Merced River Stakeholders protest letter to East Merced Resource Conservation District grant proposal and a chonology of e-mails

Posted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wednesday, 19 September 2007

Stefan Lorenzato
Watershed Program Manager
Resource Restoration & Project Support
(916) 651-9617
(916) 651-9607 fax
stefanl@water.ca.gov

Kristyne Miller, Grant Manager
Resource Restoration & Project Support
(916) 651-9621
kmiller@water.ca.gov

Megan Fidell, Watershed Program Staff
Resource Restoration & Project Support
(916) 651-9619
mfidell@water.ca.gov
Dan Wermiel, Watershed Program Staff
Resources Agency - CALFED Watershed Program June 4, 2007
(916) 445-5398
dwermiel@calwater.ca.gov Via :Email & Fax
Re: Lower Merced Watershed Management Plan grant proposal submitted by East Merced Resource Conservation District

Dear Mr. Lorenzato, Ms. Miller, Ms. Fidell and Mr. Wermiel,

We are writing, as members of the Merced River Stakeholders, to protest a proposal submitted by the East Merced Resource Conservation District (EMRCD) called “Lower Merced Watershed Management Plan.”

This letter includes:

1) Objections to the substance of the conceptual application;
2) Objections to the process by which the EMRCD, a public agency, bypassed the Merced River Stakeholders in drafting and approving this grant against significant opposition;
3) A statement of the next steps stakeholders will take should this grant be approved;
4) Attached Merced River Stakeholders’ chronology of correspondence on this proposal.

1. Objections to the substance of the conceptual application

· Where are the traditional partners that have been involved in every Merced River project and application to date: Merced Irrigation District, Merced River Stakeholders, California Department of Fish and Game, for example?

· “…and a consultant (as yet to be selected) experienced in facilitation and the Central Valley Blueprint process – a process similar to the development of this plan.” It is highly probable a consultant has already been selected, so why the mystery?

· The proposal states that a plan will be developed to address recreational opportunities. The Merced watershed is almost completely privately owned (and those owners are well represented on the Merced River Stakeholders.) “Recreational opportunity” is a very contentious issue on the Lower Merced River.

· How can this grant fund a management plan for the Merced River Watershed and manage lands outside that watershed? The vast majority of vernal pool habitat in Eastern Merced County is NOT in the Merced River Watershed. This fact is well known to watershed owners and to Merced Irrigation District (not a partner to this grant proposal). This problem may be addressed by another grant EMRCD is proposing, to NFWF, as part of their match. But, this is not clear.

· If the Merced River Stakeholders are as the proposal presents us, an unduplicated model of consistent public/private interaction, why aren’t the stakeholders partners in the grant?

· Six thousand dollars sounds like an inflated amount to publish a plan.

· Some stakeholders, even after reading the concept proposal, were misled by EMRCD communications into thinking the proposal submitted on June 1 was not the final proposal and that it could be changed later to reflect stakeholders' concerns. EMRCD made no copies of the June 1 proposal available to stakeholders prior to submission. Merced River Stakeholders that aren't members of the EMRCD board do not know what proposal the EMRCD voted unanimously to support. If it was the concept proposal, stakeholders raised numerous objections to it and some told EMRCD they would strenuously oppose it.

· “And many involved will have the authority to implement parts of the plan, such as federal, state and local agencies or Municipal Advisory Councils.” EMRCD staff evidently does not know that MACs have no authority. They are appointed in unincorporated towns by their district supervisors to serve strictly as advisory groups. This is a strange blank spot in EMRCD staff knowledge, considering that the EMRCD board president serves on one MAC and an EMRCD associate director is a county planning commissioner.

· “The success of this project will dependant upon connections with other projects, the academic and scientific community and agencies in the watershed. The management team will devote a significant amount of time to gathering data on existing conditions within the watershed in order to provide baseline information to the work groups.” Hasn’t this been done in the literature review in the MRS Restoration Plan? It just needs updating to add the studies completed since 2002. Why will it take a significant amount of time? Existing conditions are part of the Merced River Restoration Plan. Beyond the watershed, we doubt if that work has been done (in the vernal pools area). However, a great deal of mapping of vernal
pools has also been done by agencies such as the University of California and the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

· Items in the budget section:

o data collection: 650 hrs collecting and compiling background data for the Plan. @ $40 hr =$26,000. That would be EMRCD… for all the projects we have seen, Stillwater has compiled an extensive inventory of existing studies through 2002. What other data has to be collected?
o Purchase1 laptop computer ($1,500).

o Scientific Consultant will compile and synthesize data $22,547 What does this mean? If EMRCD collects and compiles it, why does Scientific Consultant then compile it again (and synthesize it)?

o Training: Attend facilitation & technical training workshops and conferences. 2 EMRCD personnel x 2 trainings ea per year = 12 trainings X 20 hrs pr workshop/conference = 240 hrs @ $40 hr = $9,600. Plus registration $1,400, meals $360, mileage $2,000 and lodging $1,200. Elsewhere in the proposal, it is mentioned a professional facilitator was going to be used.

· “The management team will gather and synthesize existing information on the watershed – including, but not limited to Merced River Corridor Restoration Plan, Merced Alliance Biological Assessment, USFWS Endangered Species Recovery Program, ongoing fish and water supply studies by Merced Irrigation District, TMDLs, Wildlife and Rare Plant Ecology of Eastern Merced County’s Vernal Pool Grasslands, DWR and UC Merced information on climate change.” The last we knew, the Merced doesn’t have a TMDL. Stillwater should have all the data noted above except Vernal Pools and maybe UC Merced data. They should have a good idea of what DWR has. Again, this grant is for the Merced watershed unless they expand it (or unless they don’t get called on it).

· UC Merced and the Upper Merced River Watershed Council/Mariposa Resource Conservation District both submitted concept proposals to CALFED in this funding cycle. Neither were accepted. In this context, the EMRCD proposal is fragmentary, is straying out of the Lower Merced River Watershed into Eastern Merced vernal pool land that is not in the river watershed, and cannot result in a comprehensive watershed planning tool because it relied on other conceptual proposals that weren't accepted.

