- -- -- 3 12

100 yr. Floodplain FEMAIn

floodplain -- -- -- 2 8

Riparian corridor USGS NHD

<500 ft. from

stream -- -- -- 1 4

  Highest Possible Score 84

PDA: Top Residential Priorities

Sanitary SewerWaterRecreation: parks, open spaceCultural attractionsQuality of schoolsExisting commercial

PDA: Top Industrial Priorities

WaterHighwaysSanitary SewerBrownfieldsIncorporated areas: distanceInterchanges / Major intersections

PDA: Top Commercial Priorities

Incorporated areasWater Sanitary SewerCommercial marketPer Capita IncomeHighways

PAA: Top Agricultural Priorities

Farmland preservationPrime/Important farmlandSize of farmCAUVCurrent farmlandDrainage capacity

Combined Priorities

Residential – Industrial – Commercial — combined into multi-use “PDAs”

Areas may score high for multiple priorities

Selected top-scoring – highest 10% by area – for each land use

Resolved almost all multi-priority designations

Local Input = change

Committee/Computer generated maps presented to jurisdiction

Jurisdiction may chose to alter the priority areas

Committee reviews/discusses the proposals and makes changes if in keeping with the intent of the project

Final Priority Areas

2013 Update: Streamside Buffers

Developer Concerns

Will the balanced growth plan restrict development?

Will developers be penalized as a result of the plan?

Can developers take advantage of incentives?

NO

NO

YES

Where do we go from here?

Transitioned from Technical Advisory committee to Balanced Growth committee Representatives of public jurisdictions in watershed Representatives from Technical committee

Currently formulating focus of committee Encourage Airport/Oak Openings initiatives Review projects proposed in watershed and

provide endorsement if they fit the plan