March 18, 2004
The meeting of the American River Watershed Group (ARWG) CRMP meeting was called to order by Bonnie Bagwell, American River Watershed Coordinator at 10:10 a.m. at Placer County Water Agency’s “American River Room” located at 144 Ferguson Road, Auburn.
Present: Bonnie Bagwell, American River Watershed Coordinator; Katie Maloney, Admin. Assist. Placer County Resource Conservation District (PCRCD); Stewart Feldman, Placer County Fire Safe Alliance (Alliance) Coordinator and PCRCD Director; Kevin Roberts, Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) Biologist; Mal Toy and Marie Davis, Placer County Water Agency (PCWA); Doug Ferrier, Private Consulting Forester-Forest Slopes Mgt.; Kathy Russick, Sacramento River Watershed Program Coordinator; Charlie Alpers and Lorie Flint, US Geological Survey; and Theodore Back, citizen.
American River Watershed Coordinator Report:
Update on the North Fork American River Sediment Dynamics Study (SDS):
Bonnie reported the SDS Interview panel filtered the 10 responses to the Requests for Qualifications (RFQs) down to four candidates:
Swanson Hydrology & Geomorphology
Tetra Tech EM, Inc.
Entrix Environmental
Ayres Associates
The four candidates will be contacted and informed the interview process will re-commence until the funding contract from the state is in place.
The interview panel consisted of Cliff Heitz, Carol Kennedy, Kevin Roberts, and Mal Toy. The selection committee had the assistance of an outside consultant provided by NRCS.
Bonnie reported that May is a possible target for funding availability.
Subcommittee Reports:
Placer County Fire Safe Alliance (Alliance):
Stewart Feldman reported his contract to provide the Alliance coordination has expired and no additional funding has been acquired to sustain the position. Stewart announced the next Alliance meeting.
Business:
Sacramento River Watershed Program (SRWP):
Kathy Russick introduced herself as the new SRWP Coordinator as of May ‘03
Kathy stated the goals of her presentation are to build networks between watershed groups and water related organizations and to strengthen existing partnerships and lay the groundwork for potential partnerships.
The SRWP is a forum where stakeholder interests can be heard, knowledge shared, and common concerns addressed. Direction comes from the stakeholders through the formation of subcommittees, holding annual stakeholder meetings, and from the SRWP Board of Trustees.
The SRWP mission is “To ensure that current and potential uses of Sacramento River watershed resources are sustained, restored, and where possible, enhanced, while promoting the long-term social and economic vitality of the region”.
SRWP goals that were recently reviewed and revised by stakeholders and the board of trustees are as follows:
Sustain effective process to improve watershed quality and protect beneficial uses of water.
Provide dependable and accessible information through scientifically sound monitoring.
Provide sound information to support decisions and actions of stakeholders.
Provide and support an effective process that supports locally led and community-based environmental management.
Promote a stewardship approach to collaborative, whole watershed management.
Ensure that the development of policies, programs, and activities of the SRWP reflect the stakeholders’ diverse interests.
Kathy reviewed the history of the SRWP formed in 1996 to provide a regional forum to allow stakeholders to participate in protecting the Sacramento River. Activity revolved around subcommittees with a general stakeholders meeting held on an annual basis to highlight accomplishments and gather input for the coming year.
SRWP has always been conscious of tributary watershed groups and has strived to coordinate with tributary groups. Water quality monitoring throughout the watershed was begun in 1998 and four annul monitoring reports have been compiled seen the beginning of the monitoring effort.
The structure of SRWP has been reworked over the last two years as the organization has transitioned to a 501(c)(3), not-for-profit organization, and now includes a board of trustees and board committees in addition to the already existing stakeholder group and various subcommittees, various funding sources, and a coordinator. Non-profit status was approved by the IRS in June 2003.
The SRWP subcommittees include the following working groups and their focus:
Public Outreach and Education Subcommittee:
Facilitate the exchange of information concerning the watershed and encourage broad-based participation by stakeholders in the management, protection, and enhancement of the watershed.
Monitoring & Toxics Subcommittee:
Monitoring: Develop a cost effective, well coordinated long-term monitoring program within the watershed to identify the causes, effects, and extent of constituents of concern that affect the beneficial uses of water and to measure progress as control strategies are implemented.
Toxics: Asses the health of the watershed with respect to toxic constituents of concern, identify key problems and opportunities for action, identify sources of toxic pollutants and control strategies, and periodically reassess watershed health.
Focus Groups of the Monitoring & Toxics Subcommittee:
Delta Tributaries Mercury Council: Forum for government, university, consulting, and private interests to evaluate our knowledge of environmental mercury in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River watersheds as well as the San Francisco Bay area to develop and implement a strategy to improve our understanding of mercury.
OP Pesticide Focus Group: Forum for groups interested in OP pesticides to work cooperatively on OP pesticide issues within the watershed in regards to monitoring, management measures, assessment, and research.
The Monitoring and Toxics Subcommittee is funded through a Federal EPA budget line item.
Group discussion revolved around the need for the development of a workable database where water quality monitoring data can be easily gathered into one place and accessible online.
Biological Habitat Subcommittee
The SRWP Monitoring Program is the only on-going, since 1998, regional monitoring program in the Sacramento River Watershed. The monitoring plan is developed annually by the Monitoring Subcommittee based upon stakeholder input that includes agency input. The program coordinates with other monitoring projects in the watershed to leverage resources. While the monitoring plan changes slightly each year it strives to maintain key river and major tributary sites as well as attempting to fill in gaps in other monitoring programs.
