There were several specific changes to the Plan text or maps suggested:
A.	Retain policy 3.15, (Oral: A. Johnson, 4-8-92; O).
	RESPONSE: Staff has proposed retaining policy 3.15.
B.	Why isn't monitoring and maintenance of wetlands proposed for 20 years, instead of only 5 years?, (Oral: D. Jones, League of Women Voters, 4-8-92, p. 5; B).
	RESPONSE: The regulatory standard for the monitoring of a wetland mitigation site is 5 years. The WEWSAS Plan proposes a monitoring period of a minimum of 10 years. It is possible that, as the plan is implemented, the time period may be extended to achieve the stated goals of the Plan.
C.	Omit 18-05-03-100 in the secondary study area because most of the 245 acre lot is not wetland, (R. Nielsen, A).
	RESPONSE: Depending on the final treatment of the secondary study area, this parcel may or may not remain in the Plan as depicted on Maps No. 4 & 5. If those maps or some variation of them remain, they should be amended to remove the non-wetland portions of this parcel. Only the northeast corner is wetland with ash woodlands. If the maps are removed, the owner can participate in the voluntary acquisition program if he so chooses.
D.	Drop 1705360000500 from secondary study area; 90 percent hllIside and no wetland vegetation, (E. Peck, Q).
	RESPONSE: This property was included in the secondary study area mailing list as a property potentially eligible for acquisition by the Bureau of Land Management because it lies within the broader Coyote Creek drainage. Further inspection of the property indicates that it lacks hydric soils and any National Wetlands Inventory sites, and is a gently sloping upland. This property does not meet the primary objectives for land acquisition in the secondary study area and would not meet the acquisition criteria for wetlands restoration.
E.	Plan should not exceed the Federal regulations, (W, M. Hudspeth; X, J. Lorenz).
	RESPONSE: The Plan's objectives state that the Plan must meet the state and federal laws and regulations. Because the state still requires that the stricter 1989 Wetland Manual be used in Oregon for permitting and comprehensive wetland approvals, this is the highest standard the Plan must meet. By meeting this standard, the Plan may exceed the federal standard, because the Corps of Engineers may rely on the less strict 1987 Wetland Manual.
F.	Vote against the "regional permit" L-COG is requesting, (S, E. Brown).
	RESPONSE: The City of Eugene is the likely applicant for a Corps of Engineers Regional Permit. It will likely be a permit to allow wetland fill or drainage activities for those wetlands designated red (suitable for future development shown on Map No. 3). The regional permit is an important part of the overall implementation of the future development of the west Eugene Industrial Area. Many property owners in that region are hopeful that such a permit will aid certain and streamlined development in west Eugene that the regional permit will cover.
G.	Limit the Plan to areas within 75 yards (225 feet) of the Amazon (W-8, Anonymous).
	RESPONSE: Depending on the fmal treatment of the secondary study area, this recommendation may or may not have applicability. The intent of Map No. 4 in the secondary study area was to identify, in a broad manner, those areas that had wetland type soils and were on relatively flat ground. Where there were willing sellers and further field investigation indicated that a parcel would be suitable for wetland enhancement or restoration, it would be purchased at fair market value from a willing seller. The actual parcel or portion of a parcel to be sold would be negotiated between the owner and BLM. In some instances the distance to a waterway could be more or less than 75 yards, depending on numerous factors. For example, location of structures, soil boundaries, need to retain an economic farming unit, existing wetlands, proximity to the waterway, availability of water and water rights would all be taken into account.
H.	Separate out recommended action 7.6, (X, J. Lorenz).
	RESPONSE: Staff recommends that this Recommended Action remain as stated. The Clean Water Act and the cleaning of stormwater are a major driving force behind the whole wetland law at the federal level. This Recommended Action does not have the force of a policy but provides a link between the Clean Water Act, the wetland plan, and Eugene stormwater quality efforts.
I.	Shift recommended actions to appendix, (PP, A. Manol).
	RESPONSE: Goals, policies and recommended actions are already clearly separated and explained in the draft plan. Staff has already recommended moving a few, very detailed recommended actions to an appendix to make the plan read easier. Staff feels that this is sufficient to address the stated concern.
J.	Make action & advisory statements consistent, (PP, A. Manol).
	RESPONSE: Generally, these words are used as follows: "shall" and "must" are generally used interchangeably in policies to express a requirement with the legal standing of adopted policy review of the draft plan did not find "will" used in this manner. All four words are used in various contexts in recommended actions, but since recommended actions are not adopted as policy, the use of these words is not binding in any way. More consistent use of these words in recommended actions would make the plan more readable and clear, but would not affect policy implications of the plan.
K.	Don't amend obnoxious vegetation ordinance. Don't want seeds from weeds contaminating soils, (VV, M. & R. Ringsdorf).
	RESPONSE: This ordinance applies only within the city limits of Eugene. Currently, it requires mowing of grasses over a certain height for fire protection reasons. In prairie wetlands, it will be desirable in the future to retain these grasslands in a more natural state without mowing them. There will have to be management of those natural areas to protect adjacent properties from fire danger. The concern in the secondary area is that allowing natural areas adjacent to grass crops will allow introduction of weeds that cause damage to the quality of the grass crop and increase the cost of management of the grass seed crop. Canada thistle is a noxious weed which can greatly damage grass seed crop quality. If prairie grasslands are restored in the secondary study area, management would have to be coordinated with adjacent owners to minimize or eliminate these conflicts.
