I.	Effects On Adjacent Property
	1.	How will farming and forest practices be affected? (Oral: 4-8-92, B. Bales, p.S; S. Bales, p. 5; D. Oleson, p. 5), and Wants and Environmental Impact Statement on secondary area impacts, (Oral: D. Hinning, 4-8-92, p. 6).
	2.	Concerned about implications of draft plan and wetlands that could lead to further restrictions in the entire long Tom/Amazon/Spencer Creek/Coyote Creek(Wolf Creek watershed, (Oral: W. Welch, 48-92).
	3.	Can we continue existing farm practices if wetlands are adjacent?, (T,IL Wilson; RR, S. Keep; VV, M. & R. Ringsdorf; YY, D. & D. Bales; EEE, S. Bales).
	4.	Will I be allowed to plow, plant, fertilize, and use herbicides? My land drains onto secondary study area? If I can't do the above, I will lose my farm and forest tax deferral, (W-8, Anonymous; W-10, W. Moodie).
	The following responds to I. 1-4 above: RESPONSE: Wetlands are protected by state and federal law. Permits are required for removal and/or fill in a wetland from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Oregon Division of State lands. This requirement applies to All wetlands that meet state and federal jurisdictional criteria, whether in private or public ownership, both within and outside the WEWSAS. In the secondary study area, the WEWSAS Plan does not place additional restrictions on private land, nor does the Plan propose any changes to existing land use designation or zoning. Existing land use practices that are in accordance with current federal, state and local statutes are not affected by the Plan. This is also true for wetlands that are in agricultural use and for properties adjacent to wetlands. The Plan does propose acquisition of wetlands and mitigation areas to be restored to wetland using federal monies allocated to the BLM. When a parcel or portion of a parcel is purchased by the BLM, it is intended that the purchase will 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 adjacent land uses e.g. industrial, farming, and forestry in most instances. The trend in the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) has been to impose stricter standards over time with regard to the discharge of pollutants to Waters of the United States. Wetlands are considered Waters of the U.S. by definition. There may be a future law or regulation that imposes additional controls on surface runoff to protected waters, but such rules will be determined and applied independent of the adoption of the WEWSAS Plan. An Environmental Impact Statement is required under federal law when a development project using federal funds has the potential to adversely impact existing natural resources. The WEWSAS Draft Technical Report contains an ESEE (Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy) analysis of protecting inventoried wetlands within the Primary Study Area and of allowing some or all of the identified conflicting land uses. This was done to comply with DLCD Goal 5, which requires an ESEE analysis to weigh the importance of the resource and the value of the site for other land uses. An EIS is not required for the WEWSAS Plan nor is an ESEE analysis planned for the area outside of the primary study boundary where mitigation might take place. An inventory of wetland sites has been conducted inside the Metropolitan Plan portion of the area, thus triggering the ESEE requirement. At this time, other than the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) data collected by U.S. Fish and Wildlife in the late 70's and early 80s and determinations requested by property owners, wetlands have not been identified outside the Metropolitan Plan portion of the area.
	5.	What are the effects of widening channel and not maintaining vegetation? (VV, M. & R. Ringsdorf).
	The following responds to Section IV. I. 5., Section IV. M. 5., and Section IV. V. 1 & 2: RESPONSE: Currently, the Amazon Channel system is maintained by the City of Eugene for flood control purposes to design standards established at the time the facility was built by the Corps and SCS. This requires the removal of vegetation in order to maintain original design capacity. Both the Corps and SCS are studying alternative operational practices to address the environmental damage resulting from Standard Operating Procedures and as a result of past project design. The Amazon system is a case in point. The consequence of designing a drainage system around one parameter, i.e. flood control, are water quality degradation, loss of wildlife habitat, and a reduction of aesthetic and recreational values. The WEWSAS Plan recognizes the Amazon as a valuable natural resource and proposes that it be managed as such. Stream restoration and enhancement efforts across the nation suggest that allowing bank vegetation to mature alleviates erosion, increases bio-diversity, and promotes multiple use aspects of the resource, including flood control. The City is currently conducting an hydraulic analysis of parts of the Amazon system to determine the effect of existing vegetation on flood storage and conveyance. In addition, the Corps has allocated $133,000 for a reconnaissance study in the Amazon basin to examine the feasibility of stream restoration in the area. The Corps is using Water Resources Recovery Act monies which were earmarked by Congress for the Corps to use in order to address the environmental impacts of Corps projects. Restoration on the Amazon channel would most likely consist of the establishment of a more meandering alignment via channel widening, creation of adjacent wetlands and ponds, bank terracing and resloping, and replanting of native vegetation. Any improvements to the Amazon for water quality or habitat purposes must be a primary requirement for these waterways. City and L-COG staff have worked closely with a Technical Advisory Committee comprised of the EPA, Corps, USF&W, DEQ, and DSL to develop these concepts.
	6.	What are the effects on zoning and land use? (RR, S. Keep).
	RESPONSE: Within the secondary study area only one policy would affect zoning, use and development of properties. That is Policy 3.14, which recommends applying waterside protection provisions and hillside development provisions to protect water quality and prevent erosion within the urban reserve area of the Metropolitan Plan. See discussion below under #VI.8. for staff recommendation on Policy 3.14. No other policies in the plan would change zoning, use or management of private property in the secondary area. In the primary study area, in which wetlands are delineated, and recommendations for protection and development are made, there ARE new restrictions on use and management of land proposed. The draft plan recommends applying a new natural resource zoning district to wetlands identified for protection in the plan, but only after they are acquired. The draft plan also recommends applying a new waterside protection sub-district to protect water quality and natural vegetation in and along streams, channels and waterways. This subdistrict would restrict uses adjacent to these waterways.
