, FOE Land Use Committee, et al.Dear Jan,
I appreciate your information and optimism about recent great victories toward waterway protection. But I'm not sure how the optimism meshes with other information we've gotten directly from the City. On balance, it seems clear that Interim Buffers are exactly what is called for, to protect critical local waterways so they are still around by the time more refined permanent protections can eventually take effect.
Here are some points I'm still wondering about, relative to the idea of waiting. For one thing, I only wish I could believe :
] every single roadside ditch [in] this
] city is protected from filling at this time.)
At a recent (mid-July) walk through of a potential development site with City staff, where excavation and filling in an obvious stream-crossed seasonal wetland was ongoing without permits, staff explained to me in patient detail that no permit of any kind is needed for excavation or fill up to 5 cubic yards. So while there may be better protection in an ordinance on paper, in actual practice filling with potentially drastic local effects appears to be ongoing and unregulated.
For another thing, the City staff analysis (quoted specifically in a recent email, available online at "http://friends.designcommunity.com/notes/143.html") shows there is at least one full construction season between when interim buffers could be duly established, and the earliest date that the Goal 5 Inventory could be in place, at the end of the Natural Resources Study.
I don't want to see crucial local waterways continue to be cut off from wildlife access by the lack of buffers. In the South Hills, where water sources are scarce through the summer, often a limiting factor on wild plants and animals, this is truly an issue of the first importance.
] Given the diversity of waterway types and values, it seems like spending too
] much time and effort on crafting a buffer plan that has any permanent effect
] would take away from the time and effort needed to get the Goal 5 Inventory
] done.
The resources required for establishing interim buffers are modest (the staff estimate is $80,000 total cost), finite, and rather independent of the Natural Resources Study.
] the city should just adopt an
] interim process for making the determination whenever a development proposal
] comes within, say, 50 or 100 feet of any waterway.
But that sounds to me to be exactly what interim buffers are doing - except that they go in place first, avoiding some legal issues, and giving conservationists equal standing with the developers, for once!
I'm not sure why we would want to advocate a weaker, hypothetical approach to interim waterway buffers, when a concrete ordinance is already on the table, capable of passage given enough support.
I would estimate that in the South Hills, easily 25% of the remaining small local waterways are directly threatened by development over the next three years. Even for the ones that are mapped and acknowledged, just look at the available exceptions in the Waterways ordinance!
Finally, I don't think there is a basis for counting on the Goal 5 Inventory to provide case-by-case waterway protection buffers. Local governments have not budgeted for the extensive fieldwork necessary to get to that level of detail. Nor does the statute ("http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_600/OAR_660/660_023.html") require them to get to that level of detail.
Bottom line: For the waterways that are threatened by development, Interim Buffers are the best chance we have of getting some protection in place relatively quickly -- very likely, years ahead of any possible fully-refined permanent approach.
The development threats may well be less acute for bigger waterways, such as those capable of bearing salmon, for instance. But every loss or degradation of a tiny headwaters spring or stream adds up. And the impacts accumulate at every downstream confluence.
The Save Amazon Headwaters group have fought a hard battle to halt one proposal on one site (South Park) and still need to fight the developers appeal. We can't afford to mount that kind of effort for every critical local waterway. Our local conservation needs are too urgent. An across-the-board approach for interim protection is EXACTLY what is needed now.
Best wishes,
Kevin
On 8/6/00 at 12:22 PM, Jan Wilson wrote:] The Salmon Keepers Coalition has been following this issue a bit too. The (now
] final, but not yet in effect) federal 4(d) rules may require the city to do
] something, but the interim "no fill" ordinance is a great start, and the Goal 5
] Inventory (if it ever gets done and done properly) will provide the lasting
] protection with the individualized application of buffers that the diverse types
] of waterways requires.
]
] (By the way, everybody should now drop the "key" from the waterways ordinance
] title - due to the significant pressure of CPA, Salmon Keepers, and others, as
] well as the unexpected cooperation of the Home Builders, the interim ordinance
] applies to all waterways, key or otherwise; every single roadside ditch is this
] city is protected from filling at this time.)
]
] Given the diversity of waterway types and values, it seems like spending too
] much time and effort on crafting a buffer plan that has any permanent effect
] would take away from the time and effort needed to get the Goal 5 Inventory
] done. Case-by-case analysis right now seems best - rather than evaluating every
] waterway (99% of which are under no immediate development pressure anyway) to
] determine what an adequate buffer would be, the city should just adopt an
] interim process for making the determination whenever a development proposal
] comes within, say, 50 or 100 feet of any waterway. (Of course, that raises all
] kinds of vested rights issues, but I think that can be dealt with by the
] ordinance - it can spell out that, for the interim and while the Goal 5 process
] is ongoing, property owners should not assume that lack of a clear setback means
] that all development is allowed up to the water's edge; takings law is all about
] "reasonable expectations," so if the ordinance spells out that the property
] owner has no reasonable expectation of a guaranteed development, then there
] would be no "takings" to deal with.)
]
] Of course, if the Goal 5 Inventory drags on for another 15 years . . . .
]
] (My opinions only; other Salmon Keepers members may have different thoughts.)
]
] Jan
]
]
] Rob Zako wrote:
]
] > I heard a report that the Eugene Planning Commission voted 3-2 on Tuesday
] > to recommend that the Eugene City Council NOT adopt any interim setbacks
] > to protect key waterways. (Peter Bartel and Anne Marie Levis were absent.)
Citizens Nature Project! http://www.NatureProject.org/nature.html
Neighbors Forum! http://www.SoutheastNeighbors.org/sen_forum.html
====================================================================
Kevin Matthews, matthews@artifice.com
541-345-7421 vox, 541-345-7438 fax, P.O. Box 1588, Eugene, OR 97440
====== End Forwarded Message ======