Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Weinman said that Mr. Kelly's motion would make life easier for staff by removing it from the <br />role of censor. He noted that generally, staff was able to work out concerns about materials <br />published in the newsletters with the editors, but there could be instances where what was <br />published could be offensive to some, and currently the City would not let that happen. <br /> <br /> Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Mr. Kelly, to table the motion 6:1; Mr. Farr <br /> voting no. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson acknowledged the excellent work of the redesign subcommittee and staff. <br /> <br /> D. Work Session and Action: Proposed Resolution on Endangered Species Act <br /> <br />Peter Ruffier, Public Works Department, noted that the National Marine Fisheries Service had <br />recently published its proposed protection regulations under Section 4(d) of the Endangered <br />Species Act (ESA), which would cover the conservation of the Spring Chinook, which is listed as <br />threatened under the act. He requested direction from the council on the City's response to the <br />draft rules. <br /> <br />Mr. Ruffier provided an overview of the staff memorandum in the meeting packet, which included <br />several options for the City's response to the listing. He identified three policy options for the <br />council to consider: 1) Option A, the reactive, minimalist compliance approach; 2) Option B, <br />proactive development of a compliance program; and 3) Option C, proactive development of a <br />compliance and recovery program. Mr. Ruffier said that options A and B would meet the letter of <br />the law but be respectively more reactive to regulatory directives and more focused on protection <br />and the direct avoidance of a take. Option C directed staff to undertake efforts to improve <br />conditions for salmon and actively work toward its recovery. Restoration of salmon habitat and <br />support for the species recovery would be the primary focus of the Option C approach. Staff was <br />seeking direction from the council so it could be prepared to comment about the rules to the <br />National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). <br /> <br />Mr. Ruffier recommended Option C as consistent with past City policies and current City <br />practices. <br /> <br />Neil Bj0rklund, Planning and Development Department, discussed the activities of City staff <br />since its last presentation to the council. Those activities included the preparation of a grant <br />application to the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board and Memorandum of Understanding in <br />conjunction with the other partners participating in the Metro ESA Team. He introduced Natural <br />Resources Planner Eric Wold and noted that Mr. Wold's position was authorized in the last <br />budget by the Budget Committee. He said Mr. Wold brought tremendous capability to staff and <br />was largely responsible for the grant application and MOU. <br /> <br />Mr. Bj0rklund discussed the proposed Section 4(d) rules. He said that the rules established <br />broad prohibitions but did not specifically indicate what the City could or could not do, or what it <br />should do to avoid a take, which is interpreted as harm to the species or its habitat. The rule <br />assigned limits to the prohibitions by excluding certain programs from the prohibitions. Thirteen <br />of those limits were outlined in the rule, but most had little applicability to Eugene. Mr. Bj0rklund <br />said that the five most relevant were discussed in the staff memorandum. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2000 Page 8 <br />Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />