February 2017 Council Meeting Minutes


MINUTES
McKenzie Watershed Council

February 9, 2017
Weyerhaeuser
Springfield, Oregon

PRESENT: Council Partners: Randy Hledik (Wildish), Carol Ach (Resident Parter), Nate Day (McKenzie Schools), Joe Moll (McKenzie River Trust), Andy McWilliams (Resident Partner), Rod Fosback (NW Steelheaders), Wade Stampe (Resident Partner), Brian Brazil (International Paper), Ms. Arlene Dietz (Rice Family Farms), Nancy Toth (EWEB), Ralph Perkins (Upper Willamette SWCD), Mark Stephen (BLM), Todd Miller (Springfield City Council), Maryanne Reiter (Weyerhaeuser), Sue Zeni (Resident Partner), Emily Semple (Eugene City Council), Mark Schulze (HJ Andrews Experimental Forest), Jeff Ziller (ODFW), Kurt Cox (Resident Partner)

Staff: Jared Weybright, Jennifer Weber, Larry Six Visitor: Paul Hoobyar, speaker

ABSENT: Keir Miller (Lane County), Steve Mealey (McKenzie River Guides), Terry Baker (McKenzie River Ranger District), Bob Bumstead (McKenzie Flyfishers), Diane Albino (Mohawk Watershed Partnership),

PROXIES: Mark Schultze for Dave Kretzing, Ralph Perkins for Mike McDowell, Carol Ach for Steve Raymen

 

  1. Introductions and Approval of Agenda
    Ms. Dietz Dietz, Facilitator
    Action Requested: Approval of agenda
    Agenda approved- all showing consensus level 3.

Mr. Six introduced Paul Hoobyar to the Council. Mr. Hoobyar is present to give insight into what a professional facilitator does, and how to effectively facilitate a meeting. Additionally, the new City of Eugene representative on the Council is Emily Semple, who replaced George Brown. Terry Baker is not present this evening, as he’s in Denver tonight. He will be taking a new position in Colorado with the USFS. Mr. Six read the following statement from Mr. Baker:

“It has been my genuine honor to have worked with all of you over the past 5.5 years stewarding the McKenzie River watershed. This council exemplifies how watershed issues are not bound by jurisdictional boundaries and we all have a part to play in ensuring the values to the community are met. To the staff: We have worked side by side on multiple projects that have been praised for their innovation and results. In addition, your dedication to educating youth and engaging them in their environment is something that should be applauded more than it has been. With the 10-year action plan and it’s incorporation of the South Fork project, we have set the stage to make larger level resource benefits to be proud of. All the best, keep in and touch and know that McKenzie River will always hold a special place in my heart and I look forward to visiting and seeing all the great things you accomplish next.”

 

  1. General Public Comment Session

No comments from public.

  1. Approval of January 2017 Minutes

Called for consensus on approving the January 2017 Council Meeting Minutes.

Todd Miller noted that there were two Mr. Miller’s in attendance at the January meeting, and it would be helpful to clarify which Mr. Miller was speaking during the meeting. Andy McWilliams indicated that the minutes list the Wayfarer Inn and it should be referred to as the Wayfarer Resort.

Call for consensus as amended. Minutes approved as amended with all showing consensus level 3.

  1. Partner Announcements

Mr. Day announced that two weeks ago, students finished coursework on McKenzie River history, ecology, and geology. He would like to thank Steve Mealey, Larry Six and others who helped make the project a success.

Mr. Moll announced that Alayna DuPont, Land Protection Manager at MRT has accepted a new position with the National Park Service in Anchorage, Alaska. The MRT has recently announced the job posting for this position and is seeking eligible candidates. Mr. Moll asked that Council Partners please share this job posting.

Mr. Fosback announced that they will be able to use the Carmen Reservoir for the “A Family for Every Child” event during Free Fishing Weekend on June 3, 2017.

