North Douglas herald., March 01, 2024, Page 10, Image 10

Page10
Rural Report
North Douglas Herald
March 2024
The Elk Creek Watershed Council proposes to Dissolve
Story by Rusty Savage
It is a common assumption among Oregonians, especially in our rural areas, that our natural resources are abundant and available for public and private use. Oregonians have proved, over the last 50 or 60 years, that our State
values and plans to steward the Oregon environment, wildlife and land use to benifit the public and property owners alike and to perserve our way of life and leisure. I know that our watersheds are a vital resource and can
have lasting impacts on the regions of our waterways and runoffs. I was not familiar with the Elk Creek Watershed Council until I talked with Lee Russell, the Executive Director.The ECWC has done some extrordinary
work along the Elk Creek region, with numerous grants and projects completed, making significant improvements in the salmon and wildlife ecosystems. According to Lee, the ECWC Chairman, James Mast, has begun the
process of dissolving the Council, due to lack of interest in holding Council seats and closing out the funds for a state lawsuit. Below is an open letter Lee appealed to the members, with a history of prior accomplishments.
History of the Elk Creek Watershed Council became, “Leave your politics at the door. We’re here to Council (UBWC) received council support funding By December 2004, neither the Elk Creek nor the
Smith River Council had requested or spent any of this
Most of you have not been Board members long build partnerships that will get things done ‘one the in early 1998.
enough to know what it has taken to build the Elk Creek ground’ that will benefit fish and fisheries.” The original The Elk Creek Watershed was recognized in money, and applications for OWEB funding for 2005 to
Watershed Council into what it is today, and what you UBFRI Board included high-level representatives of 2002, when the Douglas County Commissioners 2007, were due. I was asked to write the application, but
will be throwing away by simply dissolving the Council local industrial timber landowners, as well as State and “established” the Elk Creek Watershed Council as an I made it clear that since the Council had not used any
and supporting a futile lawsuit. At this time, the Elk Federal resource management agencies. Between 1993 independent watershed council, and removed the Elk of the money, and had only completed one insignificant
Creek Watershed Council is a “fairly well-respected,” and 1996, UBFRI secured funding to complete stream Creek Watershed from the geographical area served project, they should not expect much. I agreed to use the
and fully-funded member of the roughly fifty-five (55) surveys on many miles of the County’s fish bearing by the Umpqua Basin Watershed Council – which later Council’s half of the Elk Creek/Smith River grant to try
watershed councils that the State of Oregon considers to streams, and the Douglas Soil and Water Conservation changed its name to the Partnership for the Umpqua to get the Elk Creek Council recognized as a functioning
be worthy of the funds they receive. But every bit of that District and ODFW began implementing “on the Rivers. ;” it was formed to “improve opportunities to watershed council by OWEB. The award for 2005 to
“fairly well-respected and fully funded” was fought for ground” projects to benefit anadromous fish in the address the goals of sustaining natural resource values 2007, was $23,010, and half was for Smith River..
Umpqua Basin.
with a great amount of energy and sacrifice.
and watershed protection and enhancement within From 2005, to 2009, I declined to get paid until the
The history of the Elk Creek Watershed Council By 1996, through the Governor’s Watershed the Elk Creek Watershed Basin.” [Douglas County Council was financially stable because we needed
really should start with the dwindling populations of Enhancement Board (GWEB), Oregon began looking Commissioner’s Order – February 6, 2002.]While enough cash to be able to pay the contractors, we used
salmon species, and the federal government’s listing of at funding the formation of local groups that would the goal of the organizers that petitioned the County to complete projects. But those projects were all that
endangered species. By the early 1990s, environmental bring together a wide range of persons and groups with to separate, and who established the non-profit status made the Elk Creek Watershed Council fundable in the
lawsuits claimed that the federal government was not interests in the watershed to assess conditions in the of the Elk Creek Watershed Council, may have been eyes of OWEB. Every biennium we were in the “needs
enforcing the provisions of the Endangered Species watershed and to develop plans for restoration. This to provide a buffer between the agricultural and small improvement” category because OWEB didn’t feel that
Act that required them to list salmon species that were was embodied in the Oregon Plan for Salmon and timberland owners in the Watershed, they did begin the Council represented a diverse cross section of the
declining as threatened or endangered with extinction. Watersheds (1997). The passage of Ballot Measure 66 to sponsor and support local restoration projects and interested people in the Watershed, and that the Council
A federal listing, and the required Recovery Plan, had (1998) allocated lottery funds to watershed restoration Contrary to some of what has been claimed, the Elk did not engage enough with the local community. The
the potential to severely impact the timber industry, in Oregon, and the Governor’s Watershed Restoration Creek Watershed Council was not formed to “support fact that we were getting work done on the ground kept
both in Douglas County, and in the State of Oregon. In Board became the Oregon Watershed Restoration the interests and land rights of landowners The Elk OWEB from cutting off our funding altogether at a time
Creek Watershed Council, Inc. was incorporated in when they were trying hard to fund fewer watershed
response, the State of Oregon began funding efforts to Board (OWEB).
