|
Russian River Watershed Council |
Full Council Meeting |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Minutes of January 13, 2001 |
Cloverdale Veterans Memorial Bldg 9AM - 1PM |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Opening count of watershed council members =35 voting members
APPROVAL OF AGENDA Delete Logo presentation from agenda and substitute the request for proposal discussion. M/S/C 37 Ayes to Approve agenda with modification.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes from the November 17, 2000 meeting were approved by 37 Ayes after a correction that the Environmental Caucus did not formally select their Executive Committee members.
AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENTS • Bob Coey of Department of Fish and Game told the Council about a new round of watershed coordination workshops. Restoration efforts will be focused on barriers to the fishery, including road treatments, technical training for landowners, educational programs for the public and several genetic studies to assess the vitality of the fishery. • There have been sightings of chinook salmon and redds from Asti to Cloverdale along the Russian River and its tributaries. The steelhead are beginning to come in as well but in smaller numbers. Interested members of the public can view fish hatchery operations on Thursday mornings at 10 AM. • National Marine Fishery Service is reviewing its' 4(d) rules associated with projects in streams that have threatened or endangered species. Fish raised in the Warm Springs Dam hatchery will be released in the main stem only to minimize effects on the native fishery. • Department of Fish and Game has declared its intent to bring back the coho to the Russian River. • Karen Rippey from the US Army Corps of Engineer stated that at least 50 bid packages had been mailed to prospective contractors for the Russian River Interactive Information System. While WIAM work group members are not allowed to review the proposals due to legal constraints, the ratings sheet developed by the work group will be used to evaluate contractor proposals over the next 2 weeks. • Sonoma County Water Agency will be holding its Section 7 workshop on February 2 from 9AM-1PM at the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors chambers, 501 Low Gap Rd., Ukiah.
ANNOUNCEMENTS • Ann Maurice stated that the Ad Hoc Committee for Clean water is initiating a campaign to influence public policy with regards to restoration project proposal review. The group is concerned that effects of electrofishing and pesticide usage are inadequately addressed. They are particularly concerned about reports from the Los Angeles Times which suggest that gender switching among fish is related to exposure to organochlorines. Lack of enforcement of 6614 that requires no pesticide spraying to affect adjoining neighbors is also a grave group concern. • Tim Buckner reported that the Budget work group has adopted the larger budget reviewed with the Council during the November meeting. The $260K proposed is inadequate to address the priorities identified by various RRWC work groups. The Budget committee encourages individual member and/or their organizations to write letters of support to Mary Nichols and Colonel O'Rourke endorsing the proposed $1.6M budget outlined in November. Any letters of support from agencies to the Resources Agency would be particularly appreciated. • David Berman of the Dutch Bill Watershed Group asked the Council to consider adding its name to the list of "cooperators" for developing a watershed assessment plan for the Dutch Bill area so that the group can demonstrate community support when seeking Prop 13 grants. A cooperator would be a group that the watershed group would contact to communicate planning and reporting on the project results. The proposal deadline is February 19, 2001. The motion was moved and seconded after an amendment to include the Atascedero/Green Valley Creek Watershed group. Discussion points included: --those groups that conduct assessment in the first round of Prop 13 funding are more likely to receive additional grant money when proposing restoration work in the future. --this should have been an agenda item for action rather than an information item. --are there more groups applying for Prop 13 money that money dedicated for our watershed? --the work groups should review draft copies of any proposal before asking for Council support. --the Council should not make any blanket endorsements to watershed groups without adequate review of their proposal so that the RRWC can demand accountability. --the Council needs to evaluate the legitimacy of any group asking for Council endorsement. David Berman withdrew his motion. It was moved and seconded to include the request for RRWC endorsement of groups seeking Prop 13 grant money in the agenda for action by the Council. The motion had 19 Ayes. For passage 75% or 30 of the 39 votes was needed. The motion failed. • Eric Sunswheat announced a town hall meeting in Ukiah on January 16 at 7PM to discuss the issue associated with homeless camps along the Russian River. Hiking access, private property rights, and individual security are among those concerns. • The Public Outreach and Education Committee met with Chris Poehlmann, who introduced himself and explained his proposal for a professionally designed exhibit for the Russian River that would travel around the watershed to inform the public. Chris will forward information on the project to anyone who registers at the front table. POE work group would like to reserve a spot on the March meeting agenda for more in-depth review of the project. • Brock Dolman reported that a watershed network of local groups is now meeting quarterly to exchange information about group restoration work and other local projects. Brock is trying to develop a summer forum on community watershed groups.
