Ordinance No. 20258 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

WEST EUC~NE PARKWAY ~)[~FIED PROJECT-4?d)NSiSTENCY W(TH THE STATEW~DE PtANNiNG C:ZIALS AND TR-ANS~TATION PLANNING RULE Table 4 of the ,4lternatives Memorandum quantifies thes~ impacts to natural resources. Regarding wetlands, while the Modified Project overall would take more wetland acreage than the Approved Design ( 14.4 hectares versus 13.33 h ectares),21 the Mod i fied Project affects on ty 6.3 9 he2~~ ' ' ' res of "high value wet prame wetlands, compared to 11.27 hectares for the ApProved Design. Regarding threatened and endangered species, the Modified Project has considerably less impact on the White- topped Aster and Willamette Daisy than the Approved Design, and unlike the Approved Design, it does not eliminate Western Pond Turtle habitat. The result is a program that furthers the Goal 5 objective to protect natural resources.23 The environmental impacts of allowing the Modified Project were considered during development of the WEIq'P. Through that process, it was agreed by the various governments and agencies involved to provide a corridor for the WEP. The adverse environmental impacts of building the Modified Project are minimized through the requirement for wetlands mitigation for those acres of wetland that are developed. Without any West Eugene Parkway, there would be additional wetland protection and no impact on threatened or endangered species. With the Modified Project, those impacts occur, but they are substantially less adverse than the impacts already permitted by the acknowledged Approved Design.24 Energy Consequences Because the WEP ~s a highway facilky, cars using k will burn gasoline. Other than this impact, there are no adverse energy consequences associated with the Modified Project. Without the WEP~ including its Modified Project alignment, adverse energy impacts would be increased due to ~he rapid and significant deterioration of the roadway system along West 11 th Avenue. At peak hours, many of the key intersections would exceed capacity, resulting in delays that waste fuel. ESEE Conclusions While the Modified Project would result in some wetland loss and impact some threatened and endangered species, the impacts to wetlands and T&E species associated with the Modified Project would be significantlY less adverse than those associated with the acknowledged Approved Desigm This reduction in impact matters a great deal to affected goverm~ental agencies whose missions include protecting wedands and rare plant and animal species. While wetland impacts will occur, all such impacts ~ and will be mkigated. Beyond these impacts, the Modified Project has few serious adverse consequences. Conversely, it offers significant economic, social and energy benefits associated with greatly improved accessibility to and within the West Eugene industrial area. Not constructing the ~P would avoid wetland and T&E impacts, but create major traffic congestion problems for the industrial area and hinder the efficient movement of traffic between the coast and Interstate 5. Th~s warrants allowing the conflicting u~se. In effect, the program to achieve Goal 5 has already been determined through the acknowledged W£W?, which provides for the WEP while otherwise substantially reducing the amount of developable land in West Eugene. By relocating the facility from the Approved Design corridor to the Modified Project location, adverse Goal 5 resource impacts are substantially reduced~ furthering the 2I One hectare is approximately 2.47 acres. 22 These acreage numbem d~er from those contained in the SDEIS and Land Use Technical R{~ort. Because of the inconsistency, further rev~w was undertaken by the consultant. According to both the consultant and ODOT, the numbem contained in this document are the correct ones. 23 ~f the resource occupied by the Modified Project were protected fully, then the impacts from the Approved Design would still reset, as that project woukt remain part of the acknowledged plans. Accordingly, it is proper to compare the two alignments. vkr~th no project, obviously aI~ of the resources would be protected. 24 Additional information comparing the environn~ntal impacts of the Approved Design and the Modified Project are set out ~low in the discussion addressing compliance with OAR 660-012-0070(7), incorporated herein by this reference. EXHIBIT Cci - F~NDINGS 13