[WEC-Env] EmX scoping, purpose and need statements

[Mary O'Brien]

Hi, John,

I incorporated the footnote reference to HB 3543 in the Task Group report I have just sent on to the West Eugene Collaboration.  Your other comments are specifics that have not been discussed by the Env. Task Group, so I cannot really send them on as comments agreed to (or even discussed) at our Task Group meeting on Friday. But you should certainly bring them up during the discussions on Wed and Thursday. 

The reason I did incorporate the reference to HB 3543 is because it is a piece of information that simply provides State of Oregon context and commitments for our suggestion re: reducing the carbon footprint in West Eugene.
Mary


On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 20:53:00 -0400 (EDT), <jallcott at pol.net> wrote:
> Hello all
>   Here are my thoughts
>   Thank you.
> John Allcott
> 
> 
>  A   Regarding  point #3 in the purpose  in which we propose “reduce the
> carbon footprint,   I ‘d like to work this quote from the Governor in our
> document which also identifies our Mayor as working to the same end, 
> either up front in the text
.
> ( this comes through in the attachment  but states
>   that Gov Kulongosky signed HB  3543  directing the state to stop the
> growth of green house gas emissions  by  2010 and to reduce the green
> house gas emissions to 10 %  below the 1990 levels  by 2020 and to 75 %
> below the 1990 level by  2050
> 
> #4  “As proposed by Gov Kulengosky, 

.  “ or as  a foot note so that this
> can be identified as being a St Of Or identified “Target”
> 
> “
> 
> A  Regarding  #5
> “ Protect rare habitats , riparian areas, and other  environmental
> resources;   “
> in the same vein as the Governors comment above , I would like us to
> identify restoration of functioning habitats to pre 1990 levels. Yes, that
> would mean examining the premise of mitigation banks. But we know more now
> and are aware that mitigations are not often successful and we know the
> wetlands area is a destination for study 
. And who knows, if the zoning
> is right and if we didn’t lov’em to death,  then residential construction
> featuring the wetlands as an amenity could become a reality . Be that as
> it may, the additional rational for a turn back to 1990 levels could
> include
> 1 the path of the WEP as an ODOT / public controlled land bank for
> mitigation of upland prairie..  having argued against mitigations , now I
> am urging that  we use the WEP path to highest environmental use before
> letting it revert to prior owners
> 	in particular the ODOT strip just north of the cemetery between Danebo
> and beltline as it could be traded for the Kincaids speckled field owned
> by the cemetery  just to their east bordering also on beltline.
>             And in particular the ODOT owned strip just north of the
> Amazon Channel between Bertleson to the West and Wallis to the
> East which could enhance the sweep of the Wetlands area from
> Stewart Road on the south to then further north of  the
> channel.
> 
> 
> 
>   C   regarding  in Needs
> 9	     Identification and protection of important resources in the natural
> and built environment in the West 11th Corridor, including but not limited
> to riparian areas, rare habitats and species, which should influence
> selection among options for improvements to the transportation system
.”
> 
>      I would encourage a more “enhancing “  posture
>                 In that we should in the same vein as above , encourage  “
> identification, protection AND enhancement  of important
> resources
.  “    so that a
> 	1 governmental helping hand is offered for conservation ease ments  for
> upland prairie on privately held land
> 	2  experiments such as green roof upland prairie   eg at the BLM planned
> Wetlands Education center
.( yes I know that that hasn’t been done but a
> plan for a green roof there featuring upland prairie with kincaids lupin
> and with glassed in observation  windows  sprouted on the roof  could 
> 
.if it worked , could be good educationally
> 


>