Ms. Toth announced the closure of public access to Trailbridge campground and Carmen Reservoir from May 1, 2017, through 2021. There will be additional Leaburg Dam roll gate maintenance over the next several months, which will require periodic dam road closures. EWEB has submitted their FERC license and during the end of March, the FERC licensing team will be performing a public visit. Additionally, EWEB and MWC/SWCD will be hosting a Naturescaping workshop on March 4th at the Walterville Grange.

Mr. Schultz said that he is in the process of arranging another tour for researchers for Deer Creek and South Fork.

Ms. Semple introduced herself to the Council. She holds a Bachelor of Science, Renewable Natural Resources from the University of Connecticut, and has completed Oregon State University’s Forest Ecology Masters Degree Program. She will service as the Council’s liaison to the Eugene City Council.

Mr. Ziller said that the Army Corps of Engineers is in the process of revising contracting procedures for management of Corps hatcheries, which currently are operated by ODFW. Specifically, the management of hatcheries on Cole Rivers on the Rogue, Leaburg on the McKenzie, and Bonneville on the Columbia will be going through contracting revisions based on the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR). FARs state that if there are two or more bids on a project, it has to go to a small business, so the state may be precluded from the bid process. ACOE counsel has decided that these facilities need to be out for bid instead of having the state of Oregon run those. ODFW is trying to work through it with the ACOE. There is a possibility that Leaburg Hatchery could close, or could be handled by private industry. High-level talks are ongoing. Production at Leaburg is paid through June of this year.

Mr. Perkins asked if this is a new regulation.

Mr. Ziller indicated that the rules have been on the books, and the Corps has not previously operated along those rules.

Mr. Six asked about organizations that are qualified to operate hatcheries.

Mr. Ziller indicated that there qualified private businesses that are qualified for rainbow and cutthroat trout, possible Steelhead hatcheries. Salmon hatcheries will be sole sourced to the state of Oregon. One of the things which have come out of this is that the Corps has determined that mitigation for fish is discretionary not required. Previously, the Corps has contracted for mitigation of 277,000 pounds for rainbow trout at Leaburg. The Corps will put out a bid for 100K pounds.

Mr. Moll confirmed that Oregon only allows freshwater fish farms.

Mr. Fosback asked about the impact on fishing licenses.

Mr. Ziller indicated that all information has been verbal and not in writing. More information will be forthcoming.

Mr. Moll asked where this is coming from.

Mr. Stampe explained that the Corps has new legal counsel.

Mr. Ziller indicated that counsel has decided mitigation is discretionary.

Mr. Ziller also shared that Kelly Reis has taken on a rotation for five months in Salem where she will be the Willamette Wildlife Mitigation program coordinator.

Mr. Miller commented to clarify on information that was part of Ms. Woolverton’s presentation on TMDLs at the January 2017 Council meeting. Temperature TMDLs still exist. TMDLs still must be met under the natural conditions criteria. To clarify: 303d listed streams which have temperatures listed must be reviewed.

 

  1. Staff Reports

Mr. Weybright reported that as far as project work, he is currently working on a lot of reporting, including Deer Creek. He has also been working collaboratively with the USFS and other partners on planning efforts for the South Fork project. On education, it has been a repeat of other months, and Justin has been working on getting teams back out into the field as well as expanding the education program (WATERS). SPS WELL has been training Justin on water quality field protocols to be implemented at Mohawk and McKenzie High Schools. We are currently waiting on further information regarding EPA environmental education grant funds.

Ms. Weber said she is finalizing the implementation plan for the Whitewater Ranch riparian project. Bare root planting is underway, starting with interplanting at BWCA. Next week, planting at the Cedar Creek sites will be done, and then Whitewater Ranch will be planted after that. Work with the Naturescaping (PWP) clients has continued with additional interest in finalizing plans. For education, Ms. Weber indicated that she has been working with Ms. Lawless at the SPS WELL program on planning for independent study students, as well as working with teams in the lab while teaching them how to use GIS.

Mr. Weybright clarified that the independent study students will be slightly different from the other students who only participate on the various teams. Independent study students will earn ½ elective credit, while students on teams only earn hours towards their senior projects.

