Full Council Meeting

Cloverdale Veterans Memorial 9-11AM

Thanks to Scott Barrow for facilitating the meeting!

AGENDA/MINUTES APPROVAL-Agenda was approved after clarification that the scope of work discussion would be followed with action. (24 ayes, 0 no) Minutes of January 18, 2003 were approved with modifications in wordings "significant portions of agenda/calendar" and Mendocino supervisors voted "not to support" . (21 ayes, 0 no 3 abstain)

AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENTS-Bob Coey announced the next round of grant funding by DFG for salmon restoration will start next week with an early May deadline for submissions. Bob encouraged the Council to seek additional funding for organizational development. There will be two public workshops on April 14 in Petaluma and April 15 in Ukiah. Details for the workshops is included with the request for proposals on the DFG website, www. dfg.ca.gov .

ANNOUNCEMENTS-Peggy Maddock asked members of the Public Outreach and Education work group to sign the thank you cards being routed for today's speakers. POE is also trying to confirm that the ad for today's workshop ran in the Press Democrat from 2/28-3/8 as most members could not recall seeing it more than a few times rather than the 10 days paid for by the invoice. (Coordinator was later able to confirm the ad did run on the days invoiced.)

Scott Barrow announced that CA State Parks is working on an update for the local coastal plan. There will be a meeting at the Bodega Marine Lab on March 13 at 6:30PM. For more information contact Rick Royer at 707-865-3127.

Leonard Stewart announced that the RRWC brochure did not completely list all the work groups as the dams and stream channels group was not listed. (The 2001 brochure references the dam operations work group. The 2003 brochure will be finalized after the work group reorganization discussions are complete.) Leonard stated that $300M in private financing is available for an integrated utility complex that will accept all sewage, effluent and wastewater from Monte Rio to and including Windsor and Healdsburg thereby completely eliminating any discharges in the Russian River. The process is proven technology with 20 or more US patents protecting it.

David Berman announced that watershed educators will meet at 3:45PM on March 15 at the Salmon Creek School. The watershed map is still in development with many of the local streams unnamed. Anyone that has knowledge of names for smaller tributaries, please contact David so that the children have local, accurate names for their creeks.

Brock Dolman announced that Watershed Day event by West County Watershed Network will be held on May 17 at Salmon Creek Middle School on Bohemian Hwy from 10AM-4PM. Speakers, artists and exhibits celebrate the local watershed resources.
Rick Kay announced "ABC's of Monitoring" workshop being held by Gualala Watershed Council on March 22 from 10AM-2PM with registrations through Sotoyome RCD at 707-569-1448.

Zeno Swijtink announced the Global Climate Change series at Sonoma State University will continue on March 29 from 10AM-4PM with water impacts in the region. Registration information can be found on their website at http://www.sonoma.edu/projects/climatechange First flush monitoring report event has been postponed from March 15 and is tentatively rescheduled for April 5 at a place to be determined.

RULE CHANGE/ORGANIZATION RESTRUCTURE-Jerome Dix led a discussion of language reviewed at the January meeting to change the quorum rule for Steering Committee meetings so that business could begin as soon as 5 members were present without regard to which caucuses were represented. After clarification that proposed officers would be members of the Steering Committee and would not replace Steering Committee as a unit, the motion passed with 25 ayes, 1 no, 2 abstain.

Robert Judd from Community Foundation was available to explain their needs for accountable representative(s) from the RRWC as our "official voice" for the partnership to flourish. Many grants have short turnarounds between the announcement of funds and the deadline for proposal submissions. When a smaller work group is endowed by the larger body to work for funding on specific projects, the likelihood of successful grant competition is greater.

Members proposed that the officer structure be adopted if the officers were required to present written reports every other month to maintain their accountability to the Steering Committee and the RRWC and if the officer model was reviewed every 12 months in conjunction with foundation partnership for potential sunset of activity. Specific language needs to be developed to address how officers will conduct business between regular RRWC meetings, e.g., email votes that allow work to progress within 7 days of email notice.

Members questioned whether capacity for the officer positions to be filled was possible when Steering Committee members are often serving multiple terms for lack of new volunteers. Steering Committee members will continue to focus their energy on developing the agenda for the Council, while the officers will be dedicated to identifying and applying for grants. Preapproved categories that reflect current goals approved by the RRWC will be the focus of grant proposals.

Additional discussions are needed to address the work group reorganization printed on the back of the original packet document. Motion under consideration only addresses the Steering Committee officer portion of the handout.

Rue Furch will work with the coordinator to develop a flowchart to show how communications will interact between the RRWC, officers, Steering Committee, coordinator, and Community Foundation. Any member of the RRWC is eligible to serve as an officer. Motion passed 27 ayes, 0 no, 1 abstain to change the Steering Committee structure to include officers. Members are encouraged to contact Zeno or Scott with their inputs.

RUSSIAN RIVER WATERSHED ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN (RRWaMP) SCOPE OF WORK-Karen Rippey reviewed the development of the current scope of work proposed for a contractor to develop a watershed management plan. Due to contract process constraints, the contract needs to be developed soon for it to be included in current funding cycle. The Steering Committee has discussed draft language since October. In early January it was agreed that a separate work group was needed to develop the scope of work similar to the process for the RRIIS. That work group met 4 additional times in January and February to develop language for the contract tasks. Karen reviewed the project timeline and participants in the work group. The contractor will work with the work group during the course of the contract to identify and develop information for the watershed management plan.

Bob Anderson joined Karen to lead a discussion regarding the process and current document. Members expressed frustration with short review time available for the document when so many other local water issues are pending like general plan updates in both counties, and regional water quality control decisions about the basin plan and acceptable discharges. It is not clear how the proposed RRWaMP will relate to other local planning efforts. Key recommendations from Plan of Action appear to be missing from the document. One member compared the scope of work to the Plan of Action and found that 26 of the 45 proposed actions are not mentioned in the Plan of Action. Karen explained that ten tasks associated with public outreach were pulled when the work group expressed concerns about the contractor being charged with outreach responsibilities. The proposed document is a framework for the work group to make changes as needed during the contract process.

Emphasis on 36 agency approved items does not reflect the concerns of the community as expressed in the Plan of Action. RRWC needs to prioritize and include most important critical issues of Plan of Action. Others who attended work group meetings expressed frustration that these comments should have been delivered during the work group meetings when the language was being drafted and revised on 4 different occasions. Some members felt that scope of work meetings were by invitation only despite the fact that all meetings were announced and posted on the website. Others felt that drawing so much from the appendices that were finalized after the Council approved the final Plan of Action was unfair as access to the document is difficult. (Plan of Action is posted on website, www.rrwc.net , however, the download times are long for the pdf files.)
The document presented was perceived to be a Corps document rather than a RRWC work product. The document is not a watershed plan, rather it is a plan for a watershed plan. Some of the work outlined is already being done by other groups, so there is no need to duplicate existing work. (Dennis Murphy showed a copy of the 2001 Creek Stewardship report for the Russian RiverThe work group needs to be enabled to incorporate the elements of the Plan of Action work into the scope of work. Original motion language was dropped.

Motion proposed by Bob Anderson with amendments from the floor. The scope of work document will be revised to reflect the work of the RRWC with the POA in an open process that will meet at least once in the evening before the next watershed council meeting. The May 10 agenda will be devoted to finalizing the scope of work so that contract process can proceed. Motion passed with 24 ayes, 3 no. Anyone interested in the scope of work process is encouraged to contact Karen Rippey with their inputs.