Minutes of the RRWC, September 8, 2007

Russian River Watershed Council

Full Council Meeting

Minutes of September 8, 2007

Veteran’s Memorial Hall, Cloverdale, California

Approve Agenda of September 8, 2007 – Action Item

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

Fred Euphrat, Joanna Vanoni, Suzanne Marr, David Berman, Brain Hines, Brock Dolmen, Curtis Kendall, Richard Miller, Karen Rippey, Bill Cox, Scot Stegeman, Rue Furth, Bob Rawson, Peggy Maddock, Colleen Fernald, Marc Kelley

Approve Minutes of January 20, 2007 and May 19, 2007 – Action Item

Comment noted and minor changes made to meeting minutes.

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

Agency and Community Announcements – Discussion

Suzanne Marr, EPA – Klamath River issues are key to the fish issues throughout the North Coast. Klamath would be a great event topic for 2008.

Russian River Fest is taking place on September 23. The Russian River Cleanup is on September 22 with Bob Clemens providing a flyer to anyone who wants to share the information.

The RRWC will have a booth at Gratin Day

Laguna Foundation Fund Raiser on September 9 at Vine Hill Rd.

Officer Reports – Discussion

Presidents Report: Scot Stegeman.- Non-Profit corporate status is finalized It was suggested that the President convene a meeting with no more than 5 members to determine what is required and how the selection and rotation of Directors and Officers. The nomination committee will recommend officers for next year and research the procedure for staggering the officers and overview of the by-laws.

Also, it was suggested that an advocate committee will be formed by the Board and presented at the November RRWC meeting. The advocate committee will be presented to the Board and presented at the November RRWC meeting.

Vice-President: No Report, absent

Secretary Report: Colleen Fernald – SCWA grant is an organizational structure grant with grant divided into three tasks. Scot has asked SCWA how payment will be provided.

Treasurers Report: Peggy Maddock – The bank reimbursed the $10.00 monthly charge for the last 6 months. The reimbursement occurred because non-profits are not charged monthly fee.

Meeting Format and Frequency

The Board meetings (physical and conference calls) are open to all interested parties. Call Scot Stegeman or Karen Rippey to identify your interest.

The two events meetings may have a business component and the two business meetings may include a presentation. The actual section of dates will be assessed later but everyone agreed that changing to a four meeting per year is a good idea.

It was suggested that work groups need to fit into the process. The RRWC suggested that the final procedure be an item for the February meeting.

Approved: unanimous

Update of Sonoma County Salmonid Coalition

The group was formed to address the issues of steelhead and water provided for fish and agriculture. Greg Horton is assessing 15 tributaries for six indicators to determine stream health. We are working with Sotoyome RCD to obtain access.

Focus on Dry Creek, Knights Valley and Alexander Valley Watersheds because NOAA felt the retire RRW was too large. The term critical habitat polarizes the different sides. NRCS and NOAA are preparing an agreement to enact actions and procedure. 95% of Ag community is on board to allow NRCS and NOAA on their property. There was a meeting in Sacramento about seven weeks ago to deal with pending water rights application. It was determined at that meeting that if you have fish issues in the stream, fish are a priority over water rights approval. Completion of programmatic Section 7 consultation will be completed for water rights and fish protection.

Dry Creek is too big of an issue for the group to undertake because of the issues between NOAA and USACE. The group is focusing on sub-basins associated with Dry Creek. Greg Horton’s document will identify best management practices to be implemented by NRCS. Group will not ask for NRCS grants. Property owners will assist in completion of work and NRCS will provide oversight. We are on an edge of providing a great benefit but we still need to work on property owner buy in.

The group is not amending water rights application. Water budget is not going to be calculated but an assessment of water availability is being determined. The off-stream ponds idea may be the answer. Pond location will be determined to ensure that streams do not dry out in the summer. Adina is conducting surveys and installing stream gages. We are hoping to get well monitors installed as well. Rainfall monitoring is not taking place at this time.

