7:00	Call for additional Agenda items
7:05	Reports from around the watershed
7:15	Tony Cheng: Some discoveries about the social dynamics of collaborative watershed groups. "While there has been a lot expected of watershed groups in Oregon and elsewhere, little systematic inquiry has been undertaken to describe and explain their functioning from a sociological perspective. After 18 months of observing, participating in, and studying watershed councils, I've discovered a few consistent themes that keep popping up about the social dynamics of watershed groups. Since these are discoveries, and not hard-and-fast theories, I throw these themes out for discussion, rumination, and debate. There are no right answers; only ways to improve dialogue and understanding about people's local watershed and about each other."
7:45	Bill Ferber, Watermaster for our region, is going to give some background about the Oregon Water Resources Department, and talk about Water Availability Basins.
8:05	Steering Committee report
8:20	Coordinator's Report
8:40	Other Agenda items
9:00	Adjourn

Last Months Meeting Highlights:

Results of the Temperature Monitoring and Modeling efforts from last year were presented by Bill Pearcy, Chris Andrus, and Jeff Daumbacher. These studies were conducted to assess the quality of the watershed for Steelhead and Cutthroat trout, as well as for Native Whitefish. Seven day running average temperatures were recorded. Daily highs above 69 were determined to be indicative of problems. This threshold was used because Cutthroat can tolerate temperatures as high as 69 degrees for limited periods as long as the streams cooled off at night. Using this criterion, most of the upper reaches of the watershed remained habitable throughout the summer, but many of the lower reaches attained temperatures that were too high. Jeff Daumbacher described his implementation of a stream model on the Mary's River Watershed. The model he chose was developed by the USGS in Colorado and was based on an application of principles of physics. This model predicted the steep temperature gradient observed on the Mary's River between the outflow of the Tum Tum River and Harris Bridge. Using this model, Mr. Daumbacher concluded that stream restoration efforts would have limited impacts on downstream temperatures.

Hiram Lee, a professor at OSU in Fish and Wildlife, requested suggestions from the council for student spring projects.

Steering Committee Report:

• Guidelines have been drawn up for project proposals. Draft guidelines are available as attachment B to the quarterly report. These will be voted on by the council next month.
• The council would like input as to how we can use our power as a watershed council to affect the kinds of money flowing back to us. Contact Sandra.
• The watershed assessment is now available for reading at the Corvallis and Philomath public libraries.
• There will be a public meeting June 15 at the Corvallis library where the assessment team will present the results of the assessment.
• Quarterly report available via email or hard copy. Those interested please contact Sandra: 758-7597
• A copy of a report on the status of fish in the Long Tom Watershed is now available. We might want to consider producing such a document for our watershed. PLEASE SEE OTHER SIDE FOR IMPORTANT INFORMATION.

Important Member Items

1. Adopt proposed project proposal guidelines (attached)
2. Orin Nusbaum would like to be considered for the position on the Steering Committee representing the small agricultural producers. This is the final slot on the committee. Anybody else interested in this position needs to let their wishes be known by the June 2nd meeting. The process to elect the small ag representative to the Steering Committee will proceed at the July 7 meeting.

Other important notices:

Guidelines for Project Proposals - DRAFT April 14 1999

1. Projects proposed for council participation or support should be presented to the council three months prior to the deadline for submission to granting agency. The purpose of this lead time is to allow for the council decision making process outlined in the MRWC by-laws.

2. Project leader or applicant should develop ideas by preparation of a project abstract, pre-proposal, or project description which will be first shared with the council coordinator and/or a designee of the Proposal Review Team (PRT). This step allows for feed-back prior to going before the entire council, but is not mandatory for presentation of a pre-proposal to the council. Pre-proposals should then be presented (in 10 minutes or less) at the next monthly watershed council meeting (meetings occur every first Wednesday of each month at Philomath City Hall). This short narrative should describe the project title, overview, methods, objectives, costs, measures of success, and most importantly, the importance to the watershed, or ecosystem value. It is best if the coordinator has enough lead time to announce the pre-proposal in the meeting announcement so people can come prepared to discuss the topic, and so that we are more likely to have a quorum at the meeting.

3. The council will discuss the proposal at that meeting where it is presented (if there is a quorum), and possibly a second meeting if no decision is reached at the first meeting or if there was no quorum. If there are concerns which delay the approval of a proposal, or if a proposal is rejected by the council, there will be feedback provided to the applicant and they may, if they wish, re-submit the pre-proposal the following month, with suggested changes. If the council approves the pre-proposal, the applicant will then be asked to develop the full proposal. That full proposal will be submitted to the PRT before it goes to the granting agency. The PRT will have two weeks to review the grant. If changes are proposed by the PRT, there may be a second (one week) review period, at the discretion of the PRT. Final proposal will be finished at least one week prior to the submission deadline at which time the coordinator, and any others who wish to, will write a letter of support for the grant.
   Please note: The purpose of this process is to allow for the opportunity of collaboration between the MRWC and others. We appreciate the opportunity to help support projects relevant to our mission. However, the MRWC endorsement does not ensure success of an application, and conversely, our decline to endorse a project does not preclude its success.

4. Some opportunities for projects will not fit into this process outlined above. In these cases, the coordinator is granted the discretion to give council support for certain projects which meet the following criteria. (Coordinator will consult with 2 (two) Steering Committee members before agreeing to support the items, and the Steering Committee members will be chosen by the Steering Committee and serve a limited term.)
   1. No council funds are committed.
   2. No council time is committed beyond the time needed by the coordinator to write a letter of support.
   3. If project involves private landowners, the landowners must be in support of the project and must make that clear to the coordinator in writing.
   4. Coordinator determines that project furthers the intent of the Watershed Action Plan, or is in line with council approved actions.
   5. In coordinator's judgement it is clear that an important opportunity would be lost to the council if the project was delayed.

5. Projects seeking council endorsement only, if time is of concern, will be at the discretion of the coordinator as long as the above criteria are met. Whenever possible, endorsements will go before the general council for approval.