May 20, 1992

Based on staff review of the public testimony and our direct contacts with citizens from the secondary study area since March, we have identified four options for dealing with the secondary study area. Staff recommends alternative #3. A more detailed recommendation for carrying out alternative #3 amendments to the March 1991 draft WEWSAS Plan is attached.

The secondary study area was included in the draft Plan for the following reasons:

1. To meet mitigation needs within the WEWSAS primary study area and other regional wetland mitigation needs. The amount of restoration and enhancement land within the primary study area will just meet the demand for mitigation on the 360 acres of development recommendation lands, assuming those mitigation acres all have willing sellers.

2. The lands identified in the secondary study area appear to be suitable for wetlands enhancement or restoration based on mapped hydric soils, historic wetlands, elevations, and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory.

3. These areas are proximate to major water features: the Amazon Diversion Channel, the "A" Channel, Fern Ridge Reservoir, or Coyote Creek.

4. There were property owners with land in the secondary study area who expressed an interest in selling or using land for mitigation purposes at the wetland workshops.

The intent in the draft Plan was to identify areas where mitigation appeared to be probable. Working with willing owners, the Land & Water Conservation Funds appropriated to the Eugene District of BLM would be used to acquire suitable sites from those willing sellers for fair market value based on an independent appraisal.

The citizens in the secondary area are concerned that the Plan does harm to them and their property rights and property values above and beyond that intent. There have been requests to delay adoption of the Plan for a year or more to wait for new wetland definitions, new wetlands law, more time to answer questions, and more time for citizens to understand the impacts of the draft Plan on the secondary area. Staff recommends that the elected officials move ahead with Plan adoption after adjusting the treatment of the study area to address as many of the citizen concerns as possible.

Staff has identified four alternatives for treating the secondary study area. Those are described below with a brief analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each.

ALTERNATIVES FOR THE SECONDARY STUDY AREA

1. Leave the WEWS Plan the way it is (or fine tune it with regard to specific requests).

   No major change to the draft Plan would be made. The Conceptual Plan Map No. 4, Land Acquisition Priority Map No. 5, and Public Facility Projects Map No. 6 would remain the same. Some minor adjustments to the maps and clarification of some policies could be made, but. the approach would be similar to the March 1991 draft.

   Advantages

   The Plan would contain maps and policies tying the mitigation program to the acquisition program and ultimate implementation.

   Disadvantages

   The current treatment is unclear as to its impact on specific parcels. Coupled with public concerns over wetlands and water quality regulations, in general, it has placed uncertainty over private land ownership decisions in the secondary area. This option does not respond to the public testimony.

   This alternative has a high likelihood of bringing land use and legal challenges to the Plan.

2. Amend the Maps treating the secondary study area to make them more general in the secondary study area (for example, on Conceptual Plan Map No. 4, show the secondary area in a shaded pattern, rather than detailed colored patterns). This would be accompanied by consolidation of the text for the secondary area into one section of the Plan, explaining clearly the intent affecting the secondary area. This section would address what the Plan does and does not do in the secondary area.

   Advantages

   This would be easy to accomplish. Any lack of clarity about primary study area policy impacts on the secondary study area could be removed. The map treatment could be better explained so that it was clear to citizens, realtors, lenders, and regulatory agencies that the secondary area was different than the primary area.

   A clear link between the mitigation program and acquisition program would remain in map and policy format.

   Disadvantages

   Secondary study area interests are not likely to be any happier with this than they are now. There is always strong reaction to a map; particularly with one which is relatively general at this stage in the process. Until field work is conducted and property transactions are concluded, the exact impact of decisions in the secondary area will remain uncertain. Those who would misinterpret the map will still be concerned about property rights and decreased property value issues.

3. Address the intent of the relationship of the mitigation program and acquisition program for the secondary study area through a separate text section. Remove the mapped treatment of the secondary area from Maps No. 4, 5, & 6. Make it clear that the remainder of the Plan deals only with the primary study area. Use a statement of intent and criteria for mitigation to describe areas which may be suitable for acquisition. Describe in detail what the Plan does and does not do. Respond to citizen concerns about fair market value, voluntary participation, and lack of regulatory impact in the secondary area in a policy format.

   Advantages

   This would be easy to accomplish. It would remove any uneasiness caused by having a map.

   It would provide the needed link between the mitigation program and the land acquisition program.

   It would clarify the intent of the Plan and reduce most of the concerns expressed about the impact of wetlands regulations and a "forced" acquisition program on the secondary area.

   Disadvantages

   Even without a map and clarification of the intent, there will be some citizens who will remain suspicious of the Plan's intent and treatment in the secondary study area.

4. Drop all reference to the secondary study area from maps and text.

   Advantages

   This would be easy to accomplish. It would respond to the testimony from the secondary study area citizens.

   Disadvantages

   This would remove the link between the regional mitigation program and the land acquisition program.

   It would make the mitigation program tight in terms of meeting west Eugene mitigation needs within the primary study area, and would not provide a clear option for meeting other regional mitigation needs.

   It would make acquisition uncertain for those in the secondary area who have expressed interest in selling property to BLM.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Pursue alternative #3. Remove the secondary study area from Maps No. 4, 5 & 6. Revise existing references to the secondary study area, and consolidate the text affecting the secondary study area into one section. A draft new section on the secondary study area is attached, along with additional recommended amendments to the draft Plan.

Staff also recommends that the City Council and Board of Commisioners adopt the set of amendments forwarded by the Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions.

L-COG Main Office: 125 East Eighth Avenue, Eugene, Oregon 97401 (503) 687-4283