In the next 16 months, we do not want to slow down by basing our effort or with the assumption there will be Federal and/or State funds.

A RRWC member asked "how is the group going to determine the critical habitat issue for fish sustainability?" Water quality and quantity are issues reviewed by NMFS and DFG. Minimum flows issues are critical so gage information is critical. Conditions monitoring is taking place and property owners are mostly on board. We are starting a long process. There are no ground water plans in the works. If we do not success, we are heading a jurisdictional process like they have up north.

The SCSC wants the RRWC participation. There are no hidden agendas. Consultants come from property owners. Greg Horton labor is paid for by SCWA. Ag community supports Adina. The group’s success may be based on her work. The group is meeting every five weeks with most of the work being done by the Ag Sub-Committee.

Public Outreach Committee Update

Peggy Maddock reviewed the outreach committee minutes that outlined the positives and negatives associated with the last three events. It was suggested that there be a brief discussion of what the event focused on. Peggy provided overview of potential future outreach activities and asked for additional involvement and networking. She asked for volunteers to promote the RRWC.

Presentation

How the County General Plan Update could Affect YOU?

Rue Furth

Dennis Murphy

General Plan is required by law. Board has option elements including water resource element. Housing elements are updated every five years and linked with State requirements. There were a number of requests to have other concerns addressed with a stand allow element but in the majority of the cases this did not occur because the concerns could be incorporated into existing elements. The Citizen Advisory Committee had very little attrition even with it lasting for over three years. After the citizen advisory committee completed their review, the Planning Commissioners spent 17 months to review and public input for updating the General Plan. Now, the update moves to Board of Supervisors for their review and to obtain additional public input and approval.

The Water Resource element included recommendations for water monitoring, municipal/private interface, determine discretionary use (a winery/B&B/apple press/industry). General Plan is meant to provide overall general guidance. Policies can be specific (not less) to be implemented as a county code. Planning Commission and BOS regulate county water use. Cities frequently have more power. An example of a Planning Commissioners review meeting include sitting through 18 hours of riparian corridor discussion. Riparian functions are expected to be improved which may increase landowner impact.

The General Plan must be consistent throughout the document. All County actions must comply with the General Plan. Other policies/ordinances/zoning may be more specific but not less. If the General Plan indicates a “shall” it requires consistence. If it indicates a “should” it most be considered. General Plan allows for watershed counsels but does not require a watershed management plan.

Mapping stream corridors was not reasonable or affordable so the commissioners agreed to use USGS map for blue line stream. There was an additional 3,000 miles of stream added to the General Plan. This General Plan indicates that collecting additional data will be undertaking as a discretionary permits. If riparian functions are maintained, then permits may be possible. VESCO is a set of criteria thresholds that need to be met and approved by County staff. Fish Friendly Farming and policies being developed by the Salmonid Coalition may provide alternative approaches to meet requirements. Water issues were extensively reviewed. Water reuse is another complex issue. Ag has had a huge voice in the update so they understand what will be coming.

County prefers to look at watershed issues by each sub-watershed. RRWC would benefit by becoming more visible. Be involved with ordinances. RRWC may advocate how programs are implemented. RRWC need to determine how small they focus. RRWC roles could be as an umbrella organization to represent sub-watershed groups. Watershed groups will be defined by geographic areas.

The General Plan limits water and water reuse as an export. It is an issue that "should" be considered but it was determined that it was not a "shall", which would have given it more weight. Also, annual use permits for new wells (new development/wineries/B&B, etc) will be required. Municipal wells have their own use permits. It was determined that knowing how groundwater sustainability. General Plan does not have jurisdiction over water providers (i.e. SCWA) because they are special districts. There are additional benefits in the General Plan for small farms.

