|
Opening count of watershed council members =34 voting
members
APPROVAL OF AGENDA - The agenda was approved with the
addition of Bob Coey's announcement later in the agenda.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - The minutes for January 13 and
March 10 were approved with no dissent.
AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENTS - Karen Rippey announced that
the Russian River Interactive Information System was pending
state funds being received. The Corps, Dept of Fish and
Game, Supervisors Reilly and Shoemaker, and the RRWC
coordinator will meet on May 29 from 10 - 12 to explore ways
for the funding for the Russian River Management Plan to be
coordinated more effectively with the State and counties.
Karen and Bob Coey have a meeting on May 30 to discuss
arundo removal with Circuit Riders' Karen Gaffney.
ANNOUNCEMENTS - Johanna Vanoni announced a
presentation by the Round Valley Irrigation District on May
26 at 1PM to review effective, low budget restoration
alternatives. Contact John Calaprice for more details.
(707-983-8025)
Richard Miller announced the public caucus is having a
meeting on June 20 at 5PM to review stream restoration work
at Armstrong Redwoods. The group will meet in the parking
lot at the visitors center at the end of Armstrong Woods Rd.
and then tour improvements to the channel of Fife Creek
where dams are being removed. Armstrong Woods is in
Guerneville (Hwy 101 to River Rd. to Guerneville. Armstrong
Woods Rd. is a right turn at the 2nd stop light.) All are
welcome; however, please RSVP to the coordinator (526-7865)
so that we may reserve the group spot if needed.
Peggy Maddock announced that the water rights seminar
presented by the Public Outreach and Education work group
was well attended. Participants were impressed with the
expertise of the speakers. Evaluation comments summaries are
available for those interested. Peggy also asked to see if
there was interest in the POE workgroup working with the
League of Women Voters to repeat their workshop on water
supply that was held April 28 for the Council. The second
workshop in that series on water quality will be held at the
main library in Santa Rosa (3rd and E St.) from 10AM - noon
on June 23, 2001. At least 25 RRWC members expressed
interest in getting these presentations done for the
Council.
David Berman reminded the group of the Salmon Creek
Watershed Day on May 19 from 10 - 4PM at the Salmon Creek
School on Bohemian Hwy between Freestone and Occidental.
Kathy Reese announced a recently completed tree planting
project. Extra valley oak seedlings were available to RRWC
members. ( David Berman claimed the remainders left at the
end of the meeting for his students to plant.)
Chuck Vaughn announced that the environmental caucus needs
to elect new steering representation as Don McEnhill and Tim
Derry are stepping down. Ballots were available for caucus
members to vote during the break at a mini caucus meeting in
the corner.
Leonard Stewart announced the dam operations work group met.
It is his intent that the work group focus on winter
retention for flood control and managing summer flow regimen
more effectively.
NONPROFIT STATUS/REVIEW OF BYLAWS - Linda Bailey
informed the group that she is moving to New York and will
not be available to work on the bylaws any further. The
bylaws that were drafted during two work group meetings had
been mailed out in the packet and were reviewed during the
meeting. Concerns were expressed that the packets were non
uniform…some included all the pages, others only had the odd
numbered pages. Some folks did not receive their packets in
a timely manner.
The economic caucus voiced concerns that arose during their
review of the bylaws. The board of directors being 63
directors is unwieldy and also includes additional agency
votes, which is a deviation from the rules of operation. The
perception that the nonprofit would replace or supplant the
Council was also expressed. Some landowners in the economic
caucus are concerned that the conflict of interest/personal
gain element of the bylaws could potentially prevent their
participation in the Council. The economic caucus proposed
creating a Russian River Foundation that would have as its
sole purpose to get funding to the Council to support the
mission statement. The foundation could have the steering
committee as its board of directors.
Council members expressed frustration that the economic
caucus members had not attended any of the work group
meetings. Work group members worked in good faith to draft
the bylaws. Work group members used the rules of operation
as their guideline. Agency votes were intended to draw the
agencies back into the Council and recognize their crucial
roles in watershed protection.
Questions from the audience included:
(Q) What about Article 4 Section 8 "interests of
directors"?
(A) The bylaws state that no more than 49% of the
board members can be "interested parties". Everyone stands
to benefit from river restoration and river protection. The
interpretation is that if a specific project benefits a
particular individual that may present a conflict of
interest, otherwise up to 33 members of the board of
directors as proposed could be landowners on the river.
(Q) What about the secretary and treasurer? Two
people or one?
