IV. CONCERNS & QUESTIONS RAISED ABOUT THE WEST EUGENE WETLANDS DRAFT PLAN

A.	Regional Permit
	1.	Need a clear explanation of the regional permit, (Oral: Bodine, 4-8-92, p.3)
	RESPONSE: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, passed by Congress in 1972, assigns the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) the responsibility to administer a regulatory permit program for activities involving discharge of fill material in wetlands. The permit program seeks to ensure that the nation's wetlands are used in the best interest of the public. Any person, firm, or agency wanting to fill or dredge a wetland must first obtain a permit from the COE. Section 404(e) of the Clean Water Act authorizes the COE to issue general permits on a regional basis for activities involving discharge of fill material in wetland sites. A general "regional" permit is a way for COE to apply its regulatory program to an area identified in a wetlands management plan. The regional permit would authorize all activities that are consistent with the plan and would likely place most of the responsibility for processing individual permit applications with the local jurisdiction that administers the plan.
	2.	Vote against the "regional permit" L-COG is requesting, (E. Brown, S).
	RESPONSE: We are continuing to communicate with COE (and Division of State Lands) about the best way to treat the west Eugene Wetland Plan once it is adopted locally. The goal is to add certainty and predictability to the west Eugene region and to streamline the wetland permitting process. We believe shifting responsibility to the local jurisdiction, through a general "regional" permit, will increase certainty and save time and resources for both COE and private property owners.
	3.	With the regional permit, there will be no appeal for an individual caught up in this maze, (J. Lorenz, X).
	RESPONSE: A regional permit would help streamline the wetland permitting process by consolidating existing federal, state, and local permit requirements at the local level. The local operating procedures will include provisions for appeal of local wetland permit decisions. The procedures also will acknowledge the authority of the Army Corps of Engineers to review and comment on local permit decisions, provide assistance, and verify compliance with permit criteria.
	4.	How much do we really know about it from sources outside of the local hired staff? (J. Lorenz, X).
	Information about general "regional" permits is readily available from the Army Corps of Engineers. A COE representative participated in the recent workshop and provided written information about the federal regulatory permit program.
	Index for Summary of Comments and Staff Responses
B.	Wetlands Definition The following three comments raise questions about wetlands definitions and the federal and state wetlands manuals which establish the criteria and methodologies for field determinations, delineations and assessments of wetlands functions and values. A common response is provided for all three comments.
	1.	Need current federal and state definition of "wetland", (Oral: B. Bodine, 4-8-92, p. 3).
	2.	The delineation method used is undergoing scrutiny. How do these affect the need for the Plan?, (Oral: J. Getten, 4-8-92, p. 2).
	3.	Definitions keep changing (J. Lorenz, X).
	RESPONSE: This staff response addresses comments 1-3 above: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Oregon Division of State Lands, the two wetlands regulatory agencies, and EPA which has a role in the Corps permitting process, all use the following, common definition of wetlands: "Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas." (Executive Order 11990, 1977 and ORS 196.800 (16)). There are two versions of the "Wetland Manual" officially in use; a third version of the Manual was proposed in the Federal Register (Vol. 56, No. 157) on August 14, 1991. The 1991 version underwent a 60 day public comment period that was extended for another 60 days, expiring in February 1992. To date, no official action has been taken on the proposed 1991 Manual changes by any federal or state agency - it has no official status. The Corps was directed by Congress (1992 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act - printed as H.R. 2427 on July 10, 1991) to discontinue to approve permitting decisions based on the 1989 Manual. In a memorandum for division and district commanders from Corps Counsel, dated 8-23-92, the Corps began mailing permitting decisions based on its previous 1987 Manual (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Research Program, Technical Report Y-87-1). However, the Corps can approve some wetland decisions where inventories or wetland plans were underway at the time Congress provided the above direction (8-23-92 memorandum, p.1). Oregon has chosen to remain with the 1989 Manual through reference in an internal policy signed by the Director of DSL. The draft Wetlands Plan uses the 1989 Manual because it sets the highest standard that the Plan must meet. The Objectives of the draft Plan state that the Plan should meet federal and state laws and regulations (p. 1). To address the changing definitions issue, the draft Plan contains a new Recommended Action, #7.11 which states: "Once agreement is reached by state and federal agencies on a uniform method for defining and determining wetlands, the Plan's inventory will be re-evaluated and Plan amendments may result". (Planning Commission recommended amendments to the draft Plan, p. 25, memorandum to the Council and Board dated 4-24-92). The differences between the 1987 and 1989 Manuals affect all three wetland parameters, hydrology, soils, and vegetation. There are at least seven bills introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives that would amend the wetland provisions of the federal Clean Water Act. It is not projected that any new Wetland Manual or wetland amendments will occur before 1993. The wetland issues are likely to be the most controversial of all amendments being proposed in the Clean Water Act. It is anticipated that there will be changes to wetlands definitions, criteria, and regulatory approaches sometime during the next 24 months. The history of wetlands definitions and the Manual indicate that both have changed numerous times since the Clean Water Act was originally adopted in 1972. Given the controversy over wetlands, it is likely that definitions and the Manual will continue to undergo change during the next two decades.
