New Search
Page 1 of 2 <br /> COREY Kurt A <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'; SPENCER Douglas <br /> (SMTP); WOLD Eric N; Erik.S.Petersen@nwp01.usace.army.mil; MCRAE Holly (SMTP); NUCKOLS Jason (SMTP); <br /> MEDLIN Johnny R; 'John Asher'; SOLL Jonathan (SMTP); COREY Kurt A; TAYLOR Trevor H; <br /> Virginia_Grilley@blm.gov; HATTON Bill (BLM) <br /> Cc: 'THIEMAN Cindy (SIVITP)'; BEALL Jock (SMTP) <br /> Subject: RE: WET Meeting, time, location and materials <br /> <br /> Good morning everyone- poor planning on my part makes it unlikely that I will be able to attend this afternoon's meeting. Given the <br /> <br /> solid work that Trevor, Pat et al put into the prep for this meeting, I wanted to offer a couple of thoughts you might consider for the <br /> <br /> discussion. The background information and draft organizational chart were very helpful to get me thinking about this concretely. <br /> 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, expanding a <br /> partnership makes sense given the multiple groups and multiple efforts in this area. At the same time, expansion in and of itself can <br /> decrease efficiency as more groups need to be informed and or weigh in about more projects... i.e. more and larger coordination <br /> meetings. That concerns me a bit. One place to look at this is in the draft structure, where the overall R2R Partnership implies new <br /> coordination (meetings) in addition to the WET, MWT and RST meetings that already occur. I wonder if there is a way that those <br /> three could be 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 current teams, how <br /> about re-organizing completely around actions? For example, one option would be to have three areas for coordination: <br /> R2R Partnership <br /> Protection Stewardship Outreach <br /> Habitat ~ Restoration Envt/ 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 the same annual or <br /> semi-annual meeting to look at coordination across these program areas. In some years there might be more wetlands relevant <br /> discussion, while in others there might be more upland or riparian discussions. At the operational level, teams could form around <br /> specific objectives such as invasive plant management, or oak savannah acquisition grant submissions, or whatever might benefit <br /> from the synergy of the partnerships. <br /> Anyway, just a couple of thoughts. Again, thanks for the City and BLM staff for the follow-through on the prep for this meeting, and I <br /> 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 /> http://www. mckenzieriver.orgl <br /> 9/4/2008 <br /> <br />