untitled

Russian River Watershed Council

Full Council Meeting

Minutes of July 14, 2001 9AM - 1PM

Cloverdale Veterans Memorial Bldg 9AM - 1PM

Meeting began with the reading of our mission statement and introduction of Jerome Dix and Scott Barrow as facilitators for the day's meeting.
Opening count of watershed council members =25 voting members
APPROVAL OF AGENDA/MINUTES - The agenda and minutes of 5/12/01 were not approved due to lack of quorum.
AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENTS - Karen McWilliams of Caltrans announced that she would be available to make a presentation on the Hopland bypass process. Public workshops start next week and continue for the next 2 months. A slot on our November agenda is still very timely.
Derek Acomb introduced himself as a new fisheries biologist for our watershed who will be managing restoration contracts for Bob Coey and continuing the tributary assessments. Of over 300 grants received by Dept. of Fish and Game for fisheries, 28 were from the Russian River watershed. After staff conducts field evaluations, the projects with the most potential will be funded.
Karen Rippey announced that proposed project for arundo donax removal in Alexander Valley has been reviewed by the salmonid restoration work group. She distributed copies of the Corps funding process that had been shared with the work group.
ANNOUNCEMENTS - Bob Rawson was standing in for Peggy Maddock and announced several items scheduled for later in the agenda that could not be formally addressed by the Council due to lack of quorum.
1) The public caucus welcomes Tom Cruckshank, Marian Jones, and Jane Zils as new members. The caucus would like to have those members ratified by the council so that they can participate as voting members according to the rules of operation.
2) The public caucus proposes to have the coordinator designated as acting information officer so that items about the Council can be distributed to the local newspaper and agency newsletters in a timely manner. The original proposal had a 72 hour review by the Public Outreach and Education work group. However, it has been amended to 24 hours.
3) The public caucus is concerned that is not always apparent who is directing the meeting. In the future, 3 facilitators should be onhand to monitor the audience and control the discussion so that people speak in turn and have their comments recorded correctly.
4) The Public Outreach and Education work group is working with Sotoyome Resource Conservation District to develop a resource directory for the Russian River watershed in Sonoma and Mendocino counties. A resolution of RRWC support is needed to identify funding for the project.
Scott Barrow reviewed plans of the Public Outreach and Education work group to have several RRWC members attend the Basins of Relations workshop at the Occidental Arts and Ecology Center from July 27 - 31. Richard Miller, Scott Barrow, Peggy Maddock and Linda Curry will attend the workshop for 4 days and report on the experience at the September 8 meeting.
Gary Reedy of Institute for Fisheries Resources announced that although their firm which specializes in the KRIS information system had not been awarded the contract for the Russian River Interactive Information system, they would continue to work cooperatively with the contractor selected to avoid duplication. The current project from the Sonoma County Water Agency and North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board that they are contracted for develops a database of fisheries and water quality issues for the north coast to the central coast. Elements addressing the Russian River will be developed by the Corps contractor and inserted into their data set as the information becomes available.
Several WIAM members expressed dismay that the contractor selected has still not been announced to the Council and the potential for duplication of effort remains due to lack of coordination among the agencies.
Eric Sunswheat announced that Caltrans District One Roadside Vegetation Management Advisory Committee would begin the Hopland bypass meetings Friday, July 20 from 11AM - 2PM at the UC Hopland Field Station. At that workshop, he also expected to hear from Ralph DeGuerra from Biosphere who is working on the sudden oak death which was recently reported in Mendocino county for the first time. To prevent the spread of the fungus causing the disease, there may be potential quarantines of affected areas and some required decontamination of earth moving equipment, including vehicle tires, before the vehicle is allowed in areas free of the pest.
MEMBERSHIP was not approved due to lack of quorum. Count at 10AM was 27. A review of the members from each caucus no longer participating with us was read by the coordinator.
NONPROFIT STATUS/REVIEW OF BYLAWS - discussion began with a review of the main points of contention in the issue.
