Watershed Council - Past, Present, Future...? (12/4/00)

---

There are various theories (and much suspicion) about the origin and purpose of this assembly. Evidence so far supports the skeptics: almost 3 yrs of meetings have produced little tangible to dent the impacts affecting the river. While it may act as a new funnel for restoration $$, the RRWC has functioned chiefly as activist "flypaper." Use these links for WC meeting records, including agendas & minutes.   >>>> Also visit RRAUL site for a bit more WC background.

5/11/02 rebuttal of bypass/fishway critique 2/28/00 critique of proposed feasibility study of Lake Mendocino Bypass [of Feb 1999] Spring '99 update, in FORR newsletter 2/1  letter to area newspapers, from several WC members Summary notes from 1/27 WC meeting 1/28/99 - thumbnail summary of WC status 10/16/98 - FORR's PSP comments (on USACE's draft Russian River Watershed Project Study Plan) 10/3/98 - WC coalition's second letter, with FORR's proposal for WC structure 7/28/98 - WC coalition's first letter 6/28/98 - First press release from FORR RRWC has its own web site (6/01) WC Gospel, according to: US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Karen Rippey: 415/977-8537 CA State Resources Agency, Cathy Bleier: 916/322-9721

---

Letter from a group of Watershed Council members, to editors of area papers February 1, 1999 Editor: We have attended most of the meetings of the Russian River Watershed Council and have a very different viewpoint from a story presented in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat (run on Sunday, January 24, 1999). Federal and state officials created this council and, to date, it has served their purposes only. The community has had little to say about the process, the budget, or the substance of the council.  In the year of meetings which have occurred, deciding on the council's mission, goals and membership have persistently been relegated to a lower order of importance than allocating funds to the federal government.  For example, the $6.6million the Corps of Engineers  claims is set aside for restoration of the Russian River is in fact a budget request to Congress and the State of California for money to fund the Corps. The Project Study Plan, or PSP, written by the Corps to justify this budget request focuses on providing funds for itself to bring the operation of its own Warm Springs and Coyote dams into compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act.  This is not community-based watershed restoration.  Since half of the $6.6 million must be provided by the people of the State of California, is in fact a subsidy of state money to the federal government to comply with its own laws. A very small percentage (less than 5%) of the $6.6 million would go to fund meetings of the council. Moreover, most of even this funding goes to state and federal bureaucrats at a rate of over $20,000 per meeting.  This is scandalous: for the past year the Corps and State have expended nearly $140,000 with the only product being a request to provide themselves with $6.6 million more dollars and no commitment to complete any actual restoration projects!  The many local efforts  focusing on the health of the Russian River and its watershed have been excluded from the process, presumably because they do not serve the Corps need for funds. The Russian River Watershed Council is no more than big government wasting your tax dollars and taking advantage of the good intentions of local people to protect and restore the Russian River. We encourage the residents of our watershed to write their state and federal representatives to oppose the Corp's grand waste of your money. We support a truly local council run by local people for the benefit - not further exploitation - of the river. Beverly Wasson Laurel Marcus Moira Chatton Joan Vilms top

----->Project Study Plan Update: Lieutenant Colonel Peter Grass of the US Army Corps of Engineers, reported that the Corps HQ in Washington, DC approved the PSP with minor language changes. Karen Rippey, Project Study Manager, will make those changes and bring them to the Council. When asked about how activities would be selected and implemented, particularly if they involved private property access, Karen said that it was up to Council to pick those that have a chance to work. Cathy Bleier, Council coordinator, said that additional language had been inserted into PSP to give Council approval or veto power over what would be funded by PSP. Lt. Colonel Grass also reported on a meeting with Mary Nichols, California Resources Agency Secretary, and Mendocino County Supervisor Richard Shoemaker to discuss the Council. He said Ms. Nichols had many issues on her plate, but was supportive of watershed efforts in general. Mike Reilly also met with Mary Nichols, and described her efforts to work across Department as encouraging.

