Who We AreWhat We DoWhat You Can DoOther Resources & Links

NOTE LOCATION & TIME

MEETING NOTICE

Pringle Creek Watershed Council
Leslie Middle School
3850 Pringle Rd SE
Salem, OR

March 11, 2008
6:30 PM

AGENDA /
NOTES
Welcome & Introductions


Notes from Past Meetings

.....................................................................

About Pringle Creek

Council Core Values:

  • Stewardship of the Pringle Creek watershed as a natural entity in an urban environment;
  • Sustaining Pringle and Clark Creeks as naturally occurring watercourses;
  • Preserving Pringle and Clark Creeks’ riparian corridors to support native plants and wildlife;
  • Improving water quality; and
  • Promoting public awareness and education on watershed issues.
Pringle Creek Watershed Council notes:
Pringle Creek Watershed Council Meeting
March 11, 2008, Leslie Middle School

Attendees:
Victor Dodier Charles Ramsey
Luca De Stefanis James Santana
Michelle Delepine John Savage
Mary Liepins Steve Soltesz
Susan Kephart Marilyn Walster


Dodier called the meeting to order at 6:30pm.

Meeting introductions:
Walster introduced herself; she briefly mentioned her past work with the Oregon Department of Education and her current role in facilitation and teaching via PSU Online.

Ramsey, a local resident, briefly explained how he found out about Pringle Creek Watershed Council from a website search.

Minutes review (approve):
After a brief discussion of the minutes, Dodier made an initial motion to approve them. They were approved with all members voting aye.

Bylaws Discussion:
Kelley expressed concern (via an email note) for comparing our bylaws to Johnson Creek Watershed Council since they are a listed 501 (c) (3) nonprofit organization, unlike PCWC’s watershed council designation. Since the bylaws committee has yet to convene, it was determined that the bylaws discussion would continue within the designated committee group.

Provisional Training with John Moriarty:

The location of the training was briefly discussed and it was determined that De Stefanis would get in touch with the City of Salem to coordinate the reservation of a local venue.

Delepine began reviewing the progress made in planning the provisional training, but was soon thereafter asked to give a brief summary of relevant background. Dodier commented on how our training is a product of our ranking status with OWEB’s last council support grant.

There was a brief conversation on reunification. Kephart said that upon speaking with Joe Bowersox she learned that some members of Mill Creek are interested in reunifying Mill Creek with the Salem-Keizer Watershed Councils. Liepins reported that Mill Creek has resolved their inner council issues and are looking to move forward.

Delepine briefly reviewed a generalized agenda for the training session. She emphasized that the main goal of the evening would be to build objectives in accordance with OWEB eight set grant review criterion. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats (SWOT) Analysis:    Delepine led an activity to assess the Council’s resources and limitations in preparation for the provisional training. Michelle divided the group into three teams to brainstorm ideas for each category but opportunities; the other half of the activity had the group come back together to discuss opportunities.

Strengths

  • Energy: Overall motivation of group is very high; we would hit the ground running if given chance.
  • Enthusiasm: Members eager to see a more productive council.
  • Action results driven: (i.e. Rotary Club Bridge Project at Fairview Wetlands successful despite size of undertaking) Expertise on Council: Members have an array of skills and knowledge sets.
  • Diverse partnerships: (i.e. Willamette University, W3, Audubon Society, Native Plant Society of Oregon, Willamette Valley Chapter, Marion SWCD, City of Salem, and others all turn out for events)
  • Diverse funding: Non-OWEB funds for projects likely largest of all Oregon councils
  • Active / Long-term projects: (i.e. Fairview Wetlands "flagship project")
  • On the ground projects: (Good for environment & community)
  • Education & Outreach / Service Learning: Links to schools (i.e. K-12 & Universities)
  • Watershed location: Pringle Creek runs through several high exposure areas (i.e. Bush Park, Pringle Creek Community (sustainable development), Salem Hospital, Waterfront Park
  • Longevity of membership: Most members have been with Council for several years

  • Weaknesses<br>
  • Need more board members and volunteers / lack recruitment
  • Members lack extra time to commit to Council
  • Lack external administration and technical support
  • PCWC goals may not completely mesh with OWEB’s goals
  • PCWC has not yet reached to outside the Pringle Creek watershed

  • Opportunities
  • Outreach to generate more community interest and involvement
  • Education (i.e. some graduation requirements must include stewardship work)
  • Active neighborhoods / community (i.e. South Salem High School, City of Salem, Joe Bowersox, Open Space, Riparian Protection Project (Marion SWCD grant program), Pringle Creek Community, Boise Cascade property development project / City Council / Vision 2020)
  • Undeveloped land that will be developed are potential project areas (i.e. have say in new developments; point out benefits of leaving riparian buffer: park space, erosion control, etc.)
  • Recreation / Restoration benefits
  • Engage environmental interest of community (i.e. Native Plant Workshop at Pringle Hall)
  • Independent Film Series that showcases PCWC
  • Innovative conservation (i.e. green technologies) are being pushed in light of global warming; rain gardens, porous pavement and bioswales are just a few examples of how urban areas can be retrofitted to be more environmentally friendly

  • Threats
  • Urban watersheds have inherent disadvantages compared to others
  • a) small geographic area
    b) less visible incremental improvements
  • Level of overall OWEB funding
  • More established watershed councils have momentum (i.e. in terms of membership and repeat funding)
  • OWEB must show results (i.e. acres restored); small urban watersheds are limited by land mass
  • Not enough time to accomplish all project ideas

  • Council Updates:
    Kephart reported that eighteen Willamette University students have planted 360 bulbs of camas from the university gardens in February 2008 as a continuation of more extensive restoration efforts. Interpretive sign is in progress.

    De Stefanis had the following updates:
  • graphic design underway for Audubon Society interpretive signs. To be installed by summer
  • bird survey by Willamette University to see which species to be included in signs complete
  • Willamette Riverkeepers will have 27 volunteers help with trail building

  • Walster asked if the volunteers were being kept track of. Kephart replied that they have been to an extent for Fairview projects.

    Santana asked the Council for opinions on a new manual, Stormwater Solutions. The publishers want to present, and it was suggested to hold this at either a city conference room or at the library. De Stefanis asked the Council to pick a date. It was recognized that there are lots of potential partners for this project.

    Santana will keep the Council posted.

    Soltesz would like to see the Council invite Mill Creek and Clagett Creek Watershed Council to a future meeting.

    Call for April Agenda Items:
  • Provisional training follow-up
  • Updates (De Stefanis commented this should be a permanent agenda item)
  • Bylaws

  • Dodier adjourned the meeting at 7:58pm.

    Back to top