· Some existing organizations within the Council do not feel comfortable continuing their association if the RRWC becomes nonprofit.
· The agency members are constrained by legal requirements so that they may not vote in a nonprofit group to which they may later grant funds. Few members present expressed support for extending voting status to the agencies.
· Economic and Environmental caucuses both endorse a smaller board of directors. These caucuses have also offered the alternative of using an existing nonprofit as the fiscal umbrella for the RRWC or partnering with a foundation not affiliated with the Council to create a fiscal mechanism.
· Public Caucus spent considerable time reviewing and adjusting the proposed draft bylaws. That model has the full council acting as the board of directors and no votes for the agencies.
· Board of directors can be a small group or a large group. Any size must be accountable to the full Council.
· Steering Committee may not be the best board of directors as being the board would require additional time from the members of the Council who are already contributing the most volunteer energy.
The RRWC has previously endorsed the concept of a nonprofit for watershed council projects on two previous occasions. The main reasons to seek formal fiscal status is to enable application for grant monies aside from the existing funding from Army Corps of Engineers and State Resources and provide a mechanism for the group identity to mature. Due to lack of quorum, some members questioned continuing the discussion as nothing could be resolved. Several tentative motions were floated with no active votes until Bob Anderson created a model that outlined the alternatives along a line that started with the Council remaining as it is and ending with the Council as a full fledge independent nonprofit. Members were encouraged to review the alternatives outlined in Bob's model and indicate some support during the break.
Environmental group met during the break to welcome Joan Kelley who will be Lynda McClure's replacement representative for the Mendocino Environmental Center. After the break, details of the different options presented in the Anderson model were fleshed out with approximately 20 voting members and 15 interested parties.
Kathy Hayes and Rusty Klassen agreed to help develop pros and cons of each alternative for the September meeting. Dennis Murphy volunteered to research the legality of the council entering into a contract with an existing nonprofit. Additional research is needed to determine whether nonprofit incorporation would jeopardize the existing Memorandum of Understanding with State Resources.
Alternatives
1. The Russian River Watershed Council remains a volunteer group composed of stakeholder representatives from Mendocino and Sonoma counties to develop a Russian River Management Plan as a joint project of the Army Corps of Engineers and California State Resources. Voting is restricted to the economic, environmental and public caucuses and includes 3 votes for the watershed resource conservation districts. Agency caucus is composed of individuals representing an agency with watershed jurisdiction or a political representative for areas within the watershed. Current structure does not allow for any fiscal independence of the group to pursue projects beyond the scope of agency projects.
2. The Russian River Watershed Council partners with agencies as needed to support particular projects. Limitations of this option are the length of time needed to work through the approvals both by the council and the agency, lack of agency support for some projects, and no unique group identity.
3. The Russian River Watershed Council creates a nonprofit or foundation to address funding for watershed projects. The board of directors is a small (9) subset of the full Council, but takes its direction from the Council at large. While this model makes the Council more adept and versatile as an acknowledged entity, it may prevent more active lobbying by the Council and presents issues associated with control of the board of directors and volunteers controlling project funds as the projects move forward. In this model, the volunteers are responsible for doing the work associated with financial accounting and project management.
4. The Russian River Watershed Council develops a hybrid between the small board of directors (#3) and large board of directors (#6). The hybrid group activity is subservient to the full RRWC, which includes all the voting and non - voting members (77 - 300+).
5. The Russian River Watershed Council partners with an existing nonprofit. The nonprofit does not control projects, but does serve as the fiscal agent for money to flow to RRWC projects from public and private grant sources. Professional financial management of the account provides the opportunity for additional fundraising by association with the nonprofit and dividends from investments. In this model, the nonprofit partner is responsible for the accounting and project management associated with RRWC initiatives. The Council identifies worthwhile projects and funds them at regular intervals with oversight by the nonprofit. Advantages in no startup costs are perceived disadvantage as nonprofit support may evaporate in the face of a controversial project.