	Index for Summary of Comments and Staff Responses
C.	Takings Issue
	1.	Article 14 of the U.S. Constitution states that no private property shall be taken without just compensation and due process of Law, (Oral: F. Brown, 4-8-92, p. 3) and What effect will the Lucas case before the U.S. Supreme Court have on wetlands? (Oral: Delores Bales, 4-8-92, p. 3),
	2.	Property rights are being taken without compensation, (M.Hudspeth, W).
	3.	The plan invades private property and causes added controls on land, (oral: L. Germyn, 4-8-92; M).
	Index for Summary of Comments and Staff Responses
D.	Other Legal Issues Wetlands delineation can't be used to devalue property and then use federal funds to buy wetlands at deflated values caused by a federal regulatory program, Florida Rock Industries, Inc. vs. United States, 791 F2d 893, 905 (Fed Cir. 1986), (Oral: A. Johnson, 4-8-92; O). RESPONSE: This response covers items C, Taking Issue, and D, Other Legal Issues. There are two parts to the response to these questions. The first has to do with the policies included in the WEWSAS which apply to the Secondary Study Area where the commentors own property. In the Secondary Area, within the proposed acquisition area, property owners have the option to make voluntary sales to the Bureau of Land Management at fair market values. No forced sales are proposed, authorized or encouraged by the Plan. The BLM can use condemnation only when specifically authorized by Congress to do so, and for this project, no such authorization has been given. Therefore, the acquisition program proposed in the Secondary Study Area would not diminish the economic use of private property. The only policy which would restrict uses on private property within the Secondary Study Area is policy 3.14, which would restrict some uses along stream channels and on hillsides. (See discussion of policy 3.14, Section 4, VI H.). The second response to these questions about the taking of property comes as a brief explanation of how a "taking" is determined. It is well established that if a taking is found to have occurred, the proper measure of just compensation is the property's fair market value at the time of the taking. The taking would ordinarily be deemed to have occurred at the time of the governmental action resulting in elimination of all economically viable use of the property. It would ordinarily be necessary to determine the fair market value of the property both before and after the governmental action that resulted in a reduction of economic use, to determine whether the diminution of value was sufficient to constitute a taking. The "Lucas case" referred to is Lucas v. South Carolina Costal Council, 404 S.E. 2d 895 (1990), cert. granted, No. 91-453 (U.S. Sup. Ct., 1992). Oral argument has been heard in the U.S. Supreme Court. Although a decision could be issued at any time, most commentators expect a decision near the end of the current term in June. Lucas is a regulatory takings case, in which landowner Lucas claims that application of South Carolina's "1988 Beachfront Management Act" to his two parcels of beachfront property constitutes a compensable taking because the regulation eliminated all economically viable use of his property. Lucas did not challenge the validity of the regulatory legislation, which was based in significant part on fmdings by the legislature that regulation of beachfront development was necessary to~prevent great public harm, and to protect a valuable public resource. Lucas argued that he is entitled to compensation for elimination of all economically viable use of his property, regardless of the legislative basis for the regulation. The South Carolina Supreme Court rejected that argument, based upon a line of cases holding that no taking occurs when regulation is applied to prevent serious public harm or nuisance. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the case definitely could have a significant effect on the cost of governmental regulation of private property. The Lucas case has a number of factors and issues at work, and it is practically impossible to guess the precise issues the court will choose to address, much less the positions the court will take. In addition, the composition of the court has changed significantly since the last important regulatory takings case was issued in 1987. It is quite possible, though unlikely, that the court will not reach the takings issue because of some procedural technicalities that have arisen at the state level. The court might adopt the argument of landowner Lucas that governmental regulation resulting in sufficient diminution of value constitutes a compensable taking, regardless of the purpose of the regulation. The court might preserve the "harm-nuisance prevention" exception to takings, but limit application of the rule to classic nuisances rather than any activity the legislature determines to be detrimental. There are other positions the court could take, as well. It does not appear likely that the court will move away from the requirement that government action result in elimination of all economically viable use of an identifiable segment of property in order to establish a compensable regulatory taking.
	2.	Affidavits
	Affidavits were received from approximately 90 individuals who own property within or near the secondary study area. All of the affidavits are identical. The text of the affidavits make two statements concerning the draft WEWSAS: "... the implementation of the study in its present form has the potential to cause severe land use restrictions and would constitute a taking of my private property rights without just compensation. Whether my property is designated to be protected wetland, wetland to be developed or considered to be a potential contributing wetland factor, the effect will be to impair the use of my property right." "The incorrect designation of all or part of my property as wetlands and the resulting impairment of my property right will substantially harm the property's present and future value and will also cause direct economic harm to me." RESPONSE: The draft study does not designate any property in the secondary area as wetlands, nor does it designate any property as "protected wetlands", "wetlands to be developed", or as "a potential contributing wetland factor". The study only identifies areas that are eligible for voluntary sale to the Bureau of Land Management for use in the proposed mitigation program.
	Index for Summary of Comments and Staff Responses
E.	Property Values
	1.	If owners are "persuaded" to sell property for lump sum payment, they would suffer serious tax implications, (Oral: M. Powell, 4-8-92, p. 3; G).
