|
TH THE STATE~ ,~
<br />
<br /> Table 4 of the ,4[te,~eJtive$ Memorandum quantifies these impacts to natural resources Regarding
<br /> wetlands, while the Modified project Over~lI would take mor~ Wetland acreage than the A roved
<br /> Design (14.4 hectares versus 13 ~} bec 21
<br /> , . , . tares t * . PP
<br /> , . . ), he Modified p
<br /> h~gh value wet rm roject affects onl 6
<br /> __ , ~ ne wetlands, corn are _ . y .39 hectares of
<br /> threate . p d to 11.27 hectares fo
<br />
<br /> ~ ned ann endangered, sp ec~e s .. the Mod~fi' ,,d" Pro ' ect' h r. the Approved. Des~ g n. 22 Regardm' g
<br /> rapped Aster an - ~J as cons~derabl les
<br /> d W~Jlamet~e Dam y s ~mpact on the Wh~
<br /> . . ythantheA roy ~ -
<br /> does no pp ed Desi n and u
<br /> t ehm~nate West .... g , nhke the A roy
<br /> .. em Pond Turtle habitat. Th - Pp ed Design,
<br /> object,ye to protect natural resources 23 e result m a program that furthers the Goal 5
<br />
<br /> The environmental impacts of allowing the Modified Project were considered during development of
<br /> the WEWP. Through that process, it wis agreed by the v~ious governments and ag~hcies in(~olved to
<br /> provide a corridor ?or the ~p. ~he adve;se environmental impacts of building th; Modified Project
<br /> ~e minimized through the requirement for wetlands m~tigation for those acres ~>f wetland that am
<br /> develoPed. Without ~y West Eugene Parkway, there wc~ld be
<br /> ~mpact on threatened or enda . . additional w~tland rotectio
<br /> are subs~anfiall I ngered sp. ec~es~ With the Modified Project, those ~m p n and no
<br /> . y ess adverse than the ~m acts . .. ~ priers occur, but the
<br /> Design.24 P already permitted by the acknowledged Approved Y
<br />
<br />Energy Consequences
<br />Because the WEP is a highway facility, cars using it will bum gasoline. Other than th~s impact, there
<br />are no adverse energy consequences associated with the Modified Project. Without the WEP~
<br />including its Modified Project alignment, adverse ener im acts
<br />and signlficant, deterioration, oft~e roadwa s stem a gY P .W~oUld be increased due to the rap~d
<br />the key mtersectmns wout,~ ...... ~ ~--- ~!Y y - long West 1 Itu Avenue. At ~eak hour~ ~-~ .... c
<br /> ,~ ,.-~,,~cu capacity, resulting in delays that waste fuel.
<br />
<br />ESEE Conclusions
<br />
<br />Modified Project
<br />
<br />impacts w~l[ occur, all
<br />
<br /> to and within the West Eugene indus~al area. Not
<br /> and T&E impacts, but create major traffic congestion
<br />
<br /> Interstate 5. Th~s warrants allowing the conflicting use. of traffic between the coast and
<br /> In effect, the: program, to achieve Goal 5 has. already been determined through the acknowledged
<br /> a~lhe~hnPj?~v .t_~e WEP wh~le o. therwise substantially reducirt the amou
<br /> ~t rmgene~ By relocating the fac~h fr -
<br />Modified Pro. i ' : ty om .~e Approved Design corridor to the
<br /> ~Ject locatmn, adverse Goal 5 resource impacts are substantially reduced, fi2~hering the
<br />
<br />21 One hectare ~s apprex{mately 2.47 acres~
<br />22 These acreage numbers d~er from those contained in the SDEI$ and Land Uae Techn~a! Report Because of the
<br />con~ained~nc°nsistency'in th~furtherdocumentrevh;WareWaStheUndertakencorrect one,bY the consultant According to both the COnsu~ant and ~[~OT~ the nur~bers
<br />23 llf the resource occupied Dy the Modified Project were protected fu~y, then the ~mpac[s from the Approved Design would st~li
<br />result, as that project, woU~d remain part of the acknowledged plans. ~rding~y, ~ A proPe~to C~;; the ~<~ a~gr~nts '
<br />W~th no project, ~bvioUslY a~l of the ~esources wou~d toe protected,
<br />24 A~ddltional information comparing the envirenmen~al impacts of the roved
<br />be~ow m the d~scussion addressing= com,q~ ,,~.,,~ ....... ,,m~'~ ~^~ ~ ~u;'~ ~' '- App . Desigr~ and the. Modified Pr_,_,,~o~e~ ~, ~t'~" ou~
<br /> ~12~0070(7), incorporated hereto by this reference
<br />
<br />EXHIBIT Co~ - FiNDiNGS
<br /> 13
<br />
<br />
<br />
|