6. The Russian River Watershed Council incorporates as a nonprofit according to the draft bylaws with 57 voting members as the board of directors. In this model, agency members and some members that represent organizations will not be able to continue their participation.
Using the Steering Committee as the Board of Directors is a consideration. However, the burden of managing Council business becomes heavier for those already doing most of the lifting. Having members of the public caucus incorporate as a nonprofit for RRWC activities is an alternative. However, membership in the nonprofit should be open to other individuals within the Council and must have clear performance expectations to be viable. Any Board of Directors must be accountable to the full Council.
Establishing a unique group identity allows the RRWC to mature and gain respect as a continuing force for protecting and restoring the Russian River. By creating some fiscal mechanism, the Council will be able to apply for both private and public sources of funding. By identifying additional funds, the RRWC may qualify for additional matching funds from the Army Corps of Engineers. Using an existing nonprofit as our umbrella would allow the RRWC to leverage their expertise, accounting procedures and staff time.
As the Sonoma County Community Foundation was mentioned as a potential partner, the Council would like a presentation from their organization to understand the nature of the project relationship and any constraints in the partnership.
Over half of the members (18) participating supported model #2 with model #5 garnering the most of remaining support. The Steering Committee will review these results and present recommendations at the September meeting.
NEXT MEETING is September 8. Presentations are pending from the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board on North Coast Watershed Assessment and Surface Water Assessment and Monitoring Programs, Sonoma County Water Agency on Section 7 process, Caltrans on Hopland bypass, Water Resources on fish passage, Karen Rippey on riparian restoration proposal, and League of Women Voters on water supply and water quality. Priority of the presentations is the order stated.
Unfinished business for the September meeting includes membership approval, update on RRIIS contract, proposal for information officer/press releases. New business will be the initial work with the contractor for the Plan of Action.
Plans for a separate meeting of the RRWC at Lake Mendocino on September 29 to review the operations there and have a recreational social similar to the occasion in Hopland several years ago. We could celebrate our fourth anniversary and look forward to more progress.

Russian River Watershed Council	Full Council Meeting
Minutes of July 14, 2001 9AM - 1PM	Cloverdale Veterans Memorial Bldg 9AM - 1PM


Meeting began with the reading of our mission statement and introduction of Jerome Dix and Scott Barrow as facilitators for the day's meeting. Opening count of watershed council members =25 voting members APPROVAL OF AGENDA/MINUTES - The agenda and minutes of 5/12/01 were not approved due to lack of quorum. AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENTS - Karen McWilliams of Caltrans announced that she would be available to make a presentation on the Hopland bypass process. Public workshops start next week and continue for the next 2 months. A slot on our November agenda is still very timely. Derek Acomb introduced himself as a new fisheries biologist for our watershed who will be managing restoration contracts for Bob Coey and continuing the tributary assessments. Of over 300 grants received by Dept. of Fish and Game for fisheries, 28 were from the Russian River watershed. After staff conducts field evaluations, the projects with the most potential will be funded. Karen Rippey announced that proposed project for arundo donax removal in Alexander Valley has been reviewed by the salmonid restoration work group. She distributed copies of the Corps funding process that had been shared with the work group. ANNOUNCEMENTS - Bob Rawson was standing in for Peggy Maddock and announced several items scheduled for later in the agenda that could not be formally addressed by the Council due to lack of quorum. 1) The public caucus welcomes Tom Cruckshank, Marian Jones, and Jane Zils as new members. The caucus would like to have those members ratified by the council so that they can participate as voting members according to the rules of operation. 2) The public caucus proposes to have the coordinator designated as acting information officer so that items about the Council can be distributed to the local newspaper and agency newsletters in a timely manner. The original proposal had a 72 hour review by the Public Outreach and Education work group. However, it has been amended to 24 hours. 3) The public caucus is concerned that is not always apparent who is directing the meeting. In the future, 3 facilitators should be onhand to monitor the audience and control the discussion so that people speak in turn and have their comments recorded correctly. 