CC Minutes - 12/12/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman determined from Mr. Bj6rklund that members of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Team were involved in all development projects along the river and were providing input about ESA implications on those projects to primary project staff. Mr. Pap~ agreed the staff had done a great job. He asked to what degree local efforts were integrated with State efforts. Mr. Bj6rklund said that the City was involved in several groups, such as the Metro ESA Coordinating Team, which would review the outreach plan soon to determine how the City could partner with other local agencies. The City was also involved in the Willamette Urban Watershed Network, in which most valley cities participated. The outreach plan would be reviewed by that group so it could be educated about what Eugene was doing, and its transferability discussed. Staff was investigating activities that were already occurring elsewhere, and would be cataloging and evaluating existing programs to determine how the City could connect with those programs. In addition, staff was communicating with Oregon Plan staff and the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board on its plans. Mr. Pap~ expressed appreciation for an approach based on education, outreach, and incentives versus one based on regulation. He thought that the City's program was going in the right direction. He determined from Mr. Bj6rklund that the City's efforts were very much in line with the recommendations of the Willamette River Initiative, an initiative that was still alive. Mr. Pap~ asked if urban activities and urban point source pollution were more degrading to salmon than nonpoint source pollution, such as runoff from farmland. Mr. Bj6rklund said the question was difficult to answer because the two types of pollution were different and had different impacts. Studies were occurring regarding the impact of multiple chemicals in the river and their interactions and effect on the salmon. He said it was recognized there was a need to reduce the chemicals that enter the waterway, and that work can occur without precise knowledge of how those chemicals interact. Mr. Pap~ asked if the City would be better off developing salmon habitat at Delta ponds, or working to better control point source pollution. Mr. Bj6rklund said that was a good question. He thought it was important at the regional level to direct the limited funds available to do the most good for salmon. There was no regional agreement on the answer to Mr. Papa's question. Mr. Bj6rklund suggested that the council recall the details of the resolution it adopted with regard to the salmon listing, which contained two directives, one of which was to comply with the ESA and do no harm to the salmon, and the other was to restore habitat. The Delta Ponds project was a large restoration project that would not be sufficient on its own because of impacts from ongoing activities. Staff was looking at those impacts. Mr. Pap~ noted the recent federal court decision related to the salmon and the appeal in process. He asked how that decision related to the City's efforts. Mr. Bj6rklund clarified that only one salmon ESU (Evolutionarily Significant Unit) was being affected by the decision, involving the coastal coho. He said that the coastal coho was delisted on a technicality. Judge Michael Hogan maintained that under the rules of the ESA, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) could not list only the wild fish; both hatchery and wild fish must be listed, or none. There were 12 to 20 petitions for additional delistings in similar circumstances. NMFS was in the process of reviewing its policies and analyses related to hatchery fish, and would develop a response in about one year, so the local area would not know the impact on the local listing for that period of time. He suggested that if the listings went away on technicalities, there would be petitions to relist the fish in question. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 12, 2001 Page 3 Work Session