DOCSLIB.ORG

Directory of Organizations October 2009

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Directory of Organizations October 2009 Directory of Organizations October 2009 Northwest Power and Conservation Council Council document 2009-13 NORTHWEST POWER AND CONSERVATION COUNCIL.....................................................................................1 FEDERAL MANAGERS, OPERATORS AND REGULATORS .................................................................................3 BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY .........................................................................3 BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR.................................................................................4 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR .........................................................................4 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ...................................................................................5 CORPS OF ENGINEERS, U.S. ARMY—NORTHWESTERN DIVISION .....................................................................................6 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY..........................................................................................................................6 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY..............................................................7 FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ..................................................................................................7 NATIONAL OCEANIC ATMOSPHERE ADMINISTRATION (NOAA FISHERIES)......................................................................8 RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ...................................................................................9 FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES..............................................................................................................................11 COLUMBIA BASIN FISH AND WILDLIFE AUTHORITY.......................................................................................................11 FISH PASSAGE CENTER...................................................................................................................................................11 IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME.......................................................................................................................11 MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS ..............................................................................................12 NORTHWEST INDIAN FISHERIES COMMISSION (NWIFC)................................................................................................12 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE..............................................................................................................12 PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL ....................................................................................................................13 PACIFIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION .........................................................................................................13 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR — REGION I ..................................................14 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH & WILDLIFE.........................................................................................................14 STATE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES...........................................................................................................................15 CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION................................................................................................................................15 CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION .................................................................................................................15 IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE ...........................................................................................................16 IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES.................................................................................................................16 IDAHO GOVERNOR’S OFFICE ..........................................................................................................................................16 IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ..........................................................................................................................16 MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY...............................................................................................17 MONTANA GOVERNOR’S OFFICE....................................................................................................................................17 MONTANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION......................................................................................................................17 MONTANA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY....................................................................................18 OREGON ENERGY FACILITY SITING COUNCIL.................................................................................................................18 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY................................................................................................................................18 OREGON GOVERNOR’S OFFICE .......................................................................................................................................19 OREGON PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION .........................................................................................................................19 OREGON WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT ..................................................................................................................19 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH .......................................................................................................................20 WASHINGTON ENERGY FACILITY SITE EVALUATION COUNCIL ......................................................................................20 WASHINGTON GOVERNOR’S OFFICE ..............................................................................................................................20 WASHINGTON STATE OFFICE OF TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, ENERGY DIVISION........................................21 WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION ENERGY PROGRAM ...............................................................................21 WASHINGTON UTILITIES & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION..........................................................................................22 STATE GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS .............................................................................................................23 WESTERN GOVERNORS’ ASSOCIATION...........................................................................................................................23 WESTERN INTERSTATE ENERGY BOARD.........................................................................................................................23 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATIONS ................................................................................................................24 ASSOCIATION OF IDAHO CITIES ......................................................................................................................................24 ASSOCIATION OF OREGON COUNTIES .............................................................................................................................24 i ASSOCIATION OF WASHINGTON CITIES ..........................................................................................................................24 IDAHO ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES ................................................................................................................................24 LEAGUE OF OREGON CITIES ...........................................................................................................................................25 MONTANA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES ..........................................................................................................................25 MONTANA LEAGUE OF CITIES AND TOWNS ....................................................................................................................25 WASHINGTON STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES..........................................................................................................25 TRIBES AND TRIBAL ASSOCIATIONS ....................................................................................................................27 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION ..................................27 BURNS-PAIUTE TRIBE.....................................................................................................................................................27 COEUR D’ALENE TRIBE ..................................................................................................................................................27 COLUMBIA RIVER INTER-TRIBAL FISH COMMISSION......................................................................................................28 COLVILLE BUSINESS COUNCIL .......................................................................................................................................28 CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE GRAND RONDE COMMUNITY OF OREGON ....................................................................28
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Board Meeting April 16-17, 2019 Salem
    BOARD MEETING APRIL 16-17, 2019 SALEM Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board Meeting Agenda April 16-17, 2019 Monday, April 15, 2019 Reception – 5:00p.m. The public is invited to join the OWEB Board and staff at a reception celebrating the 20th anniversary of OWEB. Location of Reception: Willamette Heritage Center Dye House 1313 Mill St. SE Salem, OR 97301 Directions: https://goo.gl/maps/i9yeoactTJk Tuesday, April 16, 2019 Macleay Conference & Retreat Center Fireside Hall 2887 74th Ave. SE Salem, OR 97317 Directions: https://goo.gl/maps/K4hg6vokwkx Business Meeting – 8:00 a.m. For each agenda item, the time listed is approximate. The board may also elect to take an item out of order in certain circumstances. During the public comment periods (Agenda Items F, I, J, L, O, and P), anyone wishing to speak to the board on specific agenda items is asked to fill out a comment request sheet (available at the information table). This helps the board know how many individuals would like to speak and to schedule accordingly. At the discretion of the board co-chairs, public comment for agenda items on which the board is taking action may be invited during that agenda item. The board encourages persons to limit comments to 3 to 5 minutes. Written comments will also be accepted on any item before the board. Written comments should be sent to Eric Hartstein at [email protected]. Please note that written comments received after April 9, 2019 will not be provided to the board in advance of the meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • April 30, 2020 the Honorable Mitch Mcconnell the Honorable Nancy
    April 30, 2020 The Honorable Mitch McConnell The Honorable Nancy Pelosi Majority Leader Speaker U.S. Senate U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20510 Washington, D.C. 20515 The Honorable Charles Schumer The Honorable Kevin McCarthy Minority Leader Minority Leader U.S. Senate U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20510 Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Leader McConnell, Minority Leader Schumer, Speaker Pelosi, and Minority Leader McCarthy: The National Trust for Historic Preservation and the 379 undersigned preservation organizations and businesses thank you for your extraordinary efforts in acting to address so many of our nation’s needs in our current health and economic emergency. The enactment of the $2.2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) and other response legislation provided essential funding and programs to begin our nation’s recovery. The CARES Act provided much needed funding for the nonprofit sector, including the arts and humanities, and we thank you for those provisions, including: • The Paycheck Protection Program and its forgivable loans to benefit small businesses and nonprofit organizations; • Providing a universal above-the-line deduction for taxpayers making charitable contributions; and • Creating additional funding for the National Endowment for the Arts ($75 million), National Endowment for the Humanities ($75 million), and the Institute for Museum and Library Services (IMLS) ($50 million). We are also extraordinarily thankful for last week’s Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act that will provide an additional $321 billion for the Paycheck Protection Program. This program is essential to ensuring economic vitality and meeting the The Watergate Office Building 2600 Virginia Avenue NW Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20037 E [email protected] P 202.588.6000 F 202.588.6038 SavingPlaces.org needs of nonprofit organizations and the small business community, especially Main Street businesses.
    [Show full text]
  • Investigating Processes Shaping Willamette Valley
    BEHIND THE SCENES: INVESTIGATING PROCESSES SHAPING WILLAMETTE VALLEY ARCHITECTURE 1840-1865 WITH A CASE STUDY IN BROWNSVILLE by SUSAN CASHMAN TREXLER A THESIS Presented to the Interdisciplinary Studies Program: Historic Preservation and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science June 2014 THESIS APPROVAL PAGE Student: Susan Cashman Trexler Title: Behind the Scenes: Investigating Processes Shaping Willamette Valley Architecture 1840-1865 With a Case Study in Brownsville This thesis has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Science degree in the Interdisciplinary Studies Program: Historic Preservation by: Dr. Susan Hardwick Chairperson Liz Carter Committee Member and Kimberly Andrews Espy Vice President for Research and Innovation; Dean of the Graduate School Original approval signatures are on file with the University of Oregon Graduate School. Degree awarded June 2014 ii © 2014 Susan Cashman Trexler iii THESIS ABSTRACT Susan Cashman Trexler Master of Science Interdisciplinary Studies Program: Historic Preservation June 2014 Title: Behind the Scenes: Investigating Processes Shaping Willamette Valley Architecture 1840-1865 With a Case Study in Brownsville This thesis studies the diffusion of architectural types and the rise of regionally distinct typologies in the Willamette Valley’s settlement period (1840-1865) in Oregon. Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to analyze the dispersion of architectural types within the Willamette Valley revealed trends amongst the extant settlement architecture samples. Brownsville, Oregon, was identified to have a locally-specific architectural subtype, the closer study of which enabled deeper investigation of the development of architectural landscapes during the Willamette Valley’s settlement period.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Before the Energy Facility Siting Council of the Stat
    1 BEFORE THE ENERGY FACILITY SITING COUNCIL OF THE STATE OF OREGON 2 3 In the Matter of the Request for FRIENDS OF THE COLUMBIA GORGE, 4 Amendment 4 of the Site Certificate for ET AL.’S REQUEST FOR A the SUMMIT RIDGE WIND FARM CONTESTED CASE PROCEEDING 5 6 7 I. INTRODUCTION 8 Pursuant to OAR 345-027-0071, Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Oregon Wild, the 9 Oregon Natural Desert Association, Central Oregon LandWatch, and the East Cascades 10 11 Audubon Society (collectively, “Requesters”) request that the Energy Facility Siting Council 12 (“EFSC” or “Council”) conduct a contested case proceeding on the Request for Amendment 4 of 13 the Site Certificate for the Summit Ridge Wind Farm (“Project”), and allow Requesters to 14 participate as parties in the proceeding.1 15 16 It has been nearly ten years since the preliminary application for this Project was filed, 17 and nearly eight years since the Project was first approved. As a point of reference, in 2009, 18 when the Project was first applied for, Ted Kulongoski was Governor of Oregon, and Barack 19 Obama was in his first year as President of the United States. Since then, much has changed. The 20 Project has been abandoned by the initial developer, sold and transferred to a new owner 21 22 (“Pattern Energy,” “Pattern,” or “Applicant”),2 and the Project’s deadlines for beginning and 23 1 24 Requesters incorporate into this Request for Contested Case their February 21, 2019 comment letter to the Council (attached hereto as Exhibit A), the February 21, 2019 comment letter of Shawn 25 Smallwood, PhD to the Council (attached hereto as Exhibit B), and the oral comments of Friends’ Senior Staff Attorney Nathan Baker at the February 22, 2019 public hearing.
    [Show full text]
  • Download the PDX Celebrate It’S Two Year Anniversary on June 7 at 6:30 Pm
    Our Where’s Growing Early 28th Ave. Q Revolution Newspaper Year Page 14 Page 8 Page 3 JUNE SOUTHEAST EXAMINER 2017 southeastexaminer.com “Your Neighborhood News Source” Vol 28 No 6 Portland, OR Infill on Steroids Gains State Traction: Riles Residents BY MIDGE PIERCE and old. But opponents say the Oregon A bill known as a “Build Baby Build” Home Builders Association (OHBA) legislative bill under the idea of addressing and others twisted it into a bill that over- emergency housing statewide is fueling rides local zoning and undermines city what critics call a widespread assault controls. The bill would allow building to on Oregon cities’ self-determination maximum density and heights potentially and livability. Adding insult, the bill is disregarding critical local planning tools barreling through the state legislature like discretionary design reviews. without adequate public hearing. As outrage mounted last month at House Bill 2007 would essentially an informational meeting in Salem, House Overview of the proposed cascading soaking pools between reservoirs 5 and 6. eliminate single family residential Speaker Tina Kotek slammed opponents as Designed by Jennifer Moran neighborhoods by making multi-plex infill racist NIMBYS. Arriving late to advocate housing mandatory across the state. The for the “high-yield” housing bill she Mt. Tabor Park Thermal Baths bill would permit duplexes and ADUs sponsored, she condemned “race-based everywhere in cities and towns of at least housing policies” and said opposition is An Idea for Preserving the Reservoirs, Creating 2500 residents. “grounded in Nimbyism” by well-heeled Energy, and Raising Revenue Critics call it a stealth bill that is residents using discriminatory practices Infill inflation modeled after Portland’s that restrict others from building wealth BY AMY PETERSON PSU SCHOOL OF ARCHI- in 2006, the city cannot use the open controversial Residential Infill Project and power.
    [Show full text]
  • Jantzen Beach Carousel History
    Table of Contents 1. Introduction (p.2) 2. Response Overview (p.2) 3. Submission Criteria (p.2) 4. Submission Timeline (p.3) 5. Selection Process (p.3) 6. Selection Criteria (p.4) 6. Post-Selection Process (p.5) ​ 7. Submission Requirements (p.6) 8. General Conditions of RFEI (p.8) 9. Appendix/Supplemental Materials (p.9) Request for Expressions of Interest Restore Oregon/Jantzen Beach Carousel Introduction Restore Oregon, Oregon’s only statewide nonprofit historic preservation organization, seeks ​ Expressions of Interest from developers, municipalities, and/or landowners for potential siting of the Jantzen Beach Carousel. This century-old wooden carousel will require restoration; a high-traffic/high-visibility site; a new, climate-controlled pavilion; and an operating plan that will insure financial stability and ongoing public accessibility. We are looking for creative, dedicated developers/partners who wish to make their mark on our community, revive a beloved historic asset, and draw tourists to enhance an area already on its way to becoming a destination. RFEI Response Overview This offering is intended to be flexible. Restore Oregon is seeking neither detailed proposals nor architectural plans for potential sites, but rather seeks expressions of interest from developers, municipalities, or property owners who have site control over specific parcels and the financial and creative capacity to construct a carousel pavilion. Partnerships for restoring and operating the carousel are a possibility. More information on possible deal structure options is provided in the Appendix. Submission Criteria Two threshold criteria are required for responding to this RFEI: 1. Respondents must have site control of proposed locations for the carousel in the form of a deed, current Purchase and Sale Agreement, or signed Agreement in Principal.
    [Show full text]
  • Process Overview
    Preservation Toolkit Process Overview 01 02 03 04 05 Get Assess Plan Source Plan Oriented Condition Rehabilitation Funding Construction Maintenance Historic Feasible New Use Economic Viability Designation Zoning & Building Standards Codes Construction Plan & Terminology Cost Estimate 06 Work with Preservation Professionals 07 Organize & Build Community Support The Restore Oregon Preservation Toolkit is intended to provide a high level guide through the process and decisions one needs to make when seeking to restore and reuse a historic building. Each box along the top line of this flow chart corresponds to a document or tool providing information on that aspect of the process. The Preservation Toolkit is oriented toward small-to-medium sized commercial properties, but portions will benefit those working on historic homes as well. It should be noted that, in reality, the process is not as linear as it is illustrated here and sometimes steps must be taken in tandem. We have not attempted to go into full detail or cover all aspects of what can be complex interdependent considerations. Every historic project is unique. But we hope these modules provide a helpful framework from which to organize and move forward. © 2016 Restore Oregon All Rights Reserved MODULE Preservation Toolkit An Orientation to Preservation & 01 Adaptive Reuse Preservation and reuse can mean different things to different people. From “freezing places in time” as a museum, to repairing and adapting places for a new active use. This orientation will introduce you to common preservation terms and resources, explain what listing in the National Register of Historic Places does and does not do, and outline standards for rehabilitation.
