WET - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

2. Draft Membership structure Wetlands Waterwa s Rid eline WET Metro Waterways Team Ridgeline Strategy Team ACOE City TNC City Lane County City TNC BLM BLM LTWC MRT ACOE Springfield LCP LTWC MRT USFWS OYCC WREN USFWS Willamalane WREN Wetheads Project Implementation,. Land Management and ACOE City MRT Teams Restoration Team BLM LTWC WREN_ City Lane County City TNC BLM USFWS- TNC ACOE Springfield Willamalane* LCP* TNC* BLM* LTWC/Landowners* LTWC* FOG Acquisitions Committee ACOE City BLM City TNC BLM TNC WREN* LCP* MRT Land Management Team Private Lands Outreach and ACOE City TNC Conservation Team BLM USFWS TNC MRT LTWC ` ' WREN * Optional members depending on project. 3. Geography -The Rivers to Ridges map works as a general guideline for the expanded partnership area as all of the current and near term foreseeable partner projects are included. We noted the value of keeping the boundaries "fuzzy" so as not to exclude potential project areas. We also acknowledged the value of working toward an ecologically relevant boundary, while realizing that adopted plans and existing projects provide the most relevant geographic boundary for an expanded partnership. 4. Habitat -Staff felt that we should include more explicit language including all habitats within the project area including upland prairies, oak habitats, forests, riparian areas, at- risk habitats (i.e. rocky outcrops), and other habitats in the area. This can be accomplished by de-emphasizing wetlands and using more inclusive language in any revised MOU or Charter. 5. Membership relations- There is value in keeping flexibility among the different "arms" of the partnership to allow for the most efficient structure. For example, in the WEW the current partnership structure and the process for adding new members are fairly formal, whereas the ridgeline may benefit from a more informal partnership structure.