Posted by Kevin Matthews on July 22, 2000 at 12:52:28:
Dear Southeast Neighbors Board Members and Friends,
As you may be aware, several groups around town are now also discussing the idea of organizing citizen input to the Metro Natural Resources Study. This was a topic covered briefly at Pete and Betty's recent Town Meeting, including Southeast Neighbors and city staff. And last month I introduced this topic to the agenda for Neighborhood Leaders Council, where we will be discussing it on Tuesday evening.
In Southeast Neighbors we've already talked about how this represents a key opportunity to document what should be protected in the important upland and headwaters habitats of our neighborhood. Another meeting has been called for tomorrow evening at 5 or 6pm at Alton Baker Park (somewhere) to share ideas about this among a wide range of interested parties.
Personally I think there are several advantages to organizing citizen input on this project through the Neighborhoods as much as possible. Neighborhoods are naturally connected to specific parts of the landscape, and the people in the neighborhoods already know a lot of what needs to be documented. The neighborhood groups are already recognized by the city, and we are relatively non-partisan, so I think our input is likely to get a more fully open reception.
And since a quick response is important, at least initially, I think the compact size and already-existing organization of the neighborhood groups provides a very appropriate platform for the project. Within each neighborhood, the survey process can be simplified, because each neighborhood includes only a limited subset of all the habitat types found across the whole Metro area. And I think it is a good idea to start simple.
For Southeast Neighbors specifically, now that we've won in our own neighborhood on the specific issue of the South Park PUD, this might be an excellent major project for us to take on -- a great chance to extent our success, by protecting other important features in the neighborhood before new development proposals get onto the table.
But there are also very good reasons to coordinate with other groups on this project. There are important natural resources in areas not covered by any active neighborhood group, and there is a wealth of experience, knowledge, and potentially political clout to be shared, for mutual benefit.
So I'm looking forward to the meeting tomorrow -- where I'm sure I'll see some of you, too -- and afterwards I expect I'll suggest that interested Southeast Neighbors get together, in advance of our next board meeting, to put together a proposal for board consideration for really getting into this.
Are you as enthusiastic as I am about adopting this as a neighborhood project? If you have a chance, please share some of your thoughts on this with the board.
As part of the larger context for this discussion, and also in planning for our next board meeting, I'll be circulating the list of ideas for Southeast Neighbors priorities that we brainstormed together at the last regular board meeting.
Best wishes,
Kevin Matthews
Southeast Neighbors
On 7/21/00 at 10:10 AM, MARGARET E ROBERTSON wrote:> If you know of folks who might be interested in the idea of citizens
> participating in the Metro Goal 5 natural resources survey, would you please
> pass this message along to them? And if you are interested in talking about
> the idea, perhaps Sunday evening, please send a message to Wanda Ballentine
> at: wsb@efn.org.
>
> The idea has potential for significant benefits at many levels--see Mary's
> outline below.
>
> ---------- Original Text ----------
>
> From: "Wanda Ballentine" , on 7/20/00 9:52 PM:
> To: SMTP@ENMA1@Servers[],SMTP@ENMA1@Servers["Jan Wilson"
> ],SMTP@ENMA1@Servers["Alex Roth"
> ],SMTP@ENMA1@Servers["James Johnston"
> ],SMTP@ENMA1@Servers["Nena Lovinger nenalovinger@hotmail.com"
> ],SMTP@ENMA1@Servers["LISBEBROWN"
> ],SMTP@ENMA1@Servers["Alice Doyle"
> ],SMTP@ENMA1@Servers["Tom Bowerman"
> ],SMTP@ENMA1@Servers["Rich Fairbanks"
> ],SMTP@ENMA1@Servers["Neva Hassanein"
> ],SMTP@ENMA1@Servers["Jim Thraikill"
> ],SMTP@ENMA1@Servers["Mary O'Brien"
> ],SMTP@ENMA1@Servers["Eve Vogel"
> ],SMTP@ENMA1@Servers[> u>],SMTP@ENMA1@Servers[],SMTP@ENMA1@Servers[],SM
> TP@ENMA1@Servers[]
> Cc: SMTP@ENMA1@Servers[],MARGARET E ROBERTSON@APPENG_MA@LCC
>
>
> Hi, I am re-sending this message of Mary's because I got a call from her
> asking if there'd been much response - I don't know if there has been or
> not, and she doesn't have email access. She & O'B will be home tomorrow
> night, and then she has to leave again next week, but would like to meet
> with interested persons on Sunday night - how does Alton Baker Park sound?
