New Search
My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
New Search
Wetlands Executive Team
COE
>
PW
>
POS_PWM
>
Parks
>
General Parks Info
>
Wetlands Executive Team
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/15/2014 2:34:55 PM
Creation date
7/15/2014 2:34:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PW_Operating
PW_Document_Type_ Operating
Correspondence
PW_Division
Parks and Open Space
External_View
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
48
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
2. Draft Membership structure <br /> Wetlands Waterways Ridgeline <br /> WET Metro Waterways Team Ridgeline Strategy Team <br /> ACOE City TNC City Lane County City TNC BLM <br /> BLM LTWC MRT ACOE Springfield LCP LTWC MRT <br /> USFWS OYCC WREN USFWS Willamalane <br /> WREN <br /> Wetheads Project Implementation Land Management and <br /> ACOE City MRT Teams Restoration Team <br /> BLM LTWC WREN City Lane County City TNC BLM <br /> USFWS TNC ACOE Springfield Willamalane* LCP* <br /> TNC* BLM* LTWC /Landowners* <br /> LTWC* <br /> FOG Acquisitions Committee <br /> ACOE City BLM City TNC BLM <br /> TNC WREN* LCP* MRT <br /> Land Management Team Private Lands Outreach and <br /> ACOE City TNC Conservation Team <br /> BLM USFWS TNC MRT LTWC <br /> WREN <br /> * Optional members depending on project. <br /> 3. Geography - The Rivers to Ridges map works as a general guideline for the expanded <br /> partnership area as all of the current and near term foreseeable partner projects are <br /> included. We noted the value of keeping the boundaries "fuzzy" so as not to exclude <br /> potential project areas. We also acknowledged the value of working toward an <br /> ecologically relevant boundary, while realizing that adopted plans and existing projects <br /> provide the most relevant geographic boundary for an expanded partnership. <br /> 4. Habitat - Staff felt that we should include more explicit language including all habitats <br /> within the project area including upland prairies, oak habitats, forests, riparian areas, at- <br /> risk habitats (i.e. rocky outcrops), and other habitats in the area. This can be <br /> accomplished by de- emphasizing wetlands and using more inclusive language in any <br /> revised MOU or Charter. <br /> 5. Membership relations- There is value in keeping flexibility among the different "arms" of <br /> the partnership to allow for the most efficient structure. For example, in the WEW the <br /> current partnership structure and the process for adding new members are fairly formal, <br /> whereas the ridgeline may benefit from a more informal partnership structure. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.