Full Council Meeting

Cloverdale Veterans Memorial 9-2PM

Members were given their dots to show preferences for particular elements of the draft Plan of Action so that a few actions in each category will be explored in more depth by MIG as the POA is finalized. 27 members were present for quorum by 9:15 but there was good conversation and activity with the dot exercise, so it was allowed to proceed until Scott Barrow called the meeting to order at 9:30AM.

Leonard Stewart was recognized and made a motion for discussion today's Press Democrat article about an Alaskan Ric Davidge that wants to buy water from the Albion and Gualala Rivers and float water bags south to San Diego. Leonard urged the Council to consider the merits of selling the water and raising funds to improve our own infrastructure. Vote 8 ayes, 14 no, 2 abstain Motion failed to include this discussion in today's agenda.

AGENDA APPROVAL-The agenda was amended to include a report from Randy Poole about the Russian River Watershed Association that he is organizing among public and private water utilities within the watershed. 32 ayes

7/13/02 MINUTES APPROVAL-Eric Sunswheat proposed changes to remarks about the public caucus so that the minutes were approved as amended 28 ayes

ANNOUNCEMENTS-Miles Croom of National Marine Fisheries Service announced a Section 7 workshop on October 4, 2002 from 9AM-12PM at the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Chambers, 575 Administration Drive, Santa Rosa. ENTRIX will present the alternatives developed by the Sonoma County Water Agency to address evaluation of management actions. NMFS is finalizing their Biological Opinion and will release it later this year.

Brenda Adelman announced concerns about the City of Santa Rosa fast tracking an additional wastewater proposal that could include river discharge. She urged Council members to attend several hearings proposed. Santa Rosa Board of Public Utilities meeting on 9/19 at 1:30PM, Santa Rosa City Council, 9/24 at 4PM and North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board on September 26. Copies of the report are available at Kinko's and public comments are needed. Information is online at http:// www.recycledwaterprogram.com . The document was released Friday and action is expected less than a week later.

Bob Coey announced that the draft Basin Restoration Plan that has been posted on the Council's website, www.rrwc.net , is still accepting draft comments. Final document with executive summary listing the top ten measures for fishery restoration will start a 6-month formal public review process for its adoption by Dept of Fish and Game.

Judy Christensen announced that after the local creek cleanups for Atascadero and Green Valley watershed on September 21, there will be celebration in downtown Graton from 2:30-9PM.
David Berman announced his development of a watershed education map that will be used for 4-8th grade classrooms to promote watershed awareness. A lot of the little creeks from Healdsburg to Jenner are unnamed on the maps. If you have information to share with David, please contact him at david@monitor.net.

Rue Furch announced a joint meeting of the Water Resources Element and Riparian Corridor/Biological Habitat subcommittees for the Sonoma County General Plan update on September 17 at 4PM at the UC Cooperative Extension, 455 Fiscal Dr., Santa Rosa.

Jim Nosera announced availability of a recent article by the UC Extension on results of stream revegetation projects. Copies are available through coordinator.

FOUNDATION PARTNERSHIP-Jerome Dix gave a report on the progress of the partnership with the Community Foundation Sonoma County. A letter of interest for $15,000 has been submitted to the San Francisco Foundation and a tentative agreement was reached to focus on five already approved public outreach projects for funding. Motion to renew the partnership for another year was discussed with concerns raised that the proposed language did not explicitly say nonprofit status was going to be explored further. Language was amended to state: The Russian River Watershed Council agrees to work with Community Foundation Sonoma County from September 2002 to September 2003. Motion was approved with 27 ayes, 2 no 4 abstain.

Another motion proposed by Richard Miller to adopt the same language as used in the original motion of September 2001 was approved with 20 ayes, 7 no and 4 abstain. That is, RRWC is exploring a partnership with the Community Foundation Sonoma County 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.

FIRST FLUSH-Zeno Swijtink presented information about first flush monitoring efforts by State Water Resources and local Regional Water Quality Control Boards to monitor the first storm event of the season. Runoff from the first storm typically includes more oil, grease and other pollutants washed off roadways into storm drains. The Public Outreach and Education work group proposes that the Russian River Watershed Council support the First Flush monitoring of local creeks by local volunteers. A signup sheet for volunteers was circulated. The motion passed 28 ayes, 0 no, 3 abstain. Contact Peggy Maddock or Zeno Swijtink if you want to participate in this effort. There will be a training program in Mendocino and one in Sonoma in the near future.

