WETLANDS:
West Eugene Transportation, Land and Neighborhood Design Solutions

SLIDESHOW:
virtual tour, hidden history

2 page summary (pdf)

Permanent Cancellation?
WEP not 100% dead yet
WEP removed from State Transportation plan November 2006, Feds issued No Build decision March 2007

  • ODOT needs to transfer wetlands to BLM for permanent cancellation - put a survey stake through WEP's heart
  • City of Eugene needs to rename City owned parcels as "parkland" to prevent a new WEP proposal

West Eugene Collaborative: two flavors of elites exclude 9 neighborhood groups
welcomes proposal for reviving half of the WEP

Fake Alternatives

top lies about WEP

WEP a Federal, not city, decision

WETLANDS alternative

  • Cost of Alternative ($17, $88 or $169 million)
  • Purpose and Need met by WETLANDS (not by WEP)
  • Avoidance criteria met by WETLANDS
  • Roosevelt Blvd. is a better connector between Beltline and 99, it serves northwest Eugene neighborhoods better than WEP could. Some local traffic would use Roosevelt, regional through traffic would bypass on Belt Line.
  • transfer WEP money to finish Beltline, fix Roosevelt / 99 intersection
    two options for completing Beltline: (1) if Peak Oil is here, (2) if Peak Oil is not yet here. The larger option could convert Beltline to an interstate highway - perhaps I-605?
  • transfer ODOT / City lands for WEP to BLM's West Eugene Wetlands Project
  • new roads: First - 99 - Second Connector, Barger Road Extended & Trainsong Connector (to NW Expressway)
  • fix West 11th intersections (would cost about $2 million, the cost to complete WEP study), other road repairs
  • bicycle paths and lanes, pedestrian safety enhanced by road test for drivers license renewals
  • land use shifts to coordinate transit and development, mixed use centers, co-housing neighborhoods
  • "Saving Oil in a Hurry" - practical steps toward coping with sudden energy shortages, road safety, speed limits
  • upgrade Amtrak to enable high speed trains to Seattle
  • Second and Garfield: ideal location for Eugene's new hospital (central & accessible)
  • I-5 / Beltline interchange: a practical, cheaper alternative ignored by ODOT
    I-5 Willamette River Bridge: a cheaper alternative
  • Bus Rapid Transit on Hwy 99 instead of WEP makes more sense

the money was not there

WEP would worsen traffic

articles

WEP dictionary

hidden history of the WEP

maps

one of the most illegal highways ever

West Eugene Wetlands

“You must remember one thing. At the Constitutional level where we work, ninety percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reason for supporting our predilections.”
– Charles Evans Hughes, Chief Justice, US Supreme Court

At the May 29, 2002 Eugene / Springfield / Lane County / LTD public hearing to amend the TransPlan, West Eugene Wetlands Plan, Metro Plan and Rural Comprehensive Plan, FHWA Oregon Division administrator Dave Reilly reminded the officials that federal aid highways cannot be segmented into smaller pieces to avoid disclosure of the full impact of the project, require logical termini when approved, must meet a purpose and need, and must be fiscally constrained.

The City of Eugene summary of his testimony severely downplayed his comments:

“Dave Riley, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Salem, reviewed the NEPA process requirements as they related to highway projects in which it had financial involvement. He emphasized the importance of the West Eugene Parkway to the national highway system. Mr. Riley submitted written testimony.”

The FHWA testimony did not merely discuss the NEPA process. The agency specifically warned that logical termini, segmentation, fiscal constraint and independent utility were issues that needed to be addressed before they could sign a Record of Decision.

 

In July, 2002 Eugene, Springfield, Lane County and Lane Transit District amended the West Eugene Wetlands Plan, TransPlan, Metro Plan and Rural Plan to include the West Eugene Parkway, a bypass of the West 11th commercial strip. But approval at the local level does not necessarily mean that it will be built – like all federal aid highways, the ultimate decision will be made by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Some of the hurdles blocking the bulldozers include Oregon’s land use laws (which prohibit new urban freeways outside urban growth boundaries), the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, FHWA regulations regarding highway approval, the Clean Water Act, and Section 4(f) of the Transportation Act (which prohibits federally funded roads through parks and wildlife refuges).

Laws that ODOT must comply with - from Oregon Highway Plan

General Process Regulations

National Environmental Policy Act 1969 as amended (NEPA)
FHWA Environmental Impact and Related Procedures, 23 CFR 771
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966
Occupational Safety and Health Act

Biology, Water Resources, Wetlands

Federal Endangered Species Act - Oregon Endangered Species Act
Federal Clean Water Act and the Oregon Water Quality Standards
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Corps Regulations and the Oregon Removal/Fill Law
Location and Hydraulic Design of Encroachments on Floodplains
Executive Memorandum on Landscaping Guidelines
Wild and Scenic Rivers Acts (federal and state)

Cultural, Social, Land Use, Aesthetics

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
Oregon Historic and Scenic Highways Act
Oregon Land Use Program and Statewide Planning Goals
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act
Civil Rights Act (Title VI)
Farmland Protection Policy Act
Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

Noise, Air Quality, and Hazardous Material

FHWA Noise Standard
Federal Clean Air Act Amendments - State and Federal Conformity Rules
Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

 

Categorical Exclusions - could be used for the smaller version of the WETLANDS alternative

23 CFR 771 Sec. 771.117 Categorical exclusions.

(a) Categorical exclusions (CEs) are actions which meet the definition contained in 40 CFR 1508.4, and, based on past experience with similar actions, do not involve significant environmental impacts. They are actions which: do not induce significant impacts to planned growth or land use for the area, do not require the relocation of significant numbers of people; do not have a significant impact on any natural, cultural, recreational, historic or other resource; do not involve significant air, noise, or water quality impacts; do not have significant impacts on travel patterns; and do not otherwise, either individually or cumulatively, have any significant environmental impacts.

(b) Any action which normally would be classified as a CE but could involve unusual circumstances will require the Administration, in cooperation with the applicant, to conduct appropriate environmental studies to determine if the CE classification is proper. Such unusual circumstances include:
(1) Significant environmental impacts;
(2) Substantial controversy on environmental grounds;
(3) Significant impact on properties protected by Section 4(f) of the DOT Act or section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; or
(4) Inconsistencies with any Federal, State, or local law, requirement or administrative determination relating to the environmental aspects of the action.

(d) Additional actions which meet the criteria for a CE in the CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1508.4) and paragraph (a) of this section may be designated as CEs only after Administration approval. The applicant shall submit documentation which demonstrates that the specific conditions or criteria for these CEs are satisfied and that significant environmental effects will not result. Examples of such actions include but are not limited to:
(1) Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking, weaving, turning, climbing).
(2) Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
(3) Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction or replacement or the construction of grade separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
(6) Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse impacts.