	RESPONSE: The reference to "serious tax implications" presumably refers to taxation of the gain realized from sale of the property. A "lump sum" payment of the purchase price received in the year of sale would result in taxation of the entire gain in that year. However, if the purchase price was paid in installments, taxation of the gain would be, m essence, pro-rated over the period of installments. To evaluate the tax implications of one approach over the other, it would be necessary to know the specific details of the seller's tax situation. A willing seller, however, can request installment payments to spread the gain from the sale over more than one year.
	2.	Speculation caused by the Plan has inflated land values; is this wise use of federal Land & Water Conservation Funds? (Oral: Bodine, 48-92).
	RESPONSE: Land and Water Conservation Funds are used by the U.S. Government to purchase and protect natural resource areas of national interest. By appropriating almost $2 million to the Eugene District of BLM in 1991, the U.S. Congress and the President gave a strong indication that these wetlands in west Eugene were of national interest. There is nothing in the land & Water Conservation Fund Act which declares that federal interests are restricted to remote, pristine natural areas. In fact, there is growing interest at the federal level in dealing with more urban natural situations (U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife, Wetlands Action Plan, 1990, "Urban Wetlands Initiative", and National Park Service, "Rivers and Trails Program"). In lobbying for the L&WCF, the City of Eugene pointed out to the Oregon Congressional delegation that the wetlands "problems" in west Eugene were caused by federal wetlands and endangered plant laws. The use of L&WCF to purchase areas of concern were linked directly to federal programs and interests through Congressional and Presidential actions.
	3.	If property is designated as wetlands, it can't be divided off for children, (Oral: M. Powell, 4-8-92, p. 3; G).
	RESPONSE: Within the secondary area, WEWSAS does not force or even persuade landowners to sell property, and no Plan designation of "wetland" is made. Division of land among heirs would require legal land division conforming to existing zoning regulations. In the case of agricultural land, 40-acre parcels are the minimum size. Information in WEWSAS concerning the secondary area does not change the zoning on the property, nor does it create an overlay zone. Provided the minimum lot size is met, potential for land division is unaffected by WEWSAS. Acquisition of a wetland by a government agency would also have to conform to minimum parcel standards for creation, unless a lot size variance was approved.
	4.	Is legal for the Lane County tax assessor to have already recognized the wetland boundaries as jurisdictional and to have already reassessed and devalued properties? (Oral: Lorenz, 4-8-92, p. 4; E; T. Stewart, Y).
	RESPONSE: The Eugene/Springfield Metro Plan designated a large portion of the west Eugene area for industrial use. After the Metro Plan was adopted, local governments invested in infrastructure to support industrial uses (for example, $12 million in sewers and roads). Property owners' and investor's expectations for economic development in this area were raised. Expectations of benefits arising from ownership became premised primarily on industrial and commercial development, and property values adjusted accordingly. The West Eugene Wetlands Special Study Area, through the work of consultants has delineated wetlands in the primary study area. Much of the acreage delineated as wetlands were in the industrially designated area of the Metro Plan. In order to help wetland owners who had hopes of developing their land for industrial uses, the lane County Tax Assessor chose to re-evaluate land in the primary study area to see what influence new federal wetland regulations had on assessed values. Few sales of wetlands were available in the affected area, which established a need for the Assessor to utilize alternate sources of value information. The Tax Assessor looked at listings, reviewed professional opinions and sales outside the Eugene-Springfield area to gauge the impact on property values of wetlands. The Tax Assessor did not recognize wetland delineations as jurisdictional boundaries. After scientific research of specific properties in the west Eugene area, the Tax Assessor looked for opportunities to help wetland owners reassess the value of their land, since it had been expected to be utilized for industrial purposes. The valuation issue created by new federal wetland regulations and the need for the Assessor's office to bring the reappraisal program for Lane County back into compliance with state statutes coincided. The need to deal with both issues presented a problem since resources are limited in the County Assessor's office. Faced with resource limitations on the one hand and the ~goal of uniform assessment on the other, a range of processes for implementing a program to equalize values in the west Eugene areas were discussed. The proposals extended across a spectrum from delaying correction of wetland values until the regular reappraisal cycle to doing a complete reappraisal in 1990. Delaying reappraisal would relieve concerns about resource limitations and assure compliance with state mandated goals, although it would not meet the need for uniform assessment of properties in the west Eugene area. Undertaking a complete reappraisal of the west Eugene area properties would correct the assessment inequities, but resource limitations would jeopardize meeting the state mandated goals which would lead to revenue withholding. The Lane County Tax Assessor's chose a compromise solution and to equalize land values in the west Eugene in phases. The first phase occurred in 1990 and involved reviewing wetland properties and adjusting values of the wetland portion of individual properties. The second phase took place from 1990-1992 and involves monitoring the effects of wetland on property values and making the necessary adjustments where and when indicated. By the end of 1992 phase three will be completed. This phase includes full consideration given to wetlands as well as all other factors to be considered in reassessing the property values.
	5.	Losses due to wetlands will affect some owners more than others; it is too bad that the burden of protecting the watershed cannot be shared more equally, (Oral: J. Selliken, 4-8-92, p. 7).
	RESPONSE: In the absence of a wetland plan like WEWSAS, the burden for wetland protection and mitigation generally falls entirely upon the private property owner who happens to have regulated wetlands on his/her property. The WEWSAS Technical Report discusses possible ways to distribute this burden among a broader constituency including local, state, and federal governments, non-profit conservation organizations and other sources. The draft WEWSAS Plan recommends financing that includes federal funds for acquisition and local stormwater user fees as well as property owner contributions. This will ease the burden on property owners.