Agenda Items for November 10, 2007 RRWC Meeting

Report on RRWC Advocate Committee

Report on Nomination Committee

SCWA Grant

Russian River Watershed Council	Full Council Meeting
Minutes of September 8, 2007	Veteran’s Memorial Hall, Cloverdale, California


Approve Agenda of September 8, 2007 – Action Item Agenda approval – Ayes: unanimous, Nays: 0, Abstains: 0 Fred Euphrat, Joanna Vanoni, Suzanne Marr, David Berman, Brain Hines, Brock Dolmen, Curtis Kendall, Richard Miller, Karen Rippey, Bill Cox, Scot Stegeman, Rue Furth, Bob Rawson, Peggy Maddock, Colleen Fernald, Marc Kelley Approve Minutes of January 20, 2007 and May 19, 2007 – Action Item Comment noted and minor changes made to meeting minutes. Agenda approval – Ayes: unanimous, Nays: 0, Abstains: 0 Agency and Community Announcements – Discussion Suzanne Marr, EPA – Klamath River issues are key to the fish issues throughout the North Coast. Klamath would be a great event topic for 2008. Russian River Fest is taking place on September 23. The Russian River Cleanup is on September 22 with Bob Clemens providing a flyer to anyone who wants to share the information. The RRWC will have a booth at Gratin Day Laguna Foundation Fund Raiser on September 9 at Vine Hill Rd. Officer Reports – Discussion Presidents Report: Scot Stegeman.- Non-Profit corporate status is finalized It was suggested that the President convene a meeting with no more than 5 members to determine what is required and how the selection and rotation of Directors and Officers. The nomination committee will recommend officers for next year and research the procedure for staggering the officers and overview of the by-laws. Also, it was suggested that an advocate committee will be formed by the Board and presented at the November RRWC meeting. The advocate committee will be presented to the Board and presented at the November RRWC meeting. Vice-President: No Report, absent Secretary Report: Colleen Fernald – SCWA grant is an organizational structure grant with grant divided into three tasks. Scot has asked SCWA how payment will be provided. Treasurers Report: Peggy Maddock – The bank reimbursed the $10.00 monthly charge for the last 6 months. The reimbursement occurred because non-profits are not charged monthly fee. Meeting Format and Frequency The Board meetings (physical and conference calls) are open to all interested parties. Call Scot Stegeman or Karen Rippey to identify your interest. The two events meetings may have a business component and the two business meetings may include a presentation. The actual section of dates will be assessed later but everyone agreed that changing to a four meeting per year is a good idea. It was suggested that work groups need to fit into the process. The RRWC suggested that the final procedure be an item for the February meeting. Approved: unanimous Update of Sonoma County Salmonid Coalition The group was formed to address the issues of steelhead and water provided for fish and agriculture. Greg Horton is assessing 15 tributaries for six indicators to determine stream health. We are working with Sotoyome RCD to obtain access. Focus on Dry Creek, Knights Valley and Alexander Valley Watersheds because NOAA felt the retire RRW was too large. The term critical habitat polarizes the different sides. NRCS and NOAA are preparing an agreement to enact actions and procedure. 95% of Ag community is on board to allow NRCS and NOAA on their property. There was a meeting in Sacramento about seven weeks ago to deal with pending water rights application. It was determined at that meeting that if you have fish issues in the stream, fish are a priority over water rights approval. Completion of programmatic Section 7 consultation will be completed for water rights and fish protection. Dry Creek is too big of an issue for the group to undertake because of the issues between NOAA and USACE. The group is focusing on sub-basins associated with Dry Creek. Greg Horton’s document will identify best management practices to be implemented by NRCS. Group will not ask for NRCS grants. Property owners will assist in completion of work and NRCS will provide oversight. We are on an edge of providing a great benefit but we still need to work on property owner buy in. The group is not amending water rights application. Water budget is not going to be calculated but an assessment of water availability is being determined. The off-stream ponds idea may be the answer. Pond location will be determined to ensure that streams do not dry out in the summer. Adina is conducting surveys and installing stream gages. We are hoping to get well monitors installed as well. Rainfall monitoring is not taking place at this time. In the next 16 months, we do not want to slow down by basing our effort or with the assumption there will be Federal and/or State funds. A