4) The Public Outreach and Education work group is working with Sotoyome Resource Conservation District to develop a resource directory for the Russian River watershed in Sonoma and Mendocino counties. A resolution of RRWC support is needed to identify funding for the project. Scott Barrow reviewed plans of the Public Outreach and Education work group to have several RRWC members attend the Basins of Relations workshop at the Occidental Arts and Ecology Center from July 27 - 31. Richard Miller, Scott Barrow, Peggy Maddock and Linda Curry will attend the workshop for 4 days and report on the experience at the September 8 meeting. Gary Reedy of Institute for Fisheries Resources announced that although their firm which specializes in the KRIS information system had not been awarded the contract for the Russian River Interactive Information system, they would continue to work cooperatively with the contractor selected to avoid duplication. The current project from the Sonoma County Water Agency and North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board that they are contracted for develops a database of fisheries and water quality issues for the north coast to the central coast. Elements addressing the Russian River will be developed by the Corps contractor and inserted into their data set as the information becomes available. Several WIAM members expressed dismay that the contractor selected has still not been announced to the Council and the potential for duplication of effort remains due to lack of coordination among the agencies. Eric Sunswheat announced that Caltrans District One Roadside Vegetation Management Advisory Committee would begin the Hopland bypass meetings Friday, July 20 from 11AM - 2PM at the UC Hopland Field Station. At that workshop, he also expected to hear from Ralph DeGuerra from Biosphere who is working on the sudden oak death which was recently reported in Mendocino county for the first time. To prevent the spread of the fungus causing the disease, there may be potential quarantines of affected areas and some required decontamination of earth moving equipment, including vehicle tires, before the vehicle is allowed in areas free of the pest. MEMBERSHIP was not approved due to lack of quorum. Count at 10AM was 27. A review of the members from each caucus no longer participating with us was read by the coordinator. NONPROFIT STATUS/REVIEW OF BYLAWS - discussion began with a review of the main points of contention in the issue. · Some existing organizations within the Council do not feel comfortable continuing their association if the RRWC becomes nonprofit. · The agency members are constrained by legal requirements so that they may not vote in a nonprofit group to which they may later grant funds. Few members present expressed support for extending voting status to the agencies. · Economic and Environmental caucuses both endorse a smaller board of directors. These caucuses have also offered the alternative of using an existing nonprofit as the fiscal umbrella for the RRWC or partnering with a foundation not affiliated with the Council to create a fiscal mechanism. · Public Caucus spent considerable time reviewing and adjusting the proposed draft bylaws. That model has the full council acting as the board of directors and no votes for the agencies. · Board of directors can be a small group or a large group. Any size must be accountable to the full Council. · Steering Committee may not be the best board of directors as being the board would require additional time from the members of the Council who are already contributing the most volunteer energy. The RRWC has previously endorsed the concept of a nonprofit for watershed council projects on two previous occasions. The main reasons to seek formal fiscal status is to enable application for grant monies aside from the existing funding from Army Corps of Engineers and State Resources and provide a mechanism for the group identity to mature. Due to lack of quorum, some members questioned continuing the discussion as nothing could be resolved. Several tentative motions were floated with no active votes until Bob Anderson created a model that outlined the alternatives along a line that started with the Council remaining as it is and ending with the Council as a full fledge independent nonprofit. Members were encouraged to review the alternatives outlined in Bob's model and indicate some support during the break. Environmental group met during the break to welcome Joan Kelley who will be Lynda McClure's replacement representative for the Mendocino Environmental Center. After the break, details of the different options presented in the Anderson model were fleshed out with approximately 20 voting members and 15 interested parties. Kathy Hayes and Rusty Klassen agreed to help develop pros and cons of each alternative for the September meeting. Dennis Murphy volunteered to research the legality of the council entering into a contract with an existing nonprofit. Additional research is needed to determine whether nonprofit incorporation would jeopardize the existing Memorandum of Understanding with State Resources. Alternatives 1. The Russian River Watershed Council remains a volunteer group composed of stakeholder representatives from Mendocino and Sonoma counties to develop a Russian River Management Plan as a joint project of the Army Corps of Engineers and California State Resources. Voting is restricted to the economic, environmental and public caucuses and includes 3 votes for the watershed resource conservation districts. Agency caucus is composed of individuals representing an agency with watershed jurisdiction or a political representative for areas within the watershed. Current structure does not allow for any fiscal independence of the group to pursue projects beyond the scope of agency projects. 2. The Russian River Watershed Council partners with agencies as needed to support particular projects. Limitations of this option are the length of time needed to work through the approvals both by the council and the agency, lack of agency support for some projects, and no unique group identity. 3. The Russian River Watershed Council creates a nonprofit or foundation to address funding for watershed projects. The board of directors is a small (9) subset of the full Council, but takes its direction from the Council at large. While this model makes the Council more adept and versatile as an acknowledged entity, it may prevent more active lobbying by the Council and presents issues associated with control of the board of directors and volunteers controlling project funds as the projects move forward. In this model, the volunteers are responsible for doing the work associated with financial accounting and project management. 4. The Russian River Watershed Council develops a hybrid between the small board of directors (#3) and large board of directors (#6). The hybrid group activity is subservient to the full RRWC, which includes all the voting and non - voting members (77 - 300+). 5. The Russian River Watershed Council partners with an existing nonprofit. The nonprofit does not control projects, but does serve as the fiscal agent for money to flow to RRWC projects from public and private grant sources. Professional financial management of the account provides the opportunity for additional fundraising by association with the nonprofit and dividends from investments. In this model, the nonprofit partner is responsible for the accounting and project management associated with RRWC initiatives. The Council identifies worthwhile projects and funds them at regular intervals with oversight by the nonprofit. Advantages in no startup costs are perceived disadvantage as nonprofit support may evaporate in the face of a controversial project. 6. The Russian River Watershed Council incorporates as a nonprofit according to the draft bylaws with 57 voting members as the board of directors. In this model, agency members and some members that represent organizations will not be able to continue their participation. Using the Steering Committee as the Board of Directors is a consideration. However, the burden of managing Council business becomes heavier for those already doing most of the lifting. Having members of the public caucus incorporate as a nonprofit for RRWC activities is an alternative. However, membership in the nonprofit should be open to other individuals within the Council and must have clear performance expectations to be viable. Any Board of Directors must be accountable to the full Council. Establishing a unique group identity allows the RRWC to mature and gain respect as a continuing force for protecting and restoring the Russian River. By creating some fiscal mechanism, the Council will be able to apply for both private and public sources of funding. By identifying additional funds, the RRWC may qualify for additional matching funds from the Army Corps of Engineers. Using an existing nonprofit as our umbrella would allow the RRWC to leverage their expertise, accounting procedures and staff time. As the Sonoma County Community Foundation was mentioned as a potential partner, the Council would like a presentation from their organization to understand the nature of the project relationship and any constraints in the partnership. Over half of the members (18) participating supported model #2 with model #5 garnering the most of remaining support. The Steering Committee will review these results and present recommendations at the September meeting. NEXT MEETING is September 8. Presentations are pending from the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board on North Coast Watershed Assessment and Surface Water Assessment and Monitoring Programs, Sonoma County Water Agency on Section 7 process, Caltrans on Hopland bypass, Water Resources on fish passage, Karen Rippey on riparian restoration proposal, and League of Women Voters on water supply and water quality. Priority of the presentations is the order stated. Unfinished business for the September meeting includes membership approval, update on RRIIS contract, proposal for information officer/press releases. New business will be the initial work with the contractor for the Plan of Action. Plans for a separate meeting of the RRWC at Lake Mendocino on September 29 to review the operations there and have a recreational social similar to the occasion in Hopland several years ago. We could celebrate our fourth anniversary and look forward to more progress.