	7.	Waterfowl habitat will create conflicts with flight patterns, (VV, M. & R. Ringsdorf).
	RESPONSE: Waterfowl are abundant in the Metropolitan area due to many sources of water, including the Willamette and McKenzie Rivers, Fern Ridge Reservoir, the Amazon Channel System, and numerous other channels and wetlands. Current flight patterns at the Eugene Airport are not in conflict with the proposals in the WEWSAS Plan. Wetland mitigation and restoration in not proposed to occur in the immediate vicinity of the airport. Furthermore, creating water features was not proposed along the A Channel which lies under the main runway flight path. The prairie grassland plant community may accommodate waterfowl, but is used mainly by songbirds and ground dwelling species such as pheasant and quail.
	Index for Summary of Comments and Staff Responses
J.	Who Supports the Plan?
	1.	The only people who support the Plan are those who are not affected by it, (Oral: G. Derby, 4-8-92, p. 7).
	RESPONSE: There has been considerable support expressed for the Plan by people who are directly and indirectly affected. As a result of public input at the Planning Commission hearings, testimony in support of the Plan is on record by representatives of property owners, such as lawyers and real estate agents, representatives of public agencies, special interest groups, and concerned citizens. Section I of this public testimony record lists those who support the Plan during the elected official's hearings process. For property owners who have indicated support, refer to index reference numbers GG, HH, II, and QQ.
	Index for Summary of Comments and Staff Responses
K.	Rare Plants and Insects
	1.	Will private property be accessed without owner permission?, (Oral: 4-8-92, J. Lorenz, p. 4; E. and R. Smith, p. 4; H).
	RESPONSE: As indicated to the elected officials at the public hearing on April 8th, L-COG sent a 4/17/92 letter to the affected owners within the primary study area who had wetlands proposed for development in the draft Wetlands Plan. That letter apologized for any suggestion that the 4/13192 letter contained. Neither L-COG nor its consultant entered any private land to survey for rare plants in April or May without permission from the owner. In at least one instance, the consultant met the owner at the property after making an appointment and permission to enter property was denied at the site.
	2.	What is the impact of finding and endangered or candidate species on private land? (Oral: R. Smith, 4-8-92, p. 4).
	RESPONSE: The Federal Endangered Species Act makes it illegal to "take" (kill, harass, harm, or catch) endangered species without the appropriate permits. In addition, the FederalEndangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities on federal land, or activities funded or actions permitted by Federal agencies, are not likely to cause further harm to endangered or threatened species. In West Eugene, the US Army Corps of Engineers is required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine whether the issuance of the regional wetland fill permit will cause further harm to endangered or threatened species. If a federally listed species is located on a wetland site that is identified as a site for possible disposal of fill material under the regional wetland fill permit, the FWS may conclude that the project would be harmful to the listed species, and request that the permit be modified to reduce or eliminate the impact to the listed species. Candidates for Federal listing are not protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act. However, if a candidate species is known to occur in the area affected by a federal action, the FWS will notity the agency that consultation will be required if listing occurs before the federal action occurs. The only federally listed species and most of the federal candidate species with habitat within the WEWSAS plan area are plants. Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act provides less protection to plants than to animals occurring on private land. Specifically, the only protection provided to plants is from removing, digging up, damaging, or destroying an endangered plant "in knowing violation of any law or regulation of any state or in the course of any violation of a state criminal trespass law" [Section 9(a)(2)(B)]. According to a 1988 House of Representatives report, this prohibition was intended only to stop "willful acts of vandalism", and not to "interfere with otherwise lawfully permitted land use operations such as mining, logging, or grazing". During reauthorization proceeding, lawmakers have emphasized that this provision was not intended to interfere with rights traditionally accorded landowners; it was simply designed to boost the deterrent effect of state plant protection and trespass statutes. Since the state of Oregon's endangered species protect populations only on state-owned lands (see below), the only legal protection provided to populations of listed plants (other than the provision for consultation described above) occurring on private land is against destruction that occurs by trespassers. State protection for state-listed threatened or endangered animals (ORS 496.182) and plants (ORS 564.115) covers only activities conducted or authorized by the state occurring on "land owned or leased by the state, or for which the state holds a recorded easement". Thus, with the exception of privately owned lands on which the state holds a recorded easement, there is no protection for state listed threatened or endangered species from the activities of private individuals on privately owned land.
	3.	Why were rare insects not mentioned in the plan? (X, J. Lorenz).
	RESPONSE: There are no rare, threatened or endangered insects known to occur in wetlands in West Eugene. Thus, populations of particular insects were not used as a criterion for evaluating whether a particular wetland site should be recommended for protection or development. There is a rare butterfly, the Fender's blue butterfly, that is known to occur in west Eugene at the Willow Creek Natural Area. However, this species' habitat is upland prairie, which does not meet the criteria for a jurisdictional wetland.