· What is the need for watershed coordinator, grant manager, and education/outreach coordinator?

· “Many of the partners and agencies will internalize the ideas and knowledge acquired during the workgroup and planning process, making connections to their institutional strategic plans and budgets.” We would appreciate it if EMRCD staff

· will provide us with their methodology for quantifying the results on this statement.

· “An important component of this project will be the development of concept proposals that would address the needs identified in the plan. With concept proposals in place, landowners, nonprofits and agencies will have the core concepts for implementation ready to use and can more easily acquire funding, permits and/or partners for important work. The business community will become involved stakeholders, recognizing that they have more likely to fund further meetings and projects.” Huh?

· “Many of the concepts introduced during this process may become part of the Merced County General Plan Update currently in process (earliest expected completion date, Spring 2009). Several of Watershed Plan participants are involved in Focus Groups for the County General Plan Update, including EMRCD board members. If the Watershed Plan proposal is funded, the process and the Plan have great potential to influence the County General Plan Update.” Again, we would appreciate the EMRCD staff providing the methodology by which they plan to implement this political fantasy. The Merced River Stakeholders are on record as opposing the Merced River Corridor Restoration Plan being treated as a political policy document locally, regionally or for state or federal use.

· Merced River Stakeholders were denied review of the final proposal. What we see in the concept proposal doesn’t give us a clear picture of the roles or staff, outcomes, or processes by which the tasks will be accomplished. We cannot imagine the CALFED review panel will approve this proposal.

· Finally, our question to CALFED is: Why aren’t the Merced River Stakeholders the preferred vehicle of partnership and consensus at this point?

2) Objections to the process by which the EMRCD, a public agency, bypassed the Merced River Stakeholders in drafting and approving this grant against significant opposition

To: Merced River Stakeholders (MRS) and East Merced Resource Conservation District (EMRCD) Board of Directors
From: Lydia Miller, Merced River Stakeholder, and president of San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center
Re: Refutation of RCD watershed coordinator’s version of events surrounding two grant proposals
Date: May 23, 2007

This letter will refer to a chain of emails attached below and to notes taken at the March 19 and May 21 MRS during which staff presented two grant proposals for MRS support. Staff’s recollections of events, put forth in her email of May 23, are inaccurate and misleading. Because of the timing, they appear to be last-ditch efforts to influence the RCD board vote this afternoon.

Comments made at the March 19 meeting were not included in the later version of the CalFed grant. Nor were they included in the minutes of the March 19 meeting, which staff admitted at the May 21 meeting.
These comments included:

1) Starting up a Technical Advisory Committee again, after the TAC approach has already proved unsuccessful in the stakeholder process because it separates agencies from other stakeholders and creates a top-down decision-making hierarchy;
2) San Joaquin Valley Blueprint and UC/Great Valley Center experience: there are stakeholders who don’t support either and neither organization has participated in the MRS process;
3) Partners and co-sponsors of these grants have never attended MRS meetings. Staff who created these grants did not recognize local stakeholders except to come to them at the eleventh hour, present them a grant, tell them it couldn’t be changed, and request MRS support;
4) The Merced River has not political voice on the county Board of Supervisors because Supervisor Kelsey recuses herself on all issues involving the river;
5) The California Department of Fish and Game and USFWS Endangered Species Sac. has no involvement in these grants;
6) According to staff, the document to be produced by the CalFed grant will become a part of the Merced County General Plan Update and become planning policy; the partners and co-sponsors on the proposal are not representative of real stakeholders on the river;
7) Merced River Corridor Restoration Plan is not a policy document either, despite repeated attempts of county special interests to make it one; it remains a fluid document;
8) MRS, composed of agencies, landowners, businesses and environmental representatives, has been involved in the stakeholder process since 1999; the partners listed on these grants have not been involved in MRS;
9) MRS did not support the grant concept proposal; MRS will oppose it; it was presented by staff at the March 19 meeting as a done deal in its present form that could not be altered (comments on it weren’t even included in the minutes of the meeting).

At the May 21 meeting of MRS, some new issues were brought out:

1) There at least two grant proposals being submitted and there may be more; they may duplicate tasks; there is no coordination among them – the topic of coordination is mentioned, but not explained;
2) The recipients of funding for staff work are not identified, but it is apparent there will be significant monetary advantage from the grants to RCD, Stillwater, and the Merced River Alliance.
3) The orderly way to proceed on the consultant portion of the grant would be to put the consultant’s tasks out to bid; it appears here that the consultant may have been the primary grant writer;
4) RCD has proving itself on four occasions to be unable to administer past grants; four grants have been frozen due to RCD lack of accountability;
5) Thirty-to-40 concerns were written down by a facilitator who was not invited by MRS at the May 21 meeting; none of these have been incorporated in to the grant nor has their been any attempt to incorporate them into the document the RCD board will be asked to approve today;
Only four stakeholders among the MRS participants had read the grant. None of the four RCD board members had read it. Staff picked and chose who got to see it.

Staff claims the RCD will make all information about tasks in the grants available to the public through its website. RCD staff got off to a bad start: the grant proposals were not posted on its website.
Staff attempts to railroad the MRS have the appearance of corruption.
San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center and its associated organizations cannot support these grant proposals.

Lydia Miller, President
San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center
San Joaquin Raptor / Wildlife Rescue Center
P.O. Box 778
Merced, CA 95341
(209) 723-9283, ph. & fax
raptorctr@bigvalley.net
SJRRC@sbcglobal.net

3) A statement of the next steps stakeholders will take should this grant be approved
If approval of this grant proceeds, we request a formal hearing to protest further what we consider to be a misuse of public funds. Considering that public funds are involved and there is substantial controversy about the efficacy, propriety and failure of public process by the applicant public agency contained in this proposal concerning vital natural resources in our county, we suggest that the project, if approved, would require CEQA and NEPA review.

We believe the project is legally actionable and are considering our legal options at this time.
We request notification of your decision on the grant. In the event that you approve the grant, we request that you provide us with all material supporting your reasons for that approval.

