Full Council Meeting

Cloverdale Veterans Memorial 9-2PM

Thanks to Scott Barrow for facilitating our meeting! After reviewing the attendance for the last three meetings, the average attendance by voting members was 21. Quorum was determined to be 50% + 1 or 12 members. There were 13 voting members present when the meeting began at 9:20AM.

AGENDA/MINUTES OF 9/13/03 APPROVAL-Published agenda for the meeting and September 13, 2003 meeting minutes were approved with 11 ayes.

AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENTS-David Lewis of UC Cooperative Extension summarized the technical panel retreat held in October. A diverse, well-prepared panel addressed our scope of work with their practical and scientific expertise. A summary will be shared with the WMP committee in early December before the summary with critical guiding questions is presented to the Steering Committee for the January agenda. When asked whether the panel expected the work outlined could be accomplished for the proposed budget, the response was that with restructuring the proposal the projected $1.8M over 6 years should be sufficient. Special thanks from David and the panel to Fred Euphrat, Brock Dolman, Karen Rippey, Karen Gaffney and Linda Curry for their support during the panel's review.

Derek Acomb announced the release of the DFG draft coho recovery plan. During the summer, 300 coho were captured in Green Valley Creek and 90 from Olema Creek. The genetics testing shows that it is not advisable to mix the two stocks. The first group of captured coho will spawn this winter with planned releases in April 2004 to the 6 local creeks with viable habitat. The draft coho recovery plan executive summary is available at DFG website. (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/nafwb/pubs/2003/cohorecovery/executivesummary.pdf )

Keenan Foster of Sonoma County Water Agency shared recent sightings of 5 chinook salmon, 4 pink salmon and 2 king salmon that were observed by the fish ladder camera at Wohler inflatable dam.

WORKGROUP ANNOUNCEMENTS-Karen Rippey announced the WMP committee will be meeting on December 9 from 4-8PM to go over the findings of the technical panel. Karen requested that specific council members accept the assignment to act as members of the WMP committee.

Peggy Maddock announced the Public Outreach and Education work group will meet at 5:30PM next Tuesday, November 18 at the Sotoyome RCD offices to review progress with the resource directory, plan an outreach strategy that addresses RRWC 2004 goals, and review RRWC brochure updated to reflect POA Strategy areas.

Chuck Vaughn announced the WIAM work session will meet on Thursday, December 4, 2003 at 2PM at Circuit Rider Productions in Windsor to review/test RRIIS capabilities. He also reviewed progress of the WIAM work group in meeting at MIG offices in Berkeley on November 3. The ICE group website is at http://ice.ucdavis.edu. The Information Center for the Environment (ICE) has capability to host the RRIIS when it is released in September 2004. Funding may come from state agencies or private grants. A promotional piece to illustrate RRIIS capability should be developed for the public rollout. Some members stated that the current site was not easy for users to navigate. All feedback on what works and what doesn't should be shared with Karen Gaffney.

ANNOUNCEMENTS-Rue Furch announced she attended a recent statewide meeting for local planning commissioners that was centered around water. She cautioned the Council to consider potential influences of statewide water demands on local water resources, as there is likely to be more demand for northern water in southern communities.

OFFICERS REPORT-Rusty Klassen and Fred Euphrat reported on their progress with the Community Foundation. They signed the partnership renewal agreement while talking about the potential for funding for our efforts, like first flush stormwater monitoring funding from the Rose Foundation. On November 6, teams for 30 different sites within the watershed collected samples that are being processed by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board at their lab. A continuing challenge is the rate at which urban streams flash through their runoff compared to rural drainages that have more infiltration before runoff occurs. Picking a sample window that adequately characterizes both situations is problematic. The Steering Committee will continue to have oversight on funding progress.

Rusty presented a packet of our accomplishments and copies of the Plan of Action to the Russian River Watershed Association during a presentation on October 23, 2003. He stressed our unique capacity for developing community consensus to aid local decision-making. RRWA members represent local cities with water supply responsibilities. Several RRWA members expressed how impressive our chronology is and the need not to duplicate efforts or reinvent the wheel by partnering with RRWC when possible.

Rusty and Fred also had a conference with Karen Rippey to talk about the Council and how to integrate our efforts better. At our 5th anniversary, the RRWC is poised to gain its independence from agencies by incorporating as a nonprofit and directing restoration funding to legitimate projects within the watershed. Creating our own identity with the ability to have civil discussions among diverse interests is a remarkable achievement. RRWC requested that the Corps of Engineer fund another public meeting like the initial Piner High School meeting that was well publicized and could accommodate a large crowd to present our Plan of Action and increase local awareness of our efforts that may attract new members to fill currently vacant seats. Fred has written a grant approved by the Steering Committee for possible funding.

2004 GOALS-Rusty and Fred reviewed the goals drafted for 2004 using the completed 2003 goals. Members expressed concerns that the current draft is not complete with language needed about plans to manage our own budget and fund nonprofit status, implementing the scope of work, updating our current website with an organizational flowchart, coordinating better with local watershed groups, and developing annual report cards for the watershed's health. The Steering Committee will finalize another draft for the January meeting where it can be discussed and prioritized. Our goals need to reflect our organizational development and activities that protect and restore the Russian River. After discussion, it was m/s/approved by 13 ayes to delay adoption of 2004 goals to the January meeting.

Coordinator was instructed to use the full watershed yahoo distribution to solicit inputs before the Steering Committee finalizes its draft. Some members expressed concerns that emails to yahoo are not as widely read as they are widely distributed. Posting to yahoo lists does not guarantee the recipients got the message for a variety of reasons

2004 MEETING CALENDAR/MEMBERSHIP ROSTER-Rusty and Fred continued with a review of the proposed 2004 membership roster and meeting calendar. Additional publicity and outreach should help caucus leaders to fill their empty seats according to the July change to the quorum rule. Members expressed concerns that there is no consistent process for caucus member approval or an orientation for new participants. Every caucus has the right to refuse to admit a potential member. Only the economic and environmental have open voting seats. The public caucus has room for alternates. Trout Unlimited has indicated a willingness to participate in 2004. The RRWC should develop an orientation scheme.

The Steering Committee has changed its meeting days in 2004 to meet on Tuesdays and Wednesdays to allow fuller participation. Whether the Steering Committee decides to expand its meeting dates to Thursdays will be the decision of the Steering Committee members based on their availability.

Coordinator will continue to issue press releases about our RRWC meetings when the draft agenda is mailed to the Steering Committee.

MENDOCINO COUNTY ROADS ASSESSMENT REPORT by Dennis Slota of the Mendocino County Water Agency was well received. Funding provided by the Council through Dept of Fish and Game and Army Corps of Engineers was instrumental in completing the field assessments. The 5C Roads Assessment was the response of Trinity, Humboldt, Del Norte, Siskiyou and Mendocino counties to the coho listing's Evolutionary Significant Unit so that county land use decisions could reflect watershed needs rather than county boundaries. Determining the effects of county operations used evaluations for sediment contributions and fish passage.
Cost/benefit modeling provided counties with a means of identifying road problem areas and quantifying how much benefit could be derived by a particular road treatment. By focusing on fish friendly road maintenance measures and reducing sediment by increasing ditch relief culverts and outsloping roads, over 4700 miles of Mendocino county roads have been inventories for their erosion potential and a project list has been prioritized.

Pacific Watershed Associates published a private roads maintenance manual that was used to develop the DIRT program that models sediment reduction strategies using the field parameters that have been observed. The Direct Inventory of Roads Treatment (DIRT) program is now in its second release that has been specially modified for county roads.

Fundamental problems that were frequently encountered included inadequate drainage, road designed to drain directly to stream, undersized and improperly graded culverts, and poor road location constrained by development. Wherever possible, the treatment philosophy was to mimic the natural hydrology for the area, reconnect Class III streams, install new pipes at channel grade, outslope roads and install rolling dips when feasible.

Each stream survey included typing the habitat and vegetation to estimate potential sediment delivery, mapping the location with GIS, and inventorying fish passage characteristics of the site. Data was fed into the ACCESS database to quantify the potential debris delivery in cubic yards. Treatment for the site was proposed using culvert replacement or modification, or better installation and maintenance of culverts.

Local landowners are encouraged to talk with the local RCD to access potential funding help for private roads needing treatment. In general, road surface erosion is less of a contribution to sediment than the road structure acting as a conduit to deliver cut slope sediment.

1951 sites in the Russian River watershed within Mendocino county were identified as needing treatments like ditch relief culverts, new culverts, stream crossing modifications to reduce impacts from ditches, gullies, springs and landslides. Most projects currently funded are using fish passage money. All county crews monitor projects to give feedback on the success of the treatment method.

County road crews need training in alternate methods. The learning curve gets shorter over time. An experienced operator can outslope a stretch of road fairly quickly. Previous maintenance techniques like pushing spoils to the road edges need to be discouraged to reduce sediment loading of local streams.

PLAN OF ACTION ANNUAL REVIEW-The critical issues from the Plan of Action were posted around the room. Each strategy area included the issues that were deemed most important during the last dot exercise. Each voting member, as well as 6 agency representatives, was given 5 dots to signify the top areas of concern. Twenty one people participated. Only topics that received dots are tallied.

Top ranked issues (number of dots)

II. Water Supply, Quantity and Storage
WS. 1 Establish water budgets for the Russian River watershed and its sub-basins. (11)
III. Public Education and Outreach
PE. 3 Promote awareness of watersheds, basins and aquifers and their relationship to water flow, supply and quality. (11)
III. Regulatory Accountability and Action
RA. 1 Encourage learning opportunities such as informational workshops involving agencies, landowners, community and steward groups, and sub-watershed councils. (10)
A. DATA COLLECTION, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION
DC. 2 Change data collection/analysis practices to include assessments of cumulative effects and future obligations (e.g., number of building permits versus population growth figures or extent and rate of topsoil loss or enhancement.) (10)
I. Species and Habitat Recovery
SH. 1 Collaborate with property owners, agencies and educational institutions to establish appropriate watershed-wide control of unnatural erosions through runoff protocols, better management practices and activities that promote water resource sustainability. (e.g. groundwater recharge). (9)
III. Stewardship Activities
SA. 1 Provide stewardship training opportunities where needed at the sub-watershed level. (8)
I. Stream Corridor Restoration
SC. 1 Restore the stream corridor through a variety of stream corridor protection and watershed management methods (e.g., meander corridor setbacks, floodplain and wetlands protection, riparian vegetation). (6)
II. Water Quality
WQ. 1 Explore a wide range of methods and feasibility for treating and reusing wastewater throughout the watershed. (6)
B. Organizational Structure
OS. 2 Use RRIIS to increase communication and coordination among RRWC members about current or new projects, scheduled events, documents, or proposed reviews, etc. Enhance the quantity and quality of communication between the coordinator and members in addition to the information provided on the RRWC website and RRIIS to ensure members are informed about current efforts and activities without having to seek out this information. (5)
III. Uplands Restoration
UR. 1 Examine grading and erosion control ordinances to ensure they reduce sedimentation and other hydrological impacts. (4)
II. Water Supply, Quantity and Storage
WS. 2 Evaluate reports and studies regarding dam operations and maintenance projects to determine the watershed-wide impacts of agency activities and potential alternatives (e.g. low flow and pulse flow mechanisms, new pipelines, inflatable dams and infiltration ponds.) (4)
III. Regulatory Accountability and Action
RA. 2 Coordinate and develop protocols for identifying standard habitat and wetland protections to be used during land use planning and development decisions. The same protocols may apply across counties, municipalities or special districts. (3)
I. Uplands Restoration
UR. 4 Assess the effectiveness of the Sonoma County Vineyard Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance (also know as the "hillside ordinance") to determine if the ordinance promotes or reduces hillside erosion and runoff and meets RRWC mission and goals. (2)
II. Water Quality
WQ. 3 Identify, map and support efforts at the sub-basin level to reduce impacts, including but not limited to, sedimentation, runoff, dissolved oxygen, and high water temperature. (2)
III. Land Use, Development and Management
LU. 1 Support and encourage fish-friendly programs and maintenance plans to ensure that roads and culverts do not contribute to significant soil erosion and sedimentation in the watershed nor restrict fish or wildlife passage. (2)
I. Uplands Restoration
UR. 2 Use vegetation management techniques to preserve natural vegetation, reduce invasive species, and benefit the watershed. (1)
III. Stewardship Activities
SA. 2 Foster partnerships between federal and state agencies, the RRWC, and local community organizations to optimize available resources. (1)
A. DATA COLLECTION, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION
DC. 1 Assess the scope of data currently available. Develop an informational warehouse or database of existing data and identify methods used to collect specific data and the questions answered by the collection of specific data (see RRIIS description). (1)