|
Russian River Watershed Council |
Full Council Meeting |
|
January 12, 2002 |
Cloverdale Veterans Memorial 9-2PM |
|
Scott Barrow and Jerome Dix facilitated the meeting and began with announcements, as there was no quorum at 9:15AM. ANNOUNCEMENTS-Brenda Adelman announced the Sonoma County General Plan update has a workshop with the Board of Supervisors to discuss a water resources element on January 29. The Citizens Advisory Committee for the General Plan update will meet at Permit Resources Management, 2550 Ventura Ave., Santa Rosa from 6-9PM. The staff contact person, Scott Briggs, can be reached at 707-565-1936 or email at sbriggs1@sonoma-county.org. Peggy Maddock reminded the public caucus of meeting immediately following. AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENTS-Miles Croom announced that National Marine Fisheries Service and Circuit Riders are preparing to rollout the Russian River GIS with a demonstration on March 6 at the federal building, 777 Sonoma Ave., Santa Rosa. Contact Miles for more information or RSVP at 707-575-6068. Scott Barrow announced the Dept. of Fish and Game 2002 Salmon Fishery Information meeting on February 22, 2002 at the California Resources Building, 1st Floor, 1416 Ninth St., Sacramento, CA from 10AM--4PM. Contact Scott at 431-4343 for further information. Mike Reilly announced the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors has been conducting workshops to address the 4(d) rule and Endangered Species considerations. By Summer 2002, Sonoma County will have an updated roads manual that addresses endangered species considerations and storm water runoff. Another element is under development to address minor timber conversions that are currently performed in upland areas without any oversight. PROGRESS REPORTS-Chuck Vaughn reported the WIAM work group will meet on January 30, 2002 at 3PM at the Cloverdale library. The WIAM work group continues to work with Circuit Riders to develop the Russian River Interactive Information System. A prototype should be available in early spring for Council members to test. Linda Curry reported the partnership with Sonoma County Community Foundation is now being actively discussed with work group representatives from each caucus. Zeno Swijtink, Rusty Klassen, Jerome Dix and Nick Tibbetts have contributed to answering the questions about how the relationship might work. In the near future, the group will try to identify projects that meet the mission statement of both organizations and provide an opportunity for SCCF to develop project management skills while providing financial and nonprofit guidance to develop the RRWC. Linda Curry reported the Willow Creek Watershed Restoration and Education project has made great progress since July 2001. A team was send to the Adopt a Watershed (AAW) training in Bend, OR, where they began developing the curriculum based educational program. To date, a volunteer training manual and teacher's manuals for the high school and middle schools have been developed. After meeting with an AAW consultant in February, the manuals and volunteer training program will be finalized. Significant time has been spent networking with the agencies and putting together resource materials to support teachers and volunteers in the program. The watershed plan development continues to progress. A Technical Advisory Committee has been selected from agency professionals and soon public scoping meetings will be set up to gain input from the public. Volunteer orientations for watershed monitoring are scheduled for February 2 and February 23, 2002. Contact Stewards of Slavianka for more information or to RSVP at 707-869-9177 or email at volparks@mcn.org. Mike Reilly added that the Sonoma County Open Space Advisory Committee has been working with the State Parks and Recreation and Mendocino Redwoods Company to protect another 2,000 acres within the Willow Creek watershed. Peggy Maddock reported the POE work group continues to work with Sotoyome RCD to develop the resources directory. The finalized scope of work has been sent to the Army Corps of Engineers for contracting. STATE FUNDING SUPPORT--At the conclusion of the