	6.	WEWSAS will devalue land by adding restrictions, (S, E. Brown; UU, G. Brown; YY, D. & D. Bales; EEE, S. Bales; FFF, J. Mathey; GGG, W. Moodie).
	7.	Don't let "middle man" get the money when people are "forced" to sell, (W-3, M. Hudspeth).
	8.	This is a "land grab" in disguise; owners want guarantees that it isn't, (W-3, M. Hudspeth).
	9.	Landowners will benefit by having their land designated a wetland because they will not be threatened by suburban sprawl. (Oral: F. Gillespie, 4-8-92, p. 6).
	10.	How will acquisition of land affect adjacent land values? (W-10, W. Moodie).
	11.	What economic effect will this plan have on the entire city and county?, (W-2, Anonymous).
	12.	Pay fair market value for property you need to acquire. (W-8, Anonymous).
	13.	Is the acquisition program only for willing sellers in the secondary area, or is it the same in the primary area? (W-10, W. Moodie).
	14.	If these lands are designated wetlands, what is land worth if there are no buyers? (Oral: W. Welch, 4-8-92, p. 6).
	15.	Purchase of wetlands will adversely affect real estate transactions. The owner of a five-acre parcel had a sale fall through because of the plan - the buyer wanted to build a barn. (U, I. & I. Whitt; X, J. Lorenz).
	16.	Can I continue to farm my property? (W-3, M. Hudspeth).
	17.	See response below.
	18.	If there aren't enough willing sellers, will property be taken in order to implement the plan? (III, M. Hudspeth).
	19.	How much tax revenue will be lost if the proposed acquisition plan is completed? Will this loss cause taxes to rise? (III, M. Hudspeth).
	Concerns 6-19 express issues related to property values. A common staff response to these points follows concern #19. Also, see the information provided by BLM in handouts presented as part of the 5/2/92 workshop attached as part of the results of the workshop (a separate section of this document). RESPONSE: The Plan should not decrease property values for three reasons: 1) Wetlands have not been determined; 2) It has not caused any rezoning or Rural Comprehensive Plan redesignation; and 3) It has not placed additional restrictions on uses now allowed (for example, normal farm or forest practices). Furthermore, the Plan should improve values because it creates a market for lands meeting certain criteria. Also, there is likely to be a market for wetlands restoration. That market and need should increase the land values. When willing sellers negotiate with BLM and a fair market appraisal is conducted, the market for wetlands restoration should be taken into account by the appraiser. Property owners should always be cautious of individuals who might try to use the Plan, wetlands law, or other reasons to frighten owners by claims of devaluation. Until the first transactions are conducted, few people understand the value of potential wetland restoration sites or the value of a wetland. The BLM's Land & Water Conservation Funds would be used to purchase land or conservation easements only from willing sellers. The acquisition process involves an independent appraisal to determine fair market value of the land. Even then, the owner must be agreeable to the offer sale price before a land transaction can occur. A direct action from the U.S. Congress would be required before BLM could use condemnation powers to acquire land. No takings result when there are no additional regulations placed on the land and implementing the draft Plan relies on acquisition from willing sellers at a fair market value. When a parcel or portion of a parcel is purchased by BLM, it is intended that the purchase would include enough land so a buffer can be formed between adjacent land and the restored or enhanced wetland. Buffers have been an effective way of mitigating the impacts from normal farming and forestry practices in most instances. However, the trend in the federal Clean Water Act has been to impose stricter and stricter standards over time on water pollution. There may be a future law or regulation which places additional controls on non-point sources (surface runoff of stormwater), but those regulations would take place with or without the draft Wetland Plan. Under the Plan, property owners sell to another private party. There is nothing in the draft Plan which says you are required to sell only to BLM. The plan does two things:
	a.	It shows areas that have hydric or wetland type soils that were once wetlands on Concept Map No. 4. These areas are lands that may be suitable for wetlands restoration in the future, and;
	b.	It allows a willing owner to sell areas which are suitable for restoration to the Bureau of Land Management or a non-profit conservation organization. This restoration could then become part of the west Eugene Wetland Plan's mitigation program.