(A) The secretary and treasurer can be the same
person, but it is likely as the organization grows that a
treasurer separate from the secretary would be needed.
(Q) The nonprofit replaces the Council?
(A) The Council remains the Council regardless of
whether we attain nonprofit status or not. If the nonprofit
is disbanded, the Council still exists and reverts to the
original framework. Any assets of the nonprofit would be
distributed to a nonprofit with similar goals.
(Q) How about the steering committee spending
money?
(A) The Steering Committee is identified to act as
the executive committee of the nonprofit and can spend funds
that have been authorized by the Council. All expenditures
are reviewed and approved by the Council. Specific
exclusions on Page 10 of the bylaws address what the
steering committee can or cannot do without Council
approval.
(Q) Are we stuck with these bylaws? How easy is it to
change?
(A) The bylaws for the nonprofit can be amended at
any time after the nonprofit is formed. Issues that are not
specifically addressed in the bylaws can be addressed by
resolution of the Council.
(Q) In Section 5 on page 3, specific alternates must
fill any voids. Can we just make the language easier by
saying that an officer that leaves midterm must be replaced
by a member from the same caucus?
(A) Yes.
(Q) In Article 5 on page 5, is the language pro
forma?
(A) Yes. Officers are required for any nonprofit.
Additional safeguards can be afforded by having the
treasurer cosign with another individual to spend Council
funds.
(Q) What about liability for directors or
individuals?
(A) Some cleaner language is needed here. Most
nonprofits carry errors and omissions insurance for their
board of directors. The Council retains liability for injury
to an employee, such as the coordinator, or damages to a
third party as a result of Council actions. The question of
how far that liability goes was unclear. If individual
members of the Council are representing an organization,
their parent organization is probably not liable for Council
actions.
(Q) What about Article 3? Doesn't that change the
caucus membership?
(A) The bylaws are intended to follow the rules of
operation. Each caucus determines its membership and
steering committee representation.
(Q) What about the agencies voting?
(A) They can't vote in a nonprofit. The agency caucus
would be responsible for determining which members vote
besides the RCDs. If conflicts with particular agency
limitations on nonprofit membership arise, then
representatives of the counties, assembly or senate
districts could be the voting members.
After some members expressed concern at the haste at which
this decision is being made and need for further paragraph
by paragraph review to iron out any lingering issues with
these bylaws, it was moved, seconded and passed that the
Council would spend the July 14 meeting devoted to bylaws.
Each caucus will meet to review bylaws and recommend any
needed changes. The coordinator will send an email reminder
out to the groups by 6/10 if meetings have not been
scheduled. All proposed changes must be submitted to the
coordinator by 6/22.
PROPOSAL GUIDELINES - It was moved, seconded and
passed that the proposal guidelines included in the packet
will be the method and criteria for anyone seeking Council
support.
CAPTIVE BROOD FOR COHO - Bob Coey presented a
proposal from Fish and Game that is being reviewed by NMFS
for a captive brood program for coho. Coho individuals would
be taken and spawned in a hatchery environment. When the
smolts were stream ready, they would be reintroduced to
tributaries that have been identified as having viable coho
habitat so that they can imprint on the stream and return
there. At present, despite good restoration work in some
tributaries, coho are not showing up in the streams in
sufficient numbers to assure their survival. The agencies
will be working with geneticists to assure that the DNA
analysis does not favor one particular family or stock of
coho. The fish would be reared at Warm Springs in separate
broods to enable better data collection on fish viability
and genetics.
GRANT PROPOSALS - By the time the item surfaced in
the agenda, there was no longer a quorum of voting members.
It precluded any action being taken. The first question to
be resolved in the next agenda is the quorum rule.
The roads workshop is already being developed by FishNet 4C.
The resource directory proposal could not work as presented
due to rules of the Sotoyome RCD needing to see the grant 30
days before the deadline. However, Kerry Williams will work
with the POE work group to explore other ways to make the
project work out. Mendocino County RCD has tentatively
agreed to be the funding sponsor for the organizational
development grant. Members of the Council approved going
forward with that grant with no dissent.
CAUCUS MEMBERSHIP - Ratification of caucus members
was delayed till July 14.
RUSSIAN RIVER UNLIMITED RIVER CLEANUP - Rebecca Kress
presented a video and outlined activities their organization
have undertaken to clean up the Russian River from Ukiah to
Hopland. They actually cleanup all the way to the
Geyserville bridge over 3 weekends. They started out doing
10 miles of River and now do about 50 miles. Three local
artists have contributed original songs. There is talk now
of a Russian River Consortium to address cleanup and
restoration activities with one program. The group is
looking at projects for willow plantings and
macroinvertebrate monitoring. They were instrumental in
addressing sanitation issues from a homeless encampment near
the Talmadge bridge. The dates for the cleanup this year are
6/15, 7/21 and 8/14 with a volunteer celebration on 9/8.