> What part? 5pm? 6pm? Some of you are members of the groups she named -
> maybe you know people in some of the other groups. I will try to contact
> as many as I know. Please respond ASAP - maybe to the whole group so we
> know who's on what page.
>
> Dear folks,
>
> When I attended the June 21 public workshop for the upcoming
> Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Natural Resources Study (for Goal 5
> planning), I realized that for the most part, the survey is going to be
> cursory and non-citizen based. It occurs to me that if we (and I use "we"
> to mean any citizens who want our metropolitan area to take care of the
> amazing natural resources we still have) organize well, we could engage
> hundreds of citizens in the process of finding, documenting, and nominating
> natural features for inclusion as natural resources worth protecting, in
> the upcoming Goal 5 planning process.
>
> The study is supposedly focused on (1) riparian corridor; (2) upland
> wildlife habitat; and (3) wetlands. While talking with Eben Fodor,
> Margaret Robertson, and Wanda Ballentine at the public workshop, we started
> realizing that the process should capture (a) the natural resource
> knowledge certain Eugene/Springfield citizens already have (e.g., birders,
> butterfly afficionados, botanists, salmon watchers, tree lovers, pollinator
> trackers, slimy things observers); and (b) the energy and enthusiasm
> hundreds of citizens could bring to filling in where the surveys by
> Springfield and Eugene will be thin (or politically untouchable).
>
> Unfortunately, I'm just about to leave for vacation and field work until
> August 10, BUT...I would suggest that the following could be a process that
> would be extremely exciting:
>
> 1. Gather reps of a bunch of local nature interests (e.g., Sierra Club,
> Audubon, FRESH, Nearby Nature, Friends of Eugene, Citizens for Public
> Accountability, Natural History Association, Lane County Landwatch, Native
> Plant Society, some science teachers, Salmon Keepers, Oregon Natural
> Resources Council) for a meeting some evening SOON, and see if people would
> be interested in organizing any or all of the following kinds of efforts:
>
> a. Gathering the best of existing, local, citizen nature knowledge onto
> some master maps to supplement the sites that are being looked at by
> Eugene/Springfield (e.g., the Native Plant Society could enter in
> particular sites of importance to plants that might otherwise be
> overlooked; Audubon Society could do the same for birds; people like John
> Corliss would know hydrological features to protect)
>
> b. Identifying simple surveys that could be done by:
>
> 1. High school classes
> 2. 4-H or scout troops
> 3. Citizens
> 4. University students
> 5. Retired folks
>
> ...and developing simple forms and training sessions to show people how
> to gather the information systematically and bring it into the master
> mapping of this group.
>
> In suggesting this, I am remembering the superb Adopt-A-Forest work that
> was organized by National Audubon Society (and I think lots of other
> organizations). It taught citizens how to map remaining Old Growth forest
> in the Pacific Northwest, when BLM and Forest Service were doing a
> less-than-inspiring job of it. Their maps were eventually the best
> existing. Illinois has UrbanWatch that involves citizens using
> self-guiding materials to survey for (a) general biodiversity in a
> neighborhood; and (b) more detailed surveys of selected native flora and
> fauna (e.g., birds, butterflies, beetles, mushrooms and other fungi, land
> snails, and ...SLUGS! YES! Slugs are recognized as important in Illinois!
> We've got a Slug Queen - but do we have slug watchers? Illinois does).
> Here's their mission: "Illinois UrbanWatch combines science and technology
> with community action and the internet to create biodiversity profiles of
> urban green spaces across the state."
>
> Perhaps this group of citizens here in Eugene/Springfield (maybe call it
> something like the Goal 5 Nature Tracking Group) could approach Eugene and
> Springfield City Councils for money for one coordinator, to be hired by our
> Tracking Group, to help with logistics of it all.