	4.	Any new plants that are discovered will restrict use of land, (X, J. Lorenz).
	RESPONSE: Detecting new populations of rare plants within the primary study area could affect the recommendation for protection or development of that particular site. However, any such changes m the recommendations will occur as amendments to the plan, and as such will be made only after full public input and review of the issue which would involve affected property owners.
	5.	Rare plant ordinance goes beyond plan's legal requirements. Why? (X, J. Lorenz).
	RESPONSE: The policy recommended in the draft plan (3.10, p. 17) refers to wetlands recommended for protection on map #3, and thus only pertains to certain sites within the primary WEWSAS study area. The intent of this ordnance would be to protect rare plant habitat -in wetlands after they have been acquired by the BLM.
	6.	Humans should be part of endangered species equation, (X,J. Lorenz).
	RESPONSE: Humans are very much a part of the endangered species equation. In west Eugene, at least, the species that are considered to be threatened or endangered have reached this point because their habitat has been displaced by activities that have occurred in order to meet human needs. Certain plant species found in west Eugene are considered to be endangered they are found only in the Willamette Valley grasslands, and nearly all (at least 99 percent) of their habitat has been altered to provide land for agriculture, grazing, residences, business, cities, and towns. Protecting and maintaining viable populations of these species over the long term will inevitably require human efforts (including habitat maintenance, see F19) to ensure that suitable habitat continues to exist. From this perspective, humans are an essential element of the endangered species equation in west Eugene, and stand to benefit from such protection because of the biological, historical, and educational values of the rare plants and their habitat. The use of federal land and Water Conservation Funds to purchase wetlands recommended for protection (and containing federally listed endangered plants) from willing sellers at fair market value is a legitimate response to the owners of those properties.
	7.	ORS 496.192 states that private property owners are not required to provide habitat. (Oral: M. Ringsdorf, 4-8-92, p. 3)
	RESPONSE: The citation listed above refers to threatened or endangered animals; a similar provision regarding threatened or endangered plants is found in ORS 564.135. The statutes state that nothing in ORS 496.004, 496.172 to 196.182 or 498.026, and ORS 564.100 to 564.130 "is intended, by itself, to require an owner of any commercial forest land or other private land to take action to protect a threatened species or endangered species, or impose additional requirements or restrictions on the use of private land". However, ORS 564.135 (4) states that species listed under ORS 564.100 to 564.130 may be subject to protection under ORS chapter 197 (Comprehensive Land Use Planriing). No protection of habitat for threatened or endangered species is proposed in the WEWSAS draft plan under the authority of state endangered species laws. As stated above the only legal protection being invoked for endangered species in west Eugene is based upon the Federal Endangered Species Act, pertaining to the requirement for Corps of Engineers consultation with the US Fish & Wildlife Service when issuing a Section 404 permit for wetland fill.
	Index for Summary of Comments and Staff Responses
L.	Citizen Involvement
The West Eugene Wetlands Special Area Study included an extensive citizen involvement program. Approval of the Citizen Involvement Plan by the Citizen Involvement Committee occurred on February 9, 1989. A total of seven public workshops were held on the Plan.
	Public Workshops #1 4/1/89 Wetland Functions and Values (100 participants) #2 6/7/89 Goals and Objectives (35 participants) #3 11/15/89 Study Methodology (110 participants) #4 2/24/90 Field Inventory Results (145 participants) #5 5/30/90 Preliminary Staff Recommendations (87 participants) #6 5/3/91 & 5/4/91 Presentation of the Plan (103 participants) #7 5/2/92 Information to Secondary Study Area Property Owners (100 participants)
A newsletter was mailed to interested parties prior to the public workshops. Property owners in the primary study area affected by wetlands were identified and included in workshop notifications on 2/20/90 before workshop #4. Property owners in the secondary study area within recommended acquisition opportunity areas were included and notified in late April 1991 before workshop #6. Both the primary and secondary study area property owner lists were reviewed for accuracy and revised on 4/1/92. Twenty-four properties were added and seven properties deleted from the primary study area mailing list. Thirty properties were added to the secondary study area list. Several reasons have been identified for these changes including the creation of new tax lots through subdivision, refinement of wetland boundaries (primary study area), refmement of acquisition opportunity area (secondary study area), and staff oversight. Each workshop included opportunities for the public to provide written comments through a survey or comment form. A summary of the results of the first six workshops was prepared and made available to the general public. The results of workshop #6 were also included in information provided in the packet for the joint planning commission work session held on July 23, 1992. The results of workshop #7 have been summarized and are included in the staff response to public comments as part of the April 8, 1992 joint public hearing.
	1.	LCDC Goal 1 was violated (Oral: 4-8-92, J. Getten, 4-8-92, p. 2; J. Lorenz, p. 4; S. Alldridge, p. 4).
	RESPONSE: Statewide Planning Goal #1 reads as follows: Goal To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The explanatory text for Goal 1 states that citizen involvement programs are to be a part of the "on-going land-use planning process". The explanatory text also states that "the citizen involvement program shall be appropriate to the scale of the planning effort". The intensity and scale of the citizen involvement effort for WBWSAS was much greater within the primary study area, because the implications and impacts for property owners were deemed to be much greater. Within that area, wetlands were delineated, and property specific recommendations were made for protection and development of identified wetlands. In the secondary study area, no wetlands were identified and no recommendations were made for protection and development. The primary effect of the plan for the secondary area was to make certain properties eligible for voluntary sale to the Bureau of Land Management for the mitigation program. As stated elsewhere, affected property owners in the secondary study area were notified of the May 34, 1991 workshop, and the May 21, 1991 joint planning commission public hearing. This lesser level of citizen involvement was based upon the lesser scale of the planning effort in the secondary study area. When staff became aware of concerns and questions from property owners in the secondary area, workshops, meetings and mailings were developed to try to inform interested and concerned property owners. Staff concedes that public information efforts for property owners in the secondary study area could have been greater, and could have come earlier in the process. Staff does not believe this constitutes a violation of Statewide Planning Goal 1.
