New Search
Page 1 of 2 <br /> MEDLIN Johnny R <br /> From: Joe Moll [jmoll @mckenzieriver.org] <br /> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 8 :59 AM <br /> To: Pat_Johnston @blm.gov; FAIRCHILD Chuck (BLM); ERICKSON Dana (SMTP); 'Michael Shippey'; <br /> SPENCER Douglas (SMTP); WOLD Eric N; Erik.S .Petersen @nwp01.usace.army.mil; MCRAE Holly <br /> (SMTP); NUCKOLS Jason (SMTP); MEDLIN Johnny R; 'John Asher'; SOLL Jonathan (SMTP); <br /> COREY Kurt A; TAYLOR Trevor H; Virginia_Grilley @blm.gov; HATTON Bill (BLM) <br /> Cc: THIEMAN Cindy (SMTP)'; BEALL Jock (SMTP) <br /> Subject: RE: WET Meeting, time, location and materials <br /> Good morning everyone- poor planning on my part makes it unlikely that I will be able to attend this afternoon's <br /> meeting. Given the solid work that Trevor, Pat et al put into the prep for this meeting, I wanted to offer a couple of <br /> thoughts you might consider for the discussion. The background information and draft organizational chart were <br /> very helpful to get me thinking about this concretely. So, just two thoughts: <br /> First, I think that the first goal captures some of the potential Catch -22 of growing partnerships- on one hand, <br /> expanding a partnership makes sense given the multiple groups and multiple efforts in this area. At the same <br /> time, expansion in and of itself can decrease efficiency as more groups need to be informed and or weigh in <br /> about more projects... i.e. more and larger coordination meetings. That concerns me a bit. One place to look at <br /> this is in the draft structure, where the overall R2R Partnership implies new coordination (meetings) in addition to <br /> the WET, MWT and RST meetings that already occur. I wonder if there is a way that those three could be <br /> collapsed into the R2R Partnership? As a general guiding principle, should there be a goal of "No- net -gain in <br /> coordination meetings" for this effort? <br /> Second, I wonder if coming at this from a different direction might be warranted. Rather than further shuffling the <br /> current teams, how about re- organizing completely around actions? For example, one option would be to have <br /> three areas for coordination: <br /> R2R Partnership <br /> Protection Stewardship Outreach <br /> Habitat Restoration Envtl Ed <br /> Parks/Trails Weed mgmt Landowner outreach <br /> Views/buffers Rec. mgmt Fundraising <br /> Research <br /> ...and let the different teams form and dissolve around discrete objectives. At the executive level we could have <br /> the same annual or semi - annual meeting to look at coordination across these program areas. In some years <br /> there might be more wetlands relevant discussion, while in others there might be more upland or riparian <br /> discussions. At the operational level, teams could form around specific objectives such as invasive plant <br /> management, or oak savannah acquisition grant submissions, or whatever might benefit from the synergy of the <br /> partnerships, <br /> Anyway, just a couple of thoughts. Again, thanks for the City and BLM staff for the follow- through on the prep for <br /> this meeting, and I apologize if I don't see you there this afternoon. <br /> Best, <br /> Joe <br /> Joe Moll <br /> Executive Director <br /> McKenzie River Trust <br /> . 1245 Pearl Street <br /> Eugene, OR 97401 <br /> Phone: (541) 345 -2799 <br /> Fax: (541) 465 -3876 <br /> 9/4/2008 <br />