AMERICAN RIVER BUDGET SUPPORT-Zeno reviewed the materials included in the meeting packet that outlined the many organizations supported by the state and federal budgets for watershed funding. Some members expressed concerns that our endorsement of the budget could be perceived as an endorsement of American Rivers organization, which it is not. Others recommended developing a consistent process for endorsements from the Council to be processed. The motion was passed 20 ayes, 7 no, 3 abstain to send a letter supporting the American Rivers Budget 2004.

RUSSIAN RIVER WATERSHED ASSOCIATION-Randy Poole, General Manager of Sonoma County Water Agency addressed the group and answered questions for a half hour about the proposed association for water system operators. The association would lobby for state and federal funding to local projects within the watershed and strive for regulatory consistency and compliance within the watershed. Modeled after the North Bay Watershed Association, which has been successful in getting funding and support for the Petaluma salt marsh project that uses recycled wastewater. When bond measures like Prop 13, Prop 40 and 204 funding levels are compared to our population, it is disproportionate. Our watershed accounts for 3% of the state's population but the funding level is much less in comparison to more urban areas.

Questions and answers
Bob Anderson asked how projects would be selected for lobbying. Would projects using wastewater irrigation be eligible?
Randy responded that projects that result in water quality improvements through stream restoration would be the priority. The Bureau of Reclamation is currently reviewing a draft environmental impact statement to identify potential impacts, sites, costs, and funding sources. There is not an EIR now but the SCWA is hiring a facilitator to talk to public groups about the proposal.

Dennis O'Brien asked if the studies would identify the potential for aquifer storage of water.
Randy responded that there is still a lot to understand about aquifer dynamics. The US Geological Society is currently undertaking groundwater studies for Sonoma County in Sonoma Valley and Forestville areas. After the preliminary studies are completed, a further analysis of the Laguna de Santa Rosa will be undertaken.

Tim Buckner asked about the timeline for the removal of Mumford Dam in Mendocino County.
Randy responded that the project is still moving forward. Bob Coey added that they are renegotiating the current contract to keep the project funded. It is a complex contracting process for the different entities involved but the project should be underway next summer 2003.

Marian Jones asked about the impacts of all the new wineries, especially along the eastern edge of the Santa Rosa Plain. Many residents are reporting dropping water levels in their private wells and longer recharge times when wells are used. How often should private well owner check their well?
Randy responded that from Windsor Creek to Rohnert Park there is a study of groundwater users. Forty years of water rights litigation has not resolved all the issues. SCWA is looking for state and federal funding to do more groundwater modeling. Private wells should be checked once a year.

Zeno Swijtink asked about wastewater marsh in Petaluma and how come something isn't proposed for the Russian River. Isn't the mandate of the Water Agency to protect our local water resources?
Randy responded that the Water Agency is a county jurisdiction that covers all the watersheds within our county boundaries. The Russian River is the major watershed but they also have watersheds that drain to San Pablo Bay and coastal streams.

Rusty Klassen encouraged Randy to participate in our meetings more often and inquired Why hasn't the Agency an official policy statement against water exports like the Gualala proposal?
Randy responded that the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors has passed a resolution against the Gualala proposal. However, currently water is exported to Marin Municipal Water District (8,000 AF/yr) and North Marin Water District (8-9,000 AF/yr) at a cost of $326/AF, which generates approximately $6M in revenue. The Water Agency does consider regional water needs in its planning and decisions. Petaluma uses 10,000 AF/yr and Sonoma Valley averages about 4,000 AF/yr. Only 17,000 AF/yr leaves the county.

David Berman asked about the association formation and the status of any meetings to learn more about it.
Randy responded that only public agencies and local jurisdictions have been invited to participate at this time. The membership will be limited to organizations with a water processing function.

Marsha Vas Dupre asked whether there was a website to explain this initiative and some sort of public relations strategy to keep the public informed.
Randy responded that once formed it will have a public agenda, but for now meetings are individual talks with different agencies and water districts that may want to participate.

Leonard Stewart asked about managing Lake Mendocino water level.
Randy responded that the water level was dependent on whether Coyote Dam was raised, the flow release regime were altered, and the seasonal fluctuations between wet and dry years for rainfall.