>
> I also think it should be planned to be an 18-month or more process.
> Springfield and Eugene have been sitting on their hands for ten years(?) on
> this. The public workshop indicated that the study would be done by the
> end of this summer. I don't think that's appropriate.
>
> We should aim to bring a citizen survey of natural resources to the table
> by, say, October 2001. Of course, we would be in communication all along
> the way with Eugene/Springfield planners - but we should have a reasonable,
> but finite goal of having our info to the table by next fall.
>
> Here are the benefits I see to this process, if we could organize it:
>
> 1. LOTS of natural resource sites and areas and species and populations
> would be brought to the attention of Eugene/Springfield planners that would
> otherwise slip through the cracks and not gain protection.
>
> 2. LOTS of citizens would have ownership of the Natural Resources Study,
> which would translate into LOTS of political awareness and support for
> PROTECTING and RESTORING our metropolitan natural resources.
>
> 3. LOTS of citizens would have a WONDERFUL time getting out on the ground,
> and contributing little bits of information that would, overall, amount to
> a LOT of information. They would learn about their community. We all would
> learn.
>
> 4. It allows us to be proactive, rather than whining after the official
> natural resources study is done, that this or that wetland, this or that
> grove of trees, this or that quiet area didn't get included.
>
> 5. We will get MUCH more protected this way than any other way.
>
> The main effort that would be needed would be to have:
>
>
> a. Enthusiastic, generous leadership by a core group and, ideally, a
> coordinator chosen by us all;
>
> b. Good tracking of who is doing what and on what schedule;
>
> c. An excellent system of recording the incoming information so no
> information is lost;
>
> d. Good mapping of what people are finding;
>
> e. Quality control - i.e., making sure the basics of documentation and
> accountability are present;
>
> f. Designing a variety of survey guides that can be used by people of all
> different kinds of skills, spare time, mobility, science background, etc.
>
> g. Keeping each other informed and appreciated.
>
>
> One other thing: As I talked with Eben Fodor at the public workshop, we
> realized more needs to be included in the natural resources study than
> seems to be currently contemplated, e.g.:
>
> 1. Sites that have high potential for RESTORATION as natural areas [the
> process seems to be ignoring the concept of restoration. Hmmm...dams...]
> 2. Public walking paths
> 3. Quiet areas
> 4. Aesthetic areas
> 5. Important habitat for particular species, e.g., meadowlark or owls or
> rare plants
> 6. Sites with particular potential for youth education, e.g., near a school
> 7. Sites with potential for use as mitigation for natural resource losses
> elsewhere
> 8. Biological corridor areas
> 9. Dark areas; i.e., areas free of a lot of night-time lights
>
> So, as I waltz out the door for essentially six weeks...these are my
> thoughts. Obviously, someone else would have to pick up the initiation of
> this. But it seems like too good an opportunity to miss. If even five or
> ten of you from a number of groups get together one evening or one
> Saturday, I bet you could fill a wall with (a) names of people who know a
> lot about some aspect of natural resources in our communities, and who
> could contribute to this big mapping project; and (b) simple surveys that
> could be done (e.g., old trees; walking paths; old orchards; oak groves);
> and (c) people/groups who could help us design survey methods for other
> features (e.g., butterflies, wetlands).
>
>
> I think it would be awesome. I would do everything I could, after I get
> back Aug. 10.
>
> Takers?
>
> Mary O'Brien
> Mary O'Brien
> P.O. Box 12056
> Eugene, OR 97440
> phone: 541/485-6886
> fax: 541/485-7429
> email: mob@darkwing.uoregon.edu====================================================================
To join the Southeast Neighbors general membership email list, just
send email to "majordomo@designcommunity.com", and in the body of
the message say exactly: subscribe members
====================================================================
Kevin Matthews, matthews@artifice.com
President, Southeast Neighbors - http://www.SoutheastNeighbors.org
541-345-7421 vox, 541-345-7438 fax, P.O. Box 1588, Eugene, OR 97440
+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
Artifice, Inc. ...the way of architecture
ArchitectureWeek.com GreatBuildings.com DesignCommunity.com
+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +