RRWC Meeting of May 13, 2006

Russian River Watershed Council

Full Council Meeting

May 13, 2006

Veteran’s Memorial Hall, Cloverdale, California

Meeting Package

Approve Agenda of May 13, 2006 – Action Item

Agenda approval – Ayes: 13, Nays: 0, Abstains: 0

Approve Minutes of March 20, 2006 – Action Item

Agenda approval – Ayes: 13, Nays: 0, Abstains: 1

Agency Announcements – Discussion

Karen Rippey, USACE, announced that the RRW WMP Technical Review Committee will meet on Thursday, May 18, 2006, 10:00-3:00 at the Windsor Library.

Officer Reports – Discussion

Presidents Report: Tim Buckner reported that he has exchanged calls with the Rose Foundation. Tim continues to work with the Mendocino County RCD to determine how to complete the Public Outreach contract. RRWC can provide technical oversight and coordination with RCD contract.

Treasurers Report: Bob Rawson presented for Colleen Fernald that the insurance bill needs to be paid immediately.

Secretary Report: Scott Stegeman reported that the RRWC Bylaws and articles of incorporation have been filed with the State Secretary of Recording Office and the Federal Tax Board. The functional Bylaws will not change our meeting process. Changes to the operation rules would be preferable to changing the Bylaws. Bylaws will be formalized within 6 months.

Formation of a Financial Procedures Committee – Action Item

Because of Scott’s discussion of the RRWC Bylaws and the need for operation rules, Tim requested that the RRWC add an agenda item to form a Financial Procedures Committee (FPC). This change to the agenda was unanimous.

The FPC’s role would create the operating rules to determine how and who would receive and spend RRWC funds. Jerome suggested that the rules be based on the policies and procedures identified in the Bylaws. Jim volunteered to help but lacked the experience in the process. Scott suggested that potential funders would need assurance on the how and who would manage the funds as part of an application. The RRWC operations would help to provide this insurance. Tim requested that the RRWC give the SC the authority to approve the rules and principles and to collect funds, if the opportunity arises. Scott amended Tim’s suggestion to authorize the Steering Committee to collect the funds but waiting until the approval of the full RRWC before the funds are dispersed.

Motion: Authorize Jerome, Jim, Scott and Rusty to formulate the rules and principles for the RRWC and to seek funds if the opportunity arises.

Approval: 12 Nays: 0 Abstains: 0

Jerome will set up meeting of FPC.

Next Steps & July 8, 2006 Agenda Items – Discussion

Potential agenda items for July 8, 2006 RRWC meeting:

Discussion of Public Outreach Contract

FPC rules and procedures

Potential presentation: Rutherford DUST, Laguna Foundation, Fish Friendly Farming

PRESENTATIONS

Trout Unlimited and Peregrine Audubon Water Rights Petition

There is a long history of how State Water Board manages how water is used and allocated throughout California. The Petition process is to clarify the the process for appropriating water and protecting instream uses. There are three areas of concentration: 1. Permitting Procedures, 2. Standards, and 3. Compliance and Enforcement.

The Procedures sub-group has been meeting. The next meeting of the full group is on May 24, 2006 to hear from the Procedures sub-group. The group expects to agree to preliminary recommendations for new procedures. After all three groups have recommendations, the package will be submitted to the agencies for review and approval. The Standards and Compliance and Enforcement Sub-groups are waiting for the completion of the Procedures before they will start on their tasks. Concurrent to this process, the State Water Board is close to signing a contract to formulate, review recommendations, and finalize principles and guidelines to maintain instream flows under the bill called AB 2121. This process will include an environmental review similar to the standard EIR process.

The Procedures sub-group focused in large part on application and environmental review requirements. This would provide an applicant with a clear picture of the requirements and procedure for State Water Board to reject or approve an applicants request for water rights.

AB 2121 requires the State Board to publish information on pending applications for water rights. There are 600 applications pending with one third of the pending applications in the Russian River Watershed.

MOU AND WORK PLAN FOR RESTORATION IN DRY CREEK AND ALEXANDER VALLEY

Marc Kelley reviewed the signers of MOU highlighting the benefits of having signers working together. Group has met four times with next meeting in June.

Process is expected to determine a conservation strategy with a plan for restoration and preservation of salmonid. The process started with Tim Smith, Board of Supervisor, sending a letter to NOAA to resolve fish issues. Funding for MOU is provided by County with the focus on Alexander Valley and Dry Creek because these areas are central to address concerns. The specific requirements of the Work Plan look at broader criteria than are identified in the plan. The intent is to show real improvements in the watershed. This process is expected to show real results by September 2006.