Peggy Maddock asked about the associate membership outlined in the draft Memorandum of Understanding and why don't we see you more often at our meetings?
Randy explained that his travels take him all over the state. Someone from the Water Agency staff is always present at our meetings, like Keenan Foster. As for the details of the MOU, he would have to consult with his staff to address the question properly.

Scot Stegman asked if there was conflict of interest in the Board of Supervisors making land use decisions while also acting as Board of Directors for the Water Agency making water supply decisions.
Randy responded that the Supervisors wear multiple hats of responsibility. For instance, they also manage the Sonoma Valley Sanitation District. It is always a balancing act to resolve the issues while maximizing uses for rural and urban water demands. SCWA's goal is to ensure recycled wastewater is used beneficially within the watershed.

Brian Hines asked about recent Press Democrat articles on Lake Mendocino releases of warm water actually having a benefit for the listed species. Russian River is only river in state with three listed salmonid species that require cold water, not warm water.
Randy responded that the Section 7 process is evaluating the water needs of the fishery in conjunction with NMFS and DFG. Water temperature is one element that will be addressed in trying to balance appropriate uses and needs of the fishery.

LONG TERM FUNDING PANEL-Daniel Iacofano introduced a funding panel. As the Council moves to finalize the Plan of Action, actions should packaged so that they are attractive to potential funding sources.

Section 206 authority has been used by the Army Corps of Engineers to address restoration projects and studies. Currently $5.5M is appropriated with a cap at $15M to limit Congressional allocations. A conflict with countrywide demands on the same resource pool has led to regional Section 206 budget appropriations. Now the Corps is legally authorized to make regional budgets but there is no funding. A proposal to set aside $50M for the North Bay would include projects like the San Pablo Bay estuary work. The Plan of Action for the Russian River will be evaluated similarly. The Corps is evaluating environmental sustainability of projects considered to ensure that environmental values are balanced with economic elements. The federal government will not pursue projects where there is a lack of local support.

Congressman Mike Thompson recent introduced legislation for San Francisco Bay Estuary restoration funding that would allow the non-Federal partner to participate with only a 25% cost share. Currently, the cost share for the Russian River project is 50-50 between California State Resources and the US Army Corps of Engineers. If Council members are successful lobbying their local representatives, the appropriation limits in the 1986 Clean Water Act could be amended to reflect the amended cost share in Section 202 for the 25-75 alternative.

The Council on Environmental Quality is looking for a river to designate and serve as the keystone for federal restoration projects as part of the American Rivers Heritage Initiative.

Statewide restoration funding is currently budgeted for $28M to focus on restoring and protecting coastal salmon populations. DFG will work with any qualified individual or agency that perform restoration work with associated permits and fiscal accountability. The budget is intended to spend 2/3 of the total on implementation projects that improve fish passage or habitat while the remaining 1/3 is dedicated to studies that support future restoration activities.

Next spring from March through May 2003, proposals will be developed and submitted to DFG. Only 12 evaluators process approximately 400 applications per year so having the project clearly described in enough detail to understand and yet concisely is highly recommended. Between September and November the California Technical Advisory committee composed of timber, agriculture, fishery, county governments and other interests will be reviewing 384 proposals from last year's grant cycle. Site visits are conducted whenever possible to evaluate the feasibility and benefits of projects proposed. Between January and May 2004 contracts for work selected will be finalized. Now contracts can have multi year terms. The state money must be spent by the end of the contract term or it goes away.

Current examples of restoration funding include 500K on barrier removal projects and fish screening efforts, 160K on instream restoration (like the 400K restoration project on Pena Creek near Fetzer Vineyards in Hopland), upslope restoration and project monitoring (like West Marin and Chileno Valley projects), 180K in watershed assessment (like Willow Creek project), 175K in community capacity building, 42K in environmental education about fisheries (like Basins of Relations class at Occidental Arts and Ecology Center), water conservation, and cooperative rearing projects. Approximately $2.4M in state funding from various sources is available for the Russian River. See the handout for information associated with grants from North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, Prop 40 funding, and local county Fish and Game commissions.