----->Fishnet 4C: Kallie Kull , Project Coordinator, described FishNet 4C's efforts with Mendocino, Sonoma, Marin, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and Monterey Counties to evaluate the effectiveness of their policies and programs in protecting and restoring coho and steelhead. The project is funded by Resources Agency and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Goals include identifying opportunities for improving County policies or procedures, including incentives, education, ordinances, training, and restoration. They will be reviewing actual activities, and she invited people to suggest case studies for Mendocino and Sonoma Counties.

----->Pacific Coastal Salmonid Conservation and Restoration - Randy Poole, Sonoma County Water Agency, discussed a request by California, Oregon, Washington and Alaska for $200 million from the federal government to support salmonid restoration. It would likely require a 35-50% match. In response to questions about how it would be used and Council input on projects, he said it would probably be used for on-the-ground restoration projects rather than planning, and administered by the State and distributed to counties. He thought that it would be useful for the Resources Agency and Cal-EPA to coordinate in this effort.

Current Budget
Cathy Bleier, Resources Agency Russian River Coordinator, reviewed Council budget and options for funding Council operations while the new Resources Agency Secretary considers the PSP. Since the Dept of Conservation has no more funds for operations, Liza Prunuske of Prunuske Chatham Inc facilitated this meeting free of charge and the NCRWQCB handled the public notification. Ms Bleier identified two other offers of free facilitation, one contingent on an in-kind match from a government agency. The Corps has offered an additional $4000 for facilitation, if needed. Sonoma State Organizational Development Program was suggested as source of interns or volunteer facilitators. NCRWQCB, DFG, and State Lands Commission have all offered to help with mailing. Council members also suggested 1) eliminating duplication on mailing lists, 2) requesting self-addressed envelopes, and 3) looking for less expensive facilities further south. Council members also requested minutes, suggested that members assume secretarial duties on a rotating basis, and suggested a regular meeting schedule.

Mission Statement
Council members discussed the need to refine the mission statement. The facilitator, Liza Prunuske, provided some definitions and guidance for developing mission statements, and Nikki Barratt provided a hand-out of examples of goals from other watershed groups. Jay Halcomb proposed the following mission statement on behalf of the environmental caucus (see attached for full proposed mission/goal statement):

The primary mission of the Russian River Watershed Council is the recovery of the Russian River Watershed's ecosystem to a condition such that the native wild anadromous fishery, as a measurable indicator species, recovers to healthy and sustainable levels.

Mark Green said that the environmental caucus would leave the Council if fish were not primary to mission. Some council members, including the economic caucus, wanted to retain the mission used to convene the Council: To protect, restore, and enhance the environmental and economic values of the Russian River watershed through an open, community-based process which facilitates collaboration and communication among all interested parties.

Public Member Caucus requested more time to work out mission in Working Group.
Council voted 37 to 4 to form a Working Group to meet in Cloverdale with the following assignment:

Meld two mission statements put forward in discussion. Send new proposed mission statement to Council members before the next meeting.

If the Working Group has time, they should begin identifying goals. Present one or more proposals for the Council to vote on at the next Council meeting.

Membership/Operating Principles
----->Geographic balance: After discussing the imbalance of county representation on some caucuses, the Council voted 40 to 1 to include City of Ukiah and Inland Power and Water as non-voting agency members of the Agency/Elected Representatives Caucus, and to allow City of Santa Rosa to rejoin if interested.

----->Structure: Supervisor Mike Reilly presented a proposal for membership criteria, organization, and operations. Jay Halcomb's proposal also included some operating principles. After discussion, the Council agreed to form a Working Group with representation from each caucus to meet via teleconferencing facilities in Mendocino County Supervisors office and Sonoma County location (to be arranged).

The Council gave the Working Group the following direction: 

1. Investigate how other watershed councils with similar diverse membership deal with public representation.

2. Consider the size of the Council.

3. Consider having a steering committee.

4. Consider recommending Robert's Rules of Order for Council operation. 5. Present proposal(s) at next Council meeting or report on Working Group progress.

Delegation to Resources Agency
John Calaprice agreed to coordinate a delegation to visit with the Resources Agency. Each caucus should select two representatives who should contact John.