restore habitat for salmon, especially coho salmon. In Since UBFRI was essentially doing watershed September 2002, as a 501 (c)(3) non-profit corporation. councils in the State. The Elk Creek Council was not
1993, the Douglas County Commissioners established restoration in the Umpqua Basin, the core group began In spite of objections from the Umpqua Basin funded to the extent of other “established” watershed
the Umpqua Basin Fisheries Restoration Initiative to make the changes necessary to transition from a Watershed Council and OWEB staff, the OWEB councils until the 2017 to 2019, biennium. Even in the
(UBFRI) as a sub-committee of the Douglas County County Advisory Committee to a State-recognized Board awarded a grant of $42,500 to the Elk Creek and current biennium, we had to go through a secondary
Water Resources Advisory Board. The motto of UBFRI watershed council. The Umpqua Basin Watershed Smith River Councils for the 2003 to 2005 biennium. review process to maintain our full funding.
Open Letter to Elk Creek Watershed Council Members, from the Executive Director
3 February 2024
Board of Directors - Elk Creek Watershed Council
PO Box 676, Yoncalla, Oregon 97499
Attention: James Mast, Chairman
Dear Chairman Mast and Council Board,
Presented below are some comments on the discus-
sions of the Board of Directors of the Elk Creek
Watershed Council at last week’s meeting, and a
proposal that could potentially address some of the
issues discussed.
Introduction:
After last week’s Board meeting, I feel it’s neces-
sary to expand on some of the comments that were
made, both for and against the proposal to dissolve
the Elk Creek Watershed Council. I’d also like to
offer a compromise solution that seems to address
most of the negative aspects of a dissolution, and
yet still preserves the organizational structure of the
Council, most of the Council’s standing and reputa-
tion within the watershed community, and its ability
Veterans Corner
The first 2024 meeting of the Veterans Advisory
Committee to the Oregon Department of Veterans’
Affairs (ODVA) will be held virtually Wednesday,
March 6. The meeting begins at 9:30 a.m. and will be
followed by a town hall meeting at 11 a.m., which is
open to the public.
Established in 1945, the Veteran Advisory Com-
mittee holds a distinct and fundamental role in advis-
ing the director and staff of ODVA. The nine mem-
bers of the Veteran Advisory Committee are military
veterans from all corners of the state, appointed by
the governor to serve and act as advocates for veteran
issues and veteran concerns across Oregon.
Following every quarterly business meeting, the
committee holds a town hall inviting the public to
raise questions or concerns about broad veteran is-
sues or to share information with the committee and
agency director.
Members of the community are also invited to
submit written public comments to the committee by
emailing odva_vaac@odva.oregon.gov. The Advi-
sory Committee meets quarterly on the first Wednes-
day of March, June, September and December.
Continued on Page 14
to continue working with those landowners within
our watershed that would like assistance managing
the natural resources on their properties.
Forest Accords:
First, I understand that all of you are frustrated with
the implementation of the Forest Accords. I have
questions about the implications as well. But we’ve
been here before. When there was talk about the list-
ing of the coho, or the Spotted Owl, there was panic
because it might “destroy the forest industry in Or-
egon.” There were some changes to the Forest Prac-
tices Act, but the timber companies have managed
to survive just fine. When Oregon passed Senate
Bill 1010, this caused panic because it “would drive
the farmers and ranchers into bankruptcy.” I believe
there have been only two or three citations issued for
violations in the more than 20 years that the Agri-
cultural Management Plan has been in effect. What
really happened, was that most producers were
able to get technical assistance from the watershed
councils or soil and water districts, and the funding to
implement projects, that improved both the natural
resources on their lands, but also the efficiency and
profits of their operations. There already is funding
being attached to the Forest Accords plan. This is
exactly what the Elk Creek Watershed Council
has been providing to landowners in our watershed
for nearly 20 years – technical assistance and grant
funding to make improvements. Some of you have
personally benefitted from some of the projects and
services that the Council has offered.