4) Attached Merced River Stakeholders’ chronology of correspondence on this proposal. (See attachment “MRS Chronology”)
Respectfully,

Lydia M. Miller Steve Burke
San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center Protect Our Water (POW)
P.O. Box 778 3105 Yorkshire Lane
Merced, CA 95341 Modesto, CA 95350
(209) 723-9283, ph. & fax (209) 523-1391, ph. & fax
raptorctr@bigvalley.net/sjrrc@sbcglobal.net

Bill Hatch
San Joaquin Valley Conservancy
P.O Box 732
Merced, CA 95341
209-723-9283 ph & fax
sjvc@bigvalley.net

Central Valley Safe Environment Network
San Joaquin Raptor /Wildlife Rescue Center Protect Our Water
Merced River Valley Association The Stevinson Citizen’s Group
Planada Association Le Grand Association
Planada Community Development Co. Stanislaus Natural Heritage
San Joaquin Valley Conservancy
CENTRAL VALLEY SAFE ENVIRONMENT NETWORK
MISSION STATEMENT
Central Valley Safe Environment Network is a coalition of organizations and individuals throughout the San Joaquin Valley that is committed to the concept of "Eco-Justice" -- the ecological defense of the natural resources and the people. To that end it is committed to the stewardship, and protection of the resources of the greater San Joaquin Valley, including air and water quality, the preservation of agricultural land, and the protection of wildlife and its habitat. In serving as a community resource and being action-oriented, CVSEN desires to continue to assure there will be a safe food chain, efficient use of natural resources and a healthy environment. CVSEN is also committed to public education regarding these various issues and it is committed to ensuring governmental compliance with federal and state law. CVSEN is composed of farmers, ranchers, city dwellers, environmentalists, ethnic, political, and religious groups, and other stakeholders.

P.O. Box 64
Merced, CA 95341
cvsen@sbcglobal.net
cvsen@bigvalley.net
--------------------------------

----- Original Message -----
From: Four Seasons Ag. Consulting, Inc.
To: 'Raptorctr' ; 'Gwen Huff'
Cc: 'Karen Barstow' ; 'Cathy & Don Weber' ; 'Bernard Wade' ; 'Glenn Anderson' ; 'Whipp' ; Dist4@co.merced.ca.us ; doubletacres@aol.com ; 'SJRRC'
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 10:58 PM
Subject: RE: EMRCD Grant Proposal

Dear Lydia,
The grant was finished and sent off to Sacramento at 12:30 pm today, at which time, Gwen, turned her attention to Saturday’s Merced River Fair, which she is responsible for, and the Heartland Festival. Plus she was away from her home computer. I am sure she will send it to you Monday when she is back in her office. There was no slight intended, just the reality of multiple responsibilities.
Hope to see you here, at the Merced River Fair, again this year.
Thanks, Cindy

From: Raptorctr [mailto:Raptorctr@bigvalley.net]
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 1:55 PM
To: Gwen Huff
Cc: 'Karen Barstow'; Cindy Lashbrook; Cathy & Don Weber; Bernard Wade; Glenn Anderson; Whipp; Dist4@co.merced.ca.us; doubletacres@aol.com; SJRRC
Subject: Re: EMRCD Grant Proposal
Importance: High

To: Board of Directors, East Merced Resource Conservation District
Date: June 1, 2007
Re: Request to review final copy of grant proposal
Members of the Board,

At the Merced River Stakeholders meeting, EMRCD staff informed stakeholders that changes might be made in the grant proposal that you approved several days later. We have been waiting to view the final document. EMRCD staff has not made it available to stakeholders who have consistently requested to see it.
We are disappointed that the EMRCD board and staff did not give us the opportunity review the proposal before it is submitted.

Lydia Miller, President
San Joaquin Raptor RescueCenter
San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center
P.O. Box 778
Merced, CA 95341
(209) 723-9283, ph. & fax
raptorctr@bigvalley.net
SJRRC@sbcglobal.net

----- Original Message -----
From: Raptorctr
To: Gwen Huff
Cc: 'Karen Barstow' ; Cindy Lashbrook ; Cathy & Don Weber ; Bernard Wade ; Glenn Anderson ; Whipp ; Dist4@co.merced.ca.us ; doubletacres@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 4:50 PM
Subject: EMRCD Grant Proposal

Gwen,

We are requesting that you send us on Friday an electronic copy of the final grant proposal in the form it is being submitted.

Lydia Miller, President
San Joaquin Raptor RescueCenter
San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center
P.O. Box 778
Merced, CA 95341
(209) 723-9283, ph. & fax
raptorctr@bigvalley.net
SJRRC@sbcglobal.net

----- Original Message -----
From: Raptorctr
To: Gwen Huff
Cc: 'Karen Barstow' ; Cindy Lashbrook ; Cathy & Don Weber ; Bernard Wade ; Glenn Anderson ; Whipp ; Dist4@co.merced.ca.us ; doubletacres@aol.com ; SJRRC
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: EMRCD Grant Proposal

To: Board of Directors, East Merced Resource Conservation District
Date: June 1, 2007
Re: Request to review final copy of grant proposal
Members of the Board,

Lydia Miller, President
San Joaquin Raptor RescueCenter
San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center
P.O. Box 778
Merced, CA 95341
(209) 723-9283, ph. & fax
raptorctr@bigvalley.net
SJRRC@sbcglobal.net

Gwen,

We are requesting that you send us on Friday an electronic copy of the final grant proposal in the form it is being submitted.

Lydia Miller, President
San Joaquin Raptor RescueCenter
San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center
P.O. Box 778
Merced, CA 95341
(209) 723-9283, ph. & fax
raptorctr@bigvalley.net
SJRRC@sbcglobal.net

----- Original Message -----
From: Karen L Whipp
To: Raptorctr ; Gwen Huff
Cc: 'Karen Barstow' ; Cindy Lashbrook ; Cathy & Don Weber ; Bernard Wade ; Glenn Anderson ; Whipp ; Dist4@co.merced.ca.us ; doubletacres@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: EMRCD Grant Proposal

Cindy,

We have names that you can us as contact names to see about getting these letters of support If you want I will email them to you later today! ok.