  1. 2017-2019 WORK PLAN – Jared Weybright

Mr. Weybright reviewed the Work Plan document, which is a subset of projects from the action plan. This is the anticipated work plan for the next two years and he is seeking comments and recommendations from Council Partners.

Organizational Development and Management

Mr. Miller asked about development business outreach goal (Item #3) – if it was a new number. Mr. Six affirmed that it was not new and that the Council has nearly reached this goal in the last year.

Planning

Ms. Toth asked if the expanded 412 tech team referenced in Item #4 will only meet once a year?

Mr. Weybright stated that the per the 412 requirements, the tech team has to meet once a year at a minimum but that if the team wants to meet more, it can.

Community Engagement and Outreach

No comments

Monitoring and Assessment

Mr. Ziller noted that the spotted frog monitoring listed under Item # 12 is an opportunistic project. There is data going back 15-20 years in this community of spotted frog, and recently beavers have built a dam, creating change. This new monitoring project looks at how that affects spotted frog populations and fish populations.

Restoration

Mr. McWilliams commented on the Whitewater Ranch Goose Creek Project, Item #17. He shared that the Russell family is one of the founding families of the McKenzie Masters, which donates back to the council. Mr. Weybright stated that this project is a great opportunity to work with a landowner who owns one of the largest parcels of privately owned land along the McKenzie River (approximately 5 river miles).

After review of the full plan, Mr. Weybright asked if anyone had any further questions regarding the action plan.

Mr. Cox asked if there any red flags on funding from Federal sources.

Mr. Weybright stated that the WATERS program is designed to make it easier for schools to participate. We’ve been told that we’ve been awarded funds from EPA Environmental Education grant, which would fund sub-grants for schools, and we’re waiting to receive our contract. In the past, we have worked to pay for teacher/sub time and transportation through a variety of methods including BLM, and the McKenzie Education Foundation. He is cautiously optimistic that we will still receive this contract and funding.

Funding for the South Fork project at the scale it is currently designed is going to require effort on our part. Additionally, OWEB has become increasingly competitive. There are many people putting in good projects and state budgets are tight. PWP helps with that, as the funding will be somewhat diversified, and we can take priority projects out to funders.

Mr. Perkins asked if there is a risk that we can’t finish Deer Creek.

Mr. Weybright indicated that the OWEB application is a small ask and that the review telephone conference with OWEB went well. He is cautiously optimistic regarding the success of this application.

Mr. Moll noted that Mr. Weybright mentioned Quartz creek under Item #10. Jim Hunt who was with Campbell in the past and is back now is the area manager for the McKenzie Tree farm (which is what the Campbell Group is calling their holdings in the area). MRT and Jared are going to meet with him in the next few weeks. The Campbell Group has done some work on the coast on culvert and instream habitat restoration and Joe is glad to see that called out in the work plan.

Mr. Moll requested consensus to approve the work plan.

Action Plan approved with all showing consensus level 3.

  1. MEETING EFFECTIVENESS – Paul Hoobyar, Watershed Initiatives LLC

Ms. Dietz introduced Paul Hoobyar, indicating he would lead a discussion on a set of rules for meeting, which the executive committee has developed, a set of tools for council meeting operations and a discussion of steps and rules. After Mr. Hoobyar has given his presentation, Ms. Dietz would lead a discussion among council partners including what is incomplete, incomprehensible or needs to be added before closing with consensus.

Mr. Hoobyar explained how he became involved with this business. He stated he was here to help foster and build success with process tools for our meetings. Years ago, he was a river guide on the McKenzie and realized that he was destroying his body, and at the same time interest in salmon populations were increasing. He was in meetings, which would devolve into chaos. He would jump in and try to make sense of these meetings and find common ground. After a few meetings, he found success with facilitating and wanted to help people in meetings find effectiveness.

