AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED GROUP

December 15, 2005

The meeting of the American River Watershed Group (ARWG) meeting was called to order by Bill Templin, American River Watershed Coordinator at 10:13 a.m. at the Auburn Recreation District Canyon View Community Center located at 471 Maidu Drive, Auburn.

Present: Bill Templin, American River Watershed Coordinator; Katie Maloney, Placer County Resource Conservation District (PCRCD); Kevin Roberts, Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI); Kevin Whitlock, CA Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection (CDF); Rick Humphreys, State Water Resource Control Board ; Michelle Dennehy, CA Forest Products Council; Marilyn Jasper, Clover Valley Foundation and Sierra Club; Marie Davis, Placer County Water Agency (PCWA); Carol Kennedy, US Forest Service Tahoe Nat’l Forest Watershed Program Manager; Mike Brenner, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)-Placer County District Conservationist; and Bill Cave, Auburn Lake Trails Fire Safe Council.

Check-In:

Bill Templin led the “Check-In” procedure that entails telling who you are, how you are, if you have any time constraints, emergent issues, and/or individual expectations.

Review & Approval of Minutes:

No minutes were presented for approval.

Additions to the Agenda:

No additions were made to the agenda.

A Proactive View of Lessons Learned from Recent Catastrophic Fires in Our Watershed:

Bill Templin announced Matt Riggs was unable to make the meeting at the last minute due to the urgency of an appeal deadline.

Bill reported the North Fork is exhibiting high turbidity and he is searching for the sediment source(s). Bill and solicited input and information from members regarding potential sources.

Discussion highlighted the possibility that the source of sediment may be coming from the fire impacted areas on the North Fork.

Discussion moved on to differing land management practices implemented after the 2004 catastrophic fires that impacted both public and private property and the opportunity to compare differing practices and their impending results.

Discussion moved onto the value driven term, catastrophic; USFS deems a fire is catastrophic when soil damage results and there is no vegetation left. Fire intensity and duration are the two factors that result in soil damage when the litter and duff burn so hot that it destroys soil structure and subsequently results in erosion and further damage to the ecosystem. With more and more homes being built in the Wildland/Urban Interface (WUI) the potential for economic devastation increases exponentially.

Bill noted his conversations with stakeholders have highlighted the following issues; there are differing opinions on harvesting post fire trees as an avenue to fund post fire restoration and how can land managers be proactive and avoid the courts as an avenue to manage our watersheds.

Carol Kennedy noted post fire concerns include; what happens when the next fire moves through the same area and heavy ground fuels resulting from the previous fire are still present increasing the potential for more damage to the soils trying to recover from the previous fire. The real issue here is how to best set the forest up, post fire, for the re-generation of a healthy mature forest.

Carol added USFS has learned most important post fire need to actively manage carbon and fuels by getting cover on post fire soils before winter to prevent storm driven erosion and let nature take over. She stressed seeding to prevent erosion tends to be a hit or miss proposition depending on conditions and that providing slash as cover is the most effective practice to prevent the loss of soils and begin rebuilding the soil.

Carol noted the American River watershed is a Category I Priority watershed due to the risk of catastrophic wildfire. Areas of the Tahoe Nat’l Forest are 30-40% dead due to bug infestations as a result of drought. Very dry soils and dry fuels that were bone dry on March of 2004 contributed to the damage done in the fires of 2004 as both intensity and duration of a fire determines penetration into soils and the resulting loss of nutrients and critters beneficial to the soil ecosystem.

Bill Cave brought up invasives, noting Auburn Lake Trails is experience problems with invasives in areas cleared to implement the shaded fuel break.

Kevin Whitlock noted Prop 40 funding is available to help fund invasives control. Mid February is the submission deadline for the current Prop 40 funding cycle.

Marilyn Jasper noted that past Wild and Scenic designation discussions highlighted differing expert opinions regarding the best techniques to manage healthy forests and watershed resources. She stressed fuels are not being the only issue that needs to be considered.

Carol indicated USFS has conducted extensive stream studies before and after the fires and before any rain events. The data is still in the process of being analyzed, but informally, the information shows that sediment is moving.

Carol clarified the Granite Chief Area is a designated Wilderness area.

Marie Davis noted differing opinions on what constitutes a dead tree have been a roadblock to post fire forest restoration and asked if we know more now so that we don’t face the same road block next time there is a fire and restoration efforts can be implemented more quickly vs. spending years working through the court system with time drastically impacting erosion prevention and restoration efforts.

Carol reported the issue presents a moving target, USFS noted any tree that had any green on it as alive. 99% of the trees designated dead did not re-generate while 40% of those designated alive died.

Kevin Whitlock added it is a tough call from a Registered Professional Forester’s standpoint as site conditions, species, and bugs are also taken in account when making a determination.

Carol noted 60-70% of the erosion post fire, occurs in the first winter and stressed the importance of immediately getting litter back on the ground to prevent erosion and help begin the process of re-building soil ecosystems.

Marie Davis added it takes a thousand years to create an inch of soil highlighting the importance of erosion prevention.