	2.	Only two citizens attended the County's first reading. No notice was given in the newspaper. (Oral: F. Brown, 4-8-92, p. 3).
	RESPONSE: Ms. Brown states that there was no notice in the newspaper for the first reading of the "Bill." Lane County Board of Commissioners meetings are open to the public as per ORS 192.630, Public Meetings. The law states that the Board shall provide for and give public notice, reasonably calculated to give actual notice to interested persons including the news media of the time, date, and place for holding regular meetings. Lane County is not required to publish the agenda in a newspaper of general circulation. The agenda for Board of County Commissioner's meetings are noticed to all Lane County news media, other government agencies, and a list of interested persons on the Thursday prior to the regular meetings scheduled for Tuesdays and Wednesdays. On Thursday, March 12, 1992, the Lane County Board of Commissioners Agenda for Tuesday, March 17, and Wednesday March 18, 1992, was distributed to news media, government agencies, and an interested persons list. On March 17, 1992, the Board held a work session on Ordinance PA 1019, and on March 18, 1992, the Board held a first reading on Ordinance PA 1019. Although the law does not require Lane County to publish the Board of County Commissioner's meeting agenda in the newspaper, generally, the Register Guard publishes the time, date, and place of the Board's regular meetings.
	3.	The citizen involvement program was flawed because it was less than that used in the Commercial Lands Study; citizens were assumed to not understand technical issues (Oral: T. Stewart, 4-8-92, p. 3; D).
	RESPONSE: The citizen involvement program that was approved for the Commercial Lands Study was quite different from the one approved for the WEWSAS. The Commercial Lands Study (CLS) used the Eugene Planning Commission as a citizen advisory committee. The process included one public forum, and formation of a task team following the Planning Commission's public hearing to address issues raised in public testimony. The task team was made up of local developers, business owners, neighborhood representatives, planning commissioners and others. The task team made recommendations to the Planning Commission, which held a second public hearing before forwarding the revised study to the City Council. The WEWSAS used a series of seven public workshops to involve citizens in the planning process. Citizen input from each workshop was summarized and incorporated into the draft plan. The plan also used a Technical Advisory Committee made up of representatives from state and federal agencies, who gave input on the plan based upon state and federal laws, processes, and policies. The development of the draft plan has been very responsive to the concerns raised by citizens at each workshop and in each public hearing to date. Mr. Stewart's reference to citizen's understanding of technical issues is based on the following passage from the minutes of the Eugene Citizen Involvement Committee from its February 9, 1989 meeting: "Mr. Sidwell commented that the amount of effort directed towards citizen involvement regarding wetlands issues could be less than that given to commercial lands studies because the average citizen would most likely defer to professionals who understood the technical aspects of wetlands issues." The statement came from Dean Sidwell, a Eugene citizen who was a member of the CIC at the time. This statement was a comment by one member of the committee and does not represent the basis for the citizen involvement program as proposed or approved. The series of workshops used in the WEWSAS process were designed to provide technical information and understanding to citizens, as well as opportunities for direct involvement by all segments of the community with an interest in wetlands in west Eugene. It was not known in 1989 that the study would make recommendations outside the primary study area.
	4.	Many people have not had access to relevant information, (Oral: C. Fisher, West Amazon Basin Landowners Association, 4-8-92, p. 3; F).
	RESPONSE: Throughout the planning process, the City of Eugene and LCOG have willingly supplied information to anyone who requested it. To the best of its ability, LCOG has added to its mailing list everyone who has indicated an interest in the planning process. Property owners in the secondary study area who were directly affected by the plans recommendation for mitigation near the Amazon diversion channel, Amazon creek and Fern ridge were added to the mailing list in May of 1991.
	5.	No citizen involvement committee was formed; L-COG appointed members to a committee, (Oral: S. AlIdridge, 4-8-92, p. 4; K).
	6.	When owners tried to create a plan, staff did not accept it, (Oral: G. Derby, 4-8-92, p. 7).
	RESPONSE: Staff is not aware of an owners' plan. There were general reactions from owners at the workshops. There were specific owner recommendations about particular parcels, but there was no "owners' plan" presented during the WEWSAS process.
	7.	As an owner within the primary study area, he claims to not have been given notice for a wetland near Greenhill Road, (Oral: W. Disher, 4-8-92, p. 7; L).
	RESPONSE: According to county records, the property owner (W. Disher) purchased property (tax lot 1704290002100) in the primary study area east of Green Hill Road on 11/1/91. The property is partially affected by a wetland (B6) which is designated to be protected and enhanced for mitigation credit. The previous owners of the property were on the property owners mailing list and had been notified 2/90 and 5/90, and 5/91 about workshops for the study. After Mr. Disher purchased the property a letter was sent to property owners with wetlands potentially suitable for fill requesting permission to survey their property for threatened or endangered plants. Since Mr. Disher's property is designated for protection he was not notified at this time. Mr. Disher is currently on the L-COG mailing list and was sent a newsletter in 5/92.