Consequences:
As Board members, you should be clearly aware
of the consequences of the decision you are being
asked to make. This decision will effectively destroy
the Elk Creek Watershed Council, and this destruc-
tion will be irreversible. The decision to dissolve
the Council will effectively eliminate opportunities
for any landowners in the Elk Creek Watershed to
access the benefits of the technical assistance, or
the financial support, that has been provided by the
Council. The argument that these services would be
picked up by the Douglas Soil and Water District
is totally unrealistic. It is merely a weak argument
that attempts to try and soften the real impacts that
a decision to dissolve the Council would have. The
Douglas SWCD simply does not have the capac-
ity to take on projects of the scale that have been
implemented by the Elk Creek Watershed Council,
and the restrictions imposed by their funding grant
agreement are very different. It has taken literally
years of hard work and sacrifice to get the Elk Creek
Watershed Council to where it is today. The Douglas
SWCD isn’t even close to that.
Economic Development:
In addition to the elimination of the Council’s
assistance to local landowners, the benefits that
the Council has provided to both the economy of
Douglas County, and to our local economy, has
been considerable. As local economies throughout
the State have tried to adapt to the changes in forest
management operations, and the loss of high pay-
ing timber-related jobs, they have tried to bring in
outside money by supporting small scale businesses
or encouraging tourism. The Elk Creek Watershed
Council has brought in nearly $5,000,000 in grants.
Nearly all of this money has gone into the local
economy; and the money that has been spent for
contracts with local contractors has not only provid-
ed jobs, but jobs to people in our own watershed.
Habitat Improvements:
And we probably ought to consider the improve-
ments that we have made for fish and water qual-
ity. True, we haven’t single-handedly restored the
salmon runs of the past, or been able to prevent
the regulatory agencies from demanding more,
but we have made a difference. Last week alone, a
local landowner was exclaiming about the amount
of gravel that was accumulating behind the log
structures that we put into the stream on his prop-
erty. Sure, this is only a small section of the miles
of streams in our watershed, but it is one step in the
journey to make a difference. It is unfortunate that
between Covid, and the failure of the Council’s out-
reach plans, that the Board wasn’t able to visit some
of our projects first hand.
Problem:
As I see it, there are several main issues that need to
be addressed. There are some Boardmembers that
feel that the Council has been ineffective, and want
to resign, though there are afew that might decide to
stay, but don’t want to take on the responsibility of
leadership. And then there is the issue of the money.
I’m proposing a compromise that addresses
each of these, and which also addresses many of the
issues associated with the plan to simply dissolve the
Council. And let’s be clear, the plan to dissolve the
Council is not as simple as that. The Board has al-
ready agreed to pay the $400/hour attorney a $3,000
retainer, and a potential cost of up to $50,000, for
work related to the plan to dissolve the Council. It is
still unclear if this is for “advice on the process to dis-
solve the Council,” “advice on what the legal rami-
fications or liability of individual Board members
might be,” or “to actually implement the process of
dissolution.” At any rate, it is likely to be expensive. I
have to assume that the expectation is that there will
be enough left over to support the proposed lawsuit
against the State and the Department of Forestry.
Proposed Solution:
First, any Director that feels that their tenure as a
Board member of the Elk Creek Watershed Council
has been a waste of their time, can simply resign. But
they will need to be relaced by new Board members
that feel that the work of the Council is worth con-
tinuing. This will allow the Council to continue,
and it will avoid having to deal with a default on
the Council’s current contractual obligations. Those
obligations will remain with the Council and its
Board. It will also eliminate the need to pay an
attorney to legally dissolve the Council. Though
as long as you’ve already paid a $3,000 retainer,
it would be worth getting a legal opinion on what
individual Board
member’s personal liability might be.
Second, since much of this decision really re-
volves about the council’s assets, I propose to donate
some of the Council’s General Fund to the legal
fund that is planning to sue the State. As long as
the donation is to a registered 501(c)(3), I think it
is legal, though I personally don’t feel it is ethical,
considering that all this money came from sources
that expected it to be used to further the mission of
the Council. This also avoids the need to hire an ac-
countant to figure out what financial obligations the
Council will be responsible for before it can legally
dissolve. The Oregon Secretary of State’s office is
responsible for non-profit corporations, and though
there is no statute against dissolving, there are legal
statutes concerning the responsibility for satisfying
the entity’s financial obligations, and the distribution
of its assets. This might also be expensive.
I think this alternative provides benefits to every-
one. It allows the Elk Creek Watershed Council to
continue providing the services to the landowners
in the watershed that it has for the past 20 years. It
would also save considerable expense that would ef-
fectively reduce the final amount that might be avail-
able to support the lawsuit that you are proposing.
Sincerely,
Lee Russell, Executive Director
Elk Creek Watershed Council