| Russian River Watershed Council | Full Council Meeting |
| Minutes of May 11, 2002 | Cloverdale Veterans Memorial 9AM-1PM |
No quorum present at 9:20AM. RECOGNITION OF LT. COLONEL TIMOTHY S. O'ROURKE-Meeting began with recognition and card of thanks from Steering Committee to Lt. Colonel Timothy S. O'Rourke, who will be reassigned to Pentagon post in near future. During his command, the RRWC has enjoyed excellent staff support and good funding directed towards our efforts. Lt. Colonel O'Rourke encouraged the Council to seek out synergy with the new Boxer wilderness bill, as additional funding will be available for salmon recovery. AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENTS-Miles Croom announced a recent court decision will affect 19 identified critical habitats for coastal chinook and central California chinook. NMFS will revisit their analysis of critical habitat criteria for steelhead and chinook. The coho broodstock program hopes to collect more coho in August 2002. The 302 individuals from last year's rescue efforts are in good health and were recently pit tagged for identification. Tissue samples are being genetically analyzed at the NMFS facility in Santa Cruz. Contact Circuit Riders if you want a copy of the GIS information CD. (707-838-6641) Karen Rippey announced that NMFS, DFG, and ACE sent a letter of support for the Russian River Watershed Council endorsing our Plan of Action efforts as a critical element for a watershed study that will be part of the North Coast Recovery Plan for endangered species. Dave Evans announced that applications for Prop 40 funding are now available through Assemblywoman Pat Wiggin's office and due May 17. Contact Mary Ruthstodder for applications and more information (707-546-4600). ANNOUNCEMENTS-Brenda Adelman announced that the State Water Resources Control Board was reviewing the Russian River listing of impaired bodies for temperature. The Russian River has been listed for sediment since 1998. Local staff at North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board have recommend listing for temperature.Comments are due by May 16 with a hearing on May 23. Park Steiner announced the availability of a point-by-point critique of Dr. Robert Curry's paper about the fishway. Park distributed a copy to each caucus that details the potential community benefits associated with a fishway project and expressed his appreciation for the Council's consideration of the fishway in the current feasibility and reconnaissance studies by the Corps. Zeno announced a Blue Circle for the Russian River will meet on June 25 from 4-7PM at the Bishop's Ranch in Dry Creek. Local For Sake of Salmon and West County Watershed Network folks are organizing an opportunity for local water activists to meet with professionals in a relaxed format. Zeno announced continuing workshops for Sonoma County General Plan update. The Citizens Advisory Committee meets May 16 & 30, 6-9PM at the PRMD Hearing Rm 2550 Ventura Ave., Santa Rosa. The Water Resources group meets May 14 & 28, 5:30PM at the PRMD Hearing Rm. The Riparian Corridor & Biological Habitat group meets May 21 at 5:30PM at UC Coop Extension office, north and across the street from PMRD. Zeno announced a Sudden Oak Death workshop at the Salmon Creek Middle School on Bohemian Hwy from 10AM-1PM as part of the Watershed day event for West County Watershed Network that will include many other speakers, poetry, food, art and music. The Russian River Watershed Council will have a booth, so come by and say hello! Zeno announced that he and Brock Dolman from the public caucus attended a stormwater workshop in Vallejo, where new regulations that will affect communities smaller than 10,000 and previously exempt. Marsha Vas Dupre announced the City of Santa Rosa will have a study session on stormwater at 3PM on May 14. Members asked that stormwater topic be added to list of potential future educational speakers for the Council. Brian Hines announced that Sustainable Sonoma County just presented an Ecological Footprint workshop with a report on local impacts. This report may be helpful in evaluating our Russian River management plan against the criteria. Copies of the report can be requested from Ann Hancock ahancock@pair.com. 24 members present at 9:45AM APPROVAL OF AGENDA-- 24 ayes APPROVAL OF MARCH 9 MINUTES-Motion to approve with amendment that moves language on Pg. 2 from first paragraph discussing motions to the 2nd paragraph passes with 18 ayes, 4 abstain PROGRESS REPORT-Coordinator commended the performance of the Steering Committee and budget work group for getting a letter of support from all local elected representatives within the watershed and a resolution of support from Sonoma County Board of Supervisors. Talks are continuing with the Sonoma County Community Foundation. Copies of most current membership were distributed along with a summary
of leading attendees from each caucus for the period of 2001-March 2002.