SRWP monitoring results are as follows:
Most monitoring sites have good water quality
Drinking water quality is high
Metal levels are not a problem except in certain historic mining locations
Mercury levels in fish are lower than mercury loading would suggest
OP pesticide levels are decreasing
Toxicity in the urban runoff is worse than elsewhere in the watershed
Bioassessment results in those tributaries evaluated, have been positive
The SRWP Board of Trustees has 21 members that serve three year staggered terms and represent the counties and varied stakeholder interests throughout the watershed. Trustees are nominated by stakeholders at the annual meeting and are approved by the board of trustees. The board meets of the first Wednesday of each month in various locations throughout the watershed.
The board’s role includes the implementation of general stakeholder policy direction and to direct the not-for-profit corporation towards achieving its mission and goals.
A working group has been formed to deal with agricultural issues like Ag Waivers to work cooperatively on monitoring, management measures, and assessment and research issues.
The SRWP is heading towards more outreach and education in conjunction with tributary watershed groups like the ARWG.
Kathy notes the SRWP Consolidated Proposal includes a component to support the Dry Creek Conservancy (DCC) annual rapid bioassessment monitoring effort in conjunction with education and outreach to local schools regarding creek assessment and a USGS mercury methylation and demethylation study in the Bear River watershed along with work to fill in data gaps for the Bear River watershed. Kathy Russick indicated these kinds of partnerships are fortuitous and exhibit SRWP’s willingness to partner with watershed groups.
Kathy stressed the SRWP effort to leverage existing and past monitoring efforts by seeking to fill identified data gaps.
Kevin Roberts inquired as to what is done with monitoring data and results.
Kathy stressed the need for five years worth of data in order to get a picture of watershed conditions. Compiling reports regarding monitoring efforts are appropriate to inform the public and stakeholders. Working groups might be formed to deal with issues that are identified through monitoring OP pesticides, drinking water, and mercury issues.
Stewart Feldman inquired about fish mercury contamination public health postings.
Charlie Alpers reviewed the parameters of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) posting process and noted data limitations. Nevada County has posted warnings, although Placer and Yuba Counties have not. There is no legislated requirement to do so at this time, although the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has posted a preliminary notice.
Mal Toy inquired about the direction the SRWP Board is taking and the level of discussions taking place.
Kathy noted Ag Waiver issues are a hot topic. The SRWP Board after conducting a strategic planning exercise and has reaffirmed their commitment to monitoring and public outreach efforts.
Kathy stressed that regulatory agencies have limited resources and the SRWP provides a larger forum and links to stakeholders so agencies don’t have to operate in a vacuum.
Doug Ferrier asked about how the forest landowner fits in.
Kathy stressed the need for increased participation from the USFS and private forest landowners as half of the watershed in forested.
Stewart Feldman noted that fisheries issues have not been mentioned.
Kathy noted the pursuit of a streamlined permitting process for watershed group efforts that will make it easier to implement restoration and enhancement projects. She noted the SRWP website is available to provide a link between watershed groups.
Kevin Roberts inquired as to the possibility of SRWP serving as administrator for watershed group grants.
Kathy reported that Rich Gresham has been a strong proponent of this idea and the SRWP would consider such a proposal.
The group thanked Kathy for her presentation.
Announcement of Watershed Coordinator grant funding for 2004 – 2007:
Bonnie Bagwell reported the DOC proposal has been recommended to CALFED for funding. She noted that current grant funding ends the end of March and offered a copy of the proposal’s workplan to those interested. She noted the RCD will be serving as administrator of the new grant and that she has requested they begin development of the RFP and a candidate selection process.
Stewart asked those that are interested in participating in the RFP/selection process to let him know. He thanked Bonnie for developing a great funding proposal and workplan that will allow for more flexibility than before.
Workshop: Presentation of Mercury and Sediment Research Conducted in Neighboring Watersheds (Bear/Yuba and Lower American River) and Discussion re: Potential American River Watershed Studies
Charlie Alpers of the US Geological Survey (USGS) reviewed the mercury studies going in the North & Middle forks of the Yuba River, the South fork of the Yuba, Bear River, Feather River, and Deer Creek. His presentation included information regarding the historical mining areas in the northern Sierra, the transport and transformation of mercury through the food chain, ongoing projects, and a biota sampling site overview.
Studies being conducted on the Upper Yuba River include a feasibility study regarding the introduction of salmon and steelhead above Englebright Dam. He also reviewed the Bear River Mercury Cycling Project and Lake Natomas Mercury Studies.
Lorrie Flint, also with the USGS, reviewed Upper Yuba River studies that include sediment studies to determine sediment supply, transport, and channel storage, development of a mass erosion inventory and potential map and a surface erosion and potential map, studies to determine discharge and suspended sediment, bedload transport, and a watershed modeling effort to evaluate climatic conditions, changes in land use, the identification of channel reaches likely to transport sediment. The modeling effort is using a numeric model approach, hydrologic response, vegetation type, and daily rainfall indicators.
Lorrie noted the potential applicability of these sediment studies and modeling efforts to the American River watershed as there is existing data available for use and similar assumptions could be appropriate.
Charlie summed up discussion by suggesting potential studies that may be appropriate like the identification of mercury hot spots, an abandoned mine investigation, a study to understand the seasonality of methylation and demethylation processes, as well as water quality monitoring and sediment loading studies.
Several ARWG members noted the group is looking for the identification of remediation projects and are specifically not looking to create a sediment budget.
Charlie recommended the ARWG develop a monitoring strategy and offered assistance.
Group discussion revolved around mercury and private property liability issues, information available on the web, and the exchange of contact information.
Next Meeting and Adjournment:
The next meeting will take place on April 185h. The meeting was adjourned at 12:22 p.m.