Discussion revolved around how erosion negatively impacts the most important watershed resource, water.

Activity Updates:

Sediment Dynamics Study (SDS): Bill reported the study name is a misnomer as it is a risk assessment and not a sediment transport study as the word dynamics suggests. He noted the last Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting was very productive.

Carol Kennedy added contractor Tetra Tech’s (Tt) presence was very helpful although she felt is was inappropriate that administrative issues were brought up at the TAC meeting.

Bill noted the administrator of the grant, Sierra College’s Sandra Scott invited CALFED and brought up reporting and payment issues at the TAC meeting. He noted the resulting sharing of expectations and lessons learned from CALFED’s Dan Wermiel will be useful.

Marie noted capturing action items at the end of each meeting is proving to be helpful in guiding the progress of the study and the inter-action between the TAC and Tt.

The TAC has requested additional information from Tt before selection of the HUC 7 sub-basin sites for field assessment.

Upper American River Foundation: Bill reviewed his efforts to raise interest in the formation of a foundation focused on the upper watershed as an avenue to sustainability. He noted the RCD is in support of the concept and he is working to gather materials to further solicit interest from stakeholders. He developed a poster about the potential formation of a foundation for the CA Association of RCDs that took third place in the annual poster contest. Bill solicited ARWG support for the formation of a foundation to help fund watershed stewardship efforts.

Carol Kennedy requested a White Paper regarding the potential formation of a foundation for further USFA review and support consideration.

Kevin Roberts wondered how the foundation would interact with the watershed group and noted past experience with the American River Watershed Institute, as asked if a new foundation would stay connected to the ARWG in a meaningful way.

Bill viewed participation on the potential foundation’s board as the vehicle by which the ARWG could be involved. Guidance from the ARWG is open and depends on who is willing to become active in the effort.

Bill asked Rick Humphries for a short update on mercury issues.

Rick noted his agency is in the process of listing more waterbodies as impaired and encouraging a more global view of the issue. Any stream that was mined has free mercury and the potential for mercury loading. There remain many unanswered questions regarding how to best address the problem; active removal vs. leaving alone to naturally move through systems.

Rick reported USGS is looking to model the Yuba River in terms of sediment transport providing missing information as to mercury transport in that system.

Carol Kennedy clarified the SDS is a risk assessment and will not result in sediment budgeting and solicited Rick’s continued input as to how to address the mercury in the watershed in a logical and economically sound way.

Rick reported the Bay-Delta Toxics Group is concerned with identifying sources and magnitude of mercury loading. It seems if you accept that mercury is already in the bedload, it does not make sense to spend a lot of funding to document the fact. It seems that mining tailings is a definitive source waiting to be mobilized by stormwater runoff. Rick recommended testing fish tissues for mercury levels as providing useful information.

Bill promoted flyovers as an excellent way to generally assess watershed conditions with the potential to see things that you can’t see any other way.

Rick noted Lake Clementine exhibits high turbidity under high flow conditions. The dam was originally built as a debris catchall for mining conducted upstream in response to sediment loading impacts in the lower watershed. There is most certainly a significant mercury load behind the dam.

Bill again noted the search is on for the source(s) of high turbidity on the North Fork.

Placer County Fire Safe Alliance: Deferred report.

Status of PCWA’s Studies in the M.F. American River: Deferred report.

California Department of Fish and Game Rainbow Trout Genetics Study: It was reported the last trout sampling took place above Folsom. A sampling below Folsom is slated for January. Introducing different varieties of steelhead in the past has resulted in trout larger in size than the native trout population. Fish & Game is taking a closer look at impacts of past activities in the watershed in an effort to move towards more natural conditions.

Grants: Bill reported submitting an RCD grant funding proposal to the Natural Heritage Institute to fill data gaps already identified, provide for additional watershed assessment, and facilitate continued collaboration and partnership.

Bill reviewed various proposal development efforts being undertaken with various partners to implement projects in the watershed.

Carol Kennedy clarified that the proposals Bill was reviewing are not to be presented as ARWG supported proposals. She briefly reviewed past ARWG history in terms of grant proposal development and support through a formal process that includes an ARWG technical review and approval before any submission on behalf of the ARWG.

Bill noted challenges with time constraints, 11^th hour proposal development, and last minute partnership opportunities.

Kevin Roberts stressed any proposals that wish to acquire the endorsement of the ARWG need to be presented to the ARWG well in advance to allow for a thorough review process.

Discussion revolved around the need to re-address the ARWG funding proposal development, approval, and endorsement process. The groups requested the item be placed on a future agenda for further discussion.

Watershed Coordinator Monthly Report on Progress: Bill noted he will email his monthly progress report.

American River Watershed Institute (ARWI): No report.

Next Meeting:

The next regular meeting will take place on January 19^th at the Canyon View Community Center.

Agenda Suggestions and Open Discussion:

Agenda Item: ARWG Grant Development, Review, and Endorsement Process

Adjournment:

The meeting was adjourned at 12:24 p.m.