KRIS presentation
By Patrick Higgins and Bill Kier, of Kier Associates.
Using a laptop computer working through an overhead projector, Higgins and Kier demonstrated the basic functionality of the KRIS (Klamath Resource Information System) program. KRIS is an IBM-PC compatible, interactive watershed-monitoring database with input and report capabilities including numeric data sets, charts, tables, graphs, maps, photographs, and text bibliographies, and which links with Arcview for specialized map handling. The focus of KRIS data is water quality and fisheries, and the relationships thereof. It was originally produced under contract with US Fish & Wildlife, with funding from US EPA.

Call (532) 842-5763 (USFS) for a free KRIS CD. This free CD does NOT work on Macs. [Ed. note: It is rumored that these do work on Macs equipped with Windows-emulation software.]

Announcements
---->Sustainable Sonoma presentation (workshop at SSU)??? Kerry Williams and Laurel Marcus presented a manual of watershed management practices for landowners. All have been field-tested in real conditions. RCD is looking for more Russian River sub-watersheds to include in their enhancement program.

---->Larry Weeks announced that SB271 funding will be available for restoration, planning, and education projects. Request for Proposals will be out in February; proposals will probably be due in April. Diana Jacobs (State Lands) announced a tentative gravel mining workshop in Santa Rosa May 13/14. (note: Has since been subsequently canceled). Coastal Conservancy has $7,000 for Council meetings. It would like to give it directly to them. Council would need to form itself into a non-profit or other legal entity in order to accept money.

Next Meeting

-----> Council will meet on March 27, 1999 in Cloverdale at Veteran's Memorial Hall at 9:00 am. The Council agreed to continue to use the same planning group and to allow other members to participate, as interested. Environmental caucus asked that Mark Green and Krista Rector be included. Tasks include 1) find a facilitator; 2) decide how to get minutes out to Council members; and 3) consider other meetings times (i.e., evenings, weekday). Group should consider including on the agenda: Presentation on River issues. (Fred Euphrat's idea) Start looking at technical, economic, biological issues facing the River. Short updates from existing watershed groups. Mission statement(s) proposal.  Membership/Operating principles proposal or report.  Announcements Agenda for next meeting.  Liza addition: Resource Agency delegation.

The fractious and divided Council has yet to adopt a Mission Statement satisfactory to all groups, and has not yet defined its operating rules and final membership conditions. At its last meeting the Interim Council, unable to reach any consensus, referred discussion of these questions to subcommittees. The Council has, however, approved an Army Corps of Engineers' Project Study Plan which proposes to spend $6.5 million dollars on the Russian River Watershed over six years. For what purposes the money would be spent has yet to be spelled out in any detail and it is still unclear whether the State, under the new Davis' administration, will continue to participate in this presently ill-defined process.

The January 24th Press Democrat article quoted Lt.-Colonel Pete Grass of the Army Corps of Engineers as stating optimistically but vaguely that: "This is good news for everyone in the watershed; it means that this council will have the opportunity to directly participate in the management and restoration of the river.'' But to date the ill-defined and divided Council has accomplished nothing which directly affects the river, nor does it have the legal standing necessary to compel any governmental agencies or private interests to alter their practices in any manner regarding the Russian River, for good or ill. Unless it is able to find some substantial footing among those who presently have jurisdiction over the River, the Council will continue to function as an expensive cosmetic for the bureaucracy -- a waste of public funds and private energies.

Lt. Col. Peter T. Grass
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
333 Market Street, 8th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105

Attention: Karen Rippey

RE: Russian River Watershed Project Study Plan (PSP)

Dear Lt. Col. Grass & Ms. Rippey:

Friends of the Russian River has reviewed the October 1998 draft PSP. A marked up copy is enclosed. We are not entirely satisfied, however, that marking up the draft clearly communicates our position. We have tried to eliminate all the text we believe should not be included, but the format of the PSP as drafted does not lend itself to the modifications in scope we envision. Therefore we offer the following comments both to clarify our position and to specify what should be included in the PSP.

1. The Russian River Watershed Council, interim or otherwise, is a "stand alone" body with its own yet-to-be articulated mission. It is not a project of the Corps.

2. Development of a Russian River Watershed Plan would be the responsibility of the Council, not the Corps, and the Watershed Plan would not be a Corps project.