Karen

Raptorctr wrote:
Gwen,

We are requesting that you send us on Friday an electronic copy of the final grant proposal in the form it is being submitted.

Lydia Miller, President
San Joaquin Raptor RescueCenter
San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center
P.O. Box 778
Merced, CA 95341
(209) 723-9283, ph. & fax
raptorctr@bigvalley.net
SJRRC@sbcglobal.net

KL Whipp & Co. Inc.
"providing a voice to those in need"
Karen L. Whipp, President
P.O. Box 1426
Merced, CA 95341-1426
Tel: 209.723.6755
Fax: 209.723.0880
email: kwhipp@klwhippandco.com
website: www.klwhippandco.com

Gwen,

We are requesting that you send us on Friday an electronic copy of the final grant proposal in the form it is being submitted.

Lydia Miller, President
San Joaquin Raptor RescueCenter
San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center
P.O. Box 778
Merced, CA 95341
(209) 723-9283, ph. & fax
raptorctr@bigvalley.net
SJRRC@sbcglobal.net

----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Kelsey
To: SJRRC ; Gwen Huff ; 'Pat Ferrigno' ; 'Hicham Eltal' ; 'Jean Kiel' ; 'Jean Okuye' ; 'Jeannie Habbin' ; 'Jeff McLain' ; 'Jeff Wilson' ; 'Jim Genes' ; 'JoAnne Armstrong' ; 'Joanne Karlton' ; 'Joe Mitchell' ; 'John Shelton' ; 'Kazi Rasheedi' ; 'Ken Jensen' ; 'Kevin Faulkenberry' ; lrobinson@muhsd.k12.ca.us ; 'Maia Singer' ; 'Marc Epstein' ; 'Marna Cooper' ; Marsh Pitman ; 'Mary Ward' ; 'Michael Rood' ; 'Michelle Cuningham' ; 'Mike Bettencourt' ; 'Mike Gallo' ; 'Molly Flemate' ; 'Nancy McConnell' ; 'Pam Buford' ; pklassen@unwiredbb.com ; 'Pat Brantley' ; 'Peggy Vejar' ; 'Rob Root' ; 'Ronnie Grisom' ; 'Rudy & Hope Platzek' ; 'Scott Stoddard' ; 'Scott Turner' ; 'Sharon Boyce' ; 'Steve Simmons' ; 'Tami Cosio' ; 'Tom Grave' ; 'Urla Garland' ; 'Virginia Mahacek' ; 'Zooey Diggory' ; Whipp ; Glenn Anderson ; Bernard Wade ; Cathy & Don Weber ; Mary Furey ; Cindy Lashbrook ; 'Karen Barstow' ; Malia Hildebrandt ; Merced Farm Bureau ; Mike Pellicano ; Tim Johnson ; watershed@sti.net ; watershededucator@sti.net ; Robbyavilla@aol.com ; Koch ; William Loudermilk ; Madelyn T. Martinez ; Rhonda Reed ; Teri Murrison ; William Hatch
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: A point of clarification on EMRCD Grant Proposal

Deidre Kelsey here. I have just today been made aware of the problems with the grant application not being reviewed by the Merced River Stakeholder group. As the Board of Supervisor member who represents the Merced River within Merced County, and who helped launch the Stakeholder process years ago, I am concerned about these problems. I have asked to speak with Gwen Huff and expect she will call me soon. I must correct Ms. Miller's assertion that I am "conflicted' on river issues or have no political voice". This untrue statement, which apparently has been repeated at previous MRS meeting, is misleading and again, is untrue. The future of the river as a resource for our county is what is important. I have helped on many watershed and river related or fishery related issues in the past and I am ready to help with this problem or any other that affects my district and the County of Merced.
Deidre

----- Original Message -----
From: SJRRC
To: Gwen Huff ; 'Pat Ferrigno' ; 'Hicham Eltal' ; 'Jean Kiel' ; 'Jean Okuye' ; 'Jeannie Habbin' ; 'Jeff McLain' ; 'Jeff Wilson' ; 'Jim Genes' ; 'JoAnne Armstrong' ; 'Joanne Karlton' ; 'Joe Mitchell' ; 'John Shelton' ; 'Jon Kelsey' ; 'Kazi Rasheedi' ; 'Ken Jensen' ; 'Kevin Faulkenberry' ; lrobinson@muhsd.k12.ca.us ; 'Maia Singer' ; 'Marc Epstein' ; 'Marna Cooper' ; Marsh Pitman ; 'Mary Ward' ; 'Michael Rood' ; 'Michelle Cuningham' ; 'Mike Bettencourt' ; 'Mike Gallo' ; 'Molly Flemate' ; 'Nancy McConnell' ; 'Pam Buford' ; pklassen@unwiredbb.com ; 'Pat Brantley' ; 'Peggy Vejar' ; 'Rob Root' ; 'Ronnie Grisom' ; 'Rudy & Hope Platzek' ; 'Scott Stoddard' ; 'Scott Turner' ; 'Sharon Boyce' ; 'Steve Simmons' ; 'Tami Cosio' ; 'Tom Grave' ; 'Urla Garland' ; 'Virginia Mahacek' ; 'Zooey Diggory' ; Whipp ; Glenn Anderson ; Bernard Wade ; Cathy & Don Weber ; Mary Furey ; Cindy Lashbrook ; 'Karen Barstow' ; Malia Hildebrandt ; Merced Farm Bureau ; Mike Pellicano ; Tim Johnson ; watershed@sti.net ; watershededucator@sti.net ; Robbyavilla@aol.com ; Koch ; William Loudermilk ; Madelyn T. Martinez ; Rhonda Reed ; Teri Murrison ; William Hatch
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: A point of clarification on EMRCD Grant Proposal
To: Merced River Stakeholders (MRS) and East Merced Resource Conservation District (EMRCD) Board of Directors
From: Lydia Miller, Merced River Stakeholder, and president of San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center
Re: Refutation of RCD watershed coordinator’s version of events surrounding two grant proposals
Date: May 23, 2007

This letter will refer to a chain of emails attached below and to notes taken at the March 19 and May 21 MRS during which staff presented a grant proposal for MRS support. Later, we discovered there was a second grant proposal that was never submitted to MRS for review or support. Staff’s recollections of events, put forth in her email of May 23, are inaccurate and misleading. Because of the timing, they appear to be last-ditch efforts to influence the RCD board vote this afternoon. As staff stated in her May 16 email response, staff is presenting MRS as a full participant and supporter of these grant proposals.