Background on concepts

Brief synopsis of 20 years of research on what makes groups effective… three basic principles

  • Collaborative attitude: People come into the meeting and may not all agree but ultimately share a common goal to work together. People must be willing to listen with respect and collaborate.
  • Strategic thinking approach: People have a common vision. Noticed that the charter/vision calls for collaborative work. How do we get from that to success?
  • Facilitated behaviors: Groups that are effective have a willingness to agree on how to engage and behave in meetings.

Everyone involved must have shared respect. The onus is not on the facilitator, it is a shared responsibility of the group.

Mr. Hoobyar was asked by the executive committee to focus on the role of facilitator and rules. Having a rotating facilitator who is also a member of the group creates an interesting dynamic. The facilitator is the driver/conductor of the meeting. They are in charge of the “how”, not the “what” of the meeting. It is important for the facilitator to be that conductor. Some groups have had an icon/emblem/gavel that symbolizes who the facilitator is, and shows that they’re the conductor for the meeting. This is sometimes useful.

Role of facilitator (from the Executive Committee)

  • Enforce Ground Rules
  • Refrain from contributing own ideas. Acts as meeting chauffeur
  • Keep group focused on agenda items
  • Make sure all have a chance to participate
  • Maintain agreed upon time scheduled
  • Summarize to move topic to topic
  • Coming to consensus
    • Highlight where participants agree
    • ID areas of disagreement
    • Develop plan for achieving consensus

Tools

Ground rules and agenda, parking lot, time management, and process enforcement help to keep meetings effective. Once group agrees on agenda, that is the template and structure for the meeting. How do you deal with items which are not on the agenda? Send that item to the parking lot.

Ground rules allow the facilitator to refer to the ground rules during contentious discussions. Ground rules set the stage for expected behavior and reminders to meeting attendees.

Proposed Ground Rules

  • Honor agenda or change by agreement
  • Candid and constructive conversation
  • Ask questions for clarification/understanding
  • Monitor speaking time (sometimes in groups individuals will take up a lot of time speaking)
  • Focus on problems and issues, not people
  • Avoid side conversations
  • Listen carefully to each other, focus on content not style

Parking lot: Items not on the agenda, but it may be important. Write items down. Then come back to it at the end of the agenda and spend five minutes on it.

  • Decide its not important as first appeared/dismiss
  • Refer it to Executive committee for future agenda or subcommittee or group to evaluate.
  • Acknowledge it as time sensitive and appropriate to addition to future agenda.

Time management: noticed that on agenda, that time is budgeted for items. What do you do if the conversation and discussion goes over time? The meeting can be extended, you can table the discussion to the next meeting. But it is important for the facilitator to manage time, and ask for group’s decision on what to do. Ms. Dietz mentioned that sometimes in the past sub-groups have been created to study ideas brought up at meetings.

Mr. Hoobyar indicated that he would like to discuss process enforcement. Groups that are effective give the facilitator permission to enforce the process tools and to call out breaking the rules/time management, etc. There’s a misunderstanding that good facilitation is more emotionally driven, but an effective facilitator is tenacious. Since council partners take turns facilitating, we, as a group, have to give permission to the facilitator to hold us to the ground rules. Really good watershed councils are studying what other good watershed councils and organizations that are effective. Good, effective groups are where they build processes like these. It might be helpful to include the role of the facilitator listed on the last page of the meeting packet.

For groups with rotating facilitator, different individuals have different concerns. Sometimes the facilitator must step aside to share their thoughts/opinions or ask to have another member raise the issue. This is to avoid the appearance or in fact, hijacking of the meeting to suit the facilitators interests. I believe that the Executive committee members are looking for your response to the suggested role of the facilitator. Do you have changes, or things you’d like to see added or remove and then use your consensus process?

Mr. Hledik said that he’s fine with everything but the thing that popped out to him, is the facilitator not sharing personal ideas or thoughts. Many groups allow facilitator to share these things. I don’t see this as a problem since our members don’t take over our meetings.

Mr. Miller responded that there’s a difference between chairing and facilitating the meeting. Certain times, you need a facilitator to avoid interjecting personal opinions.