SURVEY RESULTS Linda Curry presented the summary of survey results. Assuming that the full council meetings were 4 hours long, over 47 members responded that they attended over 500 meetings, which translates to over 2000 hours of full council meetings. Over 100 Steering Committee meetings with over 300 hours were tallied. At least one individual drove almost 100 hours in attending council meetings. The results are available upon request to Linda.
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL Scott Barrow presented the draft guidelines for the RRWC to use in evaluating requests for proposal support. The random way that proposals are now brought before the Council does not allow for any prioritization or evaluation of the merits of any project as compared to another. The draft proposal would formalize the procedure by which anyone seeking approval or endorsement of the Council would forward their request. Discussion points were: --this should have been done a long time ago --RRWC needs to evaluate the qualifications of anyone requesting support --project proposals should include reports back to the Council at regular intervals to show what works and share any monitoring data results. --education proposals must be addressed in the criteria --the work submittal process is at odds with the Council meeting time frame. There should be some provision for shortening the approval process to be more responsive. --the criteria should include some type of annual review cycle --an important element for any project approval should be stakeholder involvement --there should be clear distinctions between assessment, restoration and education proposals. --each caucus or work group must endorse the same criteria so that there is not different processes for approaching each group. --the salmonid restoration work group and public outreach and education work groups shall meet and get their edits of the document to Linda within a month of this meeting. Scott finished his presentation by giving a brief update on progress with the Willow Creek project previously approved by the Council. Adopt-a-Watershed has received $20K from Dept. of Fish and Game for a Leadership Institute to occur in March. RRWC's previous support of $10K has been used as matching funds to use towards the watershed assessment and education elements of the project. A letter of support was signed the executive steering members to be included in the project grant proposal due January 19. February 1 is deadline for this round of Prop 13 grants.
CAUCUS REPORTS ON NON PROFIT STATUS RECOMMENDATIONS A work group met in December to review the concerns and needs associated with the Council becoming a nonprofit organization. Each caucus was asked to convene before the January 13 meeting to review a list of issues developed by that work group and make the caucus recommendations to the Council in January. The Enviromental Caucus representative Chuck Vaughn began the review of each caucus' recommendation for nonprofit status structure. The Public Caucus representative Eric Sunswheat followed. The Economic Caucus presented a position paper rather than endorsing any point of view. Serious concerns associated with the speed and thoroughness of the nonprofit decision as well as continuing concerns associated with Board responsibilities and duties, liability issues, who pays for nonprofit status/how are funds generated to pay for development of nonprofit status and errors & omissions insurance. Economic Caucus requests further detail in the choices before making a decision. Economic Caucus members will find a speaker not affiliated with any Council group or caucus for the March agenda to address legal issues associated with nonprofit status. Economic Caucus members would like to see the nonprofit work group develop several scenarios to develop pros and cons for each structure alternative. The Mendocino County Water Agency has formally requested that the Council seek nonprofit status so that the Council can administer our contracts with the state for coordinator support.
Additional discussion points were: -Denny O'Brien expanded on the nonprofit work group discussion which also included 501.c.4 organizations which are allowed to lobby but are not tax deductible. -The Council needs a legal interpretation of political lobbying. -Suzanne Marr from EPA suggested that the Council's recommendations to agencies on restoration would not be construed as lobbying. -Concern that the Russian River Watershed Council would become an octopus that would swallow up and consume other smaller nonprofits.