Lastly, the idea of substituting the Management Plan process for the MRS meetings was not a good one. I heard that loud and clear. I was happy to get that feedback – it reminded me that the MRS meetings are, indeed, valuable for those who come. So, when changing the concept proposal to the final proposal, we will be adding in the MRS meetings. We cannot add anymore to the budget, so we will just have to work things out to accommodate this. Most probably we will hold the MRS meetings on the same day as we hold the logistics meetings to save on costs and it will most likely change to once a quarter instead of every other month. At the MRS meetings we will be able to summarize progress on the Management Plan, but attendees will have had to do their homework on the website because we will want time for group input, not spending too much time bringing everyone up to speed. At these MRS meetings we will ask the group for feedback on the process and the direction, as well as encouraging continued participation in the workgroups.
Oh – and when the workgroups have finished meeting and a draft plan is put together based on their meetings, this draft plan will be circulated to the stakeholders, as well as all work group participants, to see that it accurately reflects their experience. Review from them will shape the final project. -- Email from Gwen Huff to Lydia Miller, May 16, 2007

This comment by RCD staff ignores the fact that consistent stakeholders, who have been in the process since its beginning in 1999, were not involved in the drafting of the proposals, have basic objections to the proposals and will oppose the funding publicly.

The EMRCD Directors have now been made aware of the lapse in soliciting MRS comments and are resolved to rectify that failing. Canceling the current proposal signals termination of the MRS and continued scientific research on the Merced River. Then we are out of the loop and CalFed can award the money to a candidate regardless of content. Best Regards, Bernie

RCD President Bernie Wade's comment in his May 22 email is irresponsible, inaccurate and typical of what the east Merced public has come to expect from the RCD.

1) RCD cannot rectify the failure to solicit MRS comments in time;
2) Cancelling the current proposal does not signal termination of the MRS or continued scientific research: MRS is a volunteer organization that can dispense with the services of a paid coordinator; and according to the primary grant writer, Maia Singer, (during May 21 MRS meeting) there is other grant money available to implement scientific research on the river.

Some of these comments included:

1) Starting up a Technical Advisory Committee again, after the TAC approach has already proved unsuccessful in the stakeholder process because it separates agencies from other stakeholders and creates a top-down decision-making hierarchy;
2) San Joaquin Valley Blueprint and UC/Great Valley Center experience: there are stakeholders who don’t support either and neither organization has participated in the MRS process;
3) Partners and co-sponsors of these grants have never attended MRS meetings. Staff who created these grants did not recognize local stakeholders except to come to them at the eleventh hour, present them a grant, tell them it couldn’t be changed, and request MRS support;
4) The Merced River has no political voice on the county Board of Supervisors because Supervisor Kelsey recuses herself on all issues involving the river;
5) The California Department of Fish and Game and USFWS Endangered Species Sac. has no involvement in these grants;
6) According to staff, the document to be produced by the CalFed grant will become a part of the Merced County General Plan Update and become planning policy; the partners and co-sponsors on the proposal are not representative of real stakeholders on the river;
7) Merced River Corridor Restoration Plan is not a policy document either, despite repeated attempts of county special interests to make it one; it remains a fluid document;
8) MRS, composed of agencies, landowners, businesses and environmental representatives, has been involved in the stakeholder process since 1999; the partners listed on these grants have not been involved in MRS;
9) Some MRS members did not support the grant concept proposal; they will oppose it; it was presented by staff at the March 19 meeting as a done deal in its present form that could not be altered (comments on it weren’t even included in the minutes of the meeting).

At the May 21 meeting of MRS, some new issues were brought out:

1) There at least two grant proposals being submitted and there may be more; they may duplicate tasks; there is no coordination among them – the topic of coordination is mentioned, but not explained;
2) The recipients of funding for staff work are not identified, but it is apparent there will be significant monetary advantage from the grants to RCD, Stillwater, and the Merced River Alliance.
3) The orderly way to proceed on the consultant portion of the grant would be to put the consultant’s tasks out to bid; it appears here that the consultant may have been the primary grant writer;
4) RCD has proving itself on four occasions to be unable to administer past grants; four grants have been frozen due to RCD lack of accountability;
5) Thirty-to-40 concerns were written down by a facilitator who was not invited by MRS at the May 21 meeting; none of these have been incorporated in to the grant nor has their been any attempt to incorporate them into the document the RCD board will be asked to approve today;
6) Only four stakeholders among the MRS participants had read the grants. None of the four RCD board members had read them. Staff picked and chose who got to see it.

Staff attempts to railroad the MRS have the appearance of corruption.

San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center and its associated organizations cannot support these grant proposals because staff has already shown it is ignoring significant critical input by MRS members.

Lydia Miller, President
San Joaquin Raptor RescueCenter
San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center
P.O. Box 778
Merced, CA 95341
(209) 723-9283, ph. & fax
raptorctr@bigvalley.net
SJRRC@sbcglobal.net
-----------------