Every member is encouraged to review the list and correct any erroneous
information with regards to their contact information or work group affiliations
or attendance by contacting the coordinator with corrected version. Binders
for each work group and general organizational structure are available for
review. Work group participation by our volunteers will be used as part
of the match for the next organizational development grant. MOTION OF SUPPORT-22 ayes in support of endorsing the Celebration of the Russian River from September 14-22, 2002. Whether you have a poetry reading or a cleanup, all members of the watershed community are encouraged to enjoy their favorite river beach. During the break, public caucus member scheduled their organizational structure discussion meeting for May 22 at Windsor library from 6-8PM. PLANNING AND STREAM PROTECTION PANEL-Pete Parkinson from Sonoma County Permit Resources Management Dept began with a discussion of riparian protections and grading/erosion control ordinance in Santa Cruz where he worked for 12 years before coming to Sonoma County. Streams in Santa Cruz area are protected by the class of stream, with more protections for perennial streams than ephemeral streams that run only in conjunction with rainfall. Special protections and setbacks were established for riparian corridors with more setbacks for riparian woodlands and the least setbacks (50 ft) for arroyos. Any development within identified riparian zones is restricted with a requirement for environmental review and potential mitigation for special circumstances or variances. Structures require an additional 10 ft setback in riparian zones. Jeff Redding formerly of Conservation, Development, and Planning for Napa County discussed how Napa County, which is predominantly agricultural and not subject to environmental review developed voluntary compliance with erosion control measures and a watershed management plan in 2000. 1991 Hillside ordinance in Napa was first in the nation to require a CEQA type review for agricultural practices. Where slopes are greater than 5%, an erosion control plan is required. If slopes are greater than 30%, they cannot be developed without prior review. If slopes are greater than 50%, they are off limits to vineyard development. Jeff Loux of UC Davis Extension discussed his work with Lower American River during a 7-year process that has involved over 47 stakeholders that are interested in a long term water supply for economic benefit and protection and enhancement of the chinook fishery. Flow and temperature are critical for fish habitat and riparian vegetation to survive extended dry periods in October and November. Adaptative management practices that are performance based and utilize best practices from everywhere are more easily introduced than prescriptive regulations. Jeff reviewed the Santa Cruz model of using flood control funding for stream restoration using California Youth Authority for labor and working with local landowners for stream access, that was very cost effective at restoring habitat. Additionally in Napa County, the use of a scientific review panel was critical in gaining community acceptance for a strong, science foundation on any limits. The scientific panel makes decisions more complicated and enforcement more difficult as different interpretations of the same data are possible. The panel reviewed several questions from the moderator, Daniel Iacofano and the audience. Regarding the role of science in decision-making, there was agreement that the "answer" is not always clear or precise. Different experts in the same subject may choose or reject the same data sets as being valid or relevant. Some scientists are trained for mathematically rigorously proven theory while others are comfortable with narrative models that describe the current experience rather than quantifying variables. With such a wide range of respected opinions, it is incumbent on any local planning agency to preserve the documentation that backs up their decision making to avoid legal implications. Best practices with regards to road crossings? The proper function and use of each road should guide the decision for the appropriate treatment for drainage that does not deliver increased sediment or prevent fish passage. What triggers the need for permits? Some ordinances were passed without participation of US Fish and Wildlife Service or local cities. It is more complex to administer any regulation across jurisdictions. Exceptions are only allowed based on the extent or lack of impact. Most regulations associated with the Endangered Species Act are protective of the species at risk and require local planning agencies to develop protection and restoration strategies as needed. What if protective plans that list functional standards are not protective enough? Any time a variance or exception is allowed, it is perceived to be less protective of the resource. Due