	8.	As owner, received no letter of notice, (U, I. Whitt; AA, C. & A. Fairchild), too bad more residents were not informed (W-7, K. Caley). All owners not notified, (Oral: L. Germyn, M, 4-8-92).
	RESPONSE: Irvin and Connie Whitt own property within the secondary study area, but according to LCOG list, are not within the area involved in the acquisition program. Within the secondary study area, only those within the proposed acquisition boundary and those who have specifically requested to be on the mailing list have received mailings.
	9.	Involve all property owners (W, M. Hudspeth; TT, S. Rasmussen; VV, M. & R. Ringsdorf), have more interaction with owners. Last minute plan appears deceitfull, (W-10, W. Moodie).
	10.	Notification needs to include owners next to acres impacted; these people are still concerned, (W-3, M. Hudspeth; X, J.Lorenz; EEE, S. Bales).
	11.	No one has answered our questions from hearing, (W, M. Hudspeth).
	12.	Don't trust staff answers. Too may pomts had qualifications. No absolute guarantees given. Some answers too simplified, incomplete. Some answers conflict with previous answers, (W-10, W. Moodie; W-9, Anonymous). Owners are asking questions, but getting indirect answers, (M, L. Germyn).
	RESPONSE: Staff has attempted to provide accurate responses through several meetings and by providing fact sheets. The following responds to L. 9., 10., 11., and 12 above: RESPONSE: Staff have no control over whether citizens trust or believe our answers to their questions. Some of the questions they have posed about possible future state or federal regulations simply do not have absolute or guaranteed answers. The West Eugene Wetland Study, being the first of its kind in the region, and perhaps in the nation, is treading new ground, and will continue to raise questions that have not been answered and may not have concrete answers. Staff has attempted to answer all citizen questions as dieectly as possible.
	13.	Rural private property representatives need to be on the committees and boards and in the process, (W-9, Anonymous).
	RESPONSE: At the initial establishment of the study and during its first two years, the study area concentrated on the west Eugene Urban Growth Boundary/Metro Plan area. The public involvement program and process had been established and well under way before the rural portion of the study area was added. Had it been part of the original study area, rural private property representatives would have been represented.
	14.	Review your mailing list to make sure all owners affected are on it, (W-5, L. & I. Bingham).
	RESPONSE: L-COG and the City of Eugene have been reviewing and adding to the mailing list continuously since the study began, and will continue to add names as needed.
	15.	May 2nd workshop was educational. Hope it is beginning of more open communication among all involved parties, (W-6, M. Linick).
	RESPONSE: If the secondary study area is retained in the WEWSAS, communication and education efforts will need to be continued to address the issues raised by residents of the secondary study area.
	Index for Summary of Comments and Staff Responses
M.	Water Quality
	1.	Prohibit industrial development from polluting waters in west Eugene, (Oral: F. Gillespie, 4-8-92, p. 6).
	2.	Concern was expressed about toxins accumulating in wetlands and affecting wildlife habitat, (Oral: S. Lawn, 4-8-92, p. 5).
	3.	Eliminate non-point source contamination from entering wetlands throughout the Amazon basin, (Oral: S. Lawn, 4-8-92, p. 5).
	4.	There is a link from the federal Clean Water Act to "waters of the state" and "waters of the United States" and a new Department of Environmental Quality document that may place more restrictions on water quality in wetlands. There is concern about too many restrictive regulations. Does the Plan result in a preintegrated designation phase of EPA's goals?, (Oral: S. Keep, 4-8-92, pp. 5-6).
	5.	How can plan help clean water in Amazon? (CCC, B. Kelly).
	The following responds to M. 1-5 above: RESPONSE: The WEWSAS Plan was developed in response to existing state and federal regulations that protect wetland resources and water quality. These regulations, for the most part, are derived from the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA). In the broadest terms, the intent of this law is to restore the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of our nation's waters. Wetlands have been protected and regulated under the CWA since 1977. Wetlands have long been recognized as efficient at removing certain kinds of urban pollutants from waterways. They also provide other benefits such as floodwater conveyance and storage, and they facilitate the recharge of groundwater aquifers. In 1987, the CWA was amended to protect all surface waters, including wetlands, from the discharge of pollutants in municipal stormwater systems and industrial runoff. The City of Eugene is preparing a permit application to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) which proposes new management strategies aimed at removing pollutants before they enter the municipal system within the City Limits. In addition, the City is studying the feasibility of constructmg wetlands that might further reduce the pollutants in the system. Many industries are preparing similar permits that will control pollutants at their source. During the term of the permit, the City will be required to demonstrate to DEQ that urban pollutant levels have been reduced. DEQ will review stormwater monitoring data collected by the City and industrial dischargers in order to assure permit compliance. In addition, the City must demonstrate to DEQ that it has adequate legal authority to prevent pollutants from entering into the system. Finally, the City must implement new management strategies that control the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. Accumulation of toxins and the effect on wildlife populations has been documented most dramatically in California at the Kesterson Wildlife Refuge. It is known that wetlands act as sinks for many pollutants. They might be taken up by the vegetation in a wetland or attach to sediment particles and settle out of the water. The City is just begining to collect data on the type and level of pollutants found in the municipal system. Wetlands that are constructed specifically for stormwater treatment will be designed and planted for that function and will be maintained regularly. The WEWSAS plan proposes to create, enhance and restore wetlands to achieve multiple benefits. In addition to water quality and flood control, wetlands also provide wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities. This is not to say that all of these objectives can be accomplished in a single wetland. However, many benefits can be realized by the establishment of an interconnected, properly managed, wetland system.
