This is clearly not the case with Hyundai, and the EPA, Fish and Wildlife, and Nature Conservancy have all pointed out the potential impacts to a fragile site and the inadequacy of Hyundai's analysis of alternatives. Furthermore, the Metro Plan's description of "light industry" suitable for the Willow Creek area does not fit Hyundai. 'Light industry' does "not generate offensive external impacts ... pollution or substantial emissions."  'Heavy industry' is "energy-intensive and resource-intensive," and uses and stores hazardous materials, which Hyundai proposes to do. But City Attorney Glenn Klein wrote a nine-page obfuscation claiming that the definition fits simply because the term "semiconductor" is described as 'light industry,' though the writer obviously didn't know much about the semiconductor industry.

However, representatives of the Corps admit that they almost never reject a permit application. They "work with the applicant" until they "get it right." Nor does the EPA have much of a record at protecting wetlands, despite its second, more critical, letter to the Corps on the inadequacy of the permit application and the need for an Environmental Impact Study. A 1992 National Geographic article reported that of 90,000 applications on wetland usage, the EPA only considered 10,000 worthy of review, and of those, only 6% were denied.

Proponents had two arguments:

1) Plans to develop the area have been ongoing for 20 years, expensive infrastructure has been built, and therefore, must go forward.

2) Eugene needs the jobs, which will promote needed economic growth. Other than government employees who work on wetlands issues and assert that their wetland mitigation plans will work, no other proponent addressed the main issue of the hearing, the impact of the plant on fragile wetlands and the watershed.

Opponents brought up a wide range of concerns regarding what has been learned in the last 20 years about the importance of wetlands and what is involved in the semiconductor industry that presents new perspectives to the 20-year planning process. They had done their homework. They had read the laws and other pertinent documents. They had studied the importance of wetlands, the life forms they shelter and the impacts such a development would have, the problems of mitigation. A Lorax with brilliant blue wings and antennae spoke for the endangered Fender's Blue Butterfly. Another represented the threatened Western Pond Turtle.

Register-Guard reporter Lance Robertson trivialized the turnout before the Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Environmental Equality and Division of State Lands as the "ties vs. the tie-dyed, the briefcases vs. the backpacks." In a Letter to the Editor, attendee Phil Kessinger retorted that of 44% proponents, 60% were connected to city or county government or had a vested interest in the project. The 56% in opposition included attorneys, wetland consultant, biologists, professors, health professionals, past and present City Council members, past school board members and graduate students; 40% wore professional attire.

Some opponents were indeed quite rude, the rage initiated by the fact that testimony began with a string of city and county officials, led by Mayor Bascom. Even Labor Commissioner Jack Roberts commented on this poor strategy, as outrage over the public's exclusion from the planning process has been a major complaint.