to legal considerations, planning staff are sometimes able to not approve projects due to endangered species considerations, other instances may be less protective as rigid, numerical standards do not address the specific local conditions. What about the conflict between good stewardship being penalized by loss of opportunity, while previous encroachments into the riparian corridor are not prosecuted? There are real economic limits to any agricultural operation so that a landowner must determine how much setback or controls are required and how long the planning process will take in consideration of planning their enterprise. Sometimes adaptative management practices are more protective as additional study of impacts is quantified. While the 95% that manage their riparian zone well can promote compliance, it only takes 5% noncompliant landowners to wipe out 100% of the fish. Riparian woodlands have the most habitat value per square inch of any comparable local ecosystem. What about lack of enforcement? Whether it's a warden or penalties are assessed by fines, consistent enforcement is needed to deter the 5% that don't comply. It can be a failure of the system when the policy's value has not been explained to the community. Disregarding economic pressures for timely review and processing of applications in varying ways can lead to vigilante development. How can the Mendocino Dept of Transportation exempt themselves from the new grading ordinance proposed? It is common for local government entities like cities and counties to exempt themselves from their own regulations to avoid the excessive legal review that would be required for any initiative to move forward. Most public works projects receive substantial internal and public scrutiny. What about competing goals..which priority has more value? California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does require review, however the alternatives are not weighted. It's up to the community to decide what's important. Wasn't Napa the first in the nation to apply CEQA perceived as beneficial? It depends on who you ask as ag interests think "no" , while environmental interests think "yes". Wholesale violations went unenforced while the county was paralyzed by a lawsuit between 1991-2000. Curiously enough the sediment load was reduced from 14 tons/acre/yr during that period to 2.5 tons/acre/yr. Can you outline the permit/complaint process? If a neighbor complains, the matter is reviewed to determine whether a violation has occurred. If a violation has occurred, a notice is sent to the responsible party requesting their cooperation in the permit process. If a permit is not issued, a notice of abatement may be issued to nonconforming party. If the condition is not abated, the nonconforming party may be subject to a hearing where an order to abatement can be issued. Failure to address the order to abatement may result in civil or criminal lawsuit. Code enforcement in Sonoma County is a civil process. Another tactic may be the county performing the required work or demolition to abate the nuisance and billing the landowner with a lien on their title. How can we define critical habitats without lines on the maps? A specific line on a map may be too confining when addressing the needs to preserve habitat. Calling public attention to a resource can sometimes result in the demise of the resource. Local agencies must use good information to protect riparian areas. What resources or techniques are necessary or desirable for watershed conservancy? Any serious proposal must include time and staff for grant proposal development. For example, some local flood control funds could be used for channel maintenance and restoration during the same project. By expanding fees for watershed protection among the whole community rather than the operating budget of individual landowners, more enduring adaptative management strategies can be developed. BREAKOUT SESSIONS-Each group review their content area for an
hour. Detailed comments are included in the next revision of the source
document. JULY 15 MEETING-The Steering Committee should resolve the issue raised in the minutes of March 9 as to whether the initial quorum is required throughout a meeting or whether the 60% affirmation applies those remaining in the room. Motion should be presented as action item for Council concurrence. Another motion should state whether the Council will use Robert's Rules of Order or any other in place of lack of specific rules of our own. Presentations on North Coast Watershed Assessment Program and Phase II Stormwater regulations are requested. Focusing on presentations rather than motions may be necessary if attendance is insufficient. All members are encouraged to contact MIG or the coordinator with ideas for speakers to address issues raised in our discussions. If you have ideas for a particular theme for a panel discussion, please share that too! | |