	Index for Summary of Comments and Staff Responses
N.	Secondary Study Area
	1.	We need farms, farmers and farm products, (Oral: M. Ringsdorf, 4-8-92, p. 3; N).
	RESPONSE: Staff agrees. What the WEWSAS Plan proposed for the secondary study area was to allow wetland restoration and enhancement to occur. Those are allowed uses on land zoned as farmland under ORS 215.
	2.	Primary area puts burden on secondary area, (RR, S. Keep).
	RESPONSE: With the intent of the secondary study area to show where wetlands acquisition might occur with willing sellers, and with no additional restrictions on owners in the secondary area, there was no attempt to place additional burdens on secondary land owners to the benefit of owners within the primary study area.
	3.	How were boundaries determined?, (KK, K. & S. Jones).
	RESPONSE: In the secondary study area, there were no wetland determinations made. Based on map overlays showing hydric soils, the floodplain, topography (elevations), and national wetland inventory maps, a broad area was indicated on Map #4, the Concept Map. This information was used to determine an area where wetland enhancement and restoration might occur as part of a regional wetland bank concept. It was intended that the boundary would be refined with further study and negotiations with individual property owners through a voluntary acquisition program.
	4.	What are the restrictions on property rights in this area?, (KK, K. & S. Jones).
	RESPONSE: No. The draft Plan does not place any new restrictions on private land in the secondary study area. Only restrictions which already apply from County, state or federal laws and regulations would govern allowable or prohibited uses. Normal farming and forestry practices can continue under the draft Plan. The portion of the Wetlands Plan affecting the secondary study area shows an area where there is an opportunity for willing sellers to begin negotiations to sell property or easements to BLM.
	Index for Summary of Comments and Staff Responses
0.	Uplands and The Ridgeline Trail
	1.	Concerned with policy #3, pp. 66-67, and map #5, p. 55. Opposed to the ridgeline trail, (V, Dr. & Mrs. L. Schneider).
	2.	Delete trail from map 6 due to fire hazard, trespass, vandalism, littering, (LL, J. & W. Brabham).
	The following two comments deal with the ridgeline trail system. They are answered in one common staff response. RESPONSE: As part of the Metropolitan Plan, The South Hills ridgeline trail is already contained in the South Hills Study, Eugene Parks Master Plan and the Willow Creek Special Aeea Study. This trail plan was adopted by Eugene and Lane County elected officials as early as 1975; the Willow Creek Plan was adopted in 1982. The WEWSAS process simply reflects those earlier decisions.
	Index for Summary of Comments and Staff Responses
P.	Private Property Rights
	1.	Keep land private - not public
	2.	Keep property taxes flowing
	3.	Protect private property rights
	4.	Work with people, (R, S. Williams)
	5.	This plan displaces people and their homes, (W-2, Anonymous)
	6.	Does acquisition of wetlands creates property rights issues?, (VV, M. & R. Ringsdorf).
	The following comments are answered in one common staff response: RESPONSE: The treatment of land in the secondary study area was crafted to not have an effect on private property rights. The intent was to show an area of opportunity for willing sellers to negotiate a sale with BLM at fair market value. There was no attempt to amend the Rural Comprehensive Plan, existing zoning, or place any other additional obligations on those owners. BLM has indicated that it will use the Land and Water Conservation funds to purchase from willing sellers (BLM brochure, "West Eugene Wetlands Project", 5-1-92). The Wetlands Plan attempted to balance human rights and values with environmental functions and values. Where those were in conflict, the City Council sought and obtained federal funds to buy lands from willing sellers through the appropriation to BLM, thus attempting to minimize impacts on private property owners affected by federal wetlands laws.
	Index for Summary of Comments and Staff Responses
Q.	Validity and Availability of Information
	1.	City and L-COG have violated #'s 3 & 8. The sincerity of the response to #10 was questioned, (Oral: W. Welch, 4-8-92, p. 6).
	RESPONSE: This comment refers to a fact sheet produced by L-COG and sent to property owners in the secondary study area. Item 3 reads: "Will it (WEWSAS) place any new restrictions on private land? No. " Item 8 reads: "Will it place any new restrictions on private land that adjoins a piece of land that would be purchased or converted to wetlands? No. Item 10 reads: "What does this plan do to my land and my private property rights? The plan does two things: (a) It shows areas that have hydric or wetland type soils that were once wetlands on a concept map (no. 4). These 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 BLM or a non-profit conservation organization. The restoration could then become part of the west Eugene wetland plan's mitigation program." (These statements refer to private land within the secondary study area.)
	2.	There is a lack of information to property owners, (KK, K. & S. Jones).
	RESPONSE: See the response to Section IV question L. The WEWSAS Plan has involved an extensive citizen involvement program including newsletters, seven public workshops, and numerous presentations, field trips, and documents.
	3.	Environmental groups received special attention, (X, J. Lorenz).
	RESPONSE: This comment is an opinion. Equal opportunity for information, presentations, and field trips was provided to all segments of the community including Eugene Chamber of Commerce and commercial and industrial realtors.