Mr. Hoobyar explained that defining the role for the facilitator helps with this. Keeping roles separate and the articulation of that is important. Keep individuals from pushing the agenda to a pet topic/bias/agenda item. It is important to incorporate the articulation of role to express opinions.

Mr. Cox commented that we need to make a statement (indicating that the person is taking off their “facilitator” hat) so that we can have a say, and keep the meeting going. He wanted Paul to do a presentation because it is been a good dozen years since we’ve had this discussion. What’s working, what’s not working, and commonality on how we facilitate.

Ms. Dietz asked if it would it be helpful to add some language about facilitators speaking opinion, such as a specific phrasing. Mr. Hledik indicated that if this would clarify the matter, that could be useful.

Mr. Moll agreed will Mr. Miller’s statement. Further, he shared this is about all of our participation, that we need to support the facilitator by also helping to navigate the discussion.

Mr. Hoobyar agreed that groups that keep distinctions of roles help to be more effective.

Ms. Semple commented that when you get to the consensus part, it can be hard, but another method is to have the facilitator ask another executive committee member to facilitate as a way to communicate without derailing roles.

Mr. Ziller said that if we know who is going to facilitate, and that person has a personal interest in expressing their opinion maybe they could ask another member to facilitate to free them to express interest and ideas.

Mr. Perkins commented that the group as a whole 99% of time or better we work well together. Somehow we’ve gotten through this, and been mostly effective. Those of us who facilitate, some have experience and some have none. I appreciated that the ground rules give us something to fall back on instead of shooting from the hip. We may fall off the path, but I’m sure that other members will help us get back on track. Mr. Hoobyar shared that facilitators will have support from their council members.

Mr. Schultz stated that although he’s never seen the summarize role at a council meeting before, it is a very effective way to strengthen positions and facilitators should be cautious to not bias the intent of the council through summarizing.

Mr. Hoobyar shared the concept of caucusing or checking in with individuals and groups to keep the discussion on track. If the facilitator checks in with the group when an individual is trying to push the direction in one way, it can help to get the discussion back on track. Summarizing can help to move the meeting forward.

Mr. Miller stated that in some groups, the role of the facilitator, you can follow the rules, and you may still encounter challenging individuals or opinions. Sometimes you get things unrelated, issues of trust, a group member with strong feelings and long speeches, which are difficult to deal with. Mr. Hoobyar responded that there are two issues, first you have a person that is distracting the group, second issue is a person who feels like they’re not being heard. Use the parking lot, and check in with the group. Checking in with the group, not the individual. Relationships can be poisoned if a person is treated in a way that they feel they are not being heard. It is important to have a fair and transparent process. Dealing with difficult people is a whole other issue. These tools help, but challenging situations come up. Ground rules and roles are not the end all be all of group process, but the provide a framework for an effective meeting.

Mr. Hoobyar asked for any further questions or comments.

Call for consensus on role of the facilitator as modified. Approved with showing consensus level 3 except for a 2 (Mr. Cox), and a 4 (Ms. Ach)

Mr. Cox shared that he was a “2” because as a facilitator he appreciates that this will be the framework for how we run a meeting, to have consistency.

Ms. Ach shared that she has trouble with imposing rules, and was concerned about who was going to enforce those rules. Mr. Perkins agreed with Ms. Ach, and commented that 99% of the time, we do great, but as a facilitator, he hasn’t had formal training and having tools help us to be a little more effective. He was impressed with Mr. Hoobyar’s ideas and felt like these rules and roles could make the Council meetings more effective.

Ms. Ach commented that by having rules, someone has to enforce them. We should be spending our time on other things.

Mr. Hoobyar commented that if having rules and a process does not make the group more effective, he would be surprised.

Ms. Ach stated that it is the rule part of it that she does not agree with. Mr. Hoobyar shared that some other organizations call them meeting agreements and Ms. Ach said she liked that term. Mr. Hoobyar continued that having a structure to support the facilitator will help with staying on track and provide tools to keep the meeting on track.

