Good process, and a willingness to experiment, was critical to the success of the plan. Carefully laying the groundwork helped to pave the way for a more formal planning process which began with the development of a vision and goals. Next, data was gathered, analyzed and integrated. This was followed by an evaluative process involving citizens and staff alike and culminating in alternatives and, utimately, the adopted plan. Involving citizens from start to finish led to a plan with strong community support, clearly articulated goals and policies and a strong implementation program.

CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT AND COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

Goal #1 of Oregon's land use program, Citizen Involvement, requires that all citizens be given the opportunity to be involved in all phases of the land use planning process. Each city and county must have a citizen involvement program. The City of Eugene's program is guided and reviewed by a Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC). A separate case study, "involving Citizens from Beginning to End with the West Eugene Wetlands Plan", LCOG, September 1993, provides greater detail on the West Eugene Wetland Study's citizen involvement program.

Rather than forming a citizen's advisory committee in developing the Wetlands Plan, a proactive citizen outreach program was undertaken. Newsletters and citizen workshops were used as major ways of keeping citizens informed and involved. All affected property owners were placed on the study mailing list to receive newsletters, direct mailings, invitations to workshops, and access to staff to answer questions. The mailing list also included environmental, development and community organizations and other interested citizens. From 1989 to 1992, the mailing list grew from 250 to over 1,000 addresses.

In addition, staff also attended town hall meetings and prepared fact sheets to answer citizen concerns. Presentations to organizations, classes, and groups interested in learning more about wetland issues were made frequently as well. In all, a whole host of methods and approaches were utilized and explored throughout the citizen involvement process. Summarized, these included:

• Maillng list The mailing list grew to over 1,000 names. All property owners with any wetlands on his or her property were automatically added to this list.
• Periodic newsletters Newsletters of one to six pages in length were used to inform the public of progress and to announce coming events.
• Direct mailings Direct mailings were sent out, particularly to property owners (over 250 addresses).
• Field trips Over two dozen field trips were conducted. A self-guided wetland tour brochure was produced, as well as a tour guide booklet explaining the plan.
• Direct contacts Direct contact with interested citizens included office meetings, telephone contacts, and some visits in the field to particular properties.
• Publlc hearings At least seven public hearings were conducted before the Planning Commissions, City Council and Board of County Commissioners.
• Publlc surveys An 11 page survey was administered at a 1989 workshop (over 80 returns), and surveys were mailed to owners by direct mail. Informal surveys and questionnaires were used at workshops to solicit opinions and suggestions from the public.
• Display materials Maps, posters, slide shows, handouts, and other methods were used to present information to the public at workshops and other events.
• Speaker's bureau The interagency staff was available to address any group or organization who asked for a presentation or a question and answer session.
• News releases News releases were used when major events occurred.

Workshops

There were three workshops conducted prior to initiation of the study in 1989. There were seven more workshops conducted as part of the formal study. Achronology in Appendix A illustrates howthese workshops fit into the overall sequence of the planning effort. Those workshops were:

• introduction to wetlands and the study - April 1989
• issues, goals, and objectives - May 1989
• inventory methodology and citizen opinion survey - November 1989
• inventory results and three alternatives scenarios - February 1990
• preliminary staff recommendation - May 1990
• draft Plan workshop conducted by the Planning Commission - May 1991
• rural wetland issues - April 1992

The workshops were constructed to educate the public and to allow public comment via surveys, writing on base maps, suggestion boxes, bean jar votes, and other techniques meant to stimulate public feedback. Educational materials included videos, posterboard displays, maps, handouts, and draft materials, including inventories and proposals. State and federal agency staffs were encouraged to participate; Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL) staff attended all ten workshops between 1987 and 1992.

Summaries of all workshops were prepared and provided to the Planning Commissions and elected officials, as well as being available to the public. Public input, both verbal and written, from workshops and other correspondence was summarized. The end product was a plan desired and envisioned by the community which worked within the framework of state and federal law.

Public Opinion Survey

A public opinion survey, administered at Public Workshop No.4, helped planners understand how 90 people viewed wetlands issues. While not a scientific sample, the information was still useful. The survey is one component of an overall citizen involvement program. It was intended to learn more about how the public uses wetlands, concerns regarding mitigation, who would pay for protection, how wetlands should be managed, and who should manage them (see Figure 5).

The survey was not randomly distributed among community residents and property owners and therefore the results may not represent the opinions of the community as a whole. The results of the survey were used along with other sources of public input, such as the survey conducted at the April 1989 workshop, to assist in the development of alternative approaches for managing wetland resources.

The "Vision" Process

The planning process involved the public in creating a vision and goals for the wetland system using graphics and written materials (Figure 6). One technique used was to allow people to comment directly on base maps and draft plan maps. Another successful approach involved using a criterion sheet accompanying the maps. People could respond to the map and the protection or development criterion simultaneously. The graphics became the conceptual plan map, and the goals became the multiple-use objectives of the plan that addressed natural resources needs as well as human needs in an urban setting.

The visioning process was both inspiring and educational. Stepping back from data and the details ofthe law, citizens were able to look at wetlands as part of a larger water resources system. The proximity of wetlands to streams and the isolation or connectivity of wetlands could be viewed. The relationship of wetlands to the drainage basin, stream System, recreation system, land use plan, and resources outside the study area could be contemplated. The view of wetlands as part of the natural and urban landscape became more clear.

While some would view this process as the "dream" or idealized quality of planning, it became more than that during the process. The "vision" was translated into a conceptual plan (Exhibit 3), reflected in the official plan map, and was translated into goal and policy statements. The creative energy developed during the vision process assisted in plan acceptance and took the plan beyond the bare bones of doing what was necessary to comply with state and federal law. It was this process and the multiple objective approach that helped the plan gain acceptance and citizen and political support during the review and adoption process.