CC Minutes - 01/17/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

science-based agency and often wanted to see peer science reviews of reports and findings. He said that there was no in-house scientist on staff with the needed credentials in fisheries biology to satisfy NMFS. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman regarding the potential something could be missed, Mr. Bj0rklund said that staff would do the final review of the consultant's report as the City would be responsible for the final product. Regarding the inclusion of City enforcement practices in the study, Mr. Bj0rklund indicated that would be done in-house following the conclusion of the consultant's work. Regarding the availability of local firms, Mr. BjOrklund estimated that there were five to eight firms in the Northwest with the expertise to do the work involved. Mr. Johnson doubted that there were local firms with the expertise to do the work needed. Ms. Bettman asked how much of the budget proposed was going to the consultant. Mr. BjOrklund indicated the entire $60,000 proposed was for consulting services. Mr. Pap8 shared Mr. Kelly's concern that the study of internal practices was not completed. He wanted the City to lead by example in its operations and practices. Mr. Johnson noted that the initial report indicated that the City's internal practices looked good, and any needed changes should not be difficult to implement. Mr. Ollerenshaw added that the review graded City activities in terms of overall environmental and ESA impact, and he anticipated that staff would examine the top 15 activities in both categories and establish work teams to examine those activities for changes that would reduce those impacts. Mr. Pap8 asked if that process could include a public benefit and education component. Mr. Ollerenshaw said yes, suggesting that the report could be an educational tool for the public. Mr. Pap8 asked if the restoration activities associated with the West Eugene Wetlands Plan helped the City to comply with the listing. Mr. BjOrklund said that those activities had beneficial downstream impacts in terms of water quality. He noted that the Delta Ponds restoration project would probably have the greatest potential for habitat restoration inside Eugene's jurisdiction. Much of that work would be funded by federal grants. Mr. Farr observed that the ESA listing was another example of a federal action that cost Eugene taxpayers money. He said it appeared the City's hands were tied. However, he thought the work program an appropriate and practical response to the listing and commended Mr. BjOrklund and other involved staff. He said that once again, Eugene was leading the way. He agreed with Mr. Meisner that public education was very important. He encouraged education aimed at K through 12 children, noting that parents often get information from the schools through their children. He said the Eugene should maximize the information that citizens received in a way that heightened its importance. He wanted to let citizens know what the effort to protect the salmon would cost. Mr. Meisner remained concern about the topic of public outreach. He said it was not enough to make a consultant's report available at the end of the assessment. He said that no approach would achieve the goal of restoration if the public was not brought along. He wanted to hear more about an interactive education and outreach component and could not support the work program as it currently was drafted. Responding to Ms. Bettman's question about what the funds proposed for the work program were currently allocated to, Mr. Johnson indicated the funds for the consultant were from contingency. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 17, 2001 Page 6 Work Session