	There is no intent to force land sales. BLM's brochure, "West Eugene Wetlands Project", 5-1-92 states "In 1991, Congress appropriated funds to the Eugene District of the Bureau of land Management (BLM) to implement the acquisition phase of the project. BLM procedures allow for acquisition of private land from willing sellers." (emphasis added). If there are not enough willing sellers, there will not be a condemnation program to force the mitigation bank concept. The requirement for mitigation of impact still falls primarily on the individual property owner. The bank concept is an attempt to pool community resources to solve a community problem in a way that is a fair as possible to all affected parties. Until the first land acquisition transactions are completed, it is difficult to estimate the land value to be purchased. However, the Lane County tax assessor has conducted a mass reappraisal of wetland areas in the primary study area to $800 to $1,000 per acre. If all 1,070 acres slated for protection or restoration were purchased by BLM, the loss in tax revenue to the affected city, county and districts would be approximately $26,750 assuming a tax rate of $25.00 per $1,000 assessment rate. (Assuming 1,070 acres X $1,000 per acre assessed value X $25.00 per thousand tax rate = $26,750 of property tax revenues). The acreage figure, the assessed value and rate are all subject to change. The City's Lower Amazon Flood study conducted by OTAK consultants in 1990 estimated costs of approximately $10,000,000 to provide additional flood detention basins and channel improvements to meet future urban growth needs in the Amazon drainage basin. To the degree that the Wetland Plan can offset the needs for those flood control public facility improvements, the $26,750 loss in tax revenue due to BU~ land purchase can be offset. The loss in revenues would affect several taxing units of government. In tax code area 4-01, for example, Eugene School District, lane Educational Service District, lane Community College, and lane County would be affected by loss of annual property tax revenues resulting from federal acquisition. Based on 1991-92 information from the assessor's office, the respective levies of those four taxing governments fisted above were $71.6 million, $7.2 million, $20.6 million, and $12.7 million. The respective impact of spreading the loss of $26,750 among other tax payers represents a minuscule percent increase per $1,000 of assessed value.
	17.	Will land values be changed by interim protection measures? (VV, M. & R. Ringsdorf).
	RESPONSE: No. The implementation measures are expected to be applied to protected wetlands one they are acquired (for example, redesignation and rezoned as natural resource areas). The land transaction between a willing seller and BU~ would have already taken place with an independent appraisal and fair market value transaction.
	Index for Summary of Comments and Staff Responses
F.	The Plan
	1.	How does the WEWSAS Plan offer policies and strategies which are better than those currently in place?, (Oral: 48-92, C. Fisher, p. 3; D. Henning, p. 6; F, C. Fisher; D, T. Stewart; X, J. Lorenz).
	RESPONSE: There are two primary reasons why local jurisdictions are beginning to adopt local wetland policies and strategies: 1) current federal and state programs have not been effective at implementing wetland protection law, and 2) existing state and federal wetland permitting processes have created uncertainty in implementing local economic development objectives. There are many reasons why current state and federal wetland programs are ineffective, most are the result of fragmented programs that have no common goal and no coherent strategy. As a result, they have floundered, providing inadequate protection for the resource, and often fail to respond to legitimate development needs. With the inherent difficulties of implementing national policy at the local, urban level, many cities and urban counties have turned to the local comprehensive wetland planning process. The Draft WEWSAS Plan is one example. When adopted, it will provide certainty as to the location of existing wetlands resources (federal/state policies do not), a measure as to the relative value of the wetlands, a plan for how they are to be managed (protected versus impacted), a program to direct mitigation efforts where the degree of success and value will be maximized, a program for maintaining the resources,a financing plan for implementation, and a local wetland permitting process. These policies, therefore, offer greater certainty that wetland resources will be protected, and that economic development will proceed on some of the wetlands that have been found to be lower value.
	2.	Will this plan work? (Anonymous, W-2).
	RESPONSE: As with any plan, the success of WEWSAS will depend on many factors. Perhaps the most important factor is the community's commitment to make the Plan work. With the partnerships that have been developed between local, state, and federal agencies, and the $1.9 million appropriated by the U.S. Congress for wetland acquisition in west Eugene, the Plan has gotten off to a good start start. It is now up to the community to make it work.
	3.	Were other alternatives considered? (NN10, A. Wobbe).
	RESPONSE: Yes. Chapter VII, Alternatives Analysis, WEWSAS Technical Report, April, 1991, contains both the required State Goal 5 analysis for the natural resources, (Environmental, Social, Energy, Economic {ESEE}), and seven wetland management alternatives. The management alternatives were presented to the public at WEWSAS Workshop 5, at which the workshop participants were surveyed as to their preference. The survey results were used in developing the staff recommended draft plan.
	4.	Multiple objectives approach is beyond scope of this plan, (X,J. Lorenz).
	RESPONSE: Wetland resource benefits are often described in terms of their functions and values, of which there are many, including: flood control, water quality, wildlife habitat, recreation, education, and economic value. Most of these values relate to a service or responsibility that the City of Eugene currently provides to the community, either as a local choice such as recreation, or in meeting federal mandates such as flood control and stormwater water quality enhancement. In developing the objectives of the wetland management plan, public participants encouraged a plan that would not only meet the minimum requirements of federal and state wetland law, but a plan that recognizes and achieves the economic benefits of combining multiple community objectives through a consolidated, comprehensive program.
	5.	Mitigation bank is a convenient way to insure jobs for L-CO(3, (X,J. Lorenz).
	RESPONSE: This comment is an opinion. How the mitigation bank will be established and who manages it has yet to be determined. L-COG may or may not be involved in management of the mitigation program.
	6.	Does the plan affect all properties in the secondary area? (VV, M. & R. Ringsdorf).
	RESPONSE: No. the Plan only identifies areas along the primary water features in the Amazon Basin that may be suitable for wetland restoration and mitigation credit. The suitability of these areas is based on the presence of hydric soils, proximity to waterways, within the 100 year flood plain, compatibility to existing uses, and through a willing participant or seller.