DFG was funded by tags and licenses. However, now the funding is through the general fund and funding levels fluctuate yearly. The 2002 Farm Bill has made it easier for restoration projects to be funded through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. A wealth of information is available through the NRCS and local RCDs who write grants and fund projects upfront.

Every grant cycle is different. Consult with agency staff early to be aware of deadlines and requirements. Use plain language about the project goals and methods to show who or what benefits from the project. For projects within the Russian River watershed, consistency with the draft basin restoration plan is important. Leverage matching funds as much as possible from any private or public funding source.

Due to state budget crisis, 6,000 watershed projects were lost in addition to one fulltime staff position for DFG. There has been a hiring freeze since last year and a 20% reduction or layoff of existing staff is pending. Grant dollars will be fewer in the future with more competition for the funding. Council members can contact their legislators about reductions in DFG staffing levels.

Marin Audubon has been managing restoration projects for about the last 15 years. Over the last 5 years, Marin Audubon has acquired 6 properties as part of its Baylands protection strategy. Working with Marin Baylands Advocates, parcels with willing landowners were identified. An acquisition map was developed and funding from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board fines and violations and Coastal Conservancy restoration and acquisition programs were developed to raise $12-20M needed. Marin Baylands Advocates educates the public and local politicians about baylands with field trips that include knowledgeable scientists. They have developed an educational packet that details the value of the baylands ecosystem. Using maps to associate people with their local geography is a good way to engage the community.

Most of their fundraising is performed through direct solicitations by mail or in person. Marin Audubon is not a nonprofit corporation. Raising money and having funding available when willing landowners are identified who will sell the land or conservation easements at a reasonable price is essential. Having a personal relationship with your funding sources is key to your success. The more people will speak in favor of your project needs, the more likely it is to be selected for funding. Having multiple sources of funding for the project helps. Some examples are the federal program for migratory birds that donated 11M or Coastal Conservancy, State Parks riparian restoration funding, Caltrans highway funding, NRCS 2002 Farm Bill funding for wetlands reserves on agricultural parcels and EPA watershed funding.

What about the future of state and federal funding?
40% of federal funded positions were lost. Funding levels are very uncertain at this time. When planning projects, use the DFG restoration manual to ensure greater likelihood of funding. Allow enough lead-time for regulatory review of the project for permit and agency negotiations.

With state budget cuts of over $28M, the developers are thrilled that there will be less scrutiny by DFG staff. What is being done to ensure that there are fish in the streams when people go camping?
Hatchery programs are a funding priority because of the recent listing of the coho. DFG cannot lobby for particular programs or funding. What individual Council members do is another matter. The Council directs the coordinator to write a letter of support for DFG staff that encourages more, not less staff for salmonid recovery programs. 17 ayes 0 no 1 abstain

How long are state projects monitored? Are CEQA monitoring requirements different?
California requires at least 10 years of monitoring on any project funded by the state. CEQA is not funded or administered the same as restoration projects. CEQA is more for new development or redevelopment activity.

How does public participation work?
We need a continuing public review process so that the agencies can coordinate their programs with the local community desires and needs. Project by project review is not completely effective. Some decisions need to be made outside the public participation process where professionals are allowed detailed analysis time to develop substantial recommendations.

How will CA fiscal crisis affect Russian River funding? Do projects with matching funds have priority?
It is crucial for Russian River community to make the connection about reduced cost share (25-75) now allowed in Section 202. All projects are evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

PLAN OF ACTION TIMELINE-All caucuses will meet over the next month. The Steering Committee will take those recommendations and a finalized version of the Plan of Action will be presented for approval. However, this is only one milestone as the document is a living document that will continue to evolve over time as new information becomes available. The primary value right now is that everyone is reading the document and critically analyzing what is being said. The secondary value is to identify the detailed actions that should receive more emphasis in the document by the results of the dot exercise. All those actions will still be included, but some will have in-depth attention based on the dots. All the inputs will be tallied. (45 people participated in the exercise.)

NEXT MEETING-Plan of Action approval at beginning of meeting to allow for more participation and discussion. Circuit Riders is due for a presentation on the Russian River Interactive Information System that will also include the NMFS GIS information system as an example. (Karen Rippey noted that more Corps funding for the RRIIS system is available now.) Update from the Steering Committee on the Foundation partnership. Begin to explore contract language for Russian River Management Plan. Defer Stormwater update till January meeting.