CHRONOLOGY OF E-MAILS

----- Original Message -----
From: Gwen Huff
To: 'Pat Ferrigno' ; 'Hicham Eltal' ; 'Jean Kiel' ; 'Jean Okuye' ; 'Jeannie Habbin' ; 'Jeff McLain' ; 'Jeff Wilson' ; 'Jim Genes' ; 'JoAnne Armstrong' ; 'Joanne Karlton' ; 'Joe Mitchell' ; 'John Shelton' ; 'Jon Kelsey' ; 'Kazi Rasheedi' ; 'Ken Jensen' ; 'Kevin Faulkenberry' ; lrobinson@muhsd.k12.ca.us ; 'Lydia Miller' ; 'Maia Singer' ; 'Marc Epstein' ; 'Marna Cooper' ; marshpitman@sbcglobal.net ; 'Mary Ward' ; 'Michael Rood' ; 'Michelle Cuningham' ; 'Mike Bettencourt' ; 'Mike Gallo' ; 'Molly Flemate' ; 'Nancy McConnell' ; 'Pam Buford' ; pklassen@unwiredbb.com ; 'Pat Brantley' ; 'Peggy Vejar' ; 'Rob Root' ; 'Ronnie Grisom' ; 'Rudy & Hope Platzek' ; 'Scott Stoddard' ; 'Scott Turner' ; 'Sharon Boyce' ; 'Steve Simmons' ; 'Tami Cosio' ; 'Tom Grave' ; 'Urla Garland' ; 'Virginia Mahacek' ; 'Zooey Diggory'
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 8:35 AM
Subject: A point of clarification on EMRCD Grant Proposal

Pat and Bernie –

I just wanted to add a little bit to this discussion on the point about gathering input from stakeholders. The effort may or may not have been adequate in everyone’s opinion, but below you will find my recollections on what was done.

At the March MRS meeting printed copies of the concept proposal were made available, for anyone who cared to have one.

During the meeting a presentation was made outlining the proposed grant and request made for input from stakeholders. Comments were made and incorporated.

Upon notification that we had been asked to submit a full proposal, the following email went out to the entire MRS:

Stakeholders –

Today we received the very good news that our concept proposal was accepted to go to the next, and final round. You may remember we talked about this at the last MRS meeting and you said you wanted to give more input to the final proposal. I will call all the stakeholders who have been frequent attendees and we will go over the project as it now stands and see where we can modify to make it better. If you are not a regular attendee, and you want to participate in this process, please let me know. I will be happy to call you, too.

Also, at the next MRS meeting, May 21, our primary order of business will be to go over the proposed project and get input from the stakeholders as a whole. I hope that you will make an effort to be there. I’ll be sending out more meeting details later.

I am pleased that we were asked to go forward – I think the project has potential to coordinate many of the diverse efforts and interests in the Merced Watershed.

Following this, contact was made with all those who regularly attend stakeholder meetings, soliciting their input. Those contacted by email only were also sent a summary of the concept proposal. The text of such emails is as follows:

As you will remember, at the last MRS meeting we talked about the upcoming grant proposal. I’m attaching a summary of the draft proposal to help jog your memory.

There were some comments that I received that we will be incorporating into the final proposal, they are:

· Keep the Merced River Stakeholders meetings going (we will – may have to go to once a quarter)
· Review the focus areas for the work groups (looking for your input on this)
· Be sure to include more stakeholders so all organizations are working together (any organizations you know of that we should contact?)
· Be careful that the management team isn’t separate from stakeholders (may rename this to the “Logistics Workgroup” rather than “Management Team” as the bulk of work will be compiling and sorting information from the workgroups, and outside sources, as well as setting up and facilitating workgroup meetings. The real work will take place in the workgroups. Additionally, the minutes of the “Logistics Workgroup” will be posted with all other work group meetings on the website that will be set up for this and the meetings will be open to all)

If you would like to talk to me or email me about this issues, or others that come up for you, regarding the grant proposal, I am very anxious to have as much input as possible from every interested (and even not so interested) party.

Remember – this is due in Sacramento by June 1st and the sooner we get any comments, the more likely we will be able to incorporate them. Thanks for taking the time to look at this.

One stakeholder requested the full concept proposal and this was sent. Two stakeholders responded to this request for input, Glenn Anderson who provided suggestions on workgroup content, and Sharon Dragovich stating;

As of now, my family’s position is the same as at the last meeting. We do not believe that this grant is consistent with the direction which the property owners (those who make their living along land contiguous to the river) have supported in the past and we cannot support it.

We believe the appropriate focus of the Merced River Stakeholders Group should be (1) oversight of projects which impact the River and (2) education. We expect to be present and to participate in the discussion on Monday night. The Grants timing is unfortunate for farmers (this is everyone’s busy season) and it is doubtful that we will be able to get them to attend this meeting; we will keep the property owners group up to date on the discussion through 1:1 contact and mailings.

Sharon’s family was contacted (Pat Ferrigno and Mike Bettencourt) by phone and personal visit in order to hear their concerns and attempt to shape the proposal to better represent their interests.

Lastly, the May MRS meeting devoted a significant portion of the time to the concept proposal.

Respectfully submitted - Gwen
------------------

From: Pat Ferrigno [mailto:pferrigno@elite.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 4:16 AM
To: 'Brwade@aol.com'
Subject: RE: May 22nd Update

Bernie: Nothing in our previous comments was meant to impugn your sincerity or good faith in dealing with EMRCD or MRS and I apologize to you if that was your interpretation. The fact that you must book-end meetings with a 125 mile commute is solid evidence of your commitment; I’m not sure how many of us would make that sacrifice.

There is an appearance of impropriety, a sense that the process has become inbred. The entire MRS meeting was agenda-ed as a discussion of the grant application—but a copy of the grant was supplied only to those who specifically requested it (Lydia Miller and Sharon Dragovich). The grant application was written, reviewed, and approved by the same committee and the members of that committee appear to be the direct financial beneficiaries of the grant.

Actually, staff for this project has never been formally identified nor have their qualifications to represent the diverse watershed interests been described. There were no job descriptions nor qualifications outlines included in the grant application we received.

The #1 Project Priority stated in this grant is to “Broaden the participation of Federal, State, or local government agencies with watershed partnerships”. How many of us have had our lives/property improved through participation of the government? With the shortage of water which is looming in the future of California and the upcoming (2012?) change in the MID relationship with the River, we are all very sensitive; several of the identified partners in this grant are already “water shopping”. These groups have never been involved in watershed activities on the Merced; what criteria was used to select partners? What is the objective of the partnership? These are valid questions which were never addressed/answered.

Comments made at the meeting espoused the thesis that MRS has no standing because it is “only” a consensus group; therefore there was no imperative for this grant to be presented to MRS. Does it not seem hypocritical for this project to be excepted from review when we have, as a group, scrutinized and withheld endorsement of other projects?