	7.	Are goals & objectives most important part of plan? (VV, M. & R. Ringsdorf).
	RESPONSE: The Plan contains goals, policies, and recommended actions. The goals provides overall guidance while the policies provide specific direction to attain the goals. The recommended actions carry out or implement the policies. The goals and policies are the cornerstones of the Plan, while the recommended actions are advisory, subject to modification.
	8.	Who has overall responsibility for Plan since it pertains to more than one jurisdiction?, (VV,M. & R. Ringsdorf).
	RESPONSE: Responsibility for implementing the Plan will require a joint management agreement that will likely involve the City of Eugene, lane County, and the Bureau of land management. The City Public Works and Development and Planning will have major roles inside the City and the urban growth boundary. The County would implement the Wetland Plan on rural lands within the primary study area and within the Rural Comprehensive Plan jurisdiction in the secondary study area. BLM~ would implement the Plan on any federally owned lands according to process required in the land and Water Conservation Fund Act and the Federal land Policy and management Act, Public law 94-579, October 21,1976.
	9.	Plan designates all areas from city limits to Fern Ridge Reservoir as wetlands, (AA, C. & A. Fairchild; UU, G. Brown; 55, 5. Barr).
	RESPONSE: The Plan does not designate any areas in the secondary study area as wetlands. What the Plan does in the rural area is described in staff response to Iv. F. 6. above.
	10.	Plan doesn't state what total costs will be, (BBB, J. Tapp).
	RESPONSE: The Plan identifies most of the cost factors for its implementation, including land acquisition for protection and mitigation, construction for mitigation and restoration, operations and maintenance, and other capital projects. The Plan does not contain cost information for administration of the wetland bank or regulatory process requirements.
	11.	Removes 3,500 acres from private ownership, (RR, S. Keep; BBB, I. Tapp).
	RESPONSE: The Plan provides for the protection of 1,070 acres, and the impact of 360 wetland acres for future development according to zoning regulations. The impact of wetland resources requires mitigation, or the replacement of "lost" wetland acres. According to the recommended 1'Mitigation Replacement Schedule" contained in the Plan, a worst case scenario would result in the need for 653 mitigation acres. The total effect of the Plan, therefore, is 1,623 acres (1,017 plus 653). The additional 1,877 acres (3500 minus 1,623) are recommended to account for "non-willing sellers" and to provide additional mitigation capacity in the event the greater Eugene community faces other mitigation needs, such as the expansion of the Eugene Airport, Short Mountain I~dfill, and other public and private projects. The Plan does not mandate the removal of 3,500 acres from private ownership, rather it offers a variety of methods to achieve its minimum and optimum goals, including the possibility of acquiring all of the acres into public ownership through a willing seller basis. In order for this to occur, however, funding must be secured and willing sellers available. Because of this uncertainty and the desire for flexibility, private mitigation is an option available through the Plan. Therefore, it is more likely that a combination of private and public wetland ownership will occur.
	12.	Plan has hidden agenda, (X,J. Lorenz).
	RESPONSE: This comment is an opinion. The Plan's goals and policies are fully disclosed in the March 1991, Draft Plan, as recommended for amendment by the Planning Commissions.
	13.	Plan tries to separate land from private property owners by having a non-profit or public agency acquire private property, (X,J. Lorenz).
	RESPONSE: This comment is an opinion. There are no requirements in the Plan to force a transfer of ownership to a public or private non-profit agency.
	14.	Why must all other existing plans & policies be amended to conform with WEWSAS? WEWSAS should be amended to conform with existing plans, (X,J. Lorenz).
	RESPONSE: Whenever a refinement plan to the Metropolitan Area General Plan is developed, it must be accompanied with findings of consistency with the Metropolitan Plan. If inconsistencies are identified, there are two remedies: 1) propose amendments to the Metropolitan Plan to make the two consistent or change the draft refinement plan to remove the sections or provisions which are deemed to be inconsistent with the Metropolitan Plan. In developing the WEWSAS, it was recommended to amend the other plans and policies to make them consistent with WEWSAS, because WEWSAS contains the latest facts and findings regarding natural resources in the affected area.
	15.	Hasn't recommended action 3.12 already been done?, (X,J. Lorenz).
	RESPONSE: Yes. Lane County has amended its code to reflect Senate Bill 3 from the 1989 Oregon Legislative session. As per OURS 215 and Lane Code, wetlands enhancement, restoration or creation is an allowed use in agriculturally zoned areas.
	16.	If WEWSAS is approved before natural resources study is acted on, what happens if the referenced protection measures in NRSS get changed through that process? (X,J. Lorenz).
	RESPONSE: There is a joint staff team developing the implementing measures which -will be used to implement the WEWSAS and NRSS recommendations. The two plans are similar in their recommendations. Coordination between these documents and the three agencies will continue during the public review and adoption process. It would be desirable to end up with one, consistent set of implementing measures for both plans. That is the staff goal which is consistent with direction form the Planning Commissions and elected officials on many other joint projects in this metropolitan region. Of course, there will be amendments made to the staff proposed draft measures before they are finally adopted.
	17.	How does plan minimize economic hardship on property owners? (X,J. Lorenz).
	RESPONSE: For property owners that have jurisdictional wetlands on their property recommended for protection, the Plan provides a funding source to purchase the wetlands on a willing seller basis, relieving them of an otherwise uneconomic condition. For property owners required to mitigate for wetland losses due to fill activities, the Plan provides a preplanned, preconstructed mitigation program where mitigation obligations are purchased through credits, providing them certainty and saving them time and money.