Ms. Dietz asked if Ms. Ach was referring to the ground rules or the role of the facilitator, as she believed we were discussing the role of the facilitator which is what we just called for consensus on. Ms. Dietz asked if we need to repeat the call for consensus. Ms. Ach indicated that was not necessary.

Mr. Hoobyar stated that since we were finished with the role of the facilitator, we should move on to the meeting agreements. Ms. Dietz asked that we change “ground rules” on the role of the Facilitator to “meeting agreements”, and then asked if the parking lot should be incorporated in the role or the agreements.

Mr. Brazil asked if we needed to add a parking lot section to each agenda. Mr. Hoobyar indicated that since it is a tool, we do not have to use it every time. Ms. Dietz suggested that under meeting agreements we agree that we have a parking lot. Mr. Moll agreed with this use of the tool. Mr. Perkins asked if it would be appropriate for the parking lot to be at the discretion of the facilitator. Mr. Hoobyar indicated that the agenda is agreed on prior to the meeting and that the tool of the parking lot can be used as needed if an issue arises.

Ms. Dietz asked if anyone wanted to call for consensus.

Mr. Ziller stated that he would like to discuss the term rules/agreement further, because he does not believe that “agreement” sounds quite right, and suggested the term protocols instead. Mr. Moll observed that protocols sounded really formal. Mr. Ziller said that agreement feels like a softer meaning than rules. Ms. Ach commented that she liked that it was a softer meaning. Mr. Moll commented that this council is a fairly formal council—with a lot of agency personnel. As a landowner coming in that does not have that kind of experience, it can be a bit intimidating. Other watershed councils, seem to be more free-flowing and he believes that meeting agreements might be more welcoming. Mr. Schultz agreed that enforce seems to be a bit harsh.

Ms. Dietz called for consensus on meeting agreements. All partners showing consensus level three except for Ms. Ach who abstained.

Mr. Hoobyar stated that the council has decided on the roles of the facilitator and how those people will assume that role with these in mind. What I hear is that the roles and meeting agreements everyone is good with so I am summarizing and indicating that you are unclear about time management, parking lot and process.

Mr. Ziller stated that he thought we were clear with the parking lot, for use as needed. Mr. Hoobyar clarified that he wanted to make sure that was the case.

Mr. Hoobyar observed that in terms of time management, we are already doing that anyway, through the agenda, and that it is important for the facilitator to be supported in their enforcement of those roles.

  1. Consider Resident Partner Re-Appointment

Action requested: Discussion

Steve Raymen’s resident partner appointment term is coming to an end. Mr. Raymen has indicated that he would be willing to continue as a council partner, however, he also acknowledged that he is out of the country for more than half the year. The executive committee believes Mr. Raymen is very knowledgeable and has contributed to the council tremendously, however they also believe that it might be a good idea to leave the position open so that it could be filled by someone who is more able to attend regularly.

Mr. Ziller confirmed that we just recently voted to approve alternates for resident partners. Ms. Ach indicated that for a long time we’ve had Council partners who have not shown up. Mr. McWilliams asked if we’re at capacity on the Council. Mr. Six responded that the Council is currently at 27 partners with Steve Raymen as a council partner.

Mr. McWilliams shared that he would like for Steve Raymen to remain, and Ms. Ach seconded this.

Ms. Dietz called for consensus to reappoint Steve Raymen. Council partners approved, with all partners showing consensus level of three.

  1. Hatchery ad hoc group

Mr. Stampe asked the Council, in light of Mr. Ziller’s announcement regarding hatcheries that there are enough concerned individuals here that perhaps we should have some council partners form an ad hoc group to learn about the hatchery situation.

Ms. Dietz called for consensus on setting up an ad hoc group on this hatchery issue. Approved with all partners showing consensus level three except for Mr. Stampe, Mr. Ziller, and Mr. Fosback who showed consensus level one.

Meeting adjourned at 7:21 pm.

The next meeting will be held on March 9, 2017 at the McKenzie Fire & Rescue, 42870 McKenzie Hwy, Leaburg, Oregon.

Please follow and like us!