3. The scope of the PSP should be limited to the following tasks only:

a) Providing financial support for administration of the Watershed Council and its activities, such as funds for direct costs of mailings, copying, and room rental. There should be limited staff costs and these should be spelled out in the PSP with the exact duties of staff outlined. No Corps staff outside the San Francisco office should be funded as part of this item. Contractors costs to act as facilitators should also be provided in detail.

b) Cooperating with NMFS in achieving compliance with the goals and mandates of the Endangered Species Act for all existing Corps' projects. This cooperation includes the following:

(1) Studying and implementing required mitigation for Warm Springs dam construction as was delineated at the time of approval of this reservoir and never implemented.  

(2) Evaluating the Corps' current authorized and constructed dam and flood control operations to achieve the intent of Section 503 of WRDA including "restoration of degraded streams, rivers, wetlands, and other water bodies to their natural condition."  

(3) Redressing the damage caused by Corps facilities and operations (e.g. channel degradation, riparian habitat and fisheries loss, tributary downcutting, and reductions in water quality).

The Congressional authorization of September 28, 1994, directs the Corps to review the effects of Coyote and Warm Springs Dams on the Russian River and its tributaries to determine whether modifications of the recommendations contained therein are advisable at the present time in the interest of environmental protection and restoration, erosion control and stream bank protection, groundwater supplies and other purposes. These studies have never been done and the Corps expended $400,000 on a reconnaissance report which did not address the above issues but recommended completing the watershed studies the Corps is now attempting to fund.

The Corps must address its own impacts to the Russian River System first as directed by Congress in 1994, before seeking other funds. The PSP includes no mention of the Corps' impacts when those impacts should be its only focus. This must be corrected.

All tasks for the evaluation of the Corps' facilities and the impact on salmonids, riparian habitat and floodplain lands should be carried out in conjunction with the Watershed Council, with work plans, data sets, models, analysis, alternatives, etc. all being presented at every stage - before work begins, during progress, and as findings are available. The PSP should clearly indicate that the Council's questions and concerns will be addressed by the Corps and the evaluation will incorporate changes as needed.  

Thank you for this opportunity to comment.  

Sincerely yours,  
Joan Vilms, President  

Cc: Senator Barbara Boxer
Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey
Senator Mike Thompson
Assemblywoman Virginia Strom-Martin
National Marine Fisheries Service (Patrick Rutten)
State Secretary for Resources, Douglas P. Wheeler
State Dept. of Conservation Director, Lawrence Goldzband
Richard Roos-Collins, Esq.

October 3, 1998

Lawrence J. Goldzband, Director Department of Conservation 801 K Street Sacramento, CA 95814

Lt. Colonel Peter T. Grass USACE 333 Market Street, 8th Fl San Francisco, CA 94105

Dear Messrs. Goldzband and Grass:

The Watershed Council formation process of the past few months still lacks credibility. It is evident that restoration of the two anadromous species of the Russian River watershed will not be adequately addressed unless the council's mission is explicitly complementary to the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, and to public trust mandates of public agencies participating in the process. We do not observe this orientation developing, and doubt that it will under the current conditions of formation.

Among our specific concerns are these:

We can not accept the Army Corps of Engineers Project Study Proposal as drafted. It is organized far more toward the aim of flood-control without significant clear concern for the River's fisheries. The mission of the Council in the long run must be to protect and sustain the biological health of the river, as evidenced by the health of the anadromous fishery.

Representation on the council must reflect the goal of restoring the fishery and other biological values in the watershed. While all interests must be represented, the council should be configured so that established economic interests will not forever have the power to negate restoration efforts. That the anadromous fishery teeters on extinction is evidence enough of the present imbalance of environmental and economic concerns.

If the Council is to proceed, it must organize itself, and the participants themselves must set the Council's agenda. Such action should include the immediate replacement of the Agencies' facilitator with an elected Chair Pro Tem.

It should be in the Council's purview to foster a sustainable economy in the watershed that does not detract from the river's long-term health. The overwhelming majority of the public is deeply concerned about the Russian River and is explicitly willing to sacrifice some economic stimulation and jobs in the short run for the sake of the River's health. New opportunities will be created in an economy that can boast a healthy river and restored watershed.

