|
Russian River Watershed Council |
Full Council Meeting |
|
Minutes of September 8, 2001 |
Cloverdale Veterans Memorial 9AM-1:30PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Due to a full agenda, the meeting began with announcements until a quorum could be reached. AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENTS Miles Croom announced a public hearing to discuss the Endangered Species Act protective regulation, the 4d rule, which will be applied to Northern California steelhead, coastal Chinook, Central Valley spring run Chinook, and Central California Coast coho. The meeting will be held on September 20, 6-9 pm, at the Ukiah Convention Center, 200 S. State St., Ukiah, CA 95482 Bob Coey announced that Dept of Fish and Game has completed coho rescues using seines to capture 200 coho juveniles from Green Valley Creek and 100 from Olema Creek. Most of the year round pools are drying up. It doesn't look good for the year class survival especially with two previous years having low numbers as well. All the fish have been taken to Warm Springs hatchery and tours are available upon request through the Visitors Center. When the fish have been genetically typed and mature enough to reproduce, their offspring will be taken to Green Valley Creek for imprinting and reintroduction to the wild. Karen Rippey posted a map created by Circuit Riders using GIS to identify potential project areas for arundo removal in Alexander Valley.
ANNOUNCEMENTS Peggy Maddock announced that the Public Outreach and Education work group will be meeting at the Healdsburg library from 4-5:30PM on Monday, September 24. Richard Miller announced the Salmonid Restoration work group will meets the same day directly afterwards from 5:30-7PM. Park Steiner announced a reprinting by the Corps of Engineers for new RRWC members of his paper "History of the Salmonid Decline in the Russian River." This is a nice overview of the Russian River's natural history of the streambed and fishery. Ann Maurice announced that the Ad Hoc Committee for Clean Water and the Acorn Growers Association are concerned with new vineyard development by Gallo on Eastside Rd near Ya-Ka-Ama. Project oversight by CA Dept of Forestry or Regional Water Quality Board is not evident as massive earth moving is going on with little regards for erosion protection. Both committees also oppose fish hatchery operations as a stopgap measure to camouflage decline of the fishery related to the ongoing diversion of water from our creeks. Judy Christensen announced that after the Coast Cleanup work on September 15, Graton will be hosting a post cleanup event. Bob Clemens announced that the Russian River Cleanup is September 22-23. Go to their website at http://www.russianrivercleanup.org or call 571-7751 to signup.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES Upon attaining a quorum count of 34 voting members at 9:20AM, the minutes for May 13 (24 ayes) and record of discussion for July 14 (26 ayes) with one modification were approved with no dissent.
MEMBERSHIP APPROVAL The updated membership rosters for the Council were distributed. Members that have joined the Council since the last membership vote introduced themselves. Roster was approved with 31 ayes.
COHO SUPPORT LETTER The Council voted to endorse (33 ayes, 2 no, 2 abstain) a letter to Dan Logan at National Marine Fisheries Service, which supports the coho captive brood program. While hatchery operations have been used to support recreational fishing in the past, this program is only one element of a recovery plan for coho. A combination of factors has contributed to the decline of coho in our watershed, which is at the fringe of its historic range. The captive brood program is an interim measure to save the genetic stock until enough habitat can be restored to reestablish the native fishery. Opposition to supporting the letter questioned the intelligence of humans managing coho reproduction when all the money and resources the agencies have spent so far have not prevented the decline. Other concerns were hatchery stock introducing disease to the wild populations and frustration that more efforts should be spent on enforcement of regulations related to toxics running off into the river and minimizing the impacts of land use practices that degrade the river.
RESOURCE DIRECTORY The Council voted to support (27 ayes, 4 no, 4 abstain) a resource directory project as outlined in the handout with the understanding that the work product will be compatible with Russian River Interactive Information System (RRIIS). Kerry Williams corrected the inkind labor amount as only appearing in the second column ($2K), with total expenditure of Public Outreach and Education budget of $15K. Since May the RRWC has reviewed this project create a resource directory for Sonoma and Mendocino counties of organizations and agencies with jurisdiction in the watershed. Members expressed desire for a formal editorial process to determine which organizations are included. Others expressed concerns that handout in packet was inaccurate (not duplexed, copy only one side) and the project was more appropriate for the agencies to develop due to their existing responsibilities and phone lists. The directory will be available on the web and by CD in later editions. All members are encouraged to share their inputs for organizations to include or any other aspect of the directory with the public outreach and education work group. (Chair is Peggy Maddock. peggymaddock@aol.com or 433-5866)
INFORMATION OFFICER This item was carried over to November in the interests of trying to keep on the agenda.
