Wetlands Executive Team - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

more efficiently. The goal was to provide guidance to staff on if and how to move forward, what the steps would be, and how staff could provide support. III. DISCUSSION: How Can the Executive Team Help Address Issues Raised Under the "Statement of Need" and "Goals" Section of Background Materials? Responding to a question from Mr. Soll, Mr. Taylor explained the following staff work groups: • Wetheads —a programmatic coordinating group that addressed grant funding applications, and the education center. • FOG—field Operation Group — focused on implementing work in the field, coordinating mowing, prescribed fire, youth crews, weed work, herbicide applications within the partnership. FOG had the following subcommittiees: o Fire Subcommittee. o SPROUTS. o Science Subcommittee. o Fenders Blue Butterfly Subcommittee. Mr. Shippey said the various efforts were very impressive but noted the absence of a Springfield member particularly in light of the upcoming Mill Race project and Willamette Basin analysis. Mr. Taylor stated Springfield was involved in Metropolitan Waterways. Mr. Medlin said he never thought of the work as expanding the wetlands partnership mission, but that of a talented staff group that brought different talents to the partnership. It was often the same staff who worked on different projects, whether it was the formal WEW plan or projects that grew out of the WEW such as the Rivers to Ridges project. He suggested using the coordinating group as a tool to develop ideas and implement projects. Ms. Grilley said the partnership was not only the WEW anymore. She concurred with Joe Moll's e -mail statements that it was not clear that all of the agencies and organizations that needed to be involved were included in the partnership. She expressed concern that if the partnership became bigger, there was the potential that the effort would become diluted and more coordination work would be needed. While there were benefits to having a bigger partnership, there were also disadvantages, and it would be challenging to see the work done while having a bigger group to work with. Perhaps it would be possible to expand the partnership in terms of geographic scope and have interest areas that were smaller and could be more easily accomplished. Mr. Soll shared his impression that at the beginning of the partnership, there were fewer layers and the decision making and day to day implementation were more closely linked. As the partnership had matured and the capacity of the City of Eugene had grown significantly, The Nature Conservancy staff had increased, and some of the original reasons to have the partnership had changed. He suggested each person should consider how their agency's work continued to overlap with the original reason for the partnership and how much energy was going to other things. The Nature Conservancy was very interested in integrating the upland work into the partnership because its geographic area focus was larger than the WEW and the separation was arbitrary. The WEW Plan, the original document to establish the partnership, had seen huge accomplishments. The question was what was the next step. Should it be defined geographically or should the question of what a new partnership help us accomplish should be asked. Ms. Johnston reviewed the three WEW implementation steps: MINUTES— Wetland Executive Team September 4, 2008 Page 2