RRWC member asked "how is the group going to determine the critical habitat issue for fish sustainability?" Water quality and quantity are issues reviewed by NMFS and DFG. Minimum flows issues are critical so gage information is critical. Conditions monitoring is taking place and property owners are mostly on board. We are starting a long process. There are no ground water plans in the works. If we do not success, we are heading a jurisdictional process like they have up north. The SCSC wants the RRWC participation. There are no hidden agendas. Consultants come from property owners. Greg Horton labor is paid for by SCWA. Ag community supports Adina. The group’s success may be based on her work. The group is meeting every five weeks with most of the work being done by the Ag Sub-Committee. Public Outreach Committee Update Peggy Maddock reviewed the outreach committee minutes that outlined the positives and negatives associated with the last three events. It was suggested that there be a brief discussion of what the event focused on. Peggy provided overview of potential future outreach activities and asked for additional involvement and networking. She asked for volunteers to promote the RRWC. Presentation How the County General Plan Update could Affect YOU? Rue Furth Dennis Murphy General Plan is required by law. Board has option elements including water resource element. Housing elements are updated every five years and linked with State requirements. There were a number of requests to have other concerns addressed with a stand allow element but in the majority of the cases this did not occur because the concerns could be incorporated into existing elements. The Citizen Advisory Committee had very little attrition even with it lasting for over three years. After the citizen advisory committee completed their review, the Planning Commissioners spent 17 months to review and public input for updating the General Plan. Now, the update moves to Board of Supervisors for their review and to obtain additional public input and approval. The Water Resource element included recommendations for water monitoring, municipal/private interface, determine discretionary use (a winery/B&B/apple press/industry). General Plan is meant to provide overall general guidance. Policies can be specific (not less) to be implemented as a county code. Planning Commission and BOS regulate county water use. Cities frequently have more power. An example of a Planning Commissioners review meeting include sitting through 18 hours of riparian corridor discussion. Riparian functions are expected to be improved which may increase landowner impact. The General Plan must be consistent throughout the document. All County actions must comply with the General Plan. Other policies/ordinances/zoning may be more specific but not less. If the General Plan indicates a “shall” it requires consistence. If it indicates a “should” it most be considered. General Plan allows for watershed counsels but does not require a watershed management plan. Mapping stream corridors was not reasonable or affordable so the commissioners agreed to use USGS map for blue line stream. There was an additional 3,000 miles of stream added to the General Plan. This General Plan indicates that collecting additional data will be undertaking as a discretionary permits. If riparian functions are maintained, then permits may be possible. VESCO is a set of criteria thresholds that need to be met and approved by County staff. Fish Friendly Farming and policies being developed by the Salmonid Coalition may provide alternative approaches to meet requirements. Water issues were extensively reviewed. Water reuse is another complex issue. Ag has had a huge voice in the update so they understand what will be coming. County prefers to look at watershed issues by each sub-watershed. RRWC would benefit by becoming more visible. Be involved with ordinances. RRWC may advocate how programs are implemented. RRWC need to determine how small they focus. RRWC roles could be as an umbrella organization to represent sub-watershed groups. Watershed groups will be defined by geographic areas. The General Plan limits water and water reuse as an export. It is an issue that "should" be considered but it was determined that it was not a "shall", which would have given it more weight. Also, annual use permits for new wells (new development/wineries/B&B, etc) will be required. Municipal wells have their own use permits. It was determined that knowing how groundwater sustainability. General Plan does not have jurisdiction over water providers (i.e. SCWA) because they are special districts. There are additional benefits in the General Plan for small farms. Agenda Items for November 10, 2007 RRWC Meeting Report on RRWC Advocate Committee Report on Nomination Committee SCWA Grant