progress reports, there was still no quorum. Members of the environmental caucus reviewed concerns raised during their January 9 meeting about the lack of protection being explicitly included in our goals and state funding support for the RRWC. A letter drafted by Don McEnhill outlining various RRWC activities that may be jeopardized by a lack of state funding, was reviewed with the group. It was recommended that more specific language about the MOU as a legally binding document and reference to creation of the Council at the request of State Resources be added. In the roads assessment project, more specific language about sediment and dam barriers for fish passage should be included. Bob Coey explained that in state financing, the agency needs the authorization and the dollars to fund a project. DFG transferred $100K to ACE in November 2001. Due to a $425K shortfall in federal funding, money that was allocated for funding watershed groups was not received. DFG is working with ACE to change the FCSA so that state funding for the project can be made as inkind matches rather than cash. Currently only 50% of the FY02 budget is accounted for with $62K set aside for the organization development grant that will be funded in June 2002. RRWC is a high priority for DFG, but state funding cuts across the board are hampering state attempts to support the Council. During this discussion, at 10:30 there was a quorum of 30 members present. It was moved, seconded, and approved to amend the agenda to include the letter of support request from the RRWC to the State. Vote 28 ayes, 3 abstain. Mike Reilly recommended endorsements from county supervisors for state support. APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER MINUTES-27 ayes, 3 abstain. APPROVAL OF AGENDA-27 ayes, 4 abstain. MOTIONS-Motions were taken as discussion items first due to lack of quorum. BEHAVIOR-Courtesy and administrative improvements developed by Peggy Maddock with the public caucus were reviewed. Several members spoke in support of particular aspects, while others questioned the need for additional administrative detail. Some of these elements are already in effect. Limiting monologues was considered an improvement. As this motion was brought to the Council without a Steering Committee quorum due to lack of economic caucus attendance at 12/28, the motion was sent back to the Steering Committee for March agenda as action item. LAKE MENDOCINO FISHWAY AS PART OF RECONNAISSANCE
STUDY-Park Steiner reviewed elements of the 1995
proposal as it has been discussed within RRWC since 1998.
The first step to actually providing fish access to
approximately 100 stream miles of habitat in Potter Valley
is including the project as part of the $100K reconnaissance
study for raising Coyote Dam. Identifying geological,
engineering and social constraints of the project provides
the information for developing a realistic project budget
and schedule. The motion was referred back to the salmonid
restoration work group to identify an economic caucus
support for the project, so that it can be considered for
action at the March 2002 meeting. Motion for emergency
consideration of this motion failed with 10 ayes. Emergency
motions are supposed to be "urgent". QUORUM-To change the rules of operation requires a
60% approval from 30 members of the RRWC. Attendance rosters
from 2001 were available. Attrition and inconsistent
attendance has made achieving a quorum difficult for the
last 3 meetings. Four alternatives to improve our ability to
conduct business were presented: Quorum motion referred back to Steering Committee for
future agenda. All 2002 meetings will include a roster of
attendees. Members recommend more outreach to our local
communities to identify new members to help develop the Plan
of Action and Russian River Management Plan. Adhering to the
behavior guidelines and existing rules would help reduce
attrition and increase enthusiasm for attending our
meetings. It has been long, difficult process to get to this
point. If the RRWC is to build credibility as an
organization worthy of volunteers from the community, actual
projects and restoration effects need to be more visible.