	18.	Prairie grasslands never dominated in Willamette Valley, (X,J. Lorenz).
	RESPONSE: The extent of grasslands in the Willamette Valley at the time the first settlers arrived is well documented by the maps and notes of the original land surveys conducted by the General Land Office in the 1850s. These maps show that roughly 750,000 to 1,000,000 acres of grasslands were found in the Willamette Valley at that time. More specifically, these sources also show that much of west Eugene was occupied by grasslands at the time of settlement.
	19.	Prairie grasslands is a sub~limax plant community that can not sustain itself without human intervention, (X,J. Lorenz).
	RESPONSE: The Willamette Valley grasslands were maintained by the management practices of the native inhabitants for thousands of years. Over that time, a "natural" balance was established whereby a unique and diverse landscape, supporting a variety of food plants, as well as a number of endemic species, was supported and maintained. In this context, the real issue is whether we, as a society, wish to see a few small remnants of this landscape survive in the future. In this modern age, no place on earth is without human influences, whether they be direct or indirect. In the case of the Willamette Valley, the choice is between continuing human influences to perpetuate a few small examples of an ecosystem that has been present in the valley for thousands of years, or to allow other influences, human and otherwise, to displace the last remnants of this ecosystem.
	20.	What does the greenway out to Fern Ridge Reservoir have to do with the industrial land in the UGB? (X,J. Lorenz).
	RESPONSE: The greenway is not the objective of this Plan, rather it is a possible outcome of the overall objectives of the Plan which are to meet wetland law requirements, provide greater flood control capacity, improve water quality, and to implement other aspects of the Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan and the County Rural Plan, such as the Fern Ridge Bike Trail. Compensating for wetland losses due to future industrial development, such as Spectra-Physics, provides an opportunity to replace wetland losses along the Amazon Channel in the form of a greenway.
	21.	Is the interconnected system the entire 65 square miles that this plan affects?, (X, J. Lorenz).
	RESPONSE: The interconnected system includes the recommended protected and restored wetlands, and the main water features in the Amazon Basin, such as the Amazon Channel, A3 Channel, A Channel, Willow Creek, Coyote Creek, and the headwater streams in the south hills. The Plan envisions a 3,500 acre restored wetland watershed, which is approximately 5.5 square miles.
	22.	Goal 5.2, What watershed management principals? By whose definition?, (X, J. Lorenz).
	RESPONSE: The intent of Goal 5.2 is to promote the development of routine operations and maintenance practices that will ensure the health and survival of protected wetlands. An urban watershed is composed of many elements, including uplands, riparian areas, wetlands, waterways and developed surfaces. It is generally accepted that these elements function as an integrated system and that disturbance to an individual element has the potential to impact the other parts of the system. Some examples of this are the effects of removing vegetation from waterways on downstream wetlands or the impact to receiving waters due to the development of upland areas. Goal 5.2 proposes that operations and maintenance practices advance the multiple objectives of the WEWSAS Plan.
	23.	Why were pages 47 through 50 eliminated? (X, J. Lorenz).
	RESPONSE: Pages 47 through 50 were not eliminated from the Plan. These pages have been revised and reformatted into a tabular form in the Planning Commission' s recommended amendments to the draft Plan. The information contained on these pages remains the same.

	24.	Regarding recommended action 7.1: What is the purpose of having more restrictive regulations? (X, J. Lorenz).
	RESPONSE: There is nothing in recommended action 7.1 that states local regulations for fill and drainage in wetlands would be more restrictive than state or federal laws and regulations. If local jurisdictions assume local wetland permitting authority, both the state and federal agencies will require that local regulations be no less than those of higher agencies.
	25.	Regarding recommended action 7.3: Did L-COG bother to contact the Fair Board to get their input? (X, J. Lorenz).
	RESPONSE: The concrete lined section of the Amazon Channel does not border Fair Grounds property. The City of Eugene has been in communication with the Fair Board about the effects and recommendations of the draft Plan on the fairgrounds.
	26.	Since the Natural Resources Special Study has not been accepted yet, why is it part of this plan? (X, J. Lorenz).
	RESPONSE: The techniques used to implement the WEWSAS and NRSS plans are expected to be similar. There is no need to have separate implementation measures to carry out separate natural resource directions. Where those natural resource plans have similar conclusions and recommendations, the implementation measures should also be similar to avoid community confusion and to promote easy administration of those measures.
	27.	Plan puts plants and swamps~ahead of people, (00, A. & P. Grenon; UU, G. Brown).
	RESPONSE: The Plan proposes to balance the ecological needs of sensitive wetland habitat with the economic and social needs of the community.
	28.	Are the proposed amendments from the planning commissions now part of the plan? (III, M. Hudspeth).
	RESPONSE: No. The amendments are recommendations from the Planning Commissions to the elected officials. The elected officials can elect to: 1) incorporate all or a portion of the amendments, 2) not include the amendments, or 3) add to the amendments in their final action.
	Index for Summary of Comments and Staff Responses
G.	Mitigation
	1.	The ratio concept on p. 30 is confusing; why does mitigation in advance of impacts reduce the need for replacement unless success is known in short time period, (Oral: D. Jones, league of Women Voters, 4-8-92, p. 4, B).