    [Show full text]
  • September 14, 2016 Megan Duvall, Historic Preservation Officer City Of
    September 14, 2016 Megan Duvall, Historic Preservation Officer City of Spokane City Hall, Third Floor 808 W Spokane Falls Boulevard Spokane, Washington 99201 Via email: [email protected] RE: City of Spokane Mid-20th Century Modern Context Statement and Inventory Dear Ms. Duvall: Preservation Solutions LLC (PSLLC) is delighted to submit this response to the City/County of Spokane’s Request for Proposals for professional services relating to a survey of mid-20th century architecture and the development of a historic context. As you will see in the qualifications outlined herein, our project team is uniquely qualified for this scope of work. Comprised of three professional architectural historians with a combined half-century of experience, the Preservation Solutions consulting team has extensive experience in the identification, evaluation, planning, protection, and successful nomination of cultural properties, totaling well over 23,000 resources documented nationwide. Each team member’s experience not only exceeds the qualifications for historic preservation professionals outlined by the National Park Service, but includes demonstrated familiarity with comparable studies of mid-century resources combined with public engagement and planning components. You will find this combination of skills and experience will be an asset to the project and ensures documentation of mid-century Spokane and recommendations for its future preservation will rely on the judgment of professionals trained in all National Register criteria. Furthermore, we are proud to offer two public meetings and four options of additional deliverables from which the City/County can choose. In our experience working with communities of all sizes in various states, we have found preservation works best when it is tailored to unique local conditions and perspectives.
    [Show full text]
  • Pioneer Houses and Homesteads of the Willamette Valley, Oregon Historic Context 1 Introduction
    Pioneer Houses and Homesteads of the Willamette Valley, Oregon 1841-1865 Prepared for the Historic Preservation League of Oregon May 2013 by Liz Carter Cover Images, clockwise from top left: Cartwright House (also known as Mountain House), Lorane, Lane County, HABS image Daniel and Melinda Waldo House, Marion County, Brian Waldo Johnson image W.H. Finley House, Corvallis, Benton County, from A Pictorial History of Benton County Blakely House, Brownsville, University of Oregon Libraries image (Philip Dole, photographer) McBride Log Cabin, Yamhill County, Oregon State Library image For more information, contact: Historic Preservation League of Oregon 24 NW First Avenue #274 Portland, Oregon 97209 [email protected] 503.243.1923 Liz Carter, Preservation Consultant Eugene, Oregon [email protected] This project has been funded in part by a grant from the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s Richard and Julia Moe Fund Acknowledgements This project was completed with a grant from the National Trust for Historic Preservation and additional support from the Historic Preservation League of Oregon. A number of people offered their knowledge and expertise to various aspects of the project, including Shannon Applegate, Stephen Dow Beckham, Bill Hawkins, Rosalind Keeney, George Kramer, Gregg Olson, Don Peting, Elisabeth Walton Potter, and Shannon Sardell. This work would not have been possible without their wisdom. The Oregon State Historic Preservation Office provided invaluable support and encouragement. Thank you to Deputy SHPO Roger Roper, Assistant Deputy SHPO Chrissy Curran, and particularly to Kenny Gunn, who visited and photographed all 300+ settlement-period houses and homesteads in the nine-county study area in the early months of 2013, providing us with current information on these important sites.