No Watershed Council process can, or will, be credible to the public if extractive practices in the watershed continue to be authorized by public agencies charged to uphold the public trust. Good faith would be demonstrated by suspension of approvals for new gravel permits, water allocations, timber harvests, agricultural conversions and other activities deleterious to the health of the river and its watershed, until projects meet the heightened standards required by the Endangered Species Act.

While we have put significant time and energy into this process and will continue to participate in any meaningful effort focused on restoring the fisheries, the Watershed Council's formative subtext has been defense of the status quo. We will not continue to lend our names to legitimize this initiative if environmental principles central to a naturally-functioning river/watershed system are not also central to the Council's concerns.

Sincerely,

FRIENDS OF THE RUSSIAN RIVER: Joan Vilms, President
SONOMA COUNTY CONSERVATION ACTION: Mark Green, Executive Director
TROUT UNLIMITED: Mike Swaney
RUSSIAN R. WATERSHED PROTECTION COMMITTEE: Brenda Adelman, Chair
SIERRA CLUB, SONOMA GROUP: Peter Ashcroft, Exec Committee Chair
HEALDSBURG ALLIANCE OF RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS: Bonnie Berkeley, Chair
CALTROUT: Michael Bowen, Bay Area Manager
FORESTVILLE CITIZENS FOR SENSIBLE GROWTH: Robert Rawson
RUSSIAN R. ENVIRONMENTAL FORUM: Pamela Netzow, Program Coordinator
RUSSIAN R. RESIDENTS AGAINST UNSAFE LOGGING: Jay Halcomb, Chair
SANTA ROSA JC INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION: Jerry Waxman, Coordinator

We can not live with the Reilly-Shoemaker proposal for Council structure, and we are opposed to using a "consensus" model. Consensus processes may work in small groups wherein all share basic values: this is not our situation. We support a 50% + 1 model of voting.

We do not believe that Mendocino and Sonoma County representation needs to be equal, only that representatives from both counties are seated in both the Environmental and Economic/Other categories. Sonoma County has a much larger population and has evinced much more interest in the process, in terms of voting with the feet.

Our recommendations for the council membership are:

• Environment: 15 (+15 alternates)
• Economic and Other (includes one SCWA rep): 15 (+15 alternates)
• Public jurisdictions (ex-officio): 10
• Agencies (ex-officio): 10

Except for the Sonoma County Water Agency, which should have a vote as one of the Economic representatives, agencies and public jurisdictions should not be voting members. If the Reilly-Shoemaker configuration were adopted, the Council would have a regular split between the Economic and Environmental categories, leaving agencies and officials to run the show. This would be self-defeating--agencies and officials are at the source of the problems which the Watershed Council is supposed to help solve.

Lawrence J. Goldzband, Director
Department of Conservation
801 K Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Mr. Goldzband:

While we appreciate the efforts of elected officials, the Resources Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers to establish a representative Russian River Watershed Council, we the undersigned organizations and individuals believe that the Watershed Council process as currently configured lacks credibility. We believe that the restoration of the two anadromous species of the Russian River watershed will not be adequately addressed unless the council's mission is explicitly complementary to the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, and public trust mandates of public agencies participating in the process.

Specifically:

1) To protect and sustain the biological health of the river, as evidenced by the health of the anadromous fishery, must be the mission of the council. In the long run,economic health is dependent on the biological health of the resource. Therefore it should be in the Council's purview to foster a sustainable economy in the watershed that does not detract from the river's long-term health.  

2) Representation on the council must reflect the goal of restoring the fishery and other biological values in the watershed. While all interests must be represented, the council should be configured so that established economic interests are not given the power to negate positive efforts to restore the watershed. For example, extractive users of the river are thriving, while the anadromous fishery teeters on extinction.  

3) The process will not be credible to the public if extractive practices in the watershed continue to be authorized by public agencies charged to uphold the public trust. Good faith must be proved, and that can only be accomplished if approval of gravel mining, water allocations, timber harvests, agricultural conversions and other activities deleterious to the health of the river and its watershed are suspended until they are subjected to the heightened scrutiny of environmental studies that meet the standards of the Endangered Species Act.