PRESENTATION ON GLASSY WINGED SHARPSHOOTER AND PIERCE'S DISEASE John Westoby, the Sonoma County Agricultural Commissioner, began the presentation with an overview of the insect and its impacts. Ann Maurice, member of the State Environmental and Public Health Glassy Winged Sharpshooter Task Force, gave an analysis on the magnitude of the threat. Peter Opatz, past President of Sonoma County Grape Growers, gave an insider's view of the actual threat to local vineyards. Speaker's notes are included as Appendix A to these minutes. Questions follow: • Why can't we just put a moratorium on ornamental plants? Westoby answer: Ag commissioner has no authority to institute an economic blockade. Pest control efforts are limited to inspection program. • If the riparian plants are the host plants, why not remove the plants? Napa has started a program of clearing riparian host reservoir plants such as blackberry, and mugwort. • Maybe growing the wasp predator for the glassy winged sharpshooter could be a new local cottage industry. • What about the Dept. of Agriculture's 'zero tolerance' policy? Don't you need to have some of the pest for the control methods to be effective? Westoby answer: Keeping the pest out is a better strategy than using biocontrols. • Any type of vine determined more susceptible due to its minerals or nutrient content? Westoby answer: That hasn't been established. • Is the legislature planning any other controls for imports? Westoby answer: No restrictions on transport are pending. • Why not stimulate the north coast nursery industry by discouraging consumers from buying stock that comes from southern California? Westoby answer: The majority of the nursery stock being imported comes from southern California. By using the nicotine pesticide or knee oil, which works well on the nymph life stage, you can prevent a life stage and eliminate the pest. • What about compensation for organic farmers that are subject to unwanted spray that compromises their certification? Any use of pesticide revokes their certification for 3 years. Westoby answer: There is currently no provision to compensate organic growers. • What about some sort of study to determine if the bacteria that causes Pierce's Disease can really exist in the soil for ten years? Maurice answer: We cannot develop public policy without a reasonable review of the data. At the Glassy winged Sharpshooter website there is information about resistant vines. We need to develop a new template for dealing with pest problems where environmental concerns are respected as well as agricultural concerns are respected. Insects can be dangerous threats but we need a good dialogue to minimize the threat or maximize the control. • What about some sort of nursery certification program by CA Dept. of Agriculture? Maurice answer: The discussion of urban encroachment on ag land use without more formal review should answer the question: Does ag encroach on residents or residents encroach on agricultural practices? • What about the difference in wine quality made from infected vines? Maurice answer: Fetzer Vineyards is conducting a study with the California Waste Management Board and UC Extension to explore the effects of organic material on soil quality. • What about birds possibly spreading the disease? Opatz answer: Birds are not a recognized vector for this disease. • Why can't we quarantine the fields of absentee landlords from offshore? Opatz answer: That's not possible. The rules are the same for everyone. • Is there a correlation between chlorinated water and infestation? Opatz answer: About one half to one third of infestations occur with chlorinated water supplies. Going back to the analogy about crying fire in a crowded room. There should not be a panic in Sonoma County right now. We have more bacteria in our bathroom than in the entire Temecula Valley. • Why haven't the local sharpshooters already been parasitized by wasps and spiders? Opatz answer: The overwintering insects are the problem. Spraying may be quick but root treatments take almost 5 months to reach the leaf margins. RCD's and UC should share the expense of replanting the riparian zones that are stripped to control the pest. The bacteria cannot live on the ground. • How much of the program involves spraying? Opatz answer: The State program involves about one third spraying, one third using biocontrols and one third on containment/eradication. • What about an economy that pays taxes to pay the program costs? Opatz answer: North coast vintners have kicked in $2M. Even $5M is a measly contribution when grapes are going for $125/ton in Bakersfield. If it's costing us $25M, it should be worth $20M to control it. • Private vineyards can control their own spray program? Opatz answer: Right now our options stink. Clos DuBois will not spray and has already lost 6.5 acres to the disease. We need better riparian insectiary data so that we don't need to spray in the riparian zone.
NEXT STEPS March 10 is next watershed council meeting with potential presentations on non-profit organization issues, water supply and Coyote Dam. The Public Outreach and Education work group will meet on February 1 from 3-5PM at the Cloverdale library. The Steering Committee will meet on February 6 from 4-6PM at Cloverdale library. The Executive Steering Committee members will meet with Lt. Colonel Timothy O'Rourke and Mary Nichols in Santa Rosa on February 8, 2001. The Water Rights Seminar will be presented at the Finley Center from 9AM-5PM on Saturday, March 31.
Information related to Russian River Watershed Council is available online at: http: // www.spn.usace.army.mil/russian.
Email address: watershedrrwc@hotmail.com US Mail address: Russian River Watershed Council
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||