Meeting+2009+Aug+20

Thursday 2009 Aug 20 8:30-10 1214 Jordan Hall, NCSU Campus
 * Wake County Nature Preserves Meeting**

Present: Alexander, Reis, Cienek, Ramsey, Blank, Shumate, Snow, Lisk, Amanda Willis (new grad student), Hess, Wallace
 * Attendance Notes**


 * Annotated Agenda Items**

WE ARE SUPPOSED TO VOTE AT THE SEPTEMBER 3 MEETING! IS THIS A GOOD IDEA??!** I (Toddi) have been pushing the vote idea and I think this has made people uncomfortable. So let's talk about it. Traditionally we haven't operated as a voting organization. Should we have a vote on our definition/criteria?
 * 1) THE VOTE

Chances are I (Toddi) will be on a wildfire for our 8/20 meeting, so I wanted to lay out my reasoning for a vote. All of this is open for discussion. I regret not being part of the discussion. I am also happy to go along with what the group decides (as long as it means actually making a decision to keep us moving forward). : )

WNPP has been meeting for about 2 years to try to create a process by which we could designate ecologically significant areas throughout Wake County. During this time, we have tried to be as inclusive as possible in terms of stakeholders/participants who have an interest in this process. As such, the definition of what a Wake Nature Preserve is and the criteria that apply to it have gone through several iterations.
 * WHAT IS THE VOTE ALL ABOUT?**

At this time, I (Toddi) felt is was appropriate and necessary to have our first formal vote as a group to indicate whether we have agreement or not on what we want to do as a group in terms of the definition and the criteria that apply. We seemed to bogged down in hashing out the same issues. I saw a vote as a way to focus us and lead us to a clear decision point.

The formal vote, as opposed to a consensus based decision, will provide an added degree of legitimacy to our mission. If the definition is passed by majority vote, then we will have agreement. If we wished to change the definition/criteria in the future, we would need to hold another vote. In this way, the decision will be binding in terms of our mission and purpose.

My hope is that we have been working cooperatively to this point and that we will have fairly widespread agreement on the definition/criteria by the time we vote. If there are objections or disagreements with what we have proposed, then now is the time to raise these concerns to see if we can accommodate them. Feel free to air concerns on the wiki. This is an easy way to communicate in the absence of your ability to attend a meeting.

Procedurally, we could vote at the September 3 meeting. Voting options include "Yes", which would indicate support for the definitions/criteria, "No", which would indicate opposition to the definitions/criteria and "Abstain", which would indicate that you do not have enough information to make a decision or you are not comfortable with yes and don't want to vote no to stand in the way. Majority rules.
 * VOTING PROCEDURES** (open to discussion/modification)

If we have a lot of opposition (no or abstain votes), then I think we have a problem. We could table the vote until the next meeting or some future date until we get the problems worked out. That said, I think it would also be a sign that our partnership is not working particularly well. 2 years is a long time to decide on a mission/focus and how to operationalize it. I think it is time to take WNPP to the next level and we can only do that if we (or most of us) actually agree on what we are doing.

This will be a hands raised experience. If you vote "NO" or "ABSTAIN", I hope you would be willing to share your concerns with the rest of the group so we can consider your reasoning. If you cannot attend the meeting, I hope you will communicate your preference to me me via email. Those who attend the meeting can vote, as can people on the WNPP email list.


 * NOTES:**

Everyone was comfortable with this approach. Ramsey noted that voting should be seen as a sign of membership in the partnership and perhaps we should have some kind of very brief Memorandum of Understanding that an organization's representative signs stating that they are part of the Partnership. Everyone liked this idea, but we also recognized that this might require approval within organizations at higher levels than those of us sitting around the table. We thought this was probably a good thing agreed to discuss this in future.

Vote too proceed on 3 Sept. Email responses permitted.

Speak now if you have issues, comments, concerns! We are moving toward a vote on these the first week of September. Definitions and criteria are here.
 * 2) Definitions and Criteria.**


 * NOTES:**

Good discussion - edits made as a result - see the page. Everyone in the room was comfortable with where we wound up. We agreed on all the changes I made to the criteria, save one. Although we talked about the need for a management plan, we did not incorporate that need in any way into the criteria. As I (george) was editing the criteria, it seemed easy to do so and I added in the definition the following bullet ... has a management plan that addresses the elements outlined in WakeNature's management plan template

OSAPAC, County Commissioners, Kirschman visit
 * 3) Timeline**-- Turnipseed Road Countdown-- what are we doing when to make this happen?


 * (from Jamie) After our last meeting, it occurred to me that it would be great to have Gary Perlmutter and perhaps someone from the University (Toddi/George?) or John Connors come to an upcoming OSAPAC meeting to give the group a briefing on the inventories that have been done on the Turnipseed Road property, as well as the management plan that has been drafted. I think OSAPAC would welcome this and be very interested in this information. I checked this by Sig (chair of OSAPAC) and he said he would like this to happen in September. Does this sound possible? Is the management plan draft done?


