Posted by Wanda Ballentine on July 20, 2000 at 23:27:44:
Hi, this message is from Mary O'Brien and was sent out on 6/25 - she and I
had a little miscommunication - I thought she was sending it to all the
groups, and she thought I was. Anyway, here it is - & it's very similar to
Kevin's idea about this. Mary will be back in town this weekend and would
like to have a meeting of all interested parties this Sunday - Alton Baker
Park? which part? 5pm? 6pm? Please let Mary and I know ASAP if you are
interested and if you can come. Sorry we didn't get this to you sooner.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 lightsSo, 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