	RESPONSE: In an effort to clarify the mitigation concept, a revised schedule has been recommended by the Planning Commissions which is contained in the recommended Planning Commission amendment package. The revised schedule includes a definition for "advance of impact," which requires the restoration effore to be in place, functioning, and meeting the performance criteria set out in the plan at the end of the required monitoring period. When mitigation occurs m advance of impact, a net gain in wetland functions and values results as no wetland losses will have occurred, providing successful mitigation credits in the bank. The basis for mitigation ratios greater than one-to-one is due to the uncertainty often associated with mitigation efforts. With successful mitigation demonstrated prior to impact, the need to over compensate for expected wetland losses (i.e., ratios greater than one-to-one) is reduced. Thus, the provision in the mitigation section to reduce the ratio by .50 acres for advance of impact mitigation credits.
	2.	Don't try to make something with wetlands that is not by trying to mess with Mother Nature, (W,M. Hudspeth).
	RESPONSE: Wetland restoration and mitigation is a concept provided by federal and state law. The chances of successful mitigation increase with a solid understanding of the goals and objectives of the mitigation project, an understanding of the basic water, soils, and vegetation requirements of the desired habitat, and an on-going monitoring and maintenance program. There are examples in west Eugene where wetlands have been created even without the proper planning (Danebo Pond). To increase the chances for successful mitigation efforts, the West Eugene Plan targets historic wetland areas (i.e., areas with hydric soils and adequate water conditions) as the preferred mitigation sites. In these areas, wetland functions and values are likely to be restored with little effort, such as ceasing the activity which causes the disturbance (i.e., farming activities such as plowing and cropping).
	3.	Are there enough mitigation acres in the primary area?, (VV,M. & R. Ringsdorf).
	RESPONSE: Yes. However, the availability of these acres depends upon willing sellers. To insure choice and availability, additional suitable acres are desirable.
	Index for Summary of Comments and Staff Responses
H.	Funding
	1.	Given the uncertain current economic climate, the funding proposals may not be realistic, (Oral: D. Jones, league of Women Voters, 4-8-92, p. 5; B).
	RESPONSE: Securing long term funding for the West Eugene Wetlands program has been an on-going component of the work program for the project. Several relationships with other organizations are being established that ultimately should mitigate the community cost for the program. The relationships currently include those with BLM, The Nature Conservancy, and Oregon Department of Transportation. The establishment of a wetlands bank should be self-supporting through investments by the development community and long term local management will likely be financed by stormwater user fees. Public Works staff have begun the process of developing a comprehensive stormwater management plan of which wetlands management is an integral part due to wetlands water quality and flood protection characteristics. Financing of the stormwater program will include such sources as assessments, systems development charges, and storrnwater user fees. It is likely the stormwater user fees will be a principal source of funding for the overall program and will be based on impervious surface area. The financing mechanisms will apply to those areas where the City's stormwater program has jurisdiction, that is, within the city limits. These financing mechanisms will not apply to areas outside of the city limits unless annexation occurs. The rural area is unaffected. Given recent Environmental Protection Agency mandates regarding storrnwater quality, alternative or expanded funding sources will have to be established. Even with the uncertain economic climate, the community will need to address these pressing environmental issues.
	2.	City should not buy and sell real estate, (MM, W. & P. Burgess).
	RESPONSE: The WEWSAS has recognized that the best way to preserve the highest quality wetlands in the community is to purchase the property and place it under public ownership. If the higher quality wetlands remained in private ownership, additional regulations and on-going monitoring would likely be required to assure that the natural resources where not further degraded. The City may purchase land or utility easements necessary to make public facility improvements or retain the ability to maintain those facilities, including transportation, flood control, stormwater conveyance, and water quality. The BLM will be purchasing the majority of the properties necessary to accomplish the goals of the WEWSAS plan. If additional funds are necessary, other funding sources will need to be secured and the City will then likely proceed with the purchases using the same legal processes as BU~ for acquisition. Also, its anticipated that other governmental agencies may be negotiating for wetland sites in the area to meet project related mitigation requirements. The City does not plan to sell any property but will likely allow development to buy into the wetland bank concept outlined in the plan.
	3.	All residents should bear cost of the wetlands problem, (JJ, Church of God, The Eternal).
	RESPONSE: The WEWSAS will be funded by a variety of sources including Federal (BLM), volunteer resources, non-profit organizations, wetland bank, systems development charges (SDCs), assessments, and storm user fees. The storm sewer user fees will be collected City wide and indirectly the Federal funds represent a broader participation by the nation.
	4.	Can the community afford operations & maintenance of wetlands? (X,J. Lorenz; VV, M. & R. Ringsdorf).
	RESPONSE: The community will not be expected to bear the burden of this cost alone. The operations and maintenance will be performed by BLM, The Nature Conservancy, volunteer groups, City staff, etc. A portion of the operations and maintenance will be a direct result of maintaining storm conveyance and flood protection and improving the quality of stormwater. Recent EPA mandates are requiring that communities of the size of Eugene address stormwater quality and that natural methods are part of the solution. The multipl~use objectives of the plan will allow for broader based support in the community versus just focusing on wetlands preservation.