No one wants MRS to die for lack of funding; if necessary, we will keep it going through purely volunteer efforts until we can identify a funding source. MRS is the only forum for interaction and the exchange of ideas; it provides the opportunity of face-to-face meeting for those who have nothing in common except MRS.

We don’t know the answer to this grant funding cycle dilemma; the copy of the grant which we reviewed at MRS does not represent the views of many of the stakeholders. Does EMRCD have the right to proceed with attempting to obtain grant funding for a project which lacks broadbased grassroots support? Thank you for acknowledging the awareness which EMRCD now has regarding this situation. We no longer feel that it is necessary to submit a formal letter to you.

Best regards,
Pat Ferrigno, Mike Bettencourt, Sharon Dragovich
--------------------------

From: Brwade@aol.com [mailto:Brwade@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 5:08 PM
To: pferrigno@elite.net
Subject: May 22nd Update

Dear Pat, A case well explained. I appreciate your comments and pointing out the consultations we had missed. I thought the MRS had been notified and had received copies of the Grant Proposal. There has never been on my part any attempt to ignore MRS or any other concerned input. I think the Directors saw this as a continuation of River Studies already underway and we were merely complying with the CalFed request for a
Grant Proposal. I know the time limit for submittals has been extremely close. The Vernal Pools Grant proposal had to be submitted in a little over 48 hours.

The EMRCD Directors have now been made aware of the lapse in soliciting MRS comments and are resolved to rectify that failing. Canceling the current proposal signals termination of the MRS and continued scientific research on the Merced River. Then we are out of the loop and CalFed can award the money to a candidate regardless of content. Best Regards, Bernie

PS. Myself, and the Directors I know, have never received any compensation for our
participation in the EMRCD even though we are legally entitled to mileage fees.
In fact, we have contributed out of pocket to make up a short fall.
PPS. Pat, Please feel free to forward to this to the CC: of your letter.

----- Original Message -----
From: Pat Ferrigno
To: Brwade@aol.com
Cc: gwenhuff@comcast.net ; 'Hicham Eltal' ; 'Jean Kiel' ; 'Jean Okuye' ; 'Jeannie Habbin' ; 'Jeff McLain' ; 'Jeff Wilson' ; 'Jim Genes' ; 'JoAnne Armstrong' ; 'Joanne Karlton' ; 'Joe Mitchell' ; 'John Shelton' ; 'Jon Kelsey' ; 'Kazi Rasheedi' ; 'Ken Jensen' ; 'Kevin Faulkenberry' ; lrobinson@muhsd.k12.ca.us ; 'Lydia Miller' ; 'Maia Singer' ; 'Marc Epstein' ; 'Marna Cooper' ; marshpitman@sbcglobal.net ; 'Mary Ward' ; 'Michael Rood' ; 'Michelle Cuningham' ; 'Mike Bettencourt' ; 'Mike Gallo' ; 'Molly Flemate' ; 'Nancy McConnell' ; 'Pam Buford' ; pklassen@unwiredbb.com ; 'Pat Brantley' ; 'Pat Ferrigno' ; 'Peggy Vejar' ; 'Rob Root' ; 'Ronnie Grisom' ; 'Rudy & Hope Platzek' ; 'Scott Stoddard' ; 'Scott Turner' ; 'Sharon Boyce' ; 'Steve Simmons' ; 'Tami Cosio' ; 'Tom Grave' ; 'Urla Garland' ; 'Virginia Mahacek' ; 'Zooey Diggory'
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 1:26 PM
Subject: RE: EMRCD

Dear Bernie:

We were very disappointed with the discussion regarding the EMRCD grant application at the Merced River Stakeholders (MRS) meeting on Monday night. The conflict of interests present in the entire situation are disconcerting: the facilitator for MRS is applying for a grant under the auspices of EMRCD which will be reviewed by the EMRCD board which includes the MRS co-facilitator; plus the MRS facilitator did not acknowledge the importance of the MRS reviewing the concept grant before submission even though this is what we have perceived as the role of MRS since its inception. And, the RCD will receive the overhead allocation in this grant by providing oversight, which oversight will be provided by the RCD Board which includes beneficiaries of the grant, which beneficiaries include a member of the Planning Commission.

Bernie, I don’t have to be an attorney to know that this isn’t good; there has to be some Federal statute about the fox guarding the henhouse. I don’t think that is what the regulators have in mind when they talk about transparency!

Our aggregate project went under the microsope of MRS scrutiny for six months of meetings; your tailings project has been on the agenda many times. It is mind-boggling that the facilitator(!) has so little respect for the role of MRS that she chose to simply ignore that forum. The excuse that the time schedule did not allow review is a non-starter: Gwen has made multiple contacts with Lydia Miller and with members of our family by telephone and e-mail (and even an unannounced visit to my brother’s home) in her quest to garner after-the-fact support for this grant; the same avenues were available and would have had more success before the concept proposal was submitted.

I am sure that I don’t have to tell you that we will oppose this grant application with all of the resources available to us.

You will receive our formal letter of opposition prior to the meeting. We would appreciate our position being noted in the minutes.

Thank you.

----- Original Message -----
From: Gwen Huff
To: 'Raptorctr'
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 11:07 AM
Subject: RE: Merced River Grant Proposal

Hi Lydia –

Thanks for the response and I will answer your questions in order.

What is the role of the Merced River Stakeholders' Group in this East Merced Resource Conservation District proposal?

There are several roles. First would be participation of individual members of the MRS in the work groups. That is where an understanding of topic areas will come from, as well as identifying needs and determining future direction. The fact the stakeholders are willing to come to meetings, demonstrates an active interest in the river and they will be critical to the work group process.

Secondly, all the information from the workgroups, including the logistics planning and background information gathering, will be posted to a website that is interactive. Most people won’t be willing or able to make most meetings, but they can stay current and add in their information through the website. Merced River Stakeholders members will again be really important to have participating in that.