RUSSIAN RIVER INTERACTIVE INFORMATION SYSTEM Chuck Vaughn began the presentation with some background of RRIIS development by the WIAM work group. Jerome Dix and Jim Nosera drafted a scope of work that was further developed over six months before the contract was put out for bid. Some members remain frustrated that the work group was not able to participate in the selection process as much as had been originally intended, but the work group members are very satisfied with the contractors selected and look forward to the completed project. Miles Croom gave an overview of three different information projects that are currently under way with NMFS, KRIS and RRIIS. His matrix showed that despite similarities in their project intent, each project has a unique scope. There are opportunities for collaboration and the different teams will be collaborating to avoid duplication of efforts. Karen Gaffney of Circuit Riders, Adina Merenlender of UC Extension at Hopland, and Steve Kokotas of Napanet presented overviews of their organization's capability with much previous experience in the Russian River with Dept of Fish and Game stream surveys and a Napa River community coalition. RRIIS PowerPoint Presentation Converted to html and Downloadable ppt document (10 MB). In the first year of the contract, they will design the architecture for the site, identify data to be included, obtain data/design reviews with agencies and WIAM, and identify important links and bibliographic information to include. Over the next three years, they will develop restoration templates, a graphics display format, reporting capability, translation of GIS and other spatial data to website, develop a mechanism for updates, maintenance and training. RRWC members will be able to access maps, models and photos of the watershed from the completed website. Prototype website should be up and running within six months. Council members expressed desire for system to look at the data from fish eye view rather than looking down on flat data. For instance, movement of sediments and gravel in the system should be data that is accessible. Others recommended effects of gravel extraction be included. If the map being viewed has information that can be accessed by clicking on a point of interest, that will make it user friendly. Query functions will be developed so that the user can determine the answer provided by the data. For instance, if you asked about where there was good habitat or cover in the watershed, the system would provide maps of stream habitats that meet the criteria selected, e.g. less than 25% stream embedded, water temperature below 65 F, presence of large, woody debris. Ann Maurice expressed outrage that the data can be used to confuse rather than inform the public and asked about mapping of toxics associated with vineyard development and chemical control of arundo. Circuit Riders encourages non-toxic control methods that are 95% effective. In some instances, Roundup has been used. It is up to each individual property owner to determine the control method of choice. Ann Maurice objected to the facilitator curtailing the discussion after WIAM members said her remarks were impertinent and referring her interest to any work group that she wishes to attend.
NONPROFIT REPORT Rusty Klassen led a discussion after reviewing the work of the Steering Committee in developing a compromise out of the solutions with the most support. No faction got everything they wanted. Rather, the alternative recommended is a fusion of the small nonprofit and partnership models. The compromise unanimously agreed to by the Steering Committee has the RRWC exploring a partnership with the Sonoma County Community Foundation to become our fiscal agent for one year. During the year, the RRWC will take full advantage of the relationship to develop management skills and address issues associated with becoming a nonprofit. At the end of the year, the RRWC will decide to continue the partnership, to become a separate nonprofit or to dissolve the partnership. The Steering Committee acts as the interim Board of Directors until other appropriate individuals can be identified and approved of by the RRWC. The downside of the compromise is that the RRWC will not
have a unique and separate identity. The potential upsides
are The Steering Committee recommendation was passed as stated with 32 ayes, 1 no and 1 abstain. A point of order was raised when it was suggested that we vote yes or no on whether we want a nonprofit, in that the motion was calendared as approval of the Steering Committee recommendation. The other motion would have had to been introduced at the beginning of the meeting. Members acknowledged that this compromise will not force some members to leave the group. Brenda Adelman stated that $120K is available for restoration and education activities from a recent lawsuit settled by her group. The settlement agreement designates the Russian River Watershed Council as the beneficiary of any unused money at the end of 18 months. Members expressed the need for a timeline and a punch list of tasks to be accomplished during the partnership as well as some scenario developments to be presented to the Council at the November meeting. One scenario that must be addressed is what happens if the foundation declines to partner with the watershed council. A motion was introduced to allow the Steering Committee to explore other partnerships over the year period with other foundations as long as frequent reports were made to the Council. Motion passed 32 ayes, 1 no, 1 abstain.
PLAN OF ACTION Daniel Iaconfano introduced MIG Associates qualifications to facilitate the Plan of Action process with over 20 years of experience in public policy and planning. It is a remarkable achievement for a group as diverse as the RRWC to have not only remained together but actually accomplished something over the last three years. There are no models that mimic the existing structure and performance of the RRWC. The Plan of Action will be completed by the RRWC in November 2002. The scope of work details tasks that are to be accomplished such as compiling a list of work done to date, identifying linkages among stakeholder interests, identify effective restoration measures, identify appropriate tools for tracking and monitoring watershed progress, and develop evaluation criteria. By examining different projects and plans, the overlap may not be duplication but different linkages that can be leveraged for greater synergy by role agreements and used to identify data gaps. There will be six Steering Committee meetings as well as six RRWC meetings that MIG will ask for inputs or present findings. When asked, "what are you doing that we can't do for ourselves?" Answer: MIG facilitation services will minimize frustration by increasing credibility and efficiency of process. MIG has broad range of planning capacity that can be used for these efforts. MIG is good at developing communication tools that document complex situations clearly. MIG will be using RRWC documents as we move forward. If MIG is controlling our agenda, we need a resume. Also, shouldn't we be having some type of public hearing for the sub watershed groups to come and give their inputs? Answer: MIG will provide that information. The PowerPoint presentation used today will be made available to the coordinator for posting on the website. MIG will be open to information from all stakeholders. MIG information was posted for contacting Daniel Iaconfano or Julie Stein at (510) 845-7549, website www.migcom.com. INITIAL OUTCOMES PROPOSED BY RRWC Make literature available to homeowners and businesses about gray water conservation. Given our mission statement, do we have all the right stakeholders at the table? Do we need to perform more outreach? Make some explicit policy statement about upland treatments to minimize erosion impacts. Address potential effects of global warming. Show what works and what doesn't as part of the case study analysis. Develop a watershed budget with no net loss. Hold River Rendezvous Agency Fair for agencies to showcase their work and identify opportunities for volunteers to participate in local watershed restoration efforts and become educated as to required permits and approved methods for projects. Examine resource carrying capacity. General plan updates, basin plan amendments and capital improvement plans by Sonoma County Water Agency are not coordinated enough to determine whether there's really enough water for all the demanded uses. Holding restoration information fairs with experts for the local community to learn what's working. Develop a detailed list of concerns for the Corps of Engineers related to the operation of the dams for the benefit of the water agency rather than the fish. Dam operations are causing the stream dynamics to flush gravel from the tributaries where it is excavated, only accelerating upland erosion. SCWA controls the flow of the river for six months of the year. Better dam coordination would enhance the fishery and minimize erosion impacts. Identify the impacts of projects on habitat with a consistent methodology to avoid incompatibilities, e.g., one map of best gravel spawning area of the river equals one map of the area being gravel mined most extensively. Keep the water in the watershed, using redwoods for treating secondary effluent and increasing infiltration. Document all these issues in a cohesive document that is cross-referenced and user friendly. Identify critical habitat for protection. Develop watershed science curricula for K-12. Assess infiltration areas. Promote policy, which minimizes or reduces impervious surfaces such as parking lots and rewards developer that design rehydration strategies in their layout to control roof runoff and surface erosion. In the list of proposed projects, show the expected results and the potential outcomes if nothing is done. Include a groundwater assessment study. Investigate the feasibility of using gray water to irrigate roadside landscaping.
SECTION 7 Jane Christensen, environmental specialist for Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), and Jean Baldridge, a fisheries biologist with ENTRIX, gave an overview and update of the Section 7 process. Endangered Species Act requirements for a listing process (now completed for steelhead '97, coho '98 and chinook '99), led to federal agency consultation between the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Army Corps of Engineers (ACE), CA Dept of Fish and Game (DFG) and SCWA. SCWA was drawn into the process due to their water diversion facilities near Wohler and flood control operations that involve some channel alterations. Both activities are prohibited for endangered species habitat unless some permit is issued. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was created to define the roles of each agency for the consultation, the scope of work for the project, which include the main stem from Coyote Dam to Jenner, and other participants such as Mendocino County Flood Control District and the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. Interim reports that address flood control operations, fish facility operations, instream flow, water supply and diversion, channel maintenance, restoration activities, hydroelectric operations, and estuary management, will be developed by December 2001. All the reports except instream flows are available at the SCWA website (http://www.scwa.ca.gov) . Instream flows is last report due in December and will be presented at workshop in January 2002. A draft biological assessment will be presented in February 2002, with the final biological assessment due in May 2002. The Biological Opinion will be issued in October 2002. This is the only consultation on the West Coast where the public is included. It is not required by law. The public has been given opportunities to review the data as it is collected and comment on work products. Since this is not a CEQA review, SCWA is not required to respond to every comment submitted. Specific guidelines exist for developing the report, using watershed planning activities. Questions and Answers If this covers hydroelectric generation, why isn't Potter
Valley and Eel River diversions within the scope? Why isn't gravel mining addressed? How can you not look at gravel? When or how much of a decline is necessary to look at
it? If the Eel River diversions have altered the flow to the
Russian River, how can you not consider them? NMFS and ACE already have permit processes for stream
work with 4(d) rule. Why wouldn't gravel mining be
considered a take activity? How can this process be valid if the data is
incomplete? Are there historical aerial photos to show effects for
flood control? Have you considered the TMDL's? Why not consider impervious surfaces? Have you considered re-naturalizing the channels to slow
flows? If you don't look at the other parts, how can this work
or be approved? Shouldn't Section 7 gauge how much habitat is available
and how good that habitat is for the different rearing and
life cycle needs of the fish? Section 7 should catalogue the
factors that contribute to decline of the salmonids and then
establish some type of environmental baseline that fish need
to survive. RRWC Council members experience with Section 7
process. Bob Anderson has attended many of the Section 7 meetings, which alternate between Santa Rosa and Ukiah as each interim report is presented to the public. Lack of experience with a public oversight on this process has led to some ambiguity about when or how things are decided. SCWA is the applicant to NMFS for permitted activities, touching on water supply and flood control. The meetings DO provide a lot of information. Bob expressed amazement at the broad representation of technical expertise on the review panel and how well it works for very technical questions to be addressed by the ENTRIX staff. Using the fish worldview and counting the number of fish is a lot preferable to using a water agency view that is counting parking spaces. NOVEMBER MEETING · Include approval of the agenda as an action
item. |
|