    [Show full text]
  • Healthy Historic Districts Solutions to Help Preserve and Revitalize Oregon’S Historic Downtowns
    SPECIAL REPORT Healthy Historic Districts Solutions to Help Preserve and Revitalize Oregon’s Historic Downtowns Recommendations from Restore Oregon based on the 2010 Preservation Roundtable Page 2 Restore Oregon Special Report: Healthy Historic Districts Introduction 3 2010 Preservation Roundtable Process Executive Summary 4 Topic Defined Historic Preservation in Oregon 6 Summer 2009 Online Survey Preservation: Dollars, Sense, and the Environment 7 Early January 2010 Obstacles to Compatibility and Viability 8 Workshop Portland, OR Findings and Recommendations 9 January 19, 2010 Acknowledgements and Notes 19 Symposium Albany, OR May 14, 2010 Cover photo: Albany Historic District—courtesy Oregon Main Street © 2010 Restore Oregon. All rights reserved. Research, Interviews & Site Visits Late Summer 2010 Report Released September 30, 2010 In January 2010, Restore Oregon (formerly the Historic Preservation League of Oregon) launched the Preservation Roundtable to bring together diverse perspectives to address the topic of Healthy Historic Districts in a Changing World – Compatibility & Viability. The recommendations presented in this report were defined by Preservation Roundtable participants, who represented the wide range of views and geography that characterize Oregon’s historic districts. Over 100 business owners, community leaders, real estate developers, historians, urban planners and residents from Astoria to Pendleton to Jacksonville participated, defining common obstacles to district vitality and exploring diverse solutions. While not intended to represent a comprehensive examination of every issue, this report and its nine key action items offer a call to action - a road map to dramatically improve the cultural, economic, and environmental sustainability of dozens of communities across our state. If the enthusiastic participation in the 2010 Preservation Roundtable is any indicator, Oregon’s historic districts have a bright future ahead.
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon's High Desert and Wind Energy
    Oregon’s High Desert and Wind Energy Opportunities and Strategies for Responsible Development Oregon’s High Desert and Wind Energy Opportunities and Strategies for Responsible Development May 2009 Prepared by: Oregon Natural Desert Association 33 NW Irving St, Bend, OR 97701 (541) 330-2638; www.onda.org Endorsed by: Audubon Society of Portland Defenders of Wildlife Hells Canyon Preservation Council Oregon Chapter Sierra Club Western Environmental Law Center WildEarth Guardians Oregon Natural Desert Association (ONDA) is a nonprofit conservation organization that exists to protect, defend, and restore Oregon’s native desert ecosystems for current and future generations. Special thanks to Erik Molvar and the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance (www.voiceforthewild.org) for allowing us to use “Wind Power in Wyoming: Smart from the Start” as a basis for developing this report. Recommended citation: ONDA. 2009. Oregon’s High Desert and Wind Energy-Opportunities and Strategies for Responsible Development. Bend, OR; 81 pp. Available online at www.onda.org. Cover Photo Credits: Pronghorn, George Wuerthner; Wind turbines, Craig Miller; Sage-grouse, Frank Cleland; Steens Mountain, Lord Maitreya. Oregon’s High Desert and Wind Energy Page 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Considerations for Wildlife ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • OREGON Annual Report 2017 3 3
    OREGON Annual Report 2017 DEAR FRIENDS NATURE PROVIDES. We envision a world where the diversity of life thrives and people act to conserve nature, both for its own sake WE PROTECT. and its ability to meet our needs and enrich our lives. Using science as our guide, The Nature Conservancy has recently evaluated where we are able SUSTAINABLE FOOD HEALTHY COMMUNITIES CLEAN, RELIABLE WATER to make the most impact on this vision “As a fourth-generation rancher, I’m working with “For the last 10 years, our construction “Our city is surrounded by forests; it’s one reason people in the years to come. The result is a global Shared Conservation my children on the same land my great-grandparents company has solely focused on specialized love living and visiting here. But these forests are also Agenda, which focuses our work on the following five priorities in homesteaded in 1884. We’re proving with our actions restoration projects, and we’re honored to at risk of wildfire that could harm both our city and The Nature Conservancy that our cattle management practices are a critical have led the floodplain restoration work at our drinking water supply. We take that risk seriously, the United States and the 70 countries in which we currently work. in Oregon component to the conservation efforts in our riparian the Conservancy’s Willamette Confluence which has led us to a long-term, nationally recognized and upland habitats. We’re doing this in a way that Preserve. It was an incredible project, and stewardship partnership with The Nature Conservancy, OFFICERS & EXECUTIVE Protecting land and water.
    [Show full text]