L.	Delete trail from map 6 due to fire hazard, trespass, vandalism, littering, (LL, J. & W. Brabham).
	RESPONSE: Staff recommends that the ridgeline trail remain on Map No.6. It is part of other existing plans. The draft West Eugene Wetlands Plan reflects these other adopted plans. Removal from this plan would have no practical effect of relieving the concern expressed.
M.	Remove tax lots 3000 and 2300 from secondary study area, (EB, S. & S. Keep).
	RESPONSE: Both of these tax lots are presently not within the identified potential action opportunity area. Only tax lot 3000 contains a small amount of hydric soil. Neither tax lot would be a likely candidate for acquisition or wetlands restoration.
N.	Reference No. B-10 is not a wetland; remove from inventory, (Y, T. Stewart).
	RESPONSE: Refer to letter from Oregon Division of State lands (KKK, K. Bierly)
	Index for Summary of Comments and Staff Responses

There were a number of recommendations to delay the adoption of the draft Plan for various reasons:
A.	One year, (F. Brown, 4-8-92, p. 3).
B.	Until citizens in the secondary study area become more familiar with the draft Plan, (David Bales, 4-8-92, p. 3; S. Keep, 4-8-92, p. 6; D. Henning, 4-8-92, p. 6; S. Cook, 4-8-92, p. 6; W. Welch, 4-8-92, p. 6; L. & I. Bingham, W-5, 5-2-92; ZZ).
C.	Until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the Lucas case dealing with just compensation scheduled for June or July, (Delores Bales, 4-8-92, p. 3).
D.	Until everyone affected is adequately notified (D. Oleson, 4-8-92, p. 5).
E.	Until alternatives can be explored, (S. Bales, 4-8-92, p. 5).
F.	Until Federal regulations are made, (M. Hudspeth, W, 4-29-92 and W-3, 5-2-92; and Anonymous, W-9, 5-2-92).
G.	Until concerns have been answered. (M.Hudspeth, W, 4-29-92 & W-3, 5-2-92) The following response replies to VI. A.-G. above:
	RESPONSE: There were a number of reasons given for delay: until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the Lucas case, until a new definition is developed by federal and state agencies or until a new wetland manual is developed, until citizens have more time to learn about the plan, until more notice is given, or until more alternatives are explored. Staff recommends that the Plan not be delayed awaiting federal or state actions. Those processes are unpredictable. Only one thing is certain - there will be change in wetlands and land use laws over time; the question is when and with what impacts. It is therefore important that there be provisions in the Plan to respond to those changes over time. The Planning Commissions have suggested a policy on p. 25 of the April 24, 1992 insert to the draft Plan, which reads: "Once agreement is reached by state and federal agencies on a uniform method for defining and determining wetlands, the Plan's inventory will be reevaluated and Plan amendments may result." If the secondary study area is removed from the Plan maps and clearly defmed as to its intent, and if the "urban reserve area" policies are deleted, staff recommends that the Plan not be delayed to allow for additional citizen input. The Plan would then focus on the primary study area where there has been ample opportunity and notice for more than three years to consider wetland impacts. Staff recommends that the elected officials not delay the Plan. There is a recognized need to move ahead with the Plan and its implementation to add certainty to development questions in the public and private sectors and to move forward with a wetland protection and mitigation program within the primary study area. It is time for the planning process to merge with implementation programs.
H.	Notify all affected property owners in hillside areas and along stream corridors, (X, J. Lorenz).
	RESPONSE: This comment responds to Policy 3.14, which recommends applying hillside protection and streamside protection policies within the "urban reserve" areas, some of which lie within the WEWSAS secondary study area. The author of this comment implies that all owners of property that would be affected by this policy should be notified before the policy is adopted. At this time, because the proposed hillside and streainside ordinances have not been written it is not possible to identify which specific properties would be affected. Notification to affected property owners would ordinarily take place as part of the process of adopting the ordinances. The intention of Policy 3.14 is to limit water quallty and quantity impacts of development uphill and upstream of wetlands identified for protection in the WEWSAS primary study area. This policy could be re-written as follows to clarify that it applies only to these areas: 3.14 Apply hillside protection and streamside protection policies (see Appendix A) to areas which: (a) lie within the "urban reserve" areas outside the UGB as shown on the Metropolitan Plan Diagram and (b) drain into wetlands identified for protection on map #3. This policy could also be deleted from the plan.
I.	Too much in policy 3.13; separate it and be specific, (X, J. Lorenz).
	RESPONSE: The gist of Policy 3.13 is to promote multiple uses of protected wetlands. Subsections (a), (b) and (c) are examples of multiple uses that are referred to in the general statement. The three examples need to be linked to the general statement, in order to clarify it. Separating the examples would not serve to clarify the policy. Since this is a policy, it is deliberately stated in general terms.