	4.	Information used to delineate wetlands using off-site method is inaccurate, (Y, T. Stewart; MM, W. & P. Burgess).
	RESPONSE: The off-site routine method for delineating wetlands is not the most reliable method. It is, however, a method provided for in the 1989 Federal Unified Manual for Delineating Wetlands. This method was only used in circumstances where property owner permission was either not granted or unobtainable. It is possible that some of the recorded information is not accurate. Until there is information supplied refuting 35 the basis for the delineation, the wetland call should stand.
	5.	Staff's response to natural resource zone change conflicts with what plan says, (X, J. Lorenz).
	RESPONSE: The Plan recommends development be prohibited on protected wetland sites via a Natural Resource Zone. However, implementation of the Natural Resource Zone is to occur only after the wetland has been acquired by a public or private non-profit agency (refer to page 2, par. 3, policy 3.15, Recommended Action 3.4). In the meantime, interim protection measures, such as site plan review requirements are to be developed and applied to the site that guarantees resources will be protected, such as stormwater contaminants from discharging into the wetland. If staff indicated otherwise, that statement was incoreect. The Plan policies apply.
	6.	WEWSAS Technical Report was hidden from the public, (X,J. Lorenz).
	RESPONSE: The Technical Report has been available to the public since April 1991. One hundred-fifty copies of the 360 page Technical Report were printed and all have been distributed to the public and interested parties. A copy of the Technical Report has been available at both L-COG and city offices for review. The preface to the WEWSAS Plan mentions the Technical Report and it is listed in the Reference section of the Plan.
	Index for Summary of Comments and Staff Responses
R.	Maps
	1.	The maps are very general and are all different, (W, M. Hudspeth).
	2.	Rectify inconsistencies in the maps, (W-9, Anonymous).
	RESPONSE: (The following response applies to items R. 1 and 2.) The maps in the Draft Plan are intended to be general, but not inconsistent with one another. Staff has found some minor inconsistencies and have proposed changes through the Planning Commission amendment packages. The maps will be reviewed before fmal printing to insure internal consistency.
	Index for Summary of Comments and Staff Responses
S.	Health
	1.	How will insects, disease, parasites, and vermin be controlled? What is the impact on humans and domestic animals? (W-10, W. Moodie).
	RESPONSE: The concerns about vectors in the first question will be addressed through the operations and maintenance program, which has not yet been developed. We could add a policy to the plan that specifically calls for addressing these potential adverse impacts through the operations and maintenance program.
	2.	Pastures will be turned into mosquito infested swamps, (UU, G. Brown; VV, M. & R. Ringsdorf).
	RESPONSE: Within the secondary study area, no wetland restoration will occur unless the property owner voluntarily sells property to the BLM. Following that sale, wetlands would be restored. Therefore, no wetlands will be created on private property, unless the owner wants them. Where wetlands are created or restored, they may be one of several types of wetlands, including seasonal wetlands, wet prairie, or shrub-scrub wetlands. The wetlands created may not be the type which have standing water during the mosquito season. If the restored or created wetlands are of the type that would attract breeding mosquitoes, control measures could be introduced, including introduction of fish that feed on mosquito larvae.
	3.	No study has been done on the potential health risks caused by runoff in ditches and ponds (BBB, J. Tapp).
	RESPONSE: This statement is true. No local study has been conducted to deterinine whether creation of new wetlands or restoration of former wetlands would introduce new disease vectors or encourage population growth of existing vectors. Vector control will be part of the management of publicly owned wetland mitigation and restoration sites. In both the primary and secondary study areas, there are presently various wetlands, streams and drainage channels, which could support disease vectors. Wetland restoration would introduce habitat types that either already exist in the area or previously existed in the area. Therefore, these projects together with appropriate vector control practices would probably not significantly increase the likelihood of exotic disease vectors occurring there.
	Index for Summary of Comments and Staff Responses
T.	Federal Regulations and Policies
	1.	Existing federal and state regulations are enough, (X, J. Lorenz).
	RESPONSE: Refer to chapter IV. E.
	2.	All agricultural wetland need prior converted cropland determination in accordance with current Army Corps policy, (CC, J. Lorenz).
	RESPONSE: The Lane County office of the Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (SCS), conducts wetlands and prior converted cropland detenrimations for farmers. Lane County SCS will only conduct prior converted cropland determinations upon request by farmers who are or want to be part of the farm assistance program. Therefore, individual determinations must be initiated by the private property owner. Adjustments to the inventory will be made upon receipt of prior converted cropland determinations conducted by SCS.
	3.	What does state and federal law say about No Net Loss?, (X, J. Lorenz).
	RESPONSE: No net loss first became official federal policy in a memorandum of understanding between EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers on February 6, 1990 (Under the Clean Water Act Section 404((b)(l) Guidelines: "The Corps.. policy for wetlands, will strive to achieve a goal of no overall net loss of values and functions."). In 1990, Congress also instructed the Corps to pursue the goal of "no overall net loss" of the nation's remaining wetlands through the water resources development program (Section 307 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990). The words "no net loss" are not specifically used in Oregon statute. However, the concept of "no net loss" as related to wetland functions and values is described in various sections. ORS 196.672 (4) states "...It is the policy of the State of Oregon to: maintain a stable resource base of wetlands through the mitigation of losses of wetland resources and the adoption of the procedural mitigation standards currently used by federal agencies." ORS 196.678 (2) states "A wetland conservation plan shall include the following elements: (e)A mitigation plan, including a program for replacement of planned wetland losses and restoration of lost functions and values through creation of new wetlands or enhancement of existing wetland areas..."