Contact Rebecca at 707 - 462 - 4649 or russianriverunlimited@hotmail.com
.
Kay McCabe commended Rebecca for her long years of service
to the Russian River and recognized that our own public
caucus member, Bob Clemens has been doing the same type of
work in Sonoma County. She posed that the Council should be
supporting these efforts with a workgroup to address
cleanup. (Members of the Council that have expressed
interest in a tributary cleanup work group are: Pat Schuch,
Kerry Williams, Bob Clemens, Al Giordano, and David
Berman.)
REDWOOD GROVES FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT - Dan Wickham
and Bob Rawson presented data from their studies and pilot
programs using wastewater to irrigate redwoods. A pilot
study at Sonoma State University is being run with CH2M Hill
and the City of Santa Rosa. Surface discharge of wastewater
to redwood groves results in ponding that attracts
mosquitoes and potentially is carried in runoff to the
river. Graton has been planting trees with volunteer labor
to maintain local control over their wastewater treatment.
In addition to trees processing the nutrients out of the
wastewater and sequestering carbon, redwoods have an
economic value when harvested. A 100 - acre redwood forest
grown with wastewater could produce a million board feet of
lumber within 60 years. The 800 acres currently irrigated by
Santa Rosa could produce 8 billion board feet. While the
Sonoma County Water Agency advocates regional treatment
systems, the redwood disposal technique is particularly well
suited to places like Occidental.
Dan Wickham, a limnologist by post doctorate education,
declared the Laguna de Santa Rosa to be the most impaired
body of water in the nation for phosphates. Although the
wastewater treatment process removes nitrates at the plant,
nitrogen is converted as it moves downstream and provides
nutrients for algal blooms. Phosphorus on the other hand is
not treated. Surface application of wastewater results in
the buildup of phosphates. Subsurface emitters however
provide more area for release of the wastewater and release
the wastewater into the soil so that bacteria can completely
break down the constituents. Testing done subsurface shows a
capacity for 50,000 gallons per day while surface
application rates by the City of Santa Rosa are limited to
5,000 gallons per day. Another benefit of the technology is
that carbon dioxide that would be emitted into the
atmosphere as a byproduct of the energy consumption
associated with wastewater treatment could be sequestered in
the redwood trees. It is estimated that 700 million tons of
carbon dioxide could be captured this way.
Despite the low soil permeability at Sonoma State due to the
heavy adobe soils, the study shows the capacity for 150
inches of wastewater per year, which surpasses the current
20 - 30 inches of wastewater per year achieved in Santa
Rosa's surface irrigation program. In more porous soils up
to 3 times the wastewater could be handled because the soil
is mechanically opened by the root structures of plants.
Testing to determine the metabolic rate has determined that
5 mg/l of nitrates is transformed to ammonia and 3.2 mg/l of
total nitrogen is taken up by the tree. Up to 9% reduction
of phosphates in the root zone have been observed. Soil
bacteria are the most resilient on earth and flourish in
adverse conditions including temperature extremes. These
bacteria not only remove nitrogen and phosphorus from the
wastewater but can also breakdown estrogen mimics.
Questions from audience:
(Q) What about other trees?
(A) Uptake rate by tree variety is the most important
factor in selecting trees for this type of treatment.
(Q) What about other plants utilizing the
wastewater?
(A) Forest ecosystem is the most powerful on earth.
You don't see leaf litter building up in a forest because
the microorganisms are constantly processing it into
soil.
(Q) What about an orchard?
(A) It should still be OK but the limiting factor
would be related to tuning the system to the trees need.
There could be a lack of biomass to process the amount of
water applied.
(Q) What about running leach lines into the
forest?
(A) The limiting factor would be in laying out the
lines to avoid the root zones of the trees.
(Q) What about sloped applications?
(A) Slopes could be used but you have to consider the
saturation capacity of the soil so that you don't
destabilize your slope. Slopes up to 60% should be OK.
(Q) What about instream structure projects?
(A) There are proposals for instream projects that
would enhance restoration, use wastewater, and provide
funding for future projects when trees are harvested.
(Q) What about individual property owners? Any
restrictions?
(A) Sonoma County will not accept this technology,
but Mendocino County has. An individual property owner could
process about 50 gallons/day per unit.
|