Russian River Watershed Council	Full Council Meeting
May 13, 2006	Veteran’s Memorial Hall, Cloverdale, California


Meeting Package Approve Agenda of May 13, 2006 – Action Item Agenda approval – Ayes: 13, Nays: 0, Abstains: 0 Approve Minutes of March 20, 2006 – Action Item Agenda approval – Ayes: 13, Nays: 0, Abstains: 1 Agency Announcements – Discussion Karen Rippey, USACE, announced that the RRW WMP Technical Review Committee will meet on Thursday, May 18, 2006, 10:00-3:00 at the Windsor Library. Officer Reports – Discussion Presidents Report: Tim Buckner reported that he has exchanged calls with the Rose Foundation. Tim continues to work with the Mendocino County RCD to determine how to complete the Public Outreach contract. RRWC can provide technical oversight and coordination with RCD contract. Treasurers Report: Bob Rawson presented for Colleen Fernald that the insurance bill needs to be paid immediately. Secretary Report: Scott Stegeman reported that the RRWC Bylaws and articles of incorporation have been filed with the State Secretary of Recording Office and the Federal Tax Board. The functional Bylaws will not change our meeting process. Changes to the operation rules would be preferable to changing the Bylaws. Bylaws will be formalized within 6 months. Formation of a Financial Procedures Committee – Action Item Because of Scott’s discussion of the RRWC Bylaws and the need for operation rules, Tim requested that the RRWC add an agenda item to form a Financial Procedures Committee (FPC). This change to the agenda was unanimous. The FPC’s role would create the operating rules to determine how and who would receive and spend RRWC funds. Jerome suggested that the rules be based on the policies and procedures identified in the Bylaws. Jim volunteered to help but lacked the experience in the process. Scott suggested that potential funders would need assurance on the how and who would manage the funds as part of an application. The RRWC operations would help to provide this insurance. Tim requested that the RRWC give the SC the authority to approve the rules and principles and to collect funds, if the opportunity arises. Scott amended Tim’s suggestion to authorize the Steering Committee to collect the funds but waiting until the approval of the full RRWC before the funds are dispersed. Motion: Authorize Jerome, Jim, Scott and Rusty to formulate the rules and principles for the RRWC and to seek funds if the opportunity arises. Approval: 12 Nays: 0 Abstains: 0 Jerome will set up meeting of FPC. Next Steps & July 8, 2006 Agenda Items – Discussion Potential agenda items for July 8, 2006 RRWC meeting: Discussion of Public Outreach Contract FPC rules and procedures Potential presentation: Rutherford DUST, Laguna Foundation, Fish Friendly Farming PRESENTATIONS Trout Unlimited and Peregrine Audubon Water Rights Petition There is a long history of how State Water Board manages how water is used and allocated throughout California. The Petition process is to clarify the the process for appropriating water and protecting instream uses. There are three areas of concentration: 1. Permitting Procedures, 2. Standards, and 3. Compliance and Enforcement. The Procedures sub-group has been meeting. The next meeting of the full group is on May 24, 2006 to hear from the Procedures sub-group. The group expects to agree to preliminary recommendations for new procedures. After all three groups have recommendations, the package will be submitted to the agencies for review and approval. The Standards and Compliance and Enforcement Sub-groups are waiting for the completion of the Procedures before they will start on their tasks. Concurrent to this process, the State Water Board is close to signing a contract to formulate, review recommendations, and finalize principles and guidelines to maintain instream flows under the bill called AB 2121. This process will include an environmental review similar to the standard EIR process. The Procedures sub-group focused in large part on application and environmental review requirements. This would provide an applicant with a clear picture of the requirements and procedure for State Water Board to reject or approve an applicants request for water rights. AB 2121 requires the State Board to publish information on pending applications for water rights. There are 600 applications pending with one third of the pending applications in the Russian River Watershed. MOU AND WORK PLAN FOR RESTORATION IN DRY CREEK AND ALEXANDER VALLEY Marc Kelley reviewed the signers of MOU highlighting the benefits of having signers working together. Group has met four times with next meeting in June. Process is expected to determine a conservation strategy with a plan for restoration and preservation of salmonid. The process started with Tim Smith, Board of Supervisor, sending a letter to NOAA to resolve fish issues. Funding for MOU is provided by County with the focus on Alexander Valley and Dry Creek because these areas are central to address concerns. The specific requirements of the Work Plan look at broader criteria than are identified in the plan. The intent is to show real improvements in the watershed. This process is expected to show real results by September 2006.