	4.	Which wetland delineation manual to use?, (VV, M. & R. Ringsdorf).
	RESPONSE: It is the policy of the state under ORS 196.672 (2) to: "Use... a single uniform methodology of delineating wetland boundaries". Due to the uncertainty of the status of the wetlands manual, the Division of State Lands has made the decision (September 19, 1991 Internal Memo) to "continue to use the 1989 Manual until a final revised federal manual is development. At that time, the Division will evaluate the document and, based on the results of the evaluation, decide to (a) adopt the revised document; (b) continue to use the 1989 manual; or (c) develop and adopt a state variation or supplement to either of the above." The decision to contmue to use the 1989 Manual in Eugene is consistent with this guidance.
	Index for Summary of Comments and Staff Responses
U.	Effects on Other Jurisdictions
	1.	Regarding the proposed natural stream condition: Has the Army Corps given up their responsibility for flood control on the Amazon? Have they written off their financial investment? Where are the documents that show this?, (X, J. Lorenz).
	2.	How will Army Corps and Soil Conservation Service traditional maintenance requirements be accomplished using natural vegetation approach? (VV, M. & R. Ringsdorf).
	3.	When Springfield realizes it has a stake in the mitigation bank concept, they'll want to apply for an amendment to the Metro Plan, (X, J. Lorenz).
	RESPONSE: The West Eugene Wetland Plan does not affect any territory in the City of Springfield. It does not set a "standard" which Springfield must meet in order to develop its own comprehensive wetland plan. The requirements for developing a comprehensive wetland plan are contained in ORS 196 and the DSL administrative rules which implement this statute.
	Index for Summary of Comments and Staff Responses
V.	Who Benefits?
	1.	Only a few will benefit from Plan; the greater community should benefit, (NN10, A. Wobbe).
	RESPONSE: In developing the objectives of the Plan, public participants encouraged the development of a Plan that would result in a benefit product to the entire community. As a result, one of the stated objectives of the Plan is to "Turn a perceived wetlands problem into a wetlands opportunity for the community." The Plan, therefore, was prepared with a multiple objectives approach, where public safety issues were addressed through flood control and water quality management; economic development goals were addressed through identifying lower values wetlands to be developed; recreation opportunities were addressed through canoeing along waterways, biking and hiking trails, and wildlife viewing stations; and cultural interests were addressed through the proposal for a nature interpretive center in west Eugene. Thus, the Plan attempts to provide the community with a wetlands - greenway corridor that wffl benefit not only wildlife, but the greater Eugene community.
	2.	Let private owners implement mitigation for benefit, (X, J. Lorenz).
	RESPONSE: The concept for the mitigation bank is as follows:
	a.	Lands with hydric soils will be purchased and a design plan for wetland enhancement, restoration or creation will be developed. Hydrological changes, regrading, and replanting would take place. As these wetland improvements are made, credits for acres and functions would be accounted for as if a deposit in the mitigation bank. When a wetland slated for development requires a fill permit, the developer (public or private) could come to the bank and pay for a withdrawal in the amount necessary to compensate for the loss due to the fill activity. By combining the bank with a regional permit system, the development community and owners can save in two ways: 1) time for obtaining a permit will be reduced and certainty will be increased; and 2) to the degree that BLM funds are used to acquire the land, the cost for mitigation can be reduced.
	b.	It would also be possible for private parties to restore, enhance or create wetlands to be used in the bank. The draft Plan requires that mitigation take place in accordance with the Plan. A private party would be free to market those sites to developers. However, there are likely to be steps required that would place additional requirements on these transactions through the permitting process. Two major obligations are likely to be: 1) a requirement for a five year period of maintenance, monitoring and readjustment of the mitigation wetland site; and 2) some assurance that the mitigation wetland site will be protected as a wetland in the long term (a natural resource zone, open space zone, or some other legal instrument which will satisfy state and federal authorities that the replacement wetland will not be allowed to be converted to a non-wetland use once the permit period expires.
	The advantages of a mitigation bank are that private, local, state, and federal dollars can be pooled to solve the wetland impacts on development, compensation would be in advance of fill and development to add certainty and predictability to the wetland permitting process, and assurance will be provided that the resulting wetland system works together better than a fragmented system does.
	Index for Summary of Comments and Staff Responses
W.	Relationship to Other Plans
	1.	Does WEWSAS have authority over Rural Comprehensive Plan?, (VV, M. & R. Ringsdorf).
	RESPONSE: No. The wetlands Plan does not have any effect over the Rural Comprehensive Plan. For example, there are no changes to the Rural Comprehensive Plan diagram or zoning which would affect farming practices now allowed on EFU land. The implications for the rural area was one of the major reasons that Lane County was included in the adoption process. Any effect of the draft Plan on lands outside the City limits requires County participation. Only the County Commissioners have the authority to adopt new land use plans affecting unincorporated lands. Any policies affecting unincorporated lands would have to adopted by Lane County.

Table of Contents

Index for Summary of Comments and Staff Responses