 * Kirschman visit** (from Mecklenburg) - is anyone taking the lead on this? We really need someone to. When we last spoke, he was expecting a Sept visit, but that seems to be changing toward Jan/Feb 2010. We need someone to lead this effort, esp if we're going to turn it into a major event with sponsors and all. I have sent him an email letting him know about the uncertainty and that he is free to release any dates he has been holding on his schedule. Our outline for a 2-day visit appears in the notes from our 18 June meeting . (posted by george)

Also, this was to be our **capacity-building event** for September. Given that we're not doing that, what should we do in September for capacity-building - I'd hate to lose momentum on those workshops. Do we want to present our criteria to a broader audience (ie, all munis) and discuss approaches to making it happen (including a WNPP board, possibility of TLC-held easements, etc)? We need to announce this very soon, as 17 Sept is almost too close already (that would be our normally scheduled date - we could push into Oct).


 * NOTES:**

Discussion postponed - Connors noted that we MUST come up with a date for the Kirschman visit if we're going to make it a major event.


 * 4) CNR Volunteer** Issues-- what are the priorities for a work day/technical training this semester? Need feedback from Tim, Chris, John.


 * NOTES:**

Shumate made a few comments - Sarah Slover needs a project for winter. We agreed that we would tell Sarah that she could set up an effort to remove the trash from a potential salamander breeding pond on the Marks Creek property off Turnipseed Road.


 * 5) Raleigh Comp Plan Update.** Toddi, Kaytee update on public meeting.


 * NOTES:**

Kaytee attended the meeting but did not speak, because Benson Kirkman made all the same points. His comments were well-received. We need to keeep on top of this.


 * 6)** **White Paper Progress**-- What do we want the white paper to do? How is it different from our Executive Summary?

NOTES: Postponed


 * 7) Lake Johnson/Walnut Creek designation options**.

NOTES: Ramsey noted that there was interest from another partnership working in this area. Postponed until future meeting.


 * 8) Triangle Nature Preserves Partnership??** (posted by george 2009 Aug 13)

In conversations with folks at Triangle Land Conservancy about designating some of the Wake County property as Wake Nature Preserves -- which they are keenly interested in -- they raised the possibility of a wider network of such places, including some of their property in other Triangle Counties. One possibility would be that "sister organizations" could be created in each county, using our approach as a model ... so there would be Chatham Nature Preserves, Durham Nature Preserves, etc. Each could link to one another under an umbrella such as Triangle Nature Preserve System.

Another approach would be to think about expanding / renaming to create a Triangle Nature Preserve Partnership right now, with TLC being among the first to accept the brand on some of their properties throughout the Triangle, followed (or led) by Wake County. One of my concerns with this approach is whether we could reasonably use that name without adding a bunch of other members to our partnership first (people from around the Triangle) - which could be problematic, given the critical juncture we're approaching. But I also recall (1) Ed Johnson (Garner Parks) promoting this larger concept and (2) a request from some folks in Clayton / Johnston County about getting involved; (3) if TLC does this Triangle-wide, it might show the benefits of the branding to county and muni governments and help promote our efforts; (4) we do have representation in our partnership of agencies that act beyond Wake County, so it might not be that much of a grab to start talking about Triangle NPs. ... so I started to wonder if this idea has any legs. Also, it might (1) alleviate some of the concerns about calling a (eg) Raleigh park A Wake Nature Preserve; (2) alleviate potential confusion between Wake Nature Preserves and Wake Wonders (each county could have Wonders and the name would be distinct from Triangle Nature Preserve ... Wake Wonders, Chatham Wonders, etc ... the rest not as catchy as Wake Wonders, but ...)


 * What do you think of this line of thinking? A good way to go, or the seeds of confusion and distraction?**

I like the idea, especially as it sidesteps the city/county signage confusion and because we have been and will be approached by others to spread the umbrella. Another point occurs to me: like it or not, "The Triangle" gets a lot more recognition than "Wake" outside this region. Linking the area's high tech reputation to our ecological initiative might have valuable ramifications. GBBlank

I like the idea of spreading this out to a larger network, like a Triangle NPP, but I do think there is some benefit to keeping a County focus so we don't get too big and unwieldy and then decisions are too difficult to make. Each county could have their own partnership, and we could encourage consistency between us all, as well as coordination. We could lend some TA to other counties wanting to do the same thing and help provide some umbrella function. I think "sister organizations" is a great way to put it. Perhaps this could be the capacity building workshop for this fall? Maybe invite the Chatham Conservation group and the Durham Co folks to talk about this idea. I definitely think it is good for there to be some County focus, though, as people can relate to that and it also helps strengthen the function and importance of County government in this area. (Jamie)


 * NOTES:** Hess gave brief overview. Discussion postponed.