untitled

Russian River Watershed Council

Full Council Meeting

Draft Minutes of November 10, 2001

Cloverdale Veterans Memorial 9AM-2:30PM

AGENDA AND MINUTES OF 9/8/01 APPROVAL-Zeno Swijtink facilitated the meeting. At 9:15AM there were only 26 voting members present. Ann Maurice objected that the development of the agenda by the consultant MIG was manipulation rather than facilitation. Those presented voted 4 ayes, 15 noes to have a discussion of the agenda "manipulation". There was no second to Ann's motion that the coho recovery work group support the RRWC endorsed in September to be revisited in the light of alleged improprieties in how it was brought to the Council's agenda. By 9:30AM there were 30 voting members to approve the stated agenda by 29 ayes, 1 no. The minutes of September 8, 2001 were officially approved with 27 ayes.
INFORMATION OFFICER APPROVAL -The first vote was for the motion as presented without the second bullet allowing testimony at public hearings. That motion failed 11 ayes, 18 noes, 6 abstain. Concerns were that statements to agencies could be construed as lobbying and impact potential nonprofit status. The motion presented was not the verbatim version approved by the work group. It was amended to include the original language about review by the Public Outreach and Education work group before press releases were submitted. The final approved language was:
The Coordinator of the Russian River Watershed Council will act as the information officer. Duties include: issuing press releases about Council activities under review by the Public Outreach and Education work group and reporting RRWC activities to public agencies during hearings.
The vote was 29 ayes, 0 noes, 1 abstain for the amended motion.
PLAN OF ACTION FRAMEWORK -Zeno turned the meeting over to Daniel Iacofano for a discussion of the tools developed by MIG to prepare our Plan of Action. Each handout of the packet was reviewed in detail. All these handouts will be amended based on the feedback from the Council and Steering Committee continuing discussions with MIG. Additional handouts available at the meeting were a blue comments sheet and a summary of MIG qualifications.
Wall graphic transcription from P O A Discussion November 10, 2001
Powerpoint Presentation
In the timeline presented:
· initial case studies and a preliminary evaluation of RRWC work group structure would be complete in December,
· selected case studies with a Plan of Action strategy map by February,
· draft inventory of projects and programs for watershed restoration and protection by April,
· preliminary draft of Plan of Action by June,
· draft Plan of Action by September
· and final Plan of Action by November 2002.
Additional sessions with each caucus are planned at least 3 times before the completed Plan of Action. Goals for the Plan of Action mirror the RRWC goals with each goal being explicitly linked to objectives. Leonard Stewart asked for
Dam Modification to be included as a Strategy Box between C (Water Supply, etc.) and D (Uplands Restoration). Several members asked that the Plan of Action be a "living document" with immediate elements and long-term elements, so that revisions and updates are built into the process. If possible, identifying the consultant that will develop the management plan to work concurrently with the consultant for the Plan of Action scope of work may save some time and reduce duplication. Other members expressed funding concerns due to our current organizational structure and budgets cuts proposed by the state and federal governments. A concern at the volunteer investment and expectations for volunteers versus the budget approved for the Corps of Engineer was expressed.
Many projects to improve watershed health are currently underway with sponsorship by NMFS or the local RCDs. The RRWC should be more aware of the past successes and future plans for projects. As RRIIS comes online, there will be better information sharing. An agency fair, which showcases their projects and solicits volunteers from the community, has been reviewed with the Public Outreach and Education work group.
Several members reiterated the desire not to replicate existing studies or repackaged existing data in new format. While we are mired in process, the fish are dying. We need data that addresses how much impervious surface is too much for a healthy fishery, how much of the stream canopy can be removed without harm to the fishery, some measure of impact from timber harvest plans and stream diversions for agricultural and residential uses. Learning from what has been done historically and accessing the institutional memories of the agencies can help prevent degradation and protect crucial resource elements. By prioritizing projects that address identified and weighted limiting factors, the scarce dollar resources can be allocated more effectively. For instance, DFG basin plan is near completion. Our plan should take into account other efforts with similar intents.
WORK GROUPS -There is desire to improve the communication and function of the work groups. Attendance at work groups is sporadic and uneven in participation with some Council members doing most of the work group tasks. Repetition of discussions that have already been conducted in work groups is tiresome. The chair of the work group should be able to explain the discussions previously held in the work group when asked why the work group chose to endorse a particular action. The rules of operation state that all Council members will participate in a work group.
The work groups should focus on the issues. If a schedule for six months or a year were developed, it would be easier for people to schedule their time and attend discussions associated with issues that are important to them. Motions to be addressed by the full Council should come from the work groups according to the rules of operation.
Rusty supported by six other members objected strenuously to the mischaracterization of the Council by one individual as a group lacking integrity when the actual record of many work groups shines with hope. The budget work group has performed important work as needed during the history of the group. Likewise, the public outreach and education work developed the water rights seminar and continues to have other projects pending. The whole Russian River Interactive Information System was created and defined by the members of the Watershed Information Assessment and Monitoring work group. The salmonid restoration work group is addressing sedimentation and invasive species issues. Our work record speaks to what the Council supports.
LOGISTICS -The green sheet with operating principles was reviewed. Several members objected that the Council has already reviewed its operating principles enough. The polite discussions continue while the fish continue to decline. The document comes off too formal, like a loyalty oath. There is no mention of a conflict of interest. There was no quorum present at 12:30 but the straw vote against the green rules sheet was 4 ayes, 9 noes, 5 abstain.
In the discussion of meeting times for next year, there was one correction that the May 4 date should actually be May 11. It was recommended that the January 2002 meeting be held on the 3rd Saturday to avoid having the Steering Committee meet at New Years, which has historically been difficult to achieve. Vote was 20 ayes, 1 no to keep schedule on 2nd Saturday of every other month with the exception of January.
Zeno reviewed the language and intent of a motion to have work group meetings conducted in the evening. It was recommended that "working hours" be explicitly defined and the word "only" deleted. It should be left to each work group to schedule their meetings. A published schedule of meetings for each work group early in the year by February would help. Each work group should make an effort to include as many viewpoints and participation as possible. Others asked that any motion brought before the Council be clearly identified as to its author and origins.
ANNOUNCEMENTS-The public caucus will meet on November 26. The public outreach and education work group meets 4-6PM at the Healdsburg library on November 19. The salmonid restoration work group meets from 6-8PM at the Healdsburg library on November 19. The environmental caucus will be holding its Steering Committee elections and review its membership. The West County Watershed Network is sponsoring several tree plantings on Saturday, November 17. Volunteers will meet at Graton Post office at 9:30AM and work till 3PM planting redwoods. Other projects will be held in Forestville and off Sexton Rd.
AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENTS-Karen Rippey reviewed progress of the arundo donax removal project proposed for Alexander Valley. The salmonid restoration work group will review a video of arundo control issues in the Los Angeles basin on November 19. The Sonoma County Water Agency is now reviewing the draft scope of work. Circuit Riders has provided information to show how effective tarping and non-herbicide based control strategies can be. The environmental caucus is concerned at the potential for runoff of pesticides to the river during a removal project.
NMFS Technical Recovery team held a meeting at their research facility in Santa Cruz in late October to develop biological criteria for the delisting of salmonid species based on genetics and spatial distribution, etc.
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) BY DAVE EVANS-Dave Evans is now a senior engineer, having worked for 24 years with the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, which protects state water resources from the coastal streams and Russian River up to the Oregon border, including the Klamath and Trinity Rivers. Their mission has changed over the years from a focus on industrial discharges that could be readily identified and characterized by piped effluent in the 1970's, to a focus on underground storage tanks in the 1980's and in the 1990's to a watershed analysis approach rather than focusing on individual parameters and including non point source analysis for impairment. Despite the improved science to assist with watershed management, our rivers went from 4% being impaired in 1970 to 30% in 1990.
Majority of listed impairments currently for the Russian River are for sediment and temperature. Other areas in western Sonoma County with dairy operations and parts of the Klamath basin are impaired for nutrients. TMDL program is a federal program from Clean Water Act legislation. Due to court cases, the results for most of the North Coast rivers like the Gualala, Garcia, and Trinity will be in before the Russian River will be addressed in 2011.
Each TMDL will have a problem statement that includes these elements:
A Numeric Target for acceptable levels
A Source Analysis using aerial photos and field checks to determine sources of sediment load to streams and tributaries.
Load Capacity number expressed in tons per square mile in a year
Load Allocation percentages based on contributions from local land uses like roads, logging, agriculture, ranching, gravel, etc. and natural events, like landslides
Implementation plan that addresses how needed reductions will be implemented with techniques and timelines.
The local WQB office has been asked to trim $150M from their budget and cannot hire any new staff for 18 months. Their strategy will be to convene Technical Advisory Groups with landowners to have solutions proposed and debated before the local community. With an adaptive management strategy, landowners that own an acre or over 1,000 acres will be able to develop realistic solutions for their issues, either individually or in groups. By leveraging landowner familiarity with their property and its response to the seasons, solutions from the RCD's, UC Extension can be shared where feasible. Already 28 organizations as diverse as the Farm Bureau and the Sierra Club have endorsed the preliminary TMDL work done in the North Coast. For instance, the Garcia River community has decided that a reduction from 1200 tons per square mile to 800 tons per square mile is an achievable and desired goal.
Back in 1970's there was a general prohibition of no discharge to waters with beneficial use. Since then, we have witnessed that cumulative impacts are more important than individual sources. The Compliance Options now are focused on implementing best management practices where each source is required to have:
1. waste discharge compliance
2. site specific plan and erosion control plan
3. river management plan and erosion control plan
Erosion control plans will implement recognized best practices and land management measures for stream improvement to address impacts from roads, unstable areas, and riparian setbacks of at least 25 feet for logging. Recognizing that roads in riparian zones are better rocked than paved, and that each culvert is a "dam waiting to happen", techniques that are affordable and maintainable are favored. By working with stakeholders to gain access to problem areas and provide funding for projects, the WQB can take into account the frequency of use and magnitude of the impacts when developing solutions. The Clean Water Act (205J) and Prop 13 grant money can be used for these types of projects. Each community will develop their own reduction goals and timeline, e.g. 10% in ten years for one community.
Questions
How you make these assessments? How often?
A lot of our work is conducted with voluntary monitoring by the citizens in the watershed. Every 3 years we begin another cycle of assessment and evaluation.
What about gravel monitoring?
Each specific project has a separate Waste Discharge Requirement related to its projected impacts.
What is your relationship to the Sonoma County Water Agency?
The SCWA has some operations that overlap in jurisdiction like flood control maintenance in the riparian zone and Section 7 review.
How about an agency fair?
Happy to do that. We do have an agency partners meeting where we review projects with other agencies.
NEXT MEETING January 19 is unavailable for the Cloverdale Veterans Memorial. Our January meeting will be as originally scheduled on January 12.

Russian River Watershed Council	Full Council Meeting
Draft Minutes of November 10, 2001	Cloverdale Veterans Memorial 9AM-2:30PM


AGENDA AND MINUTES OF 9/8/01 APPROVAL-Zeno Swijtink facilitated the meeting. At 9:15AM there were only 26 voting members present. Ann Maurice objected that the development of the agenda by the consultant MIG was manipulation rather than facilitation. Those presented voted 4 ayes, 15 noes to have a discussion of the agenda "manipulation". There was no second to Ann's motion that the coho recovery work group support the RRWC endorsed in September to be revisited in the light of alleged improprieties in how it was brought to the Council's agenda. By 9:30AM there were 30 voting members to approve the stated agenda by 29 ayes, 1 no. The minutes of September 8, 2001 were officially approved with 27 ayes. INFORMATION OFFICER APPROVAL -The first vote was for the motion as presented without the second bullet allowing testimony at public hearings. That motion failed 11 ayes, 18 noes, 6 abstain. Concerns were that statements to agencies could be construed as lobbying and impact potential nonprofit status. The motion presented was not the verbatim version approved by the work group. It was amended to include the original language about review by the Public Outreach and Education work group before press releases were submitted. The final approved language was: The Coordinator of the Russian River Watershed Council will act as the information officer. Duties include: issuing press releases about Council activities under review by the Public Outreach and Education work group and reporting RRWC activities to public agencies during hearings. The vote was 29 ayes, 0 noes, 1 abstain for the amended motion. PLAN OF ACTION FRAMEWORK -Zeno turned the meeting over to Daniel Iacofano for a discussion of the tools developed by MIG to prepare our Plan of Action. Each handout of the packet was reviewed in detail. All these handouts will be amended based on the feedback from the Council and Steering Committee continuing discussions with MIG. Additional handouts available at the meeting were a blue comments sheet and a summary of MIG qualifications. Wall graphic transcription from P O A Discussion November 10, 2001 Powerpoint Presentation In the timeline presented: · initial case studies and a preliminary evaluation of RRWC work group structure would be complete in December, · selected case studies with a Plan of Action strategy map by February, · draft inventory of projects and programs for watershed restoration and protection by April, · preliminary draft of Plan of Action by June, · draft Plan of Action by September · and final Plan of Action by November 2002. Additional sessions with each caucus are planned at least 3 times before the completed Plan of Action. Goals for the Plan of Action mirror the RRWC goals with each goal being explicitly linked to objectives. Leonard Stewart asked for Dam Modification to be included as a Strategy Box between C (Water Supply, etc.) and D (Uplands Restoration). Several members asked that the Plan of Action be a "living document" with immediate elements and long-term elements, so that revisions and updates are built into the process. If possible, identifying the consultant that will develop the management plan to work concurrently with the consultant for the Plan of Action scope of work may save some time and reduce duplication. Other members expressed funding concerns due to our current organizational structure and budgets cuts proposed by the state and federal governments. A concern at the volunteer investment and expectations for volunteers versus the budget approved for the Corps of Engineer was expressed. Many projects to improve watershed health are currently underway with sponsorship by NMFS or the local RCDs. The RRWC should be more aware of the past successes and future plans for projects. As RRIIS comes online, there will be better information sharing. An agency fair, which showcases their projects and solicits volunteers from the community, has been reviewed with the Public Outreach and Education work group. Several members reiterated the desire not to replicate existing studies or repackaged existing data in new format. While we are mired in process, the fish are dying. We need data that addresses how much impervious surface is too much for a healthy fishery, how much of the stream canopy can be removed without harm to the fishery, some measure of impact from timber harvest plans and stream diversions for agricultural and residential uses. Learning from what has been done historically and accessing the institutional memories of the agencies can help prevent degradation and protect crucial resource elements. By prioritizing projects that address identified and weighted limiting factors, the scarce dollar resources can be allocated more effectively. For instance, DFG basin plan is near completion. Our plan should take into account other efforts with similar intents. WORK GROUPS -There is desire to improve the communication and function of the work groups. Attendance at work groups is sporadic and uneven in participation with some Council members doing most of the work group tasks. Repetition of discussions that have already been conducted in work groups is tiresome. The chair of the work group should be able to explain the discussions previously held in the work group when asked why the work group chose to endorse a particular action. The rules of operation state that all Council members will participate in a work group. The work groups should focus on the issues. If a schedule for six months or a year were developed, it would be easier for people to schedule their time and attend discussions associated with issues that are important to them. Motions to be addressed by the full Council should come from the work groups according to the rules of operation. Rusty supported by six other members objected strenuously to the mischaracterization of the Council by one individual as a group lacking integrity when the actual record of many work groups shines with hope. The budget work group has performed important work as needed during the history of the group. Likewise, the public outreach and education work developed the water rights seminar and continues to have other projects pending. The whole Russian River Interactive Information System was created and defined by the members of the Watershed Information Assessment and Monitoring work group. The salmonid restoration work group is addressing sedimentation and invasive species issues. Our work record speaks to what the Council supports. LOGISTICS -The green sheet with operating principles was reviewed. Several members objected that the Council has already reviewed its operating principles enough. The polite discussions continue while the fish continue to decline. The document comes off too formal, like a loyalty oath. There is no mention of a conflict of interest. There was no quorum present at 12:30 but the straw vote against the green rules sheet was 4 ayes, 9 noes, 5 abstain. In the discussion of meeting times for next year, there was one correction that the May 4 date should actually be May 11. It was recommended that the January 2002 meeting be held on the 3rd Saturday to avoid having the Steering Committee meet at New Years, which has historically been difficult to achieve. Vote was 20 ayes, 1 no to keep schedule on 2nd Saturday of every other month with the exception of January. Zeno reviewed the language and intent of a motion to have work group meetings conducted in the evening. It was recommended that "working hours" be explicitly defined and the word "only" deleted. It should be left to each work group to schedule their meetings. A published schedule of meetings for each work group early in the year by February would help. Each work group should make an effort to include as many viewpoints and participation as possible. Others asked that any motion brought before the Council be clearly identified as to its author and origins. ANNOUNCEMENTS-The public caucus will meet on November 26. The public outreach and education work group meets 4-6PM at the Healdsburg library on November 19. The salmonid restoration work group meets from 6-8PM at the Healdsburg library on November 19. The environmental caucus will be holding its Steering Committee elections and review its membership. The West County Watershed Network is sponsoring several tree plantings on Saturday, November 17. Volunteers will meet at Graton Post office at 9:30AM and work till 3PM planting redwoods. Other projects will be held in Forestville and off Sexton Rd. AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENTS-Karen Rippey reviewed progress of the arundo donax removal project proposed for Alexander Valley. The salmonid restoration work group will review a video of arundo control issues in the Los Angeles basin on November 19. The Sonoma County Water Agency is now reviewing the draft scope of work. Circuit Riders has provided information to show how effective tarping and non-herbicide based control strategies can be. The environmental caucus is concerned at the potential for runoff of pesticides to the river during a removal project. NMFS Technical Recovery team held a meeting at their research facility in Santa Cruz in late October to develop biological criteria for the delisting of salmonid species based on genetics and spatial distribution, etc. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) BY DAVE EVANS-Dave Evans is now a senior engineer, having worked for 24 years with the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, which protects state water resources from the coastal streams and Russian River up to the Oregon border, including the Klamath and Trinity Rivers. Their mission has changed over the years from a focus on industrial discharges that could be readily identified and characterized by piped effluent in the 1970's, to a focus on underground storage tanks in the 1980's and in the 1990's to a watershed analysis approach rather than focusing on individual parameters and including non point source analysis for impairment. Despite the improved science to assist with watershed management, our rivers went from 4% being impaired in 1970 to 30% in 1990. Majority of listed impairments currently for the Russian River are for sediment and temperature. Other areas in western Sonoma County with dairy operations and parts of the Klamath basin are impaired for nutrients. TMDL program is a federal program from Clean Water Act legislation. Due to court cases, the results for most of the North Coast rivers like the Gualala, Garcia, and Trinity will be in before the Russian River will be addressed in 2011. Each TMDL will have a problem statement that includes these elements: A Numeric Target for acceptable levels A Source Analysis using aerial photos and field checks to determine sources of sediment load to streams and tributaries. Load Capacity number expressed in tons per square mile in a year Load Allocation percentages based on contributions from local land uses like roads, logging, agriculture, ranching, gravel, etc. and natural events, like landslides Implementation plan that addresses how needed reductions will be implemented with techniques and timelines. The local WQB office has been asked to trim $150M from their budget and cannot hire any new staff for 18 months. Their strategy will be to convene Technical Advisory Groups with landowners to have solutions proposed and debated before the local community. With an adaptive management strategy, landowners that own an acre or over 1,000 acres will be able to develop realistic solutions for their issues, either individually or in groups. By leveraging landowner familiarity with their property and its response to the seasons, solutions from the RCD's, UC Extension can be shared where feasible. Already 28 organizations as diverse as the Farm Bureau and the Sierra Club have endorsed the preliminary TMDL work done in the North Coast. For instance, the Garcia River community has decided that a reduction from 1200 tons per square mile to 800 tons per square mile is an achievable and desired goal. Back in 1970's there was a general prohibition of no discharge to waters with beneficial use. Since then, we have witnessed that cumulative impacts are more important than individual sources. The Compliance Options now are focused on implementing best management practices where each source is required to have: 1. waste discharge compliance 2. site specific plan and erosion control plan 3. river management plan and erosion control plan Erosion control plans will implement recognized best practices and land management measures for stream improvement to address impacts from roads, unstable areas, and riparian setbacks of at least 25 feet for logging. Recognizing that roads in riparian zones are better rocked than paved, and that each culvert is a "dam waiting to happen", techniques that are affordable and maintainable are favored. By working with stakeholders to gain access to problem areas and provide funding for projects, the WQB can take into account the frequency of use and magnitude of the impacts when developing solutions. The Clean Water Act (205J) and Prop 13 grant money can be used for these types of projects. Each community will develop their own reduction goals and timeline, e.g. 10% in ten years for one community. Questions How you make these assessments? How often? A lot of our work is conducted with voluntary monitoring by the citizens in the watershed. Every 3 years we begin another cycle of assessment and evaluation. What about gravel monitoring? Each specific project has a separate Waste Discharge Requirement related to its projected impacts. What is your relationship to the Sonoma County Water Agency? The SCWA has some operations that overlap in jurisdiction like flood control maintenance in the riparian zone and Section 7 review. How about an agency fair? Happy to do that. We do have an agency partners meeting where we review projects with other agencies. NEXT MEETING January 19 is unavailable for the Cloverdale Veterans Memorial. Our January meeting will be as originally scheduled on January 12.