Lastly, the idea of substituting the Management Plan process for the MRS meetings was not a good one. I heard that loud and clear. I was happy to get that feedback – it reminded me that the MRS meetings are, indeed, valuable for those who come. So, when changing the concept proposal to the final proposal, we will be adding in the MRS meetings. We cannot add anymore to the budget, so we will just have to work things out to accommodate this. Most probably we will hold the MRS meetings on the same day as we hold the logistics meetings to save on costs and it will most likely change to once a quarter instead of every other month. At the MRS meetings we will be able to summarize progress on the Management Plan, but attendees will have had to do their homework on the website because we will want time for group input, not spending too much time bringing everyone up to speed. At these MRS meetings we will ask the group for feedback on the process and the direction, as well as encouraging continued participation in the workgroups.

Oh – and when the workgroups have finished meeting and a draft plan is put together based on their meetings, this draft plan will be circulated to the stakeholders, as well as all work group participants, to see that it accurately reflects their experience. Review from them will shape the final project.

How much funding is left for Stakeholders' meetings?

Right now the MRS meetings are funded through our DOC grant, which ends next month. The May meeting will be the last one to be funded by that grant. From then until May of next year the funding will come from the Merced River Alliance Project. Though not specifically named in the grant, there are hours available for “building the Alliance” and the functioning of the MRS is very important for that. Also, there is soon to be another grant proposal out for watershed coordinator work – a continuation of the DOC grant work. We will be applying for it as soon as it is out and we will be asking for continued funding of the stakeholders.

How much money is being budgeted in the proposal for Stakeholders' meetings?

We haven’t gotten that far yet. The concept proposal didn’t have any money budgeted for stakeholder meetings, but that will change when we do the final proposal. We are still working on it, but the thinking is that we will move enough money that way to be sure that there will at LEAST be a quarterly MRS meeting. If we get more funding, we can continue to have meetings every other month.

Would you send a copy of the NFWF grant?
It is attached

Lydia Miller

----- Original Message -----
From: Raptorctr
To: Gwen Huff
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 3:04 PM
Subject: Re: Merced River Grant Proposal

Gwen,

What is the role of the Merced River Stakeholders' Group in this East Merced Resource Conservation District proposal? How much funding is left for Stakeholders' meetings?
How much money is being budgeted in the proposal for Stakeholders' meetings?
Would you send a copy of the NFWF grant?

Lydia Miller

----- Original Message -----
From: Gwen Huff
To: Lydia Miller ; Lydia Miller
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 4:16 PM
Subject: Merced River Grant Proposal

Hi Lydia –

I just left you a phone message, and here is the follow-up. As you will remember, at the last MRS meeting we talked about the upcoming grant proposal. I’m attaching a summary of the draft proposal and a full draft as well, to help refresh your memory.

There were some comments that I received that we will be incorporating into the final proposal, they are:

1. Keep the Merced River Stakeholders meetings going (we will – may have to go to once a quarter)
2. Review the focus areas for the work groups (looking for your input on this)
3. Be sure to include more stakeholders so all organizations are working together (any organizations you know of that we should contact?)
4. Be careful that the management team isn’t separate from stakeholders (may rename this to the “Logistics Workgroup” rather than “Management Team” as the bulk of work will be compiling and sorting information from the workgroups, and outside sources, as well as setting up and facilitating workgroup meetings. The real work will take place in the workgroups. Additionally, the minutes of the “Logistics Workgroup” will be posted with all other work group meetings on the website that will be set up for this and the meetings will be open to all)

I would like to talk, or email, about these issues, or others that come up for you, regarding the grant proposal. I am very anxious to have as much input as possible from every interested (and even not-so-interested) party.

Remember – this is due in Sacramento by June 1st and the sooner we get any comments, the more likely we will be able to incorporate them. Thanks for taking the time to look at this.

Gwen

Gwen Huff
Watershed Coordinator
East Merced Resource Conservation District
Home Office (559) 497-5033
Mobile (559) 250-4734
gwenhuff@comcast.net

----- Original Message -----
From: Gwen Huff
To: gwenhuff@comcast.net ; Hicham Eltal ; Jean Kiel ; Jean Okuye ; Jeannie Habbin ; Jeff McLain ; Jeff Wilson ; Jim Genes ; JoAnne Armstrong ; Joanne Karlton ; Joe Mitchell ; John Shelton ; Jon Kelsey ; Kazi Rasheedi ; Ken Jensen ; Kevin Faulkenberry ; lrobinson@muhsd.k12.ca.us ; Lydia Miller ; Maia Singer ; Marc Epstein ; Marna Cooper ; marshpitman@sbcglobal.net ; Mary Ward ; Michael Rood ; Michelle Cuningham ; Mike Bettencourt ; Mike Gallo ; Molly Flemate ; Nancy McConnell ; Pam Buford ; pklassen@unwiredbb.com ; Pat Brantley ; Pat Ferrigno ; Peggy Vejar ; Rob Root ; Ronnie Grisom ; Rudy & Hope Platzek ; Scott Stoddard ; Scott Turner ; Sharon Boyce ; Steve Simmons ; Tami Cosio ; Tom Grave ; Urla Garland ; Virginia Mahacek ; Zooey Diggory
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 10:29 AM
Subject: FW: Merced River Mgt Plan Grant Proposal

Stakeholders –

Today we received the very good news that our concept proposal was accepted to go to the next, and final round. You may remember we talked about this at the last MRS meeting and you said you wanted to give more input to the final proposal. I will call all the stakeholders who have been frequent attendees and we will go over the project as it now stands and see where we can modify to make it better. If you are not a regular attendee, and you want to participate in this process, please let me know. I will be happy to call you, too.

Also, at the next MRS meeting, May 21, our primary order of business will be to go over the proposed project and get input from the stakeholders as a whole. I hope that you will make an effort to be there. I’ll be sending out more meeting details later.

I am pleased that we were asked to go forward – I think the project has potential to coordinate many of the diverse efforts and interests in the Merced Watershed.

See you soon!

Gwen

Gwen Huff
Watershed Coordinator
East Merced Resource Conservation District
Home Office (559) 497-5033
Mobile (559) 250-4734
gwenhuff@comcast.net

You are here

Merced River Stakeholders protest letter to East Merced Resource Conservation District grant proposal and a chonology of e-mails