New Search
Feedback Questionnaire for the <br /> Guidelines for Evaluating City Projects for Salmon/ESA Impacts <br /> March 6, 2002 <br /> Feedback Questionaire for Guidelines. doc <br /> Please help us improve the Guidelines. by answering the following questions. If your project has already been <br /> completed (e.g., Rasor Park Master Plan), please try to put yourself in the mindset <br /> of when your project first be an. <br /> g <br /> Please return the completed questionnaire to Eric Wold (Eugene PDD) in digital format. <br /> Your Name: Nan Laurence <br /> Project Name: Courthouse District Plan <br /> I 1. How helpful were the Guidelines in helping identify potential Salmon or ESA issues related to your <br /> ~ project? <br /> 1 =Not helpful at all. <br /> 2 =Somewhat helpful <br /> 3=Ve <br /> hel ful. <br /> ry p <br /> 4 =Extremely helpful. <br /> 2. In what ways were the Guidelines helpful to you? (check all that apply) <br /> _x Providing an "early warning" of potential ESA/Salmon issues related to t <br /> i x he ro'ect. <br /> <br /> j _ _ Providing potential strategies or solutions on issues where the project may have ESA conflicts. <br /> x Providing contact names of people who could provide answers to some of my questions. <br /> They were not helpful. <br /> _x <br /> Other. Ple <br /> ase explaan in the space below. <br /> We are at such a conceptual stage in this project that many of the questions were diff <br /> cult to answer. However, the <br /> questions alerted me to several issues that may require earlier specificity, such as design of roads within the <br /> salmon zone. One issue in particular was new to me, which involves the concern of creating a water feature <br /> where the public might release non-native species. I also found it useful to learn the terminology that will help <br /> me in future discussions with state and local officials. <br /> 3. What aspects of the Guidelines were confusing? Please recommend possible ways to improve the confusin ' <br /> elements. g <br /> I did not know what mechanized access to a water body meant. I'd also like more information on the edges of the <br /> channel, and the determination of the top of the bank. Would opening the millrace recreate an historic`slough? j~ <br /> Is this good or bad in concept? (I think we will need to "Contact ODFW or NMFS for guidance"....) ` <br /> i <br /> i <br /> 4. Are there additional pieces of information that you would like to see included in the Guidelines? Please describe <br /> what they are. <br /> I liked the riparian diagram with labels. I would appreciate more diagrams, so that the Guidelines become a <br /> learning tool as well as an evaluation tool. For the EWEB property, we also need more information about j <br /> redeveloping existing sites. The information list is good, but could also include resources on green buildings. <br /> 5. Given that there are potential civil and criminal penalties associated with violations of the ESA "no take" policy, <br /> are you (very supportive, somewhat supportive, not supportive) of using the Guidelines in the project planning j <br /> process. <br /> I am very supportive, and I think that they could go further in outlining issues and rovidin <br /> for buildings in or near the salmon zone. I also found the GEO dart salmon layer extremely <br /> usefful. Howeveri are ! <br /> all areas equally critical? Do the ESA policies assume a constant setback? Based on Bart Johnson's analysis, ~ <br /> some locations with project area on EWEB property really have little to do with salmon habitat, while some areas <br /> might require a deeper setback. How do we accommodate this level of ground truthing? <br /> Page 4 f <br /> <br />