We are concerned that the process chosen to select members of the council is too arbitrary and opens the possibility for political mischief. Such a plan is an abdication of leadership: it has the potential of turning a public policy process into a game of "pack the room" by economic interests. We believe that the council should be made up of individuals chosen by representative organizations, with the focus in membership toward both inclusion and environmental goals.  

We are willing to put significant time and energy into a meaningful process which focuses on restoring the fishery. If the Watershed Council becomes simply a process whose subtext is the defense of the status quo, we will not lend our names to establish the Council's credibility.

Sincerely,

FRIENDS OF THE RUSSIAN RIVER: Joan Vilms, President
SONOMA COUNTY CONSERVATION ACTION: Mark Green, Executive Director
TROUT UNLIMITED: Mike Swaney
RUSSIAN R. WATERSHED PROTECTION COMMITTEE: Brenda Adelman, Chair
SIERRA CLUB, SONOMA GROUP: Peter Ashcroft, Exec Committee Chair
HEALDSBURG ALLIANCE OF RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS: Bonnie Berkeley, Chair
CALTROUT: Michael Bowen, Bay Area Manager
FORESTVILLE CITIZENS FOR SENSIBLE GROWTH: Robert Rawson
RUSSIAN R. ENVIRONMENTAL FORUM: Pamela Netzow, Program Coordinator
RUSSIAN R. RESIDENTS AGAINST UNSAFE LOGGING: Jay Halcomb, Chair
SANTA ROSA JC INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION: Jerry Waxman, Coordinator

Cc: Army Corps of Engineers (Col. Peter T. Grass)
Assemblywoman Virginia Strom-Martin
Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey
Mendocino County Board of Supervisors (all)
National Marine Fisheries Service (Patrick Rutten)
Richard Roos-Collins, Esq
Secretary for Resources Douglas P. Wheeler
Senator Mike Thompson
Sonoma County Board of Supervisors (all)
US Fish & Wildlife Service (Mark Littlefield & Mike Aceituno)

PRESS RELEASE

June 22, 1998

Public should demand that Watershed Council address the real issues says FORR

Friends of the Russian River, a coalition of 32 regional and grassroots organizations including Trout Unlimited and Sierra Club, today called for widespread public participation at an upcoming meeting called by state and federal agencies to form a Russian River Watershed Council.

"The Watershed Council could accomplish great things to save the river and its wildlife or it could become a cover for the kind of business as usual that is destroying the Russian River," said Joan Vilms, President of Friends of the Russian River. "It's going to be up to the public to keep it honest."

The California Resources Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have called a public meeting Friday, June 26 at 9 a.m. at Piner High School, 700 Fulton Road in Santa Rosa to get public input on both the mission and the membership of the Russian River Watershed Council. The Council has been described by state officials as a bottom up, public-private collaborative effort to plan efforts to restore the Russian River in light of the threatened status of the river's steelhead and salmon.

"We know that every special interest is going to want to keep their slice of the Russian River pie, and they are going to show up in force on Friday," said Vilms. "The public needs to state loud and clear that the Watershed Council's top priority should be to preserve and protect the biological integrity of the river and its watershed. Evidence of success will be the recovery of wild coho and steelhead populations."

In 1994, FORR presented a petition to Resources Secretary Douglas Wheeler, signed by attendees at the group's "Russian River in Peril" conference calling for formation of a two-county stakeholder - public agency watershed council to address the multiple human impacts that were endangering the river's biological diversity.

"The people started this process," said Vilms, "and, unless the public is vigilant, the council could become a facade for the usual special interest-driven policies that have allowed the watershed to be diverted, dammed, mined and cleared to where it can no longer support healthy populations of its once abundant coho salmon and steelhead."

Already some members of local government are trying to dictate what the Council can or cannot address. "The issue," says Vilms, "is the health of the watershed -- and the prescription for recovery can not be limited to feel-good Prozac projects."

Contact: Joan Vilms - 545-7572