Joining a team of winners is more compelling than wasting
time with losers. The RRWC is very close to demonstrating
the Russian River Interactive Information System and other
projects to benefit the Russian River. RRWC DISRUPTION-Discussion of the motion to remove Ann Maurice was focused on specific behaviors that constitute disruption according to the rules of operation. Ann's disruption of the partnership meeting in September and ongoing diatribes before the Council were cited as examples of inappropriate, disruptive behavior. Council members asked the behavior rather than personality of any individual was addressed. Motion was referred back to Steering Committee for further consideration after motion to consider action failed with 6 ayes. Members expressed the desire to follow the process as the motion was listed for discussion rather than action at this meeting. ALEXANDER VALLEY CHANNEL RESTORATION PROJECT SUPPORT-Karen Rippey reviewed the history of the project. It has been reviewed three times by the salmonid restoration work group since July 2001 and once before the RRWC with improvements in alternatives to remove arundo in Alexander Valley with nontoxic methods as the preferred technique. Since consultation with SCWA, Dry Creek has been added to the project scope. When the question was raised regarding upstream areas being addressed, there was need for more local support, as landowner resistance was cited. Dennis Murphy has been working with Russian River Property Owners Association members to identify ways to make the project more user friendly to the community where stream work will actually take place. The Council recommended more work among the affected parties, consideration of performing the work more efficiently by lowering flow from Coyote Dam and getting better bank access for removal as well as monitoring downstream debris of project. Motion was tabled pending further work with salmonid restoration work group. Vote 30 ayes. WORK GROUP MEETING TIME -The language of the original motion was amended by the RRWC at our November meeting. Members discussed how meetings in the evening were better attended and the need to balance work with volunteer commitments for agency members and work group members. The motion as presented in the meeting packet was passed with 26 ayes. PLAN OF ACTION MAJOR ISSUES/FORUM TOPICS -Steve Kokotas reviewed issues list developed with the
Steering Committee since August, the RRWC since September,
and the environmental and agency caucuses with pending
meetings for public and economic caucus members. The three
project goals of restoration, economy and stewardship are
focus with our primary mission of protection and restoration
as the underlying theme. A review of the strategy areas and
proposed meetings for the future to complete the Plan of
Action were detailed. Themes that recur throughout the
discussions are: CASE STUDIES Powerpoint
Presentation -Julie Stein presented several case studies from other watershed groups. Members asked for examples of failure as well as success so that RRWC can avoid potential problem areas. The RRWC already has several attributes that make progress difficult. Other watershed groups adjusted their working group size because it was over 20, whereas our membership list is 57. Requirement for a supermajority for approval makes for slow going as members become educated on the issue. Caucus membership by organization selects against individuals that may have merit. As any watershed plan will be enacted by the agencies, it is important to understand the role of the Army Corps of Engineers in each case study. A handout of the overheads presented is available upon request. MIG SUMMARY- Additional themes identified: Additional case study information to look for: SUDDEN OAK DEATH-Steven Swain is the Sudden Oak Death Coordinator for UC Extension based in Santa Rosa. Even since his presentation to the salmonid restoration work group, there is new information about the disease and its impacts. First recognized in 1995, sudden oak death is neither sudden nor only affecting oak trees. The fungus phytothora ramorum has been identified as the source of the disease. Ambrosia beetles and bark beetles attack trees with the infection and are usually responsible for the death of the tree. The three species of most susceptible oaks are black oak, live oak and Shreve's oak. Other species found with the infection, though not dying, are manzanita, huckleberry, madrone, bay, buckeye, and rhododendrons. Redwoods were recently evaluated also. More broadleaf than conifer species have shown susceptibility. As rhododendrons are prized and transported worldwide, there is some speculation that this may be the source of the initial infection from an introduced plant. Potential impacts of the disease include increased potential for severe wildfires and dead trees falling down. The disease can be spread by water, wind, plant material, people, dogs and soil contaminated with the spores. Taking a culture or using DNA analysis identifies the disease. The DNA tool under development will take less time and avoid false positives. Control methods that are chemically based are being researched. One problem with the disease is its chitin-based biochemistry prevents tools that would select for the fungi and not kill the tree being treated. A quarantine is now in effect so that no contaminated plant materials are transported into or out of known disease locations. Contact the Sonoma County Agricultural Commissioner (707-565-2371) for questions about the quarantine. Timber sales may be affected by the quarantine. Agronomic studies to determine the most resistant species are needed. However, oak tree generations take about 20 years to evaluate. Very healthy trees in rich soil appear to get infected and die fast while trees in less fertile soil with more tannin and terpenes in their metabolism seem less affected. NEXT MEETING March 9, 2002 at Cloverdale Veterans
Memorial. Everyone is encouraged to join the work group(s)
of their choice. |
|