The Osprey Group
augmented the personal interview process in several ways. Osprey hosted a "drop-in"
session at the Eugene Public Library, which approximately 40 people attended. Our
email address was published in local papers and nearly 100 people took the time to send
us substantive emails. In addition, we met with eight members of the Eugene
Roundtable, a bi-partisan group of community leaders who are interested in a range of
All our interviews were conducted in confidence; the results of these interviews are
synthesized in this report without attribution. This report is Osprey's summary of the
issues and challenges facing this proposed project and the community as we understand
them. The report has been reviewed by the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict
Resolution, but no one else. It is being sent simultaneously to an email distribution list
consisting of nearly 400 names. We have tried to impartially reflect what we heard about
the nature of the challenge and the potential for solutions. To the extent there are errors,
they belong solely to us.
"The WEP represents a schism in Eugene's community identity."
"The Parkway has become a symbol for so many other things
growth, development controls, wetlands."
There are a number of challenging issues. We have divided them into two categories: (a)
major substantive issues in dispute and (b) issues related to the decision process, trust and
relationships that influence the conflict and how it might be addressed. Our analysis of
the issues in these two categories is what underpins our formulation of our statement of
the problem and options for addressing the problem.
What are the Major Substantive Issues?
This project has a long history (
Appendix B provides a brief historical summary). During this
a range of substantive issues has emerged where there is disagreement. We have not
tried to present an exhaustive listing of issues here, but have summarized issues raised
during a number of our interviews.
Purpose and Need We found a number of individuals, mostly those who oppose the
project or the expected preferred alternative, who thought the purpose and need
statement in the EIS was too narrow and overly prescriptive, i.e., that only a limited
set of alternatives could meet the purpose and need. This sentiment has also been
expressed by some Federal agencies, such as the Fish and Wildlife